JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/that-wonderful-free-canadian-health.html (170 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1189955011-580570  Russell at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:03:31 +0000

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


jsid-1189962283-580581  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:04:43 +0000

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=Stronach%20
Without a shred of real political experience, without ever having held a job she was not appointed to by her father, without even a university degree, Stronach had claimed credit for uniting the right, placed second in the new party's leadership race after the glitziest campaign in memory, and subsequently assumed the role of star MP for the new Conservatives.

Then, a stunning plot twist. On the night of May 16, 2005, Stronach dumped her party -- along with boyfriend and then deputy party leader Peter MacKay -- and took a waltz across the floor to help the minority Liberal government pass its budget and remain in power. Presto chango: instant cabinet minister! Any pretense of government as pure meritocracy was suddenly, and rather harshly, dispelled.


(This was just as huge amounts of corruption in the Liberal party was coming to light, the Liberal-run Gun Registry (found to be massively corrupt, and funneling billions to Liberal campaign contributors), and the beginning attacks in response to the judicial ruling attacking the health care system as "Fundamentally unfair")

And was then involved in the Liberal party corruption. Oddly, while the Transport Minister will be attending both press conferences and other ministers have been involved in shaping the Liberal government's response to Gomery, no mention is made of Belinda Stronach, the minister supposedly responsible for responding to Gomery's recommendations. Why is Stronach not involved in the response if she is the minister who is supposed to be responsible for this file?

Oh, rumored to be *ahem* involved with Slick Willy?

That said, I wish her well. I also hope that her experience will cause her to change her mind, and attempt to help the rest of Canada, rather than force them into the substandard system she opted out of.

(I edited your first link because it didn't go to the article you quoted from. The new link goes to everything Freep has in its news archives on Stronach. If you've got a better or different link you'd prefer, let me know and I'll change it. - Kevin)

Edited By Siteowner


jsid-1189963744-580586  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:29:04 +0000

So, another case of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

What a surprise.


jsid-1189966991-580592  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:23:11 +0000

Kevin:

According to this, it's "do as I say I'm doing".

Stronach is in an undisclosed hospital in the Toronto area

That's one heck of an "area".
... Stronach was already well into her treatment for the disease that is expected to hit one out of nine women in Canada in their lifetime.

Wonder how many will be able to go the US for care?

... Incidence rates of breast cancer have stabilized in Canada over the past decade and the relative, five-year survival rate from the disease now stands at 86 per cent, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's statistics.

Well, I guess those stats are bogus, since she's under the aegis of the American Cancer Society now, no?


jsid-1189967088-580593  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:24:48 +0000

Kev: RE: Edit.

That's fine.

I actually was trying to point to the Freeper page - since the original has been lost to the mists of time and site reorgs. I did accidentally delete my opening line "In case you're unfamiliar with Stronach, or wonder why it's of note that she did this..."


jsid-1189969318-580595  Russell at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:01:58 +0000

Kevin, shouldn't that be 'quelle surprise', since this is Canada we're talking about? :)


jsid-1189969915-580596  Kevin Baker at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:11:55 +0000

Quite right, Russ, quite right!


jsid-1189975660-580602  Zendo Deb at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:47:40 +0000

I wonder if she is leaving politics because this little excursion has made her somewhat of a political liability?


jsid-1189976712-580603  FabioC. at Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:05:12 +0000

I just had another exciting experience with the "Free" Italian healthcare system.

No, nothing serious, but I wasted hours and money to achieve almost nothing. I will eventually post about it.


jsid-1189992284-580625  ben at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:24:44 +0000

Canada is sick. "Universal Health Care" is their sacred cow, and if you ever bring it up, especially if you suggest allowing ANY private medical care, expect to hear their mantra "No two tier health care system!"

Methinks they don't know what they have.


jsid-1189995665-580632  pdwalker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:21:05 +0000

Just as another point of data...

Hong Kong provides an excellent level of socialized medical coverage. While they charge you a flat fee on a daily basis for services, that fee covers everything. (The fee, about 13 USD) covers everything.

Of course, the medical system is expensive to the government, but the government here is blessed with budget surplusses most years rather than the deficits that most western countries plan for.

Hong Kong also allows private medical practice so people have a choice of both (according to their means)

Sounds good, right?

Well, yes and no. If you are diagnosed with something serious, you may spend months and months on a waiting list to get scheduled in to take care of your problem.

Even here, with scads of money, decent size population in a small area, socialized medicine programs, even well run ones flush with cash, cannot provide level of service that private medicine can.

Case in point, I know a woman who was diagnosed with colon cancer. Initially seen at the public hospital because of the symptoms, told what it might be (cancer) and then told to come back for a test in a couple of months when there was an opening. She decided to go to see a private doctor, got referred to a private specialized docter, had the operation to remove the tumour and was on her way to recovery (cancer free!) with a week of the initial diagnosis.

Remember, this is a place where the socialized medicine practice is actually "working".


jsid-1190044343-580657  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:52:23 +0000

"He did say, however, that Stronach underwent the operation in June, roughly around the time she would have had the procedure had she remained in Canada."

And here, I call bullshit.

If she would have had the same procedure in Canada at "roughly" the same time she received it here, and it was already paid for by her (through taxes) in Canada, then there has to be a damned good reason why she came here to get it. So, was the reason that: 1) the hospital was better here; 2) the surgeon was better here; 3) the followup care was better here; 4) the procedure actually was different here; 5) the procedure actually wasn't available there; or, 6) she could just come here and get it, instead of having to fight like hell to get it there?


jsid-1190047665-580664  OtherWhiteMatt at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:47:45 +0000

This is a poignant post considering Hillary announced her plans to socialize our healthcare. I think there are two reasons why people support such healthcare: 1) Its unfair to have private healthcare 2) They think it will work much better.

Both can be proven wrong: Its is fair and better to wait and then die for procedure, instead of being in debt to pay for the procedure?


jsid-1190049168-580668  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:12:48 +0000

"Both can be proven wrong"

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. There is good and bad to both systems.

It will be interesting to see what Hillary's plan is...I hear that it is going to be a very watered down version of the 1993 plan. What a shock...


jsid-1190049790-580671  Rabbit at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:23:10 +0000

As a formerly practicing RN, I met quite a few physicians who were Canadian expats in Texas. They left for the greener pastures and (amazingly) fewer restrictions on their practices and came here.

Go figure. Last ones to leave, please turn out the lights.

Regards,
Rabbit.


jsid-1190053482-580678  DJ at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:24:42 +0000

Well, we know a little bit about Hillary Clingon's proposed plan. It'll cost about 110 billion dollars a year.

Details begin here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/washington/17cnd-clinton.html?_r=1&hp

A few details for your entertainment:

"Like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards also proposes an “individual mandate” that would require all Americans have health insurance and would raise taxes on wealthy Americans."

Yup. Same old shit, different day. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.

"Unlike her earlier attempt, Mrs. Clinton is not proposing a new government bureaucracy."

Bullshit. How would she

"... [net] billions of dollars in savings by reorganizing the health care system ..."

without a bureaucracy to accomplish it and administer it?

"“Don’t let them fool us again,” she said of her Republican opponents. “This is not government-run — there will be no new bureaucracy, you can keep the doctors you know and trust, you keep the insurance you have, if you like that. But this plan expands personal choice and keeps costs down."

Uh, huh. That's 'cause the gubmint is efficient at everything it does, ya see.


jsid-1190059900-580691  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:11:40 +0000

But DJ, I thought you said that her plan, when she unveiled it, would force you into government health care submission? Yet I read in her plan

"Americans satisfied with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it", the Clinton campaign said.

Hmm...

I also read Hillary saying that her plan "would not require small businesses to take part, but will offer tax credits to encourage them to do so."

Double Hmm....

Actually, Hillary was wrong about what her opponents would say. Here is what one said:

"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love HillaryCare 2.0. Senator Clinton's latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax hikes to pay for it all."

Ah, the fear card again. Something we all know so well....


jsid-1190060856-580694  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:27:36 +0000

A prediction of an annual pricetag of $110 billion frightens the hell out of me. if it doesn't frighten you there's something wrong with your sense of history.


jsid-1190062654-580701  Snapper at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:57:34 +0000

Kevin, don't worry about the $110bn

the NHS in the UK was meant to be self funding through insurance contributions, but the cost still went from Bevan's (the driver behind the welfare state) estimate of £130 million in 1942 to £382 million in 1952 - and thats with a pretty much bankrupt govt trying to keep costs down - but naturally this was defended as a good thing, to quote Bevan

"The rush for spectacles, as for dental treatment, has exceeded all expectations..Part of what has happened has been a natural first flush of the new scheme, with the feeling that everything is free now and it does not matter what is charged up to the exchequer.. There is also, without doubt, a sheer increase due to people getting things they need but could not afford before, and this the scheme intended"

and anyone who complains in 10 years time about a $500bn? price tag for 'free' health care will no doubt be accused of playing politics with peoples health, not caring about the less fortunate, can't put a price tag of human life, blah blah blah

its a bit before my time but wasn't LBJs great society stuff meant to end poverty for ever in the US in a few years of operation?


jsid-1190064247-580708  OtherWhiteMatt at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:24:07 +0000

Yeah, the *estimate* at 100 billion is scary. That probably means it'll be around 500 billion or more.


jsid-1190069957-580720  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:59:17 +0000

Kevin, does the 1 trillion we have spent in Iraq scare you?


jsid-1190072134-580721  Kevin Baker at Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:35:34 +0000

Abso-fucking-lutely.

But at some point in the future we will stop spending money in Iraq, or at least reduce that spending to a comparative trickle.

A government run health-care system with a projected annual cost of $110BN?

First, if history is any guide, the initial outlay will be a minimum of double that, and the outlay will increase annually at a rate that far outstrips inflation...

...forever.

Ah, the miracle of compound interest...


jsid-1190078514-580726  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:21:54 +0000

Can't argue with you on that one....


jsid-1190125255-580737  Sarah at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:20:55 +0000

Ah, the fear card again. Something we all know so well....

And which Hillary is playing for all it's worth to sell her healthcare program. She can't sell it on its merits, but rather on the basis that all the social ills of our nation are born of inequality of outcome, and we will never have peace and happiness until everyone has medical care.


jsid-1190125777-580738  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:29:37 +0000

"But DJ, I thought you said that her plan, when she unveiled it, would force you into government health care submission?"

No, I said her old plan did.

I also said her new plan, when she unveiled it, would very likely result in an increase in my "health care costs". Your prediction was that it wouldn't cost me anything.

Well, all we know about it so far is what we see in the MSM. Here is one story in the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?hp

The (ahem) money quote:

"The plan, with an estimated cost of $110 billion a year, would be financed largely by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year and by savings in the health care system."

So, it would cost the gubmint, meaning "we, the taxpayers", an estimated $110 billion a year.

Now, read that quote really closely. The plan would be financed "largely" by two things: 1) a tax hike on the rich (of course; it's Hillary Clingon, remember); and, 2) "savings" in the health care system. So, where does the rest come from? The only place it can come from -- tax increases elsewhere.

"Ah, the fear card again. Something we all know so well...."

A, the history card again. Soemthing we all know so well, and you simply refuse to acknowledge.

Tell us, Mark, just what program or activity of the feddle gubmint ever cost less than it was estimated to cost, or involved fewer employees or less bureaucracy than it was estimated to need, when it was started. Try looking at income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, and so on, and so on, and so on.

I find this story interesting:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm523.cfm

Here's the (ahem, again) money quote:

"Recently, David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, told an audience at the National Press Club that the official debt of the United States is $7 trillion, which is about $24,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. But as Walker notes, this figure does not count the promises the Congress has made to those who will receive federal benefits that are not paid for. These are the unfunded obligations of the big entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. With these items included, the real debt is $42 trillion—including a brand new unfunded liability of $8 trillion for the Medicare drug benefit alone. This total obligation, says Walker, is roughly 18 times the current federal budget, or three-and-one-half the size of the current Gross Domestic Product. This obligation amounts to over $140,000 for every person in America."

And ole' Hillary is gonna add another entitlement that's gonna grow and grow and grow. The lessons of history (which you simply refuse to learn) is that such is what we should expect, and I do.

Fear mongering has nothing to do with it. A healthy respect for history and for cold, hard reality does.

And, I add with great sincerity, so does a very healthy distrust of Hillary Clingon. She has earned it.


jsid-1190126680-580740  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:44:40 +0000

"Your prediction was that it wouldn't cost me anything."

Do you make over 250K a year? If you do, then I stand corrected. If not, it won't cost you anything.

It may be a moot point anyway because spending by ths President and Congress has been so far out of control that I seriously doubt there is going to be any money left to do anything like this.

Now, DJ, before I go any further, I need clarification...do you think our health care system is fine, broken or somewhere in between? If you were President, would you change anything?


jsid-1190128720-580743  Stephen Rider at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:18:40 +0000

You cannot call something a human right if it must be provided by someone else.

The inevitable consequence of such a "right" is the enslavement of the providers.

... and on a related note, here's a link to one of my all-time favorite articles.


jsid-1190129410-580747  Kevin Baker at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:30:10 +0000

I just read that piece.

Yup. Sounds remarkably similar to arguments I've heard in the past - and expect to hear again in perpetuity.


jsid-1190129513-580748  Stephen Rider at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:31:53 +0000

"Can't argue with you on that one...."

Waitasec... did Markadelphia just agree with Kevin???

oh, and...

"Do you make over 250K a year? If you do, then I stand corrected. If not, it won't cost you anything."

You're missing the word "largely" before the word "funded". As in "still more has to come from somewhere else: e.g. your hide".

And that assumes, as pointed out, that this actually stays on budget -- which will never happen.


jsid-1190130865-580750  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:54:25 +0000

"Do you make over 250K a year? If you do, then I stand corrected. If not, it won't cost you anything."

Show me exactly where you found this out, i.e. how YOU know this to be true. Don't quibble, don't obfuscate, don't argue, just DO IT.

Or, just admit that you're making shit up again.

Kevin is still right, you do have severe problems with reading comprehension. Stephen Rider noticed it, too. You ignored the word "largely" in what I quoted. Now, kindly go back and read my comments again.

I'll quote it again, exactly as I did before:

"The plan, with an estimated cost of $110 billion a year, would be financed largely by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year and by savings in the health care system."

Did you notice the word I highlighted in bold? I even explained its significance, and I'll highlight in bold here where I did so:

"Now, read that quote really closely. The plan would be financed "largely" by two things: 1) a tax hike on the rich (of course; it's Hillary Clingon, remember); and, 2) "savings" in the health care system. So, where does the rest come from? The only place it can come from -- tax increases elsewhere."

If it is largely financed by what is stated, then the rest is financed by something else. The only source not already stated is taxes on the rest of us.

Now why should I assume, and why do you state, that it won't be taxes that I'll have to pay? How do you claim to know this?

Mark, I keep telling you, if you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to earn it. At the risk of hyperbole, you shit on your own credibility damned nearly every time you post something here.

"It may be a moot point anyway because spending by ths President and Congress has been so far out of control that I seriously doubt there is going to be any money left to do anything like this."

Since when did notions of not having enough money ever stop the feddle gubmint from passing, or increasing, an entitlement program?

"Now, DJ, before I go any further, I need clarification...do you think our health care system is fine, broken or somewhere in between? If you were President, would you change anything?"

It is somewhere in between, primarily because the feddle gubmint prohibits people from buying insurance outside the borders of the state in which they live. I have been victimized by that. I had insurance when I lived in New Mexico (Blue Cross Blue Shield) that I had to give up when I moved back to Oklahoma. What I have now is all I can get, and it is MUCH more expensive. NOTHING reduces costs like competition, and, if I were President, I would try to get that restriction on competition removed.


jsid-1190136922-580755  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:35:22 +0000

It won't cost you any extra because the tax money you are already paying won't change. The allocation of those funds will go to health care as opposed to somewhere else. For example, military spending might be reduced. Gasp!

But you're right, I don't know for sure so I guess we'll just have to wait until she becomes president and find out. Hey, I just thought of something. Aren't your retired? How much tax are you paying? I'm not trying to be glib...just wondering if you are paying federal taxes.

