Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94

Thread: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    So you basically think government should be run like a mob. That we should lie and cheat and steal from our own citizens, because you seem to hate people.

    Keep in mind, they were paying for everyone. Not everyone uses SS to the same extent, for the same amount of time, etc. I pay taxes on stuff I'll never use probably. I doubt SS will exist by the time I get to that age, but I still pay it.

    And you know what? Happy to do so. Because I am not selfish enough to deny people access to things they need, even if I don't, and I'm not hateful enough to act in spite against my fellow countryman.
    If you want to pay for them go right ahead, but can do you me a favor? Keep the force at the door and your hands out of my pockets.

  2. #72
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If you want to pay for them go right ahead, but can do you me a favor? Keep the force at the door and your hands out of my pockets.
    Ok. How about we as a coutry just defund everything you need. If you take a rare prescription med you can only afford because of a program that prescribes it generic, de-fund it. Your safe water supply? De-fund it. Your public education system? De-fund it. Your local police force? Defund it. The infrastructure that allows your phone and internet connection? Defund it.

    Because I don't use those things, and most other people in your state or the country as a whole don't either. Why should we help fund it? Pay for it yourself. All billions upon billions of dollars of it.

    You want to live like a refugee in a 3rd world country? Be my guest.

    Is that better?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    Ok. How about we as a coutry just defund everything you need. If you take a rare prescription med you can only afford because of a program that prescribes it generic, de-fund it. Your safe water supply? De-fund it. Your public education system? De-fund it. Your local police force? Defund it. The infrastructure that allows your phone and internet connection? Defund it.

    Because I don't use those things, and most other people in your state or the country as a whole don't either. Why should we help fund it? Pay for it yourself. All billions upon billions of dollars of it.

    You want to live like a refugee in a 3rd world country? Be my guest.

    Is that better?
    Is that even a good argument? Police everyone uses even when they don't. Safe water is a joke and government doesn't provide it.

    And phone and Internet connections shouldn't have funding. As for your medical example, no it shouldn't exist.

    Well I guess you just failed.

    And why is it all of sudden a 3rd country if the government doesn't baby sit people? WTF kind of logic is that?
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-26-11 at 05:36 AM.

  4. #74
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's Obama that wants to create the death panels. How soon people forget.
    Cant create something that already exists in the private run healthcare system you all got over there.
    PeteEU

  5. #75
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Is that even a good argument? Police everyone uses even when they don't. Safe water is a joke and government doesn't provide it.

    And phone and Internet connections shouldn't have funding. As for your medical example, no it shouldn't exist.

    Well I guess you just failed.

    And why is it all of sudden a 3rd country if the government doesn't baby sit people? WTF kind of logic is that?
    I don't use the police in your city. Nor do the overwhelming majority of Americans.

    Safe water isn't a joke. When was the last time someone in America died of water poisoning that wasn't from a backyard well? It may not be the best of the best, but it is safe. People die all the time in 3rd world countries from undrinkable water.

    The infrastructure requires for phone and internet connections to the extent we have now is enormous. Defunding it would leave vast areas of the country without any sort of connection. They couldn't call the police if they tried.

    I didn't fail at anything. Unsafe drinking water, no crime deterence, no education, and no medicine = the standard mode of operation for a 3rd world country.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    I don't use the police in your city. Nor do the overwhelming majority of Americans.
    When criminals are taken off the street everyone gains. We all use police.

    Safe water isn't a joke. When was the last time someone in America died of water poisoning that wasn't from a backyard well? It may not be the best of the best, but it is safe. People die all the time in 3rd world countries from undrinkable water.
    The water is filled with poisons that they have to measure just so. If they do it wrong, they basically have to turn the water off until they fix the balance. There is no way to know if they have the measurements right or if we should be dealing with the chemicals at all.

    The infrastructure requires for phone and internet connections to the extent we have now is enormous. Defunding it would leave vast