DJ, just a side note, it's not difficult to get me to admit I have been or could be wrong. I don't have a fixed belief system set in 100 ton granite.


jsid-1190140348-580760  Snapper at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:32:28 +0000

"It won't cost you any extra because the tax money you are already paying won't change. The allocation of those funds will go to health care as opposed to somewhere else" so Mark, your saying that the govt can spend an additional couple hundred billion dollars purely by increasing taxes on a small number of people with no knock on effect due to lower incentives for them to work hard, or them emigrating to a tax haven/ more tax avoidance/evasion, and by cutting other programs? has the govt ever cut other entitlement programs to fund new commitments?

as for defence the total US spend is ~$530bn dollars, which is only a little bit larger than what most of us would expect this free healthcare to come to after a few years, so i don't quite see how you could find anywhere near the amount of savings, and how would you cut defence at all with you favourite candiate wanting to invade Pakistan? - a nuclear power with a population 5 times greater than Iraqs and a half decent military


jsid-1190142161-580762  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:02:41 +0000

Stephen:

Thank you very much for that link. That's brilliant. Utterly brilliant.


jsid-1190142192-580763  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:03:12 +0000

Alright, I think I am going to try to put this Pakistan thing to rest once and for all. Please try to follow what I am saying closely because there seems to be a communication problem here.

1. Pakistan has a region in the northwest area of its country called Waziristan. It borders the country of Afghanistan. It is the new home of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The people who live there are rabidly Anti American and are giving aid and comfort to the people who attacked us on 9-11.

2. Musharaf has no control over this region and "negotiates" with the tribal leaders there for various purposes. For the most part, it is its own country. He has no juridstiction there whatsoever.

3. Attacking this area would be attacking Pakistan on paper but not in reality. We would not be invading any other area of the country. Just this part where Al Qaeda has fully operational training camps set up. The Pentagon has a variety of plans for action in this area with ground forces and/or air assaults. We would need to remove troops in Iraq and re-deploy them to this area.

4. The Pakistani military has been decimated by attacks they have carried out in this area and, I think, would be quite happy if the US came in and dispatched Al Qaeda. Many Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives to these maniacs over the last few years. Again, we are not fighting the Pakistani military...it would be the folks in the tribal areas.

4. By taking out these bases we would reduce the chances of an attack equal to or greater than 9-11 as this is where the center of operations and funding currently is headquartered. It is NOT in Iraq.

5. This would send a clear message to Al Qaeda that aren't going to allow them to every rebuild anything again. This is unlike the message we are sending them now which is: a) We don't finish what we start (Afghanistan) b)We are, in fact, plundering your resources (Iraq) so go ahead and use that in your next recruitment tape and c)We will cave into to your demands (withrdrawl of forces in Saudi Arabia, for which OBL has claimed victory repeatedely.)

Clear now on the whole Pakistan thing and why I said it?


jsid-1190142534-580764  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:08:54 +0000

DJ, just a side note, it's not difficult to get me to admit I have been or could be wrong. I don't have a fixed belief system set in 100 ton granite.

Valerie: LIAR!
Valerie: LIAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!
Mark: Get back witch!
Valerie: I'm not a witch, I'm your conscience! And after you said that, I'm not even sure I want to be THAT anymore!
Valerie: (Ever since he saw that Michael Moore movie his confidence in capitalism has been shattered. )
Mark: Why'd you say that name? You promised me you would never say that name!
Valerie: What, Capitalism?
Mark: AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
Valerie: Capitalism! Capitalism! Capitalism!
Mark: LALALALA I'm not listening!


jsid-1190143913-580768  Kevin Baker at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:31:53 +0000

I LOVE "The Princess Bride"!

"He's only mostly dead!"


jsid-1190145265-580769  Russell at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:54:25 +0000

Ya know, what irritates me is that all these socialism programs are nothing but parasites feeding off of taxes taken from the free capitalistic markets.

If the economy collapses, all the pretty socialism programs will come crashing down because they aren't self sustaining.

And people are worried about the gunners starting a revolution, wait until all the welfare leeches aren't getting their government checks...


jsid-1190145599-580772  Russell at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:59:59 +0000

Oops, hit send too soon.

Since we are talking about socialized medicine, it works as long as the government can keep taking money from us.

When that is no longer a viable, or sustainable, option, what then?

Free markets doesn't require the government to keep working (it sure makes somethings possible, like punishment for cheaters, etc) but the government program sure depends on free markets.

Those that want to keep taxing to support socialistic programs act like there will never been an end to the money coming in.

How shortsighted is that?


jsid-1190152401-580779  Snapper at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:53:21 +0000

thanks thats a bit clearer now, but about point 4 the Pakistani Army is ~ 600 thousand strong yet has according to you been decimated (do you mean reduced by exactly one tenth, or just taken hundreds of thousands dead?), but the west will somehow deal with Waziristan easily enough allowing cuts in the DoD and the Pakistanis won't be in the slightest bit annoyed at having western soldiers in their country, killing their citizens (even if in self defense) - just like the Iraqis would all welcome liberation and there would be no post invasion problems to deal with eh?

my main point which you seem to have ignored completely was that the new health care proposals will be hugely expensive, yet you seem to believe that it is possible to fund it entirely without any damage to the economy simply by taxing the top one percent or so of the population and by cutting other parts government spending.

do you honestly believe that the entire cost would be met by just a few people without any significant problems due to their being less incentive to work hard or the high economic achievers emigrating etc etc, combined with actual cuts in other areas of government spending?

if so why did the top rate of fall from 91% in 1964 to 28% in 1986, staying at around that level ever since. If its simply due to a corrupt elite serving the money men then why did they allow the rate to stay so high until '64? could it be that higher tax rates even for the highest earners usually damage economic performence to a larger extent than any extra money supposedly collected could make up for, thus making everyone worse off, so in the end everyone would pay for Clintons free healthcare regardless of whether they were earning over 250k pa or not?


jsid-1190154299-580783  DJ at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:24:59 +0000

"It won't cost you any extra because the tax money you are already paying won't change. The allocation of those funds will go to health care as opposed to somewhere else. For example, military spending might be reduced. Gasp!"

Well, now who found that out?

Do you actually understand the difference between fact and opinion, between fact and prediction?

"But you're right, I don't know for sure so I guess we'll just have to wait until she becomes president and find out.

IF she becomes President. Bite your tongue.

And, that is the first instance I can recall of you admitting to being wrong in any significant way.

"Hey, I just thought of something. Aren't your retired? How much tax are you paying? I'm not trying to be glib...just wondering if you are paying federal taxes."

Of course I pay taxes, federal, state and local. I pay too damned much, at too high a rate, in my unhumble opinion, but how much is none of your business.

"DJ, just a side note, it's not difficult to get me to admit I have been or could be wrong. I don't have a fixed belief system set in 100 ton granite."

BULLSHIT. It is almost impossible to get you to admit that you are wrong or could be wrong. You have been shown, over and over and over again, that you are wrong on many issues, and yet you continue to spout the same errors over and over and over again. You did so, over and over and over again, in your comment above that my previous comment responded to. This happens, in my opinion, because your belief system might as well be cast in granite, for all the affect demonstrated facts have on it.

You embody the spirit espoused so eloquently by Winston Churchill:

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."

That's YOU, dude.

Now, I have a few questions for you. I answered your questions, now goddamnit, you answer mine.

1) Of all the income that people have in this country, what percent of that income goes to the one percent of all those who have income who have the most income? (Yes, that is very carefully worded. Don't fuck it up.)

2) Regarding that same one percent of those who have income in question #1, what percent of federal income taxes that are paid by individuals (families and such, not businesses) is paid by them?

3) What percent of those federal income taxes of question #2 should be paid, in your opinion, by that same one percent of those who have income in question #1?

In all cases, justify your answers. Point to the facts so we can verify they are correct, and not just someone else's opinion. Use the most recent data available.

I'm waiting.


jsid-1190154612-580785  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:30:12 +0000

Snapper, perhaps decimated was an incorrect and too strong a term. Every time they go in there to try to root these guys out, they lose a hundred guys or so. Add that up over the years and I would say that's a lot.


jsid-1190157059-580788  Snapper at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:10:59 +0000

Mark, why are you being silent over the points regarding the problems with funding healthcare, is it just that I and others are wrong in arguing that increasing top rates of tax is foolish and would have unpleasant consequences for everyone and you preparing a more detailed rebutal, or is it that don't have a response that would stand up to scrutiny but would prefer to believe the nice idea that if we just taxed the rich a bit more everyone else would be better off and the US would be a fairer place, with better healthcare as well?


jsid-1190158248-580789  Markadelphia at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:30:48 +0000

Preparing a rebuttal...


jsid-1190159913-580792  Kevin S. at Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:58:33 +0000

"Do you make over $250k a year? If you do, then I stand corrected. If not, it won't cost you anything."

Why is it OK to force wealthy people to pay for these programs? Why is that fine with you? Why do they have a greater responsibility toward society than anyone else? Whether they can afford the hit or not is immaterial and none of your or my business.
I'll tell you why. Rich people are always going to be a minority and as such will always be outvoted, because there's always an overabundance of class-envious jackasses out there all too eager to "stick it to them", "make them pay their fair share", even when though they pay the lion's share of taxes as it is, with our "progressive" tax system. Man, I'm starting to hate that word.


jsid-1190177568-580808  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:52:48 +0000

OK, my rebuttal is ready but first..

"Rich people are always going to be a minority and as such will always be outvoted..."

Bwa-ha-ha-ha...ho ho ho hee hee hee....hoo hoo hoo...sorry I can't stop laughing.....hee hee hee heee

OK, sorry. Back to the questions at hand

The stats I found were from 2005, the most recent data to match your questions, so let’s take a look at those. I used a variety of sources, mainly the IRS and the Census Bureau.

1. The top one percent of households received 21.8 percent of all pre-tax income in 2005. Bear in mind, however that the above figure includes capital gains. I don’t know if you want that define as “income” which is a pretty broad term. If you don’t want to include capital gains, the percentage is 17.4 percent income.

2. The same top one percent paid about 35 percent of the taxes.

3. Is this the part where I’m supposed to go, “My god, man, you’re right! The rich are getting soaked!!” My opinion is that, based on the your question, the rich pay too much. Aww, DJ you were right and I was wrong.

NOT!!!!

Do you honestly think that I didn't know exactly where you were taking me? Good lord...it just cracks me up the way conservatives debate these days: "Let's ask a question (simple and completely lacking in a full perspective) that forces the person I am debating to answer the way I want him or her to answer! Then I win!!! Hee Hee. Cool"

Sheesh...

And you also didn't realize that I would pull in my secret weapon...my wife, who just happens to be a CFO....oh no...now you're really in trouble!

(credit due to my wife on this next bit. she helped me write in accoutant speak.:))

Why are DJ's question misleading? Let's take a look, shall we?

In 1968, the lowest income quintile ended at $3,323, and they were taxed (assuming all income was taxed) at 18.275%. In 2005, that lowest income quintile ended at $19,178, and they were taxed 15% - and overall tax reduction for the poorest Americans of 3.275%.

In 1968, earning $19,850 put a person in the top 5% of income earners, where they paid 30.1% taxes on additional earnings. In 2005, you had to earn $166,000 to break into the top 5% - and you paid 33% tax on additional earnings. Oh, but wait. Looking at this it means that taxes went up for the rich and down for the poor. DJ must still be right. Or is he? (raised Spock eyebrow?)

If adjusted for inflation, that $19,850 would be $111,988 in 2005 - and would be taxed at only 28%. That means the same income level has actually had their income tax drop 2%. That is pretty close to the same level of reduction felt by the lowest income earners. The majority of taxpayers, then, have seen their taxes fall by all of 2-3%.

The marginal tax rate - the highest tax bracket - in 1968 was 75.25% for incomes over $200,000. Adjusted for inflation in 2005, that would be a $1,128,351 - and they would pay 35% taxes on income over $326,450. For someone making over a million dollars a year currently, that's a 40% tax savings. According to the IRS Statistics of Income, that means about 270,000 people benefited from this tax break in 2004.

If the whole sum were subjected to only a 20% tax, the United States government would have brought in an additional $98 BILLION. By way of comparison, this is $17 billion more than was spent in Iraq in 2005. This is a natural function of the multiplier effect of wealth. Less than one percent of Americans earn more than a million dollars, but they account for 11.2% of all income. It's quite obvious that over these years the rich have benefitted tremendously from tax cuts and, are not, in fact being soaked.

Oh, and here's another little ditty from the Census Bureau: Between 1979 and 2005, the top five percent of American families saw their real incomes increase 81 percent. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth saw their real incomes decline 1 percent.

In addition, your question also doesn't include things like stock options, property..you know "non income" wealth that still gives these folks the power to do...pretty much whatever the heck they want.

With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?


jsid-1190180062-580811  Stephen Rider at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:34:22 +0000

"Thank you very much for that link. That's brilliant. Utterly brilliant."

Well, it _was_ published in the Student newspaper from MIT ;)

...and I repeat my statement:

You cannot call something a human right if it must be provided by someone else.

The inevitable consequence of such a "right" is the enslavement of the providers.


jsid-1190206037-580818  Kevin S. at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:47:17 +0000

"With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?"

Pay their "fair share", maybe?

They. Already. Pay. More. Your numbers are fascinating, but it points out what I said. The upper tiers are paying proportionally more. If they want to contribute, fine, but you seem to be quite fine putting a gun to their head and demanding more from them. After all, they can afford it, right? This whole class envy mantra of yours is really getting tired. Just because someone else makes more money than you is no justification for taking it from them.


jsid-1190208278-580822  Kevin S. at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:24:38 +0000

"Rich people are always going to be a minority and as such will always be outvoted..."

"Bwa-ha-ha-ha...ho ho ho hee hee hee....hoo hoo hoo...sorry I can't stop laughing.....hee hee hee heee"

I'm glad I'm such a source of merriment for you, Markadelphia, but I don't think it's funny at all. I see this stuff all the time here in CA - politicians coming up with wonderful new social programs to make society better, and funding them by taxing the top 1%, or only those who make $1M/yr all the while fervently promising that the middle class won't take the hit.
Why? Well, part of the reasoning is the same as yours in that they feel that the rich have an obligation to subsidize the rest of us. The bigger reason though is that a tax increase on the middle class is pretty much political suicide, whereas the same for the rich is just fine, because they don't have the voting clout to really object.

As for the numbers you quoted, that's all well and good - I'm glad the burden on the rich is decreasing but it won't be equitable and fair until everyone pays the SAME RATE. And even then, the rich will STILL be paying more than you or I.


jsid-1190208572-580823  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:29:32 +0000

"With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?"

But Mark, they already do have that opportunity. Nothing is stopping them from giving their money away to whatever charity they desire, or even directly to the government. Here's some examples of the super-rich doing exactly that. Not enough for you? They must give more? But only to the .gov to support those programs that you think worthy and proper?

What you're advocating is what Marriah Star called "obligatory charity" - which I pointed out is an oxymoron. If it's obligatory, it is - by definition - not charity. You are saying "they make too much money - we must take it from them by force of law and redistribute it to the needy."

In case you hadn't noticed, we "invidual" rights types object to that.


jsid-1190210995-580827  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:09:55 +0000

In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.

The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education.


What a heartless BASTARD.

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity. That significant level of giving stands in contrast to his record in the 1990s, in which the issue of the senator's charitable contributions was a source of controversy. In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.

The couple [John and Elizabeth Edwards] said they donated about 8.6 percent of their income to charity,


jsid-1190211116-580828  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:11:56 +0000

With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?

(Nevermind the hand in the "all the financial problems" that the government played...)

And if they don't consider helping out "more" - Mark will be happy to "Help them contribute their 'fair share'". At gunpoint, of course.


jsid-1190211502-580829  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:18:22 +0000

Stephen:

You cannot call something a human right if it must be provided by someone else.

Exactly. A right incurs no obligation onto someone else.

Mark, write that down. On a 3x5. Take it with you. Read it during the day.


jsid-1190213832-580834  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:57:12 +0000

I will not dispute that the rich give to charity. Everyone who is rich, whether liberal or conservative, gives and that is a good thing. It is also a tax break :)

Charities are good for specific causes but they have nowhere near the infrastructure that government does. This is where we will have to agree to disagree because I think government can work. You don't. Others here don't as well. If one starts with the belief that government can never work because it is corrupt, then where can I go with that? It can work if we elect people who are repsonsible and intelligent.

Personally I would like to see a smaller, more efficient government. I am reminded of a story. I used to work at a multimedai company a long time ago. We had two salespeople, Nick and John. Nick put in 60-70 hours a week...John about 35. One day I came in to find out that Nick had been let go. The reason? He wasn't efficient in his time and thus had lower sales than John, who was smart and could get things done more intelligently.

I'd like to see more Johns in our government. Maybe you would too.


jsid-1190214317-580835  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:05:17 +0000

Unix, found this quote. I thought you might like it...

"'First of all,' one blogger wrote about SICKO, “there is no right to health care. None!” Corporate insurers and the politicians they lobby have nearly succeded in completely erasing from American consciousness the belief that health care is a social right. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows the leading causes of death in our society-the use of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs; diet and activity habits; sexual behavior, and motor vehicles-are all factors amenable to preventive and public health interventions. Preventing the illnesses these factors cause is far less expensive in the long run than treating those problems in full bloom. And as far as the taxes required to fund a universal system, the polls are clear: a May CNN poll found 64 percent of Americans want to pay higher taxes to get a government-run national health insurance program; New York Times/CBS and NBC/Wall Street Journal polls came up with similar numbers."

64 percent, huh? Good thing we live in a democracy.


jsid-1190214574-580836  Kevin S. at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:09:34 +0000

Instead of paying higher taxes, that 64% is free to use that money and just buy their own health insurance. Why force taxes on the other 36%?


jsid-1190214832-580837  Kevin S. at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:13:52 +0000

I'd like to see more Johns in our government. Maybe you would too.

The Johns typically stay in private enterprise, where their intelligence and diligence pays off, so therefore, we are left with the Nicks in government. Sure, I want government to be run efficiently, but wanting it and having it are two entirely different things.


jsid-1190215431-580839  DJ at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:23:51 +0000

Part 1, due to line break limits:

"Do you honestly think that I didn't know exactly where you were taking me?"

I am certain of it. You can't read my mind. You seldom even read other people's words.

Fact is, I wasn't taking you anywhere. As I told you before, which you ignored (as is typical of you), I ask questions to get information. I asked the questions that I asked because the answers are the information I wanted from you.

""Rich people are always going to be a minority and as such will always be outvoted..."

Bwa-ha-ha-ha...ho ho ho hee hee hee....hoo hoo hoo...sorry I can't stop laughing.....hee hee hee heee "


And this says more about you than anything else you have ever written.

But, I digress.

I found the answers to my first two questions in about three minutes. I found the web site of the Congressional Budget Office, on the home page of which I found this link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7718&type=1

In my browser, this link downloads a .pdf file titled "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004". These data are recent enough to answer my three questions. Perhaps more recent data are available, but the CBO doesn't offer them, so I just used the data for 2004.

On page six therein, we find the answer to question one: The pretax share of income of the top one percent is 16.3 percent.

On page six therein, we find the answer to question two: The share of individual income taxes paid by that top one percent is 36.7 percent.

Now, see how easy that was? And that is two out of the three questions answered already!

Now, regarding question 3, you did exactly what I expected, and exactly not what I asked. You rattled on and on and on and on, but you never answered the question, except to say

"... the rich ... are not, in fact being soaked ..."

and you ended with this little gem:

"With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?"

I conclude from this that you think the rich are not only not being soaked enough, but ought to be soaked even harder. As usual, you won't just admit it in plain English. Nothing in your response leads me to conclude otherwise.


jsid-1190215471-580840  DJ at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:24:31 +0000

Part 2, due to line break limits:

To continue, let's look at just a few more things in that same document, things that are related closely to the quesions that I asked you.

On page six therein, look at the "Effective Tax Rate (Percent)" columns. Find the entry for 2004 for "Individual Income Taxes" for the "Lowest Quintile". See it? It is "-6.2" percent. See that minus sign? Now what the hell is a negative individual income tax rate? A negative individual income tax rate for this quintile means that the people who make up this quintile don't pay individual income tax to the gubmint, they get paid income tax by the gubmint.

How does that work, exactly? It's really simple. Ask your wife to explain it to you. There are "credits" available, such as the "Earned Income Credit", which directly offset the taxes owed, and I mean the total taxes owed, not just the balance due at the end of the year. If the credits exceed the taxes owed, then they don't just owe no taxes, the get back any they have already paid plus the amount by which the credits exceed the taxes.

This is known as "income redistribution" from the higher quintiles to the lower quintiles, but those who are in favor of it don't like to call it that.

Now, notice that the similar figure for the second quintile is "-0.8" percent. Think on that. The lowest paid forty percent of those with income don't pay any federal income tax, instead they are simply given some of the income taxes that others pay. That is why you'll find so many people screaming when the goddamned dimocrats complain that "the poor" need federal income tax relief. You cannot give "federal income tax relief" to someone who doesn't pay "federal income taxes."

Now, to shift gears one final time here. You can find more data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States, although I take it with a grain of salt, as always. But it will suffice for the moment.

Look therein for the lower limit of the household income of the top quintile. It is listed as "$88,030". That's not what I would call "rich" for income. A family with such an income is not what I would likely call "wealthy", and, I suspect, you would not likely describe as in dire need of further soaking via income taxes.

Now, go back to the CBO document. You'll find, on page six therein, that this quintile pays "85.3" percent of the all the individual federal income taxes that are paid.

Repeat that for the next quintile, and you'll find that those whose income exceeds "$55,331", comprising 40 percent of those with income, pay 99.1 percent of the federal income taxes paid.

My opinion is that the upper end of the spectrum is getting soaked far more than it should. It is based on what the tax rates are, not what they've been, and not how they've changed.

Your statement, which I quote again,

"With all the financial problems we have right now in our country, don't you think that your top one percent might want to consider the massive amounts of wealth this country and our government have helped them earn and...maybe...possibly...consider helping out a bit more?"

can be rephrased as

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

You're a socialist, Mark. Why can't you just admit it in plain English, instead of endlessly arguing that its principles are correct but you won't accept the label?


jsid-1190215616-580841  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:26:56 +0000

Kevin S., yes I agree, Johns don't go work for the government. So the question becomes how do we inspire and motivate the Johns of the world to public service? True, their intelligence would pay off monetarily in the corporate world but what about the world at large?


jsid-1190216117-580842  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:35:17 +0000

DJ, ah hah! But I did answer your question? You asked:

"What percent of those federal income taxes of question #2 should be paid, in your opinion, by that same one percent of those who have income in question #1?"

And I answered:

"My opinion is that, based on the your question, the rich pay too much"

Perhaps I should've given a figure? OK, how about 16.3 percent? But by saying that, wouldn't that increase their tax relief even more?

In all honesty, DJ, I spent a lot more than three minutes on this. Thank you, actually, for challenging me to work outside of my comfort zone. I understand now how easy it is to "spin" numbers.


jsid-1190216467-580844  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:41:07 +0000

Mark, the purpose of a Constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It is a document that is supposed to strictly limit the powers and functions of a government. It is a document that says "This you may not do."

That's why we don't live in a democracy but in a Constitutional Republic.

"If one starts with the belief that government can never work because it is corrupt, then where can I go with that? It can work if we elect people who are repsonsible and intelligent." - Markadelphia

"Our Constitution is for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other." - John Adams

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - also John Adams

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"My guess is that violent criminals are disproportionately of average or less intelligence; people with criminal tendencies and superior intelligence usually get themselves elected to public office instead." - Clayton Cramer

Mark, what I think you fail to recognize is that government differs from the free market in one, exclusive, crucial way: government is not persuasive, it is coercive. Government does not offer, it demands. The free market succeeds because both parties in an exchange gain by their exchange. Under government coercion, neither side need benefit, and generally neither does.

Government does not attract intelligent, altruistic people. It offers too much power for the intelligent criminals to allow that to happen. (That "entropy" thing.)

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." - Henry Louis Mencken

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." - also Mencken

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." - Mencken again

"Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty - their power and privilege - to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by ... politicians." - P.J. O'Rourke

"When government does, occasionally, work, it works in an elitist fashion. That is, government is most easily manipulated by people who have money and power already. This is why government benefits usually go to people who don't need benefits from government. Government may make some environmental improvements, but these will be improvements for rich bird-watchers. And no one in government will remember that when poor people go bird-watching they do it at Kentucky Fried Chicken." - also P. J. O'Rourke

"In short, the problem is the people who believe that government is always beneficial, rather than a necessary evil best kept small and watched warily. It is they who have allowed our government to become what it has become. Government should be crippled. It is to our great dismay that it isn't crippled enough." - Me.


jsid-1190217245-580846  Kevin S. at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:54:05 +0000

"Liberty never came from government. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."

-Woodrow Wilson


jsid-1190218927-580853  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:22:07 +0000

OK,Me...let's take a look at what you said..

"In short, the problem is the people who believe that government is always beneficial, rather than a necessary evil best kept small and watched warily. It is they who have allowed our government to become what it has become. Government should be crippled. It is to our great dismay that it isn't crippled enough."

If you truly believe this, than why on earth do you swallow, hook, line and sinker, everything BIG government in telling you about 9-11? Think about it for a second, Kevin. You are telling me that on domestic issues such as health care, environment, taxes etc..the government needs to be "crippled." It is out of control, corrupt...dare I say it?...evil!!

But on issues of foreign affairs, internationl economic policies, and war, they are always serving our interests, it's always the other countries' fault, and we are just defending ourselves? And every single thing they have said about 9-11...that stuff is all true?..this instituion that should be....what were your words

"Watched Warily"

Isn't that EXCATLY what I am doing and yet I am accused of being looney?


jsid-1190220269-580857  CAshane at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:44:29 +0000

Did anyone see last Friday's 20/20 "Sick in America: Whose Body is it Anyway?" with John Stossel? Great stuff, available on YouTube if you missed it.


jsid-1190220337-580859  Kevin Baker at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:45:37 +0000

"If you truly believe this, than why on earth do you swallow, hook, line and sinker, everything BIG government in telling you about 9-11?" - Markadelphia

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And, as a corollary, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by physics, or by incompetence (especially when government is involved.)

You're accused of being loony because the consipracy theories promoted with respect to 9/11 require government to be not merely evil but incredibly competent in the dictionary meanings of "incredibly" and "competent."

We believe government is evil because government is concentration of power - which - at least for me - is synonymous with evil. We also believe it is evil because it is incompetent and amoral. For a basic example, look at this story of how government is out to help us.


jsid-1190224193-580865  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:49:53 +0000

"If you truly believe this, than why on earth do you swallow, hook, line and sinker, everything BIG government in telling you about 9-11?"

Gee, I dunno, maybe some of us did look at all the evidence we could get our hands on at the time, did some research into the claims, formed opinions based on people with knowledge in their fields, ran it by others, ferreted out a few nagging questions and ended up coming to the same basic conclusions that the 9/11 commission came to before they got around to deciding to convene, much less before what they decided to order for lunch and waaaay before they released their findings.

And maybe, just maybe, we find sources that know what they are talking about on the ground, cross reference that with other experts, track down articles with real hard data and form conclusions based on that, and all that supports, on the whole, what the Bush administration keeps saying.

Further more, I tend to trust the government when they are fulfilling the contract as defined in the Constitution with all the eyes of the nation watching the events unfold.

Expand that power into non-defined areas, hidden in the vast bureaucracy of the government coupled with recorded history, and then I get nervous and start distrusting.


jsid-1190235648-580870  Markadelphia at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:00:48 +0000

"We believe government is evil because government is concentration of power - which - at least for me - is synonymous with evil"

Actually so do I.

"Expand that power into non-defined areas, hidden in the vast bureaucracy of the government coupled with recorded history, and then I get nervous and start distrusting."

I agree with this as well and if you really stop to think about it both of these statements can apply to the issues of 9-11, not just conspiracies but the international policies therein.


jsid-1190235961-580871  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:06:01 +0000

I will not dispute that the rich give to charity. Everyone who is rich, whether liberal or conservative, gives and that is a good thing. It is also a tax break

You're wrong. Right there is that John Kerry for many years listed 0 for charitible contributions. Until it became public.
That's not to say that no liberals donate, but usually they'd far rather spend their time working to take more money from the working, rather than donate their own.

Charities are good for specific causes but they have nowhere near the infrastructure that government does.

Worthless, meaningless twaddle to make you seem semi-erudite. "Well, *hrmph hrmph, you see, Charities just cannot match the Government, old boy, yes yes".

The Government usually manage to get somewhere in the vicnity of 30-55% of their budget to their assigned duty, the rest being overhead.

I won't do the work for you, but check out what the Salvation Army manages in terms of effectiveness. Or private soup kitchens.

Not that that will sink in any further than the rest.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree because I think government can work. You don't.

You ain't got the first clue about me, Mark.


Others here don't as well. If one starts with the belief that government can never work because it is corrupt, then where can I go with that? It can work if we elect people who are repsonsible and intelligent.

Again, back to the "If we only..." or worse "Once we get the firing squads going"...

Mark. Private Charities outperform the government. By huge amounts.

Nothing to do with corruption. Just the facts, as they exist today. Again, something you're unaware of. But don't let that get in the way of your smug assurance that you can do better, and we're idiots.


jsid-1190236015-580872  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:06:55 +0000

Mark:

Do yourself a little favor.

Stop. Talking. About. September. 11th.


jsid-1190236149-580873  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:09:09 +0000

If you truly believe this, than why on earth do you swallow, hook, line and sinker, everything BIG government in telling you about 9-11?

I do not.

You assuring me that I do is incorrect, and wrong.

The government has covered up much from that day. They've hidden a lot, they've lied a fair bit.

But none - none - of what they've done supports your slanders and conspiracy theories.


jsid-1190236477-580874  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:14:37 +0000

"We believe government is evil because government is concentration of power - which - at least for me - is synonymous with evil"

Actually so do I.


But you want socialized medicine?

Lemme get this straight, you believe the government is evil and that giving more power to the government is evil, but you want to give more power to the government for health care? And that isn't evil?

Am I missing something here?


jsid-1190237352-580875  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:29:12 +0000

(closing tag)

(Yeah, Russell. Apparently a "Modern Education or something, since you can't understand why those two are opposed)


jsid-1190237847-580877  Russell at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:37:27 +0000

Er, aside from the closing tag, am I missing something?


jsid-1190243972-580885  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:19:32 +0000

Russell:

Yeah, I was saying that you were missing a Modern Education, since otherwise, you'd have an Open Mind, and understand the Diversity and Appreciate the Nuance of that position.

Brothers, let's form a drum circle!


jsid-1190247940-580891  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:25:40 +0000

I hate drums. Can't we just sing "Give Peace a Chance" instead?


jsid-1190249810-580893  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:56:50 +0000

Nah, you don't want to hear me sing.

What if we were to Visualize Whirled Peas?


jsid-1190256192-580899  Kevin S. at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:43:12 +0000

But you must learn to TOLERATE drums, Kevin. Each and every instrument has its own contribution to give to the world of music. There's no place for instrument bigotry in our world. Let your hatred go...


jsid-1190256688-580901  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:51:28 +0000

Yeah, I was saying that you were missing a Modern Education, since otherwise, you'd have an Open Mind, and understand the Diversity and Appreciate the Nuance of that position.

Well, crap.

Where can I get one of those? Do pawn shops sell them?

Kevin S: Hear hear!


jsid-1190257489-580905  Stephen Rider at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:04:49 +0000

"Hate leads to the Dark Side..."


jsid-1190292200-580916  markm at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:43:20 +0000

Of course "speed was not the issue" - for a member of Canada's privileged ruling class and a founder of a cancer clinic. It might be a different story for an ordinary Canadian... She just wanted the best surgical technique, even if she had to pay for it.

It's likely but not certain that the reason we have a clinic that can perform this technique and Canada doesn't is that we've got vestiges of a free market and do (and pay for) most of the world's medical research. For some long-established but very rare procedures, a country the size of Canada just doesn't have enough cases of their own to keep one surgical team in practice, so they'll send patients abroad no matter what their payment system is. There are also a few rare cases where there's only one doctor in the world with the required expertise, and he isn't in America, so our patients fly there - but it's more common for Americans to fly to one of the better third-world countries to have an utterly routine procedure performed by a lower-paid but competent staff, with a longer recuperation period at lower cost, made possible by the really low pay of the nurses and hospital service people.


jsid-1190293436-580917  Kevin Baker at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:03:56 +0000

Markm:

I live in a border state. I know a LOT of people who go across the border to get their dental care. Mexican dentists are as good as any here, and the cost is much less. Especially if you need dentures or a root canal. So your point about "utterly routine procedure(s) performed by a lower-paid but competent staff" is well made.


jsid-1190301442-580932  DJ at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:17:22 +0000

"Perhaps I should've given a figure? OK, how about 16.3 percent? But by saying that, wouldn't that increase their tax relief even more?"

Finally, a real answer. The answer to "what percent" is a number, not an explanation of the reason for the number.


jsid-1190301543-580934  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:19:03 +0000

Russell, first of all, I think I have said several times on here that I don't think current models of socialized medecine in other countries would work here. It's just not economically feasible. We can't simply shut down the insurance industry or HMOs.

What we can do is use the incredible amount of wealth we have in this country to provide basic care to people in need. I don't think we should create a giant, monolithic national health system. That is what would be evil and I agree with most folks here on that one. This isn't going to be an all or nothing proposition. It's going to be a mix of several things.

Most folks here, however, overreact in Biblical proportions when the subject of anything remotely government run comes up.


jsid-1190301705-580935  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:21:45 +0000

"The answer to "what percent" is a number, not an explanation of the reason for the number."

DJ, when your questions are rooted in half truths and concealed information, there's going to be an explanation every single time.


jsid-1190302090-580936  geekWithA.45 at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:28:10 +0000

>>What we can do is use the incredible amount of wealth we have in this country to provide basic care to people in need.

Speaking of half truths and concealed information:

What we can do is use {force to take} the incredible amount of {privately owned } wealth we have in this country to provide basic care to people in need.


Summary:

>>From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.


jsid-1190303279-580938  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:47:59 +0000

Mark, do you support the Hillary plan?


jsid-1190314883-580954  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:01:23 +0000

Geek, how did these people earn their money, though? They didn't do it in a vaccum. I think it would be interesting to find out how much the federal government has helped people grow their business, whether its through defense contracts, tax incentives, small business assistance programs or whatever. This is particularlily true in Minnesota where companeis like 3M, General Mills, and Target have benefited tremendously from working with the federal government.


jsid-1190315425-580955  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:10:25 +0000

Russell,

My biggest complaint about Hillary's plan is that it will probably cost more than Kevin says. And will capable, intelligent people be put in charge of it? Or will it be another Brown like FEMA situation?

That being said, I think she has some good ideas, all of which are similar to Romney's plan in MASS and similar to Obama's and Edwards' plan. If I had to make a choice between Hillary's plan and none at all, I would choose Hillary's plan. But between Obama's and Hillary...it would be Obama all the way because I think he has more of an eye towards building upon already existing institutions in this country, especially the insurance industry.


jsid-1190316114-580956  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:21:54 +0000

Mark, so how would you enforce either Hillary's or Obama's?


jsid-1190320859-580964  geekWithA.45 at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:40:59 +0000

>>Geek, how did these people earn their money, though?

Not relevant.


jsid-1190321005-580967  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:43:25 +0000

Define "enforce."


jsid-1190321136-580970  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:45:36 +0000

How would you implement their plans?


jsid-1190322263-580973  geekWithA.45 at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:04:23 +0000

Actually, now that I think about it, it's more than "not relevant".

Asserting a moral claim to people's property based on your theory that they did not arrive at their ownership of it "in a vacuum", and therefore a third party entitlement exists is fraudulent, and undermines the very root concept of property.

Property is either bright line, or it very swiftly becomes a degenerate case.

This is my dollar. This is my bread. This is my mayo. This is my can of tuna fish.

You make or may not have had a part in the chain of economic transactions that lead to my ownership of this tuna sandwitch, and you are not entitled to a bite of it.

As a secondary issue, corporate welfare wrankles me just as much.


jsid-1190327391-580976  Markadelphia at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:29:51 +0000

The first thing I would do is expand eligibility for programs like Medicaid and SCHIP (children's Health plan). There already is money for these programs that sadly goes unused and wasted.

Whoever is left after that would be allowed the same health care that federal employees get, FEHBP. Remember, not everyone who is uninsured is unemployed. So, the taxes they pay are already paying for their congressmen's health care, why not their own?

The next thing I would do is create a government assistance program that would help people purchase private insurance if they couldn't figure it out on their own. This same program would monitor the insurance industry which, in my opinon, has become inhumane.

How to pay for it? Well, employers who don't insure their employees privately will be forced to contribute a percentage of payroll to the National Health Plan. Wal Mart sees the writing on the wall for the future now and are changing their policies.

I would also encourage states, who have made great strides in health care, to continue their plans. This would save federal money as well. As long as they continued to meet the basic requirement of giving everyone basic care, the federal government would be out of the mix.

That's basic outline. If you want to read a more detailed plan, follow this link.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf

It's 15 pages but it is worth the read and I would be interested in your comments on it.


jsid-1190328238-580979  Russell at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:43:58 +0000

The next thing I would do is create a government assistance program that would help people purchase private insurance if they couldn't figure it out on their own. This same program would monitor the insurance industry[...]

Expansion of the federal government.

Well, employers who don't insure their employees privately will be forced to contribute a percentage of payroll to the National Health Plan.

Expansion of the federal government's power and increased taxes.

I would also encourage states, who have made great strides in health care, to continue their plans. This would save federal money as well. As long as they continued to meet the basic requirement of giving everyone basic care, the federal government would be out of the mix.

Expansion of both the state and federal government.

How does all this not create [..] a giant, monolithic national health system?

Once the government steps in, that's what happens!

More so with something like health care, because the bureaucratic needs will always expand and never be satisfied.

It happened with HIPAA, and that's just data exchange format and security polices, and yet it keeps expanding.

There is nothing different in this plan than any other socialized plan.

Again, I have to ask, why do you support the increase of government power if you believe that power is evil?


jsid-1190331166-580981  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:32:46 +0000

Russell:

But remember, it's not "Do it again, but HARDER!" No! This is.. Different!


jsid-1190338248-580983  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:30:48 +0000

Yeah, you know what? Pretty much anything I say at this point you won't hear. I thought conservatives were for more states rights. Now that's big government too?

I don't know if either one of you watch the show My Name Is Earl but something tells me that you (and others here) are long overdue for a dose of karma. I think it's just about time for you to see, up close and personal, what the free market, left unchecked, does with people's lives.


jsid-1190341275-580988  Kevin Baker at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:21:15 +0000

"I think it's just about time for you to see, up close and personal, what the free market, left unchecked, does with people's lives."

Um, it makes most lives better? While leaving some in the dust?

I think you mistake a "free market" for what we've got now. Here's a hint: what we've got isn't it. Hasn't been in a long time. You can argue about what happened to it; either big business suborned the power of government for protectionist reasons, or government interfered first and was then suborned by the power brokers, but the fact remains that what we have is not a free market.

But you trust government to fix the healthcare system.

Yup. It didn't work before, but the philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again only HARDER!


jsid-1190341854-580989  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:30:54 +0000

"I think you mistake a "free market" for what we've got now. Here's a hint: what we've got isn't it. Hasn't been in a long time. You can argue about what happened to it; either big business suborned the power of government for protectionist reasons, or government interfered first and was then suborned by the power brokers, but the fact remains that what we have is not a free market."

Well, I can't argue with you there. I agree completely.


jsid-1190342134-580990  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:35:34 +0000

Mark:

You lost me - permanently - when you went on the Toother bandwagon. (I was still willing to extend some courtesy and attempt to reason with you prior to that. Even once you first said it. Only after you rejected everything, and then thought to explain to us how things work - things you blatantly demonstrate that have no idea how they actually work. And how we thought and felt. Now, you're... Bryce. Norm. Either one of those work. Past idiots I've know on the internet. No matter how badly you thought they found the world of the Stupidity Universe, they kept showing you Stupid Dimensions and Stupid Universes beyond your wildest imagination. So Pardon if I slip up and call you Bryce or Norm. Habit.)

When your exquisitely thought out and pondered points... fell apart with explanations, and you merely waved your hand and said "INCONCEIVABLE!"

Much as you'd done with everything else. You start off with emotion, you invent "facts" (passing unsupported opinion as "proof") or misusing (horribly) real ones, so you can think you've thought something through, and then you end back up with emotion, and not understanding why we know your plan won't work.

"Actually, Mark, the FCC has grown exponentially since you said it was eviscerated." "INCONCEIVABLE!"

"Actually, Mark, Michael Moore's movies are characterized with deceptive editing, and absolutely false statements/scenes such as ...." "INCONCEIVABLE!"

"Actually, Mark, Fascism/Communism/Socialism is notably worse than Capitalism, and where capitalism has a good track record of producing happiness, those others produce misery in great fashion, if you want to say there's "no difference, neither is better or worse", then show me the capitalist failures." "INCONCEIVABLE!"

"You have Bush Love Syndrome, and that's why you can't admit that he should have pulled on the superman cape and flown around the earth faster than time and then Nuked Pakistan..." "Actually, Mark, you're nuts." "INCONCEIVABLE!"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means (or shows an intelligent thought process) what you think it means.

I think it's just about time for you to see, up close and personal, what the free market, left unchecked, does with people's lives.

But.. I thought it wasn't any better or worse?

(Yeah, I know. INCONCEIVABLE!.. Spare me.)


jsid-1190342516-580991  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:41:56 +0000

I thought conservatives were for more states rights. Now that's big government too?

Sigh. This is a non-sequitur, but I'll bite.

Anything where the the Federal Government has oversight over State programs is not increasing State rights. It's increasing government bureaucracy on both levels.

States rights are different wherein Federal power is decreased and the ability for the State to act autonomously of the Feds is increased.

Mark, let me repeat myself, why do you support the increase of government power if you believe that power is evil?


jsid-1190342620-580993  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:43:40 +0000

Kevin:

But you trust government to fix the healthcare system.

More tellingly, thinks he has us in a hypocritical moral quandry for "buying the Official Story of Sept 11."

Luckily, Al Queda isn't better or worse than the U.S. Government. (Hey! They built schools!)


jsid-1190345184-580996  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:26:24 +0000

I think it's just about time for you to see, up close and personal, what the free market, left unchecked, does with people's lives.

You say that like it's a malediction.

And you act like the free market is a living thing.

It's not, on either account.

My family history is replete with stories of Puritan work ethic changing my ancestor's lives for the better here in America. Like Kevin said, we don't have a real pure one, but what we do have works well enough.

I welcome the free market! I love the free market!

I work in our facsimile of one!

It works, over and over again, it just works.

Want to know how to make it better?

Smaller government and more laissez-faire practices, not more involvement!


jsid-1190352009-580999  Stephen Rider at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:20:09 +0000

"Geek, how did these people earn their money, though? They didn't do it in a vaccum. I think it would be interesting to find out how much the federal government has helped people grow their business"

I'm betting most entrepreneurs would love it if government would just GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

Once upon a time you could start a business by... you know... doing business. Today you need to spend a few thousand on _lawyers_ before you can even get started... just to make sure you're not running afoul of some goddamned government regulation.

Read the book "Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Practically Everything" for golden examples of just how badly government screws things up for it's citizens.


jsid-1190381293-581001  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:28:13 +0000

Stephen:

(Not that I think this will come as a surprise to you.)

You've seen that George McGovern tried to open/run an Inn after leaving the Senate? And was boggled at the lengths of "reasonable" regulation and red tape? I couldn't find the original op/ed I read, but here's a shorter version:

A politician's dream - a businessman's nightmare - government regulation of business.

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn's 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
...
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite those injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident.

And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.
...
Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone.


It's too bad that he had find that out only after setting and voting and demanding more and more regulations.

I've often thought we could improve Congress greatly by making 2 requirements:
1) No candidate can be a member of any Bar. Any candidate would be precluded from 2 (or perhaps 5, or the length of time the office was held, or something) years from joining any Bar after an election attempt.
2) Each candidate will show proof of prior or current self-employment.

I've run my own business. I suspect most of us here have. I also am pretty sure Mark, for instance, has not, and has no plans to start.


jsid-1190383214-581004  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:00:14 +0000

"why do you support the increase of government power if you believe that power is evil?"

First of all, some of you and I have different defintions of "government power." Any slight smidgen of a toe stuck into the water of government run something and everyone here becomes about as rational as an infant. In other words, you say, "INCONCEIVABLE!" (thanks Unix)

Second, I believe that most folks on DC range from incompetent to evil. I think there are a few exceptions on both sides of the aisle. If they ran things, then I think the government could work. I have listed who those people are in previous posts.


jsid-1190383849-581006  Kevin Baker at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:10:49 +0000

"If they ran things, then I think the government could work."

But they don't. And, especially if you're a conspiracy theorist who believes JFK was assassinated by the Bilderburgers, and Barak Obama risks the same fate (remind you of anyone?), they won't.

Yet you still advocate for increasing government involvement in healthcare - perhaps the largest cash-cow in existence behind Social "Security." Larger, even, than military spending, and much easier to manipulate since there is less actual hardware involved.

It boggles the mind.

Or, it's just another case of cognitive dissonance. The philosophy is "government ought to be able to manage this," and the philosophy cannot be wrong. Therefore each and every successive failure of government is not due to an error in the fundamental philosophy, it must be because the plan was implemented poorly, and the inevitable response is to turn up the power, and escalate the failure.

You're the poster-boy for cognitive dissonance!;)


jsid-1190383946-581007  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:12:26 +0000

everyone here becomes about as rational as an infant.

Considering your Presidental Superpower belief, you might want to reconsider such slanders.

I have listed who those people are in previous posts.

Refresh our memory. And did you deal with the objections, or just insist "Do it AGAIN, but HARDER!"?


jsid-1190386137-581010  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:48:57 +0000

Unix,

They are, in no particular order,

1. Colin Powell
2. Barack Obama
3. Anthony Zinni
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Bill Richardson

This is just a short list. There are a lot of guys who I could see being great leaders...military guys like Paul Eaton, John Batiste and Larry Wilkerson...other guys like Harold Ford and Mike Huckabee are on the ball as well.

Oh, and I think you have been mischaracterizing my 9-11 views so I left you a post in the 9-11 thread to set the record straight. :)


jsid-1190386261-581011  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:51:01 +0000

Kevin B., a couple of questions for you...

1. Who was assasinated in Lebanon yesterday?
2. Who was responsible?
3. Why did it happen?


jsid-1190386948-581014  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:02:28 +0000

Mark:

No, as it turns out, I wasn't mischaracterizing your views. But the additional post was helpful to clarify that.

Your list of personnel is interesting, and outside the scope of this rambling thread to discuss. I'll just say I'm rather unconvinced.

This topic started with Health Care - when a leading Canadian lawmaker and Influential Person came South to our "bad" system. We really ought to get back to that, discussing the ramifications and implications of that.


jsid-1190387180-581015  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:06:20 +0000

First of all, some of you and I have different defintions of "government power."


Oooookay. So what is government power?

I mean, earlier you agreed to Kevin's statement:

"We believe government is evil because government is concentration of power - which - at least for me - is synonymous with evil" - Kevin B

And you said:
Actually so do I.

So what is evil government power and what is not?

You also said:
I don't think we should create a giant, monolithic national health system.

Which is exactly would happen.

So you are against government power, except for things you like.

And you don't want a monolithic heath system, unless it's from Hillary or Obama?

Is this an accurate assessment of your position?


jsid-1190398628-581026  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:17:08 +0000

Well, that's just it. I don't think that Hillary or Obama's sytsem is monolithic. It's not the single payer system that Kuecinich is hawking, something completely not feasible here.


jsid-1190403917-581032  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:45:17 +0000

How in the world won't it be monolithic?


jsid-1190408069-581035  Markadelphia at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:54:29 +0000

Did you read them fully?


jsid-1190412390-581038  Russell at Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:06:30 +0000

It's going to cost $110bn at least from the get-go, spawn a massive bureaucracy, grant the feds more power over those that join, increased taxes (don't think for one second that it will not!), rules of compliance, rules of enforcement, doctor and hospital inspectors, new forms to be filled and filed, new buildings to house said forms and those that will file them, an all the nonsense that is required to run something of this magnitude.

Federal social programs never back down or shrink in size, they always grow and grow and consume all resources and demand more.

Q.E.D.

I'm going to ask again, you are against government power, except for things you like? Is this correct?


jsid-1190424081-581047  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:21:21 +0000

No, that is not correct. I'm not quite sure what sort of country you would like to live in, Russell, because government, in some form, is always going to be there.

Let's see if I can try to get you to understand where I am coming from. The quality of people that we elect to office has greatly diminished over the last 40 or so years. It is that poor quality of persons that I am against because they are abusing government power and inherently evil.

I think that a coup d'etat occurred in this country on Nov 22, 1963 and the people who have more or less run this country since then have made certain that everyone either plays ball. If they don't...well, at first they were just killed and now they are just marginalized through a variety of smear tactics and propaganda. They are fucking scumbags, Russell, who will stop at nothing to achieve the power they crave. President Eisenhower warned us about what would happen and it did.

You actually don't know what universal health care will bring. You speak as if you have a crystal ball and can perfectly read the future. I highly doubt that any serious universal health care plan is going to pass in this country due to the health care lobby and the power it holds over Congress, including Hillary Clinton.


jsid-1190424639-581050  Kevin Baker at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:30:39 +0000

"The quality of people that we elect to office has greatly diminished over the last 40 or so years."

I take it that you're completely unfamiliar with the writings of Samuel Clemens, H.L. Mencken, and Will Rogers then?

Sweet bleeding jeebus, Mark, your ignorance, naiveté and gullibility are awe-inspiring!

I think that a coup d'etat occurred in this country on Nov 22, 1963 and the people who have more or less run this country since then have made certain that everyone either plays ball. If they don't...well, at first they were just killed and now they are just marginalized through a variety of smear tactics and propaganda. They are fucking scumbags, Russell, who will stop at nothing to achieve the power they crave. President Eisenhower warned us about what would happen and it did.

Stipulating that your assessment of history in this case is accurate, you still believe that handing more power to the "fucking scumbags" will result in an improvement in health care?

BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?

None - by your own admission. "Then a miracle occurs!"

You actually don't know what universal health care will bring. You speak as if you have a crystal ball and can perfectly read the future.

No, but we have history and an understanding of human nature that you seem, in your innocence, to lack completely. We have the evidence of all the other countries that have implemented it to look at - and we don't like what we see. Because we look at what IS, not what we DESIRE IT TO BE.

I highly doubt that any serious universal health care plan is going to pass in this country due to the health care lobby and the power it holds over Congress, including Hillary Clinton.

I highly doubt that socialized medicine and further invasion into our rights and our wallets is going to pass Congress because - despite everything else - a tiny majority of the voting public in this country REALLY WANTS LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

If there were some way to actually get people into office who would implement that reduction, things might get better, but what we consider better and what YOU consider better are diametrically opposed. Nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in that vast divide you (and I) have written about.


jsid-1190425787-581052  Russell at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 01:49:47 +0000

No, that is not correct. I'm not quite sure what sort of country you would like to live in, Russell, because government, in some form, is always going to be there.

Holy crow, man, do you really think I'm that stupid? I noticed you dodged my question, again, and treated me condescendingly. So noted.

Let's see if I can try to get you to understand where I am coming from. The quality of people that we elect to office has greatly diminished over the last 40 or so years. It is that poor quality of persons that I am against because they are abusing government power and inherently evil.

Jaw. drops. to. floor.

I might add to Kevin's list Herodotus, Thucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Cervantes, Locke, Swift, Hume, Mill and Dickens. Just to start.

You actually don't know what universal health care will bring. You speak as if you have a crystal ball and can perfectly read the future.

Holy smokes. It's like all the lessons of history concerning socialistic programs and bureaucracy are lost on this one.

No, Mark, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't need one because I understand how bureaucracies operate and how government programs operate.

We have plenty of examples in the past, so many in fact, I can make predictions, wild-eyed predictions of The FUTURE and be reasonably assured of their soundness.

I highly doubt that any serious universal health care plan is going to pass in this country

I hope not!

due to the health care lobby and the power it holds over Congress, including Hillary Clinton.

Or it could be, just might be, stopped because the majority of American's still have the ability to smell a con job when the see one.

Sweet bleeding jeebus, Mark, your ignorance, naiveté and gullibility are awe-inspiring!

Amen.


jsid-1190432129-581057  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:35:29 +0000

I think that a coup d'etat occurred in this country on Nov 22, 1963 and the people who have more or less run this country since then have made certain that everyone either plays ball. If they don't...well, at first they were just killed and now they are just marginalized through a variety of smear tactics and propaganda. They are fucking scumbags, Russell, who will stop at nothing to achieve the power they crave.

Oh.
My.
Words.... fail...

Oh. My.

Wow.
Wow.


Wow.

But I and the others here are gullible dittoheads for beliving/understanding/having experience in crisis situations... that 30 minutes isn't a lot of time to react/Jack Bauer a terrorist attack...

But.
But.
But.

Mark, I will say this. Just when I think we've reached the edge of your .... well, the EDGE, you exceed yourself. You really exceed yourself. EXCELSIOR!

So, you ...... feel that way.

And you don't see a problem with... giving that system, those people that kind of power?

And if there was ... your overthrow... wouldn't that mean that the people you've lionized, by definition, are in on it? Are you forgetting that Hillary was in the White House already for 8 years? Colin Powell? One of the insiders?

Mark, how many lights are there?


jsid-1190432246-581058  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:37:26 +0000

(Oh, and Mark, doesn't this mean that your "Get the right (smart) people to run it" is negated by your belief that the puppetmasters would never allow it?)


jsid-1190473642-581067  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:22 +0000

"the writings of Samuel Clemens"

Didn't he say that "I support my country all the time and my government when I deserve it." And what kind of grief do I get from you all when I say that? Oh, yes, that's right. I am an unwitting pawn of bin Laden.

"still believe that handing more power..."

I believe that, had each of you thoroughly read Obama's or Hillary's proposals, then you would see that it is not handing them as much power as say....the defense industry has over us. Dennis K's plan does have an inordinate amount of power in one place because it is a single payer system.

"majority of the voting public in this country REALLY WANTS LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES"

This is true. But the majority of the voting public wants health care for everyone. So, I maintain that we will find a way to achieve both. Your view is that it is impossible. Hey, that's cool.

Russell, I tried to explain. What else can I do? I don't know. I am asked, however, to explain my thoughts and beliefs thoroughly on this blog. I wasn't trying to be condescending when I asked you what kind of government you would like.

Unix, you will notice that Hillary is not on my list of people who would serve admirably. I actually think sometimes that the powers that be have decided she is the next president. She is, after all, the first and only woman to attend a Bilderberger's meeting :)

Your "shock and awe" at my coup d'etat statement is a little unwarranted. It's not such a big deal, really. It happens all the time in other countries and throughout history. It happens on a daily basis in Lebanon. There are different factions that struggle for power. In this country, these days, assasination has given way to other, less lethal ways of destroying men and women.

Although, it could always come back if the threat for real change is imminent.


jsid-1190473675-581068  Markadelphia at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:07:55 +0000

Oops..My governemnt when IT deserves it. Must proof read more carefully...


jsid-1190495657-581074  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:14:17 +0000

Mark, doesn't this mean that your "Get the right (smart) people to run it" is negated by your belief that the puppetmasters would never allow it?


jsid-1190501177-581075  Russell at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:46:17 +0000

Russell, I tried to explain. What else can I do? I don't know. I am asked, however, to explain my thoughts and beliefs thoroughly on this blog.

Ah yes, the throwing up of the hands and heaving an exasperated sigh.

This happens over and over with you on this board. Nearly every thread you've commented on ends here, you adopted the sad air of someone who has tried his best to explain his view, reason out his beliefs and yet runs up against a wall.

Mark, you cannot reason. You cannot discuss things logically. This is why you end up against the wall. You cannot see that holding two diametrically opposed premises cannot lead to a sound opinion on the subject matter.

Instead, you are swayed by emotional appeals and ignorance.

Let's go back a few steps and see if we can clarify.

1. You believe that concentration of power in the government is evil.
2. You support a national, socialized health care plan, either Hilary's or Obama's.
3. Either plan increases government power.
4. The plans, based on premises (1) and (3) are evil.

Here's why you cannot reason.

This is a classic form of logic.

I'm going to modified the premises a touch to show the form better.

Let p be 'socialized medicine concentrates government power'.

Let q be 'anything that concentrates government power even further is evil'.

If p then q, and p, therefore q. This is called Affirming the Antecedent. The argument is valid and sound.

But instead of agreeing to that you start squirming. 'Not evil' 'Oh, it won't be that much power.' 'Other things have more power' 'Look! Over there! Something else on which I have another ill founded and untenable opinion!'

All that is garbage.

Either prove that the premises are false (which doesn't negate the validity of the argument, btw, just the soundness) or you'll have to reconcile the fact you are adhering to an illogical conclusion.


I wasn't trying to be condescending when I asked you what kind of government you would like.

Then you are unable to examine your own writing process and understand what you wrote.

Let's look at your own words:
I'm not quite sure what sort of country you would like to live in, Russell, because government, in some form, is always going to be there.

First off, this a totally dodge of my question and the topic at hand. It isn't germane. It's an insult to do this, but seeing you don't know how to do anything else but this sort of shady shift of focus when cornered, I should have expected it. To reiterate, we are not discussing my views on government, but why you hold two contradictory premises about government power and socialized medicine. Either defend your words or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

Second, you imply that I don't understand the government will be always be there. I can see if I was arguing an anarchist position why you could say this and be on topic, but at no time did I do this. It's an unwarranted assumption, again. And it's insulting, because this implies I haven't done any work to understand government and its power, that I'm just a guileless waif, roaming the political philosophic landscape, unaware and unprepared and you have to show me how little I understand. This is condescending.

So, I maintain that we will find a way to achieve both. Your view is that it is impossible. Hey, that's cool.

You don't seem to understand the nature of this proposal. This is yet another battle over the nature and character of America. One option leads to further socialization of the nation and increased government power, the other maintains the status quo. It is mostly certainly not 'cool', but rather important as to what course we want to take.

Most of the people that visit here are opposed to the first option and will take the second over the first.

We tend to be vocal as to why we oppose the first, and because you don't seem to understand a word written, you don your 'cool teacher' dud and offer a placating 'cool'. To what end, I 'm not sure, but I can surmise you wish to end the discussion and appear to be the level headed, middle-of-the-way guy.


If you really want to end this, then prove the premises are wrong, or admit that you are going the Walt Whitman route (“Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”) Be forewarned, adhering to the first choice will lead to prolong discussion on the nature of power and evil and government and require a decent grasp of logic, philosophy and history, none of which you have evinced even the most basic understanding. The second choice is the more honest one, but that means you have to hold your tongue when we discuss health care because you have inconsistent views and therefore can't logically arrive to any sound conclusions. The third, and until now unstated, option is to avoid and dodge and obscure this topic, but that will only confirm what I, and most others here, think: that you don't know what you are talking about.


jsid-1190501194-581076  DJ at Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:46:34 +0000

"DJ, when your questions are rooted in half truths and concealed information, there's going to be an explanation every single time."

Despite what you might believe, sometimes a question is asked, even a question asked of you, simply to get the answer, simply to find out what you believe the answer to be.

I asked you, quoting exactly:

"What percent of those federal income taxes of question #2 should be paid, in your opinion, by that same one percent of those who have income in question #1?"

That question is not "rooted in half truths and concealed information". It is simply a question asking for you opinion, and nothing more. It doesn't even ask you to explain, justify, or defend your opinion, it simply asks for your opinion.

It astounds me that you wouldn't just answer it, but had to be prodded like an unruly student in an English boarding school. Usually, you proclaim your opinions as if you believe everyone is just hanging onto their skivvies in anticipation, as if your opinions are so important that everhone just HAS to be told what they are.

Now, do you see what your response shows about you, about what I described elsewhere as paranoia, about the fear of rational thought? I think it drives you like a rented mule.


jsid-1190507129-581080  Kevin Baker at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:25:29 +0000

"To reiterate, we are not discussing my views on government, but why you hold two contradictory premises about government power and socialized medicine. Either defend your words or admit you don't know what you are talking about."

There you go with that "conservative language manipulation game" (called "logic") again!


jsid-1190555813-581095  Markadelphia at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:56:53 +0000

Russell-

"Mark, you cannot reason. You cannot discuss things logically".....when those things conflict with your belief system.

I don't really see the point in wasting my time trying to prove to you something that you will never, ever see. I don't think that Obama's health plan calls for an evil monolithic all powerful health care system. You do. I have linked to his plan, which detials quite clearly how it is different from a single payer plan like Dennis K's, and as of yet you seem more pre-occupied with piling on me rather than the specific points in his plan.

In addition, I have admitted several times I am of two minds...sometimes three...on many things. Most people are...would you say you are?


jsid-1190557552-581098  Kevin Baker at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:25:52 +0000

"I don't think that Obama's health plan calls for an evil monolithic all powerful health care system."

Once again, (and I say this with emphasis because every previous time it's bounced off you like water off a duck's back) YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT.

Government programs don't start off evil and monolithic, they just eventually grow their way there. How? Escalation of failure. "Do it again, only HARDER!"

Start a government assistance program. Fund it with X amount of dollars. Not enough people sign up? Advertise. Cajole. Change the application rules. "We have to spend that money or we'll lose our budget next year!" Then expand even further the eligibility requirements. (SCHIP anyone? Social Security? Medicaid/Medicare?) Expand the power and the reach of the program because there's always some "loophole" that people "fall through."

We don't (necessarily) object to what is proposed, we object to what we know it will become - because, unlike you, Mark, we really believe that giving government more power and money is like giving a fifth of whiskey and car keys to a sixteen year-old. The possibility that it won't end in disaster is there, but the probability is vanishingly small.

But you adhere to the "And then a Miracle occurs!" philosophy.

It boggles the mind, even though I'm well aware that probably more than half the voting public is just like you.

Why do you think the Founders set up the Constitution the way they did? This is a serious question, by the way. I really want to know.


jsid-1190561608-581101  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:33:28 +0000

Mark, I see you have taken option number three.

Logic is not a belief system.

Let's repeat:
You're the one that agreed that the concentration of power in the government is evil, but you support a national health care system. Based on the past, anything Federal will keep growing to become a monolithic system.


I don't think that Obama's health plan calls for an evil monolithic all powerful health care system. You do.

Sigh.

Based on the past behavior of anything bureaucratic, it will just keep on growing.

This growth will concentrate more power into the government.

Which, according to your agreement of Kevin's statement, is evil.

None of these are articles of faith, they are your words combined with observed events, aka data.


I have linked to his plan, which detials quite clearly how it is different from a single payer plan like Dennis K's, [...]

The details aren't important in a propaganda piece for two reasons. 1) This is not a bill yet, so everything will change if it ever becomes a bill up for vote. Then details will be very important. 2) Based on the past behavior of anything bureaucratic, it will just keep on growing. As Kevin just said "Escalation of failure. 'Do it again, only HARDER!'"

[...] and as of yet you seem more pre-occupied with piling on me rather than the specific points in his plan.

And yet another confirmation that you can't think logically. I've been attacking the conclusion of the argument you adhere to, which is illogical given the premises stated. I'm in no sense 'piling on' you, I'm doing what is required for a debate, making sure the premises are understood, verifying that the argument form is valid, and then stating the only logical conclusion and then contrasting that with your conclusion.

I'm testing, in a way, the old adage that you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him think!

Most people are...would you say you are?

Bzzt! Flag on the play! Again, at this point, this not about me!

I don't really see the point in wasting my time trying to prove to you something that you will never, ever see.

Pot? Meet kettle.

Right now I do it to practice my meager debate and logic skills. I harbor no illusions that I'm more than just average, if that. But this is like shooting fish in a barrel. You're not even trying!

But one does the best one can, with whatever skills and opponents with one has been graced.

As DJ said:
Now, do you see what your response shows about you, about what I described elsewhere as paranoia, about the fear of rational thought? I think it drives you like a rented mule.

I find myself agreeing with that assessment.

BTW, even belief systems can be debated with the rules of logic, one just needs to drill down to premises that are accepted on faith, and then go from there. They are not inimical to each other.


jsid-1190565206-581104  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:33:26 +0000

Mark:

I don't really see the point in wasting my time trying to prove to you

Well, you certainly haven't wasted much of your time trying to prove anything.

You've said a lot. We've given you a lot of references and pointers to facts. But "trying to prove?" Not so much from you.

The 1 - ONE - concrete, non-"fluffy" point you made - was about the FCC.

How well did you "prove" that? You made a statement that since Reagan, the FCC was "smaller"(evicerated, I think you said). So, how did you do on the "proof"? The FCC is a helluva lot bigger. More than 3x as big as in '89.

That's the one - 1 - "hard" fact that you "tried to prove" with.
You ran away from your "proof" being proof that you were wrong, and just continued down the Exact. Same. Path.

You won't give specifics, details, proof.

You hold contradictory opinons at the same time. Yes, often people can see more than one side of an issue - but those suppose a change in contexts.

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-vote-for-cthulhu.html

I can understand why someone would either insist that voting for whoever the (R) is would be crucial, or that refusing to would be a far better path. But that's because I understand there are different aspects and outcomes possible. One doens't have to be wrong for the other to be right - it depends on the context.

But, very simply, answer this question I've posed to you 3 times now:doesn't this mean that your "Get the right (smart) people to run it" is negated by your belief that the puppetmasters would never allow it?

That is a belief that you have told us you hold - that there was a coup in '63, and a cabal in charge since then.
But at the same time, you hold that:
* Voters can toss them out... Despite the belief that they'll kill to hold onto power.
* You can strip them of power... Despite the belief that they'll kill to hold onto power.
* Giving the murderous cabal more power can be a good idea.
* Under this "cabal", the country lurched far to the "left", into huge massive increases in government growth and power, but somehow the "neocons" are running things. (1963? To now?)
* The Cabal refuses to use the "right" (smart) people for programs (apparently instead preferring to use them for hanging onto power and sniping presidents from grassy knolls), but you can change that via clapping, willpower, pixie dust.
* The cabal knew, approved of, and assisted the terror attacks Sept 11, 2001. But it's "fixable" via elections.

Mark, quite simply, you're holding 2 contradictory opinions (well, more, but we'll stick to this to point it out to you and have you CD-ily ignore it) at the same time, and context.

So Mark:
doesn't this mean that your "Get the right (smart) people to run it" is negated by your belief that the puppetmasters would never allow it?

That's a really important question, and I note you're ignoring it. For good reason, because it would make you pick a side, and defend it against the other.


jsid-1190571335-581110  DJ at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:15:35 +0000

"For good reason, because it would make you pick a side, and defend it against the other."

Bingo.

He won't have to defend what he does not say, and fear of having to defend it and being shown to be wrong keeps him from saying it.


jsid-1190582081-581117  Markadelphia at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:14:41 +0000

"Do it again, only HARDER"

Just out of curiosity, did ever occur to any of you that you could be wrong about this?

DJ and Unix, unlike yourselves, I don't have a "side." One of the biggest problems I have with both "sides" is that they are 100 percent convinced that they are right about everything. They completely dismiss anything that clouds their fervent belief that they are right.

"doesn't this mean that your "Get the right (smart) people to run it" is negated by your belief that the puppetmasters would never allow it?"

First of all, I did answer this queston when I said that it's possible that the "powers-that-be" have already decided that Hillary is going to be president. And wouldn't that be a beuatiful thing? This blog would double in its hit count from right wingers frothing at the mouth to bitch about how she is ruining their lives...just in the same way the Daily Kos gets hits about President Bush ruining their lives. Nice and divided and paying no attention to the man behind the curtain :)

That being said, I think there has been times in this country since Nov 22, 1963 that we have had presidents who weren't part of "them." When I say them, I guess I would define them as a combination Texas power people and defense industry folks who know how to brainwash enough of red state America into believing that they stand for values. Presidents that played ball for these guys: LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush II. Guys that have not: Carter, Reagan (initially but he fell in line later), and Clinton.

Remember, it's not necessarily party affiliation. You have to follow the money and the groups to which these men belong. And I want to be clear: it is not a monolith them who control all and see all...it is a group of men who are pretty powerful who most of the time get their way. When they don't, they spend their time marginalizing the person in office whom they did not support. When I say marginalize, they basically make it extremly difficult in a wider variety of ways for said president to govern effectively.

So when I say "Get the right (smart) people to run it" it is more of a hope than anything else. Too many times in the last 40 or so years I have seen people, who would quite literlly change the game, be killed or severly marginalized by the people who stand to profit the most from the game. See it...don't see it...it's no skin off my back whether you do or not.


jsid-1190583990-581121  Kevin Baker at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:46:30 +0000

DJ and Unix, unlike yourselves, I don't have a "side."

Mark, that's complete and utter bullshit and negates the entirety of the remainder of your comment. You do, indeed, have a "side" even if you're the only one on it. It is then your responsibility, if you believe that change needs to be made, to convince others that your opinions are better, more "right" than theirs.

You have failed at this miserably, not because we are all brain-dead rightwingbots marching in lock-step, but because you refuse to use LOGIC to draw any CONCLUSIONS. You avoid it at all costs.

It's maddening. What the hell do you teach? "Fundamentals of Education"?


jsid-1190590929-581126  Russell at Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:42:09 +0000

DJ and Unix, unlike yourselves, I don't have a "side."

Oh good, we can stick Mark into the killfile and be done with him.

Does Haloscan have a killfile?

Slightly more seriously, Mark, does this mean you have no point to any of your posts?

I mean, you spout out whatever you feel like, and when questioned, when shown how what you said was flat out wrong, when asked to provide logic, reason and/or proof, you scamper away, change the subject and constantly not get it at all.

You are a slave to your ignorance and a slave to those that can manipulate you. There are puppetmasters indeed, and every thought in your head has been placed by them.

There is no way to discuss things with you, there is no way to reason, debate or otherwise engage in adult conversation with you.

Your thought level is on the level of a late night party when the bong has been passed around a few times. There is no 'there' there, just a never ending maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

You don't explain, you don't discuss, you certainly haven't tried to prove anything. You regurgitate other people thoughts. You have no fundamental understand of what knowledge is, how to get it, how to recognize it, how to evaluate and judge between two different pieces or ideas.

You bleat, blather, and whine. But I have yet to see any indication of brain activity.

Just out of curiosity, did ever occur to any of you that you could be wrong about this?

Just out of curiosity, did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong about every single topic you commented on?

I know, the odds are slight, but dang, man, you have a Six Sigma approach to being wrong. One has to admire the sheer willpower it must take to ignore the slightest ability to consider things rationally and logically.

It's like you go blank and reboot when someone has evidence that eviscerates your current bullshit statement.

I know I shouldn't ask, but wrong about what, exactly?

You can't evaluate ideas. You can't see their merits, their costs, the outcome of one over the other.

This is why you don't take 'sides' you have no clue how you would take a stand on something and defend it. Better to be relativistic, flipping and flopping wherever the voice that makes you feel the best is shouting.

Best believe in some nefarious secret cabal of 'them'. It's intellectually lazy, requires no proof, no way negating the nonsense because you can always say "That's what they want you to think!" Or "See how effective the puppetmasters are? All the brain dead red staters believe." It requires no real thought.

Gah, I'm half tempted to delete all that and start again, knowing that it will sail on over your head and not even make your hair rustle.

Ah well, it was nearly cathartic.


So, once again, I'm going to ask, why do you support a government program that is bound by the laws of Bureaucracy (long may it reign!) to concentrate more power into the government when you believe that to be evil?

Can you answer this question? Can you refute either premise? Do you understand what premises are? Do you recognize a logically valid argument or an invalid one? What is the airspeed of an unladen sparrow? If you can't pick as side, will you shut up about Health Care seeing how you are so utterly clueless about every aspect of it today, yesterday and tomorrow?


jsid-1190594219-581130  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:36:59 +0000

Mark:

DJ and Unix, unlike yourselves, I don't have a "side."

For days (and days (and days)), you went on and on that "Capitalism was neither better nor worse than fascism, communism, mercantilism, or feudalism."

But you refused to explain how you came to that conclusion, citing only an opinion piece. And that the Russian Mob exists.

Then, when you got mad, you said "something tells me that you (and others here) are long overdue for a dose of karma. I think it's just about time for you to see, up close and personal, what the free market, left unchecked, does with people's lives."

So you have a side. Funny that you keep trying to read us, and failing. But when we tried to tell you that was nonsense you wouldn't have any of it. But we were right.

You just aren't honest about what you think. Possibly not even to yourself.

That's not being "open minded". That's being illogical. And if you can't logically explain your policies, well, the chances that they'll work the way you expect is pretty damn low.


jsid-1190643283-581142  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:14:43 +0000

Kevin, you're right. I do have a side but it is not Moveon.org's or Bushie land. It's possible that I am the only one on it but I doubt it :)

I've failed miserably...in the eyes of the people that post here. I absolutely do NOT think that anyone here is brain dead. In fact, I think everyone here is very intelligent. I do think that you have made your mind about certain things and don't really feel the need for more information. Maybe you feel that people that do are looney? I don't know...

I have a BA in Film Studies and a MA in Education...teachng a variety of film classes, social studies, history, political science as well as current events and a history of religion.

Russell, "when shown how what you said was flat out wrong"....in your opinion. I certainly admit to being wrong about some stuff, no question, but how was I "shown?" Through the facts that you want to see and not the ones you don't? Like the one about how we are the richest country in the world and can't "afford" to care for our sick?

I don't think I am utterly clueless about health care and I have answered your question twice now. I just didn't answer it in the black and white way you wanted me too. I'll try again, I guess.

"support a government program that is bound by the laws of Bureaucracy (long may it reign!) to concentrate more power.."

(Buzzer sound) Wrong. Read the plans. There is a balance of power between the public sphere and the private sphere (not Dennis K's which does put more power in the gov't)

"the government when you believe that to be evil"

Read my last post again. It is not one monolithic "them" that controls everything. There are elements of the government that are extremly evil. There are elements that are not. The areas that tend to have the most funding tend to behave in a more criminal fashion.

I think the real issue here is a difference in the way we think. You set your mind (This is IT!) and do not waver. I don't.. which I think is the cause of your believing I am "brain dead." I assure you I am not.

Unix, I am being honest about what I think. I just view the world in grays. I think that Moveon.org is about to get a healthy dose of Karma as well but why would I say that here? I'd be preaching to the choir.


jsid-1190646073-581151  DJ at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:01:13 +0000

"I know, the odds are slight, but dang, man, you have a Six Sigma approach to being wrong."

Goddamn, man, my sides are hurting so badly I can barely breathe. That's the funniest thing I've read in years!

Sadly, though, it's mostly wasted. You'll have to explain it to him, if he doesn't simply ignore it.


jsid-1190646614-581152  DJ at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:10:14 +0000

""Do it again, only HARDER"

Just out of curiosity, did ever occur to any of you that you could be wrong about this?"


Sure it did. But you continue to provide such an overwhelming shitload of evidence of its applicability to you that we remain thoroughly convinced.


jsid-1190653082-581158  Russell at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:58:02 +0000

This is at least two parts.)

Mark:

I absolutely do NOT think that anyone here is brain dead. In fact, I think everyone here is very intelligent.

Then stop treating us like morons! Learn the basics of logic! We think you are brain dead because you refuse to use yours.

I do think that you have made your mind about certain things and don't really feel the need for more information.

Stop. Right there, stop. You don't have a friggin' clue on any of our methods for gathering and evaluating information. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but from repeated observations of Kevin's writings and other's contributions, what you just said is a load of horse dung. Stop projecting. Or assuming. Or both.

I don't know...

Got that right, skippy.

I have a BA in Film Studies and a MA in Education.

I think I'm going to let that pass. Except to say when you study a hard science, you'll see a difference.

Russell, "when shown how what you said was flat out wrong"....in your opinion. I certainly admit to being wrong about some stuff, no question, but how was I "shown?"

Holy Derrida on a crutch! What fresh hell of semantic waffling is this?!

Lessee, pick a thread, any thread. Oh! Remember the Air Force One? The plane you know jack shit about? The one where DJ inundated you with facts about the plane? The one where you just skated on by afterwards?

I guess 'shown' was the wrong word. How about 'your understanding of the facts and basic concepts where shown to be so weak and wrong that others have ripped you a new "structurally superfluous new be-hind" and you STILL DON'T GET IT. At all.'? Would that have gotten through better?

Through the facts that you want to see and not the ones you don't?

Ah crap. My irony meter just broke on that one.

Like the one about how we are the richest country in the world and can't "afford" to care for our sick?

Sigh! Mark, the Federal government has specifically defined roles and functions as per the Constitution. Caring for the sick via a nationalized health care is NOT one of them. (I put the not in bold with capital letters, just for you.)

And still you don't get the crux of my posts AT ALL. (Again, the bolding is a free courtesy service, provided by the letters 'H', 'T', 'M' and 'L'.)


(End Part One. Please flip the record over for Part Two.)


jsid-1190653140-581159  Russell at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:59:00 +0000

(Part two)

I have answered your question twice now. . I just didn't answer it in the black and white way you wanted me too.

No, no you haven't. Because you haven't understood my question, once, so far. I am looking for, heck, I don't even know anymore. Most debates, in the most basic sense, involve stating premises, explicitly or not, using a valid argument form, and reaching a sound, logical conclusion. Then the counterpoint is presented, and each side tries their best to hew down the other's premises and conclusion. I had to show you the premises, put them in a valid form, explain the conclusion and explain why your conclusion is illogical based on the premises.

And you still don't get it.

I think I'm getting tired of doing your work here, Mark.

I'll try again, I guess.

Oh please do! I'm all a-quiver.

There is a balance of power between the public sphere and the private sphere (not Dennis K's which does put more power in the gov't)

Sigh. Mark, the plans are meaningless until the become a bill. I think I said that before. But let's pretend that the plan, either one, gets into bill form just as stated. Bingo, new government bureaucracy! Just like that! How, in either plan, will the growth of the new bureaucracy be curtailed? I know, Kevin knows, so does anyone who has had any experience with bureaucracy. It won't. Let me repeat, it won't.

And, to quote Kevin, given you views on giving the scumbags more power:
"Stipulating that your assessment of history in this case is accurate, you still believe that handing more power to the "fucking scumbags" will result in an improvement in health care?"

Just saying "It's not like Dennis K's plan" does not refute the premise. You still have to prove how and why more power won't be granted to the government. You still have to prove how the bureaucracy, unlike any other bureaucracy, will not start to grow.

No, Mark, you haven't answered the question because you don't understand it or the ideas involved.

There are elements of the government that are extremly evil. There are elements that are not. The areas that tend to have the most funding tend to behave in a more criminal fashion.

Well, hush my mouth. You've expanded on a premise!

Instead of a monolithic evil government, you see it consisting of pieces and parts, some are evil, and some are not. Did I understand correctly?

And you think that the more funding a program has, the more evil it is? I am still understanding your position?

So why on God's green earth would you send more money ($110bn out of the gate is a whopping amount of cash, even for the Federal Government) to nationalize health care? Why, oh why, do you support a plan (or plans, as long as it's Hilary's or Obama's) that will by its nature increase funding to a government element that will, by your own words, have it behave more criminally?

Oh, oh! I see! It's doublethink!

I think the real issue here is a difference in the way we think. You set your mind (This is IT!) and do not waver.

Project much there? Let me repeat (notice we do that a lot around here for you?) you don't know how my process of gathering and evalu.. ah, forget it. No, Mark. You are wrong. Again.

I don't.. which I think is the cause of your believing I am "brain dead."

It walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck...

I don't recall you ever changing your mind here. Not once. If you have, please show me. I'd like to see it. Maybe I'll print it out and frame it. Hang it over my mantle place, so when the rest of my close-minded friends come over, I can point at it and say "This, my feeble minded red stater friends, is what the liberals mean by being 'open minded'!" Which will elicit gasps of awe and amazement from the assembled mouth breathing crowd.

I assure you I am not.

The proof, they say, is in the pudding.

DJ:

Thanks! And you are right. I wasn't expecting him to get it. Glad someone did, though!


jsid-1190654248-581165  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:17:28 +0000

"Remember the Air Force One? The plane you know jack shit about? The one where DJ inundated you with facts about the plane?"

Did I ever say I knew "jack shit." I think you need to go back and read the question I asked. I would say that there was a certain eagerness to "pile on" as it were to Markadelphia.


jsid-1190655084-581167  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:31:24 +0000

Mark:

I think you need to go back and read the question I asked.

Yes, we did. It was a bad question. We demonstrated why. It had a fault premise, subject, and context.

You at some point, stopped reading as we "piled on" and all pointed that out.

Must be that "conservative" brain of yours unable to process "new information" as that study you tout so highly "proved".


jsid-1190655599-581168  Russell at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:39:59 +0000

Did I ever say I knew "jack shit."

Reading comprehension is at an all time low.

No, Mark, you did not say it.

DJ demonstrated that you did, indeed, know jack shit about Air Force One.

And stop sniveling!


jsid-1190665459-581183  Kevin Baker at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:24:19 +0000

I don't recall you ever changing your mind here. Not once. If you have, please show me. I'd like to see it.

Russell:

What drew Mark here was a comment exchange at his blog over the Zumbo affair. Apparently I was able to change his mind (somewhat) on the topic of gun control.

Don't ask me how....


jsid-1190667501-581187  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:58:21 +0000

Apparently I was able to change his mind (somewhat) on the topic of gun control.
Don't ask me how....


Hah. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. You say that now.

But when you've got that fat government grant check to "find out" how to convince the unconvincable? Well, that'll be a WHOLE NOTHER STORY, Won't it?

Yeah. Just covering your tracks while you fill out grant apps......


jsid-1190669789-581191  Rick C at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:36:29 +0000

Coming in late, but not on a dead thread, I see. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but putting in my two cents:

"And will capable, intelligent people be put in charge of it? Or will it be another Brown like FEMA situation?"

Would this be the Brown/FEMA that was PRAISED for it's quick and effective handling of a bad hurricane a year earlier, in Florida, where the governor didn't dither for a couple days before letting FEMA in? Yes, the same Brown who was excoriated for taking 3 whole eternal days to get FEMA into New Orleans was praised to the hilt the year before for getting into Florida in _only_ 3 days.


jsid-1190669838-581192  Rick C at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:37:18 +0000

"Define "enforce.""

Most likely at gunpoint, the same way the government enforces the income tax (i.e., coming to your house with a gun and putting you in jail if you go too long without paying.)


jsid-1190669906-581193  Rick C at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:38:26 +0000

"As a secondary issue, corporate welfare wrankles me just as much."

Geek, did you see the article a few years ago where the chip maker (I think it was ) Centaur wrote a long article excoriating corporate welfare? Great reading.


jsid-1190672008-581200  Markadelphia at Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:13:28 +0000

Kevin, you were able to change my mind because you pointed out a series of facts backed up by quite a depth of intelligence on the subject. While you are passionate about the subject, in my opinion, it does not stray into idealogy and belief as much as your other posts do.

That and that fact that I really examined my own short sightedness on the subject and realized that I was way out of line on pretty much everything I said. Even flat out wrong. Biased and hypocritcal as well.

I also see how important it is to have firearms to protect yourselves against your own government:)


jsid-1190685189-581208  DJ at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:53:09 +0000

You're quite welcome, Russell. I'm an engineer. How could I miss it?


jsid-1190685941-581209  DJ at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:05:41 +0000

"Kevin, you were able to change my mind because you pointed out a series of facts backed up by quite a depth of intelligence on the subject."

He has done so repeatedly on a great many subjects, including the subject of this thread. So have a great many other people.

"While you are passionate about the subject, in my opinion, it does not stray into idealogy and belief as much as your other posts do."

What you don't understand is that the methodology he used in discussing firearms works with any subject. On all the other subjects discussed in Kevin's parlor, you simply discard any facts that don't jibe with your preset beliefs. No, a man's beliefs should be proportional to his evidence. Ideology has nothing to do with it, as beliefs ought to come from facts, and not vice-versa.

"That and that fact that I really examined my own short sightedness on the subject and realized that I was way out of line on pretty much everything I said."

Then why the HELL haven't you examined your own shortsighedness on all the other subjects that have followed since then?

That you state the above quoted items shows the root of the problem. As Russell put it so succinctly,

"Learn the basics of logic! We think you are brain dead because you refuse to use yours."

And he is dead right.


jsid-1190728370-581226  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:52:50 +0000

" you simply discard any facts that don't jibe with your preset beliefs"

Sorry, DJ, but that's exactly what you do, in my opinion.

"Then why the HELL haven't you examined your own shortsighedness on all the other subjects that have followed since then"

DJ, I have spent a great deal of time and accumulated a variety of perspectives on the "other subjects." It's not that I discount the facts you present. They just don't tell the whole story. I have presented you with several facts regarding these issues (Iraq, Pakistan, Al Qaeda)...YOU (and others) refuse to to see them.

Case in point...the question "why they hate us or why did they attack us?" has been answered here as: (more or less) They hate us because they think our culture is decadent/evil and they want to take over the world and impose Sharia law.

This is partially true, especially true of the real nutters like Zawahari.

But they get their real support, from the masses, because of our continued dicking around in their region of the world and our own sometimes horrible international economic policies. When I bring this point up, you say this is not true at all and I should just listen to my enemy. And then I show you the exact wording of bin Laden's fatwa from 1998, backing up my point, and then you come back with I am a liberal traitor who is give comfort and aid to the enemy.

So, it's not the things you are saying are all wrong. They are only partially true. And it is most assuredely not that I am shortsighted. Until you start to scrutinize what our country is doing and take responsibility for your government's actions, sometimes completely awful, I maintain that you argument is not logical and completely lacking in perspective.


jsid-1190731576-581229  DJ at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:46:16 +0000

"" you simply discard any facts that don't jibe with your preset beliefs"

Sorry, DJ, but that's exactly what you do, in my opinion."


No, Mark. I'm an engineer and a rational thinker. I don't accept a statement as a "fact" without checking its provenance. I continually ask you questions in order to do that, to check your statements, and thus you, for credibility. You continually ignore my questions, and so I discard what you state when I cannot test it or verify it.

"It's not that I discount the facts you present. They just don't tell the whole story."

Bullshit.

SOP with you is: 1) you make a statement; 2) you are asked questions in an attempt to get more information about your statement, so as to investigate it; 3) you ignore the questions you were asked and you don't answer them; 4) you are shown proof that your statement is wrong; 5) you are shown how to verify said proof; 6) you ask questions; 7) your questions are answered; and then you make the same statement again. We've seen it countless times, dude.

You want a rather pointed example? Do some searching and read the entire history of your ranting about what President Bush did the moment he learned the World Trade Center had been attacked. It is a perfect example, in which you repeatedly behaved as I just described.


jsid-1190734348-581237  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:32:28 +0000

What drew Mark here was a comment exchange at his blog over the Zumbo affair. Apparently I was able to change his mind (somewhat) on the topic of gun control.

So it is possible, just not probable.


jsid-1190736179-581240  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:02:59 +0000

I maintain that you argument is not logical

You couldn't recognize logic if it came up and sat on your head and sang opera.

You can't state premises. You can't tell the difference between a valid argument form and an invalid. You can't tell a sound conclusion from an unsound conclusion.

You go through the act of thinking, without understanding what you are doing, and how you got there.

All that stuff above? We rarely have a chance to answer the stream of BS that blows out of your keyboard, mostly because we keep trying to do all the work for you to explore your 'arguments'. You hop from one bull statement to the next, wave your hands to dismiss anything you don't like, and yet have the unmitigated gall to accuse DJ of being oblivious.

I have spent a great deal of time and accumulated a variety of perspectives on the "other subjects."

That may be true, but you have no formal, consistent mechanism to evaluate the validity of these 'perspectives'. In other words, you can't tell what's crap from what's actual data.

DJ's assessment of your SOP is entirely correct.

And you are wiggling out of the argument about health care, government evil, and granting more power to government!

Sure, you expanded on a premise, but you still haven't
A) Proven any of the other premises are incorrect.
B) Proven the argument I formed from stated premises is valid or not.
C) Proven the conclusion from B is unsound and your conclusion is.

You dance, you wiggle, you whine, but you don't know what you are doing to discuss things logically.

You can't say something is logical just because you like the way it sounds. That's not logic!


jsid-1190737374-581241  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:22:54 +0000

After many posts, I think the argument stands thus:

Premise: As stated by Mark, some elements of government are evil, some are not. More funding increases the evil of the government.

Premise: From Mark -- I don't think we should create a giant, monolithic national health system.

Premise: Funding for the National health care, according to Mrs. Clinton is $110bn, starting from the get-go.

Premise: Any plan calls for creating new federal bureaucracy.

Premise: The more power concentrated into the government is evil. Stated by Kevin, agreed by Mark.

Let's combine the premises:

Let p be 'Any health care plan will increase funding to a new bureaucracy.'

Let q be 'Any government bureaucracy that has funding increased gets more evil.'

If p then q, and p, therefore q. This is called Affirming the Antecedent. The argument is valid and sound.

The logical conclusion: A nationalized health care plan increases the evilness of the government bureaucracy in charge of said plan.

So why, Mark, so you support either plan?


jsid-1190738598-581245  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:43:18 +0000

"Do some searching and read the entire history of your ranting about what President Bush did the moment he learned the World Trade Center had been attacked"


jsid-1190739547-581248  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:59:07 +0000

Oops, wanted to comment on the above quot and hit return on accident. This issue, I would say, falls more in the opinion category than factually based interpretation. I did answer, in my opinion, what I thought would've shown he was a strong leader. You disagreed. I submitted that if Al Gore did the same thing YOU and I would be saying the same thng. You also disgreed. Oh well.

"You dance, you wiggle, you whine"

in your opinion and you have the backing here of other like minded people. I don't have anyone, really, but that's cool. That's the way I want it. You don't learn anything by yelling into an echo chamber. (thanks Sarah).

"So why, Mark, so you support either plan?"

Because I don't think Barack Obama is evil. Actually, I could see Hillary spinning widely out of control and becoming more evil than she already is...but that is just my bias. And yours as well because I don't think anyone here likes her so her plan is going to met with distaste no matter what.

In addition, I don't agree with your premise. You (and others) start with the premise that 'Any health care plan will increase funding to a new bureaucracy.' Bear in mind, your bias views bureaucracy different than my bias does. So, ANY funding is against your belief system. To me, some funding is alright. A giant, single payer government controls all and sees all is not alright with me-which is what you say every single plan is. Which will bring us to your next statement-

Do it again, only harder.

This makes no sense to me as you suppose an "all or nothing" scenario. I see the plans, Obama's in particular, as being the start of a good balance between public and private care. You see any public care as more bureacracy.


jsid-1190748123-581264  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:22:03 +0000

Because I don't think Barack Obama is evil.

Can you read? I mean, really. Whether Obama is evil or not is beside the point. Reread my post about the premises.

Actually, I could see Hillary spinning widely out of control and becoming more evil than she already is...but that is just my bias. And yours as well because I don't think anyone here likes her so her plan is going to met with distaste no matter what.

But..but.. you said If I had to make a choice between Hillary's plan and none at all, I would choose Hillary's plan. Those are your words.

You support a plan that you think is evil? This is why we say you hold contradicting ideas.

*shakes head* Never mind, non sequitur. Moving on.

You (and others) start with the premise that 'Any health care plan will increase funding to a new bureaucracy.'

Because that's what the plans, you know, the ones you like, even the evil on, will do. It's stated there! Hilary said so! It's a true premise!

Bear in mind, your bias views bureaucracy different than my bias does. So, ANY funding is against your belief system.

Never said that. You did say : The areas that tend to have the most funding tend to behave in a more criminal fashion.

To me, some funding is alright.

So it's alright to create conditions for elements of the government to behave more criminally?

A giant, single payer government controls all and sees all is not alright with me-which is what you say every single plan is.

Again, wrong. READ THE BLOODY WORDS WE'VE ALREADY WRITTEN.

Let's quote Kevin, though I doubt it will do any good:

"Once again, (and I say this with emphasis because every previous time it's bounced off you like water off a duck's back) YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT.

Government programs don't start off evil and monolithic, they just eventually grow their way there. How? Escalation of failure. "Do it again, only HARDER!"

Start a government assistance program. Fund it with X amount of dollars. Not enough people sign up? Advertise. Cajole. Change the application rules. "We have to spend that money or we'll lose our budget next year!" Then expand even further the eligibility requirements. (SCHIP anyone? Social Security? Medicaid/Medicare?) Expand the power and the reach of the program because there's always some "loophole" that people "fall through."

We don't (necessarily) object to what is proposed, we object to what we know it will become - because, unlike you, Mark, we really believe that giving government more power and money is like giving a fifth of whiskey and car keys to a sixteen year-old. The possibility that it won't end in disaster is there, but the probability is vanishingly small.

But you adhere to the "And then a Miracle occurs!" philosophy."

You still have to explain how any plan won't follow the same path as every other bureaucracy!

Disagree all you want, but mere disagreement isn't refuting the premise.

You see any public care as more bureacracy

Sigh. It's not in the purview of the government to supply a health care plan. Not in the US under the (remnants) Constitution, as poorly as that document has been treated and enforced, it is isn't there.

Any new federal program, by it's very nature, is more bureaucracy. I see any of plans offered by the Socialist Party, er, Democrat Party, to create more bureaucracy.

And you STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF LOGIC!

You still haven't
A) Proven any of the premises are incorrect. You've disagreed. That is not proof.
B) Proven the argument I formed from stated premises is valid or not.
C) Proven the conclusion from B is unsound and your conclusion is.


jsid-1190760837-581273  Markadelphia at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:53:57 +0000

Russell/Unix/DJ,

I think the fundemental problem we are having here is rooted in this assesment from Russell:

"1) you make a statement; 2) you are asked questions in an attempt to get more information about your statement, so as to investigate it; 3) you ignore the questions you were asked and you don't answer them; 4) you are shown proof that your statement is wrong; 5) you are shown how to verify said proof; 6) you ask questions; 7) your questions are answered; and then you make the same statement again."

Here is what happens in my eyes:

1. I make a statement.
2. I am asked questions that allow the three of you to frame the debate in a certain way that fits within your belief system and tightly controls the argument, with all possible answers being favorable to yourselves. The questions that are asked of me are logicaly framed, I agree, but are biased. These questions, in your hope, will lead me to answers that fall in your idealogy and prove me "wrong."
3. I answer the questions in a way that does not meet with your approval. Then you resort to accusations/personal attacks etc mainly because I am not allowing you to control the argument.
4. I am shown proof that tells half of the story.
5. I submit links, quotes, testimony all of which is not read or discarded.
6. I ask questions, some of which are answered some are not. By the way, it doesn't matter to me if you answer them or not. That seems to be a big deal for you guys...you think it's rude. I don't. To be honest, some questions you have asked of cause me to think more than feel the need to write.

I am interested in one thing, though. Do any of you regularly post on a liberal blog? I would be interested in hearing about your experience if that were the case.


jsid-1190762325-581276  Russell at Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:18:45 +0000

So, you can't answer our questions, you can't explain the premises, you can't tell a valid form from an invalid one, you can't tell a sound conclusion from an unsound one, you can't stay on topic, you can't tell when something you said has been refuted, you can't tell when you have had your head handed back to you over something idiotic, and all this is our fault?

I am asked questions that allow the three of you to frame the debate in a certain way that fits within your belief system and tightly controls the argument, with all possible answers being favorable to yourselves. The questions that are asked of me arelogicaly framed, I agree, but are biased. These questions, in your hope, will lead me to answers that fall in your idealogy and prove me "wrong."

How hard to you have to work to be this dense?

I keep asking the same questions because you don't answer them. Hardly at all. It's not about answers I do or do not like that fit my ideology or not. I form these questions from things you have said and/or supported. These statements are often contradicting from one to the other. There is no 'control' involved. This what a debate is about! You need to identify your premises. You either need to defend or refute the premises. You need to either use a valid argument form or show it isn't valid. You need to show if the conclusion is sound or not.

You can't descontruct logic into post-modern twaddle.

Then you resort to accusations/personal attacks etc mainly because I am not allowing you to control the argument.

Stop sniveling. And get off your high horse, you've given personal attacks as well. And stop trying to make this into a 'control' situation. Logic and hard data isn't about control. You are backed into a corner this subject by your own premises, stated or agreed upon, and you are looking for a way out.

Whining about it isn't refuting. Complaining about us 'controlling' the argument isn't refuting, or defending your position.

What you just did is add more weight to my previous statement: "You dance, you wiggle, you whine, but you don't know what you are doing to discuss things logically."

Let's try this again.

You still haven't:
A) Proven any of the premises are incorrect. You've disagreed. That is not proof.
B) Proven the argument I formed from stated premises is valid or not.
C) Proven the conclusion from B is unsound and your conclusion is sound.


jsid-1190769029-581279  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:10:29 +0000

I am asked questions that allow the three of you to frame the debate in a certain way that fits within your belief system and tightly controls the argument,

Again, this is why you fail.

I've asked you questions where your belief system appears to contradict itself. The fact you see this as sinister, as "framing" mostly proves what DJ and Russell have been trying to explain to you, really.

For instance, your stated belief that a cabal runs Washington and are willing to kill to preseve power, but were powerless to stop people. Despite being in power.... I asked you to explain that. Repeatedly.

I've asked you to admit that your flat, blanket, Must Be So "rebuttal" to Kevin's aphorism that government always expands. You said that the FCC would do as an "example" of a government agency that had shrunk, yet I demonstrated that was totally incorrect.

But you've said (laughably) DJ, just a side note, it's not difficult to get me to admit I have been or could be wrong. I don't have a fixed belief system set in 100 ton granite. But when shown in stark, cold, facts, that you were totally wrong, you first glibly said the FCC wasn't "Important", and then dropped the subject.

I'd say it's pretty damn hard to get you to admit you're wrong. That's my objective proof.

Neither have you admitted that as a result of being flat wrong, you've changed your mind or thinking. But your example to "support" your stance, was proven to be incorrect. Thus, either you need to find something else to base your belief on, or if you're honest, admit your belief is in the absence of evidence.

Meanwhile, our contention that (just about) every government program will get larger and more expensive over time stands unrebutted, other than your insistence that our facts proving that are "framing" and "biased".

You've considered us deluded for trying to explain to you that no, we don't agree with Michael Moore that it's unimaginable that Bush behaved in a calm manner after finding out the End Of The World As We Know It Was Occurring. Only that "we'd be swapped, had it been Gore." So, you admit had Gore been President, it would have been a ridiculous attack?

I answer the questions in a way that does not meet with your approval.

That's also known as "Not answering questions, and getting upset that I'm expected to actually argue my points."

I submit links, quotes, testimony all of which is not read or discarded.

I've Fisked most of what you submitted.

Like your opinion article that gave you your opinion (that you don't actually, you know, hold) that "Capitalism is no better or worse". Ludicrous to use that. But that's the only proof you submitted. Period.
Only.
That's it. The one. Sole. Single. And then you threatened us with "having to live under capitalism", which gives the lie to your "neither better or worse" statement, obviously, you do believe capitalism is worse

I asked you to support your contention that the (UN-approved, multilateral, 45 country-participating) "Iraq war" was one of imperialism. All we did was prove you didn't know what imperialism was. And then you ran away. Again.

To be honest, some questions you have asked of cause me to think more than feel the need to write.

Thank you, Mark. I do appreciate that. I hope so. I really, hope so. That's why I try and ask them. To make you think, because I see a huge contradiction in your stances. I'm trying to get you to think about them.


jsid-1190773851-581284  DJ at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:30:51 +0000

Reading comprehension is hurting you still more, Mark. Here's a new symptom. The statement:

"1) you make a statement; 2) you are asked questions in an attempt to get more information about your statement, so as to investigate it; 3) you ignore the questions you were asked and you don't answer them; 4) you are shown proof that your statement is wrong; 5) you are shown how to verify said proof; 6) you ask questions; 7) your questions are answered; and then you make the same statement again."

is mine, not Russell's.

And you didn't quote the whole thing. I ended it with:

"We've seen it countless times, dude."

and so we have.

And your corresponding analysis is pure manure. Let's look at it, shall we?

"I am asked questions that allow the three of you to frame the debate in a certain way that fits within your belief system and tightly controls the argument, with all possible answers being favorable to yourselves. The questions that are asked of me are logicaly framed, I agree, but are biased. These questions, in your hope, will lead me to answers that fall in your idealogy and prove me "wrong.""

Bullshit.

I've told you time and again that I ask questions to get information. A question that asks for your opinion cannot have any truthful answer other than your opinion. A question that asks you to explain your own thinking cannot have any truthful answer other than an explanation of your own thinking. A question that asks you for the source of the information you present cannot have any truthful answer other than the source of that information. And so on, and so on, and so on. A request for information is not bias, dude, even if you don't like the request.

"I answer the questions in a way that does not meet with your approval."

No, you almost never answer the questions at all. You simply ignore them and continue onward as if they were never asked.

"I am shown proof that tells half of the story."

You are shown proofs that document our assertions, and do so such that you can verify such documentation for yourself. We continually ask you do to the same, but you simply ignore the requests, and so your "half" of the story is thereby missing.

As I've told you before, opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but they seldom bear close scrutiny. We're after facts that we can verify. You have nothing but opportunity to provide them, but you won't.

"I submit links, quotes, testimony all of which is not read or discarded."

You submit opinions of other people, which prove nothing, and so are discarded. As I just stated, we are interested in facts, not opinions, and you don't understand the difference.

"I ask questions, some of which are answered some are not."

Mark, in my unhumble opinion, you are driven by the need for acceptance, by the need to avoid appearing to be wrong. Not answering our questions is a key part of that and is purely a defense mechanism on your part, because you cannot be asked to explain or defend that which you do not write. You ask questions often simply to avoid answering questions, and often simply to try to change the subject.

Want an example? A response such as

"Alright, guys, how about your thoughts on the as yet unsolved anthrax attacks?"

is no different from responding to

"Well, did you forget the beer again?"

with

"Um, hey guys! How 'bout them Dodgers, eh?"

Anthrax, my ass.

Mark, you're dealing with grownups here. You can't drown us in bullshit, you can't intimidate us with your vast knowledge and towering intelligence, and you are never going to convince us that you are what you want us to believe you are by being precisely the opposite.


jsid-1190819796-581297  Markadelphia at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:16:36 +0000

"you've given personal attacks as well. And stop trying to make this into a 'control' situation. Logic and hard data isn't about control. You are backed into a corner this subject"

Go back and count how many times I have called an idiot/fool/dense/vaccant and then compare that to how many times I have called you (and Unix and DJ that)

And I don't feel at all backed into a corner. Quite comfortable, actually.

"your stated belief that a cabal runs Washington and are willing to kill to preseve power, but were powerless to stop people"

Incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote again.

"Like your opinion article that gave you your opinion (that you don't actually, you know, hold) that "Capitalism is no better or worse"

Said article contained specific examples and testimony which you refused to see.

"I asked you to support your contention that the (UN-approved, multilateral, 45 country-participating) "Iraq war" was one of imperialism"

Wait, are you talking about the current Iraq war? Or the one in 1991?

"I've told you time and again that I ask questions to get information"

But that's exactly the problem, DJ. The information I provide you is from sources you consider to be untruthful or biased. All of them. Of course, this is indicative of all information these days. There is no "truth" or "facts" anymore. Only perception.

Iraq is a great example of this. You see it one way. I see it another. The difference is that I hope and actually wish that I am wrong. What if you are wrong and I right?

"you are driven by the need for acceptance, by the need to avoid appearing to be wrong"

and

"you can't intimidate us with your vast knowledge and towering intelligence, and you are never going to convince us"

are completely contradictory. I know that I am never going to convince you so why on earth would fulfill my "need to be accepted" here?

I post here for several reasons, the chief one of which is that when I started I really didn't understand the conservative brain. The more I read and debate, the more I understand. To me, it's about acquiring perpsective.

Now, since this thread has gotten into a who said what when thing, I have a proposition for all of you.

List the points, clearly, that you would like me to defend and/or explain and I will attempt to do so once and for all. I have gone back and read through this thread and I think we could use some clarity. I take 50 percent responsibility for muddying the waters and getting off track. So, in the interest of clearly presenting my argument (and because Kevin won't be posting much in the next week), kindly detail the premises.


jsid-1190824353-581305  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:32:33 +0000

Mark:

I really didn't understand the conservative brain. The more I read and debate, the more I understand. To me, it's about acquiring perpsective.

Trust me. You're not gaining understanding. (Remember your "spotlight" on how we're BushBots, and in "lockstep"?)

how many times I have called an idiot/fool/dense/vaccant

Usually, Mark, after you admit to some absolutely foolish nonsense. Or to an emotional overloaded appeal rather than objective (or even subjective) facts. There's a reason why I call you a fool at that point. Because you're acting like one.

Said article contained specific examples and testimony which you refused to see.

No, Mark, it didn't. It had unsourced comments, without any context. It had opinion. Hey, if you want to "believe" it (in quotes, because you actually don't believe it), that's fine.
But when I say "Where in the hell do you get that idea?" and all you can do is say "Because... he --> says it?" That's not proof, it's not backing up your belief, it's not thought out, it's mere parrotting.
Then when you accuse me (among others) of parroting a "line" by people I've never heard of, never listen to, and who I disagree strongly with, it's ludicrous. (But it's back to the stereotype we used of you that you're more interested in blindly believing the messenger than evaluating the message)
When you refuse to admit after your "curse/hex" on us that "we should suffer" the free market, that it's objective proof that you don't believe in what you said you believed, it means you're no longer a trustworthy source on... yourself! You say it, but there's a case where you say something, we doubt it, and we turn out to be right!.

This reinforces our powers of perception. Not your rhetorical skills.

The information I provide you is from sources you consider to be untruthful or biased. All of them.

*headdesk*
Some, granted, some, who have insight into the human nature, MIGHT SEE A PATTERN HERE.

Of course, this is indicative of all information these days. There is no "truth" or "facts" anymore. Only perception.

Bullshit. Mark, this is you getting back to "You can't call me wrong, because there is no right and wrong, because I'm smart and nuanced, and see all sides equally. Except for yours, because you're a doofus, seeing only one side. Gimme your money, I'll spend it on people better than you will".

Facts are facts. They may be misreported. They may be in doubt at times. Which is why you need to give sources. I rely on Michael Moore for some facts, for instance. Because if he is to admit something, or claim it, it's useful. That doesn't mean everything he says is worthwhile. Facts and sources matter. That's how you come to an understanding of what the facts are - if there's a slant to the facts, how to take them with a grain of salt, and how to critically analyze reports to find the facts that exist.

"you are driven by the need for acceptance, by the need to avoid appearing to be wrong"
and
"you can't intimidate us with your vast knowledge and towering intelligence, and you are never going to convince us"
are completely contradictory.


No, they're not.

"your stated belief that a cabal runs Washington and are willing to kill to preseve power, but were powerless to stop people"
Incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote again.


Totally correct. Not only did I read it, I started in disbelief, got IM'ed by no less than 3 people about it, and asked you repeated questions to get you to explain that contradiction.

Which you never, really, totally have. You have a little (I think), but again in a way that still stands totally at odds with your political philosophy. AGAIN

Untold Commenters: "If the government is evil, why in the hell would you want to give them more power?"
Mark: "Only MOST of it is evil! I want to give the NON-EVIL part more power! Because it's GOOD! I want it to be Good!"
UC: *headdesk*
Mark: "See! you're CloseMinded! And anti-helping Poor Orphan Colorblind Lame Nuns!"

Which gets us right back to the start.

Mark, by the way, the question isn't really about government power. It's about the checks and balances on said same. You might recall what site this is, and our beliefs in the BoR.

You keep showing us "paper" promises that what we fear won't happen, while totally ignoring the historical facts of those same or similar promises being made elsewhere and forgotten/ignored/overridden.

There's a very simple solution to this, Mark, and it shows how fundamentally dishonest most of the solutions you propose are at their root.

Put iron-clad, cannot-be-changed controls/guidelines/funding stops/criteria in those policy proposals to ensure there cannot be "creep" and massive growth.. That's how you can "prove" to us that you're not - as you did with the "capitalism/better/worse", and the "Cabal government", saying one thing, and yet meaning something entirely else entirely. Go ahead and do that with the plans you like. See how far you get with the people proposing. I Shall Predict (Call Me The Great Kreskin) For Some Reason, They'll Have A Problem With It.

One of us sees that coming, and understands why.


jsid-1190827837-581307  Russell at Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:30:37 +0000

And I don't feel at all backed into a corner.

Riiiiight. That's why you broke out the warmed over post-modern claptrap.


What if you are wrong and I right?

We'll understand where we went wrong and you'll still not know why you were right.

The more I read and debate, the more I understand.

I have a wonderful bridge for sale. Care to make an offer?

[...]thread has gotten into a who said what when thing[...]

Uh, you mean where we quote your own words and how they contradict? We're not confused. You are.

List the points, clearly, that you would like me to defend and/or explain and I will attempt to do so once and for all. I have gone back and read through this thread and I think we could use some clarity. I take 50 percent responsibility for muddying the waters and getting off track. So, in the interest of clearly presenting my argument (and because Kevin won't be posting much in the next week), kindly detail the premises.

Oh, I give up.

I mean, how many times did I present the argument? How many times did I do what is asked?

Mark, I refuse to your work for you, again.


jsid-1190857260-581321  DJ at Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:41:00 +0000

This is what he does, Russell, over and over and over and ...

He's like a word generator stuck on scramble mode, a scrabble game stuck in a blender.


jsid-1190859189-581322  DJ at Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:13:09 +0000

Quote the whole statements, Mark:

"Mark, in my unhumble opinion, you are driven by the need for acceptance, by the need to avoid appearing to be wrong."

and

"You can't drown us in bullshit, you can't intimidate us with your vast knowledge and towering intelligence, and you are never going to convince us that you are what you want us to believe you are by being precisely the opposite."

The first statement above is an observation of goals, and the second is an observation of why you fail to achieve those goals. There is nothing the slightest bit contradictory therein.

You keep trying and trying and trying to convince us that you know what you are talking about, to thereby gain acceptance as having vast knowledge and a towering intellect. You cannot tolerate being wrong, so you ignore it when you are shown to be wrong, typically by simply trying to change the subject yet again, as if you ignoring that you are wrong will result in us not noticing that you are wrong. That is something a six year old child might try, but, as I noted, you're dealing with grownups.

The methodology you exhibit is an effort, in effect, to drown us in opinions, conspiracy theories, and pseudo-intellectual bullshit to which we demonstrate a remarkable immunity. You could demonstrate knowledge and intellect by thinking and writing rationally, i.e. logically from demonstrable facts to conclusions, but you simply won't do so, despite repeated pleadings and even detailed instructions on how to go about it. You cannot even learn to not jump to conclusions, which is the unavoidable first step in rational thinking.

You are the opposite of what your behavior suggests clearly that you would have us believe you are, and continuing to exhibit that behavior is not going to convince anyone otherwise. And, that is not a failure on our part, teacher.


jsid-1192050202-581872  DJ at Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:03:22 +0000

Go see

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

The money quote:

""The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."

So, who would the United States use as a safety net?


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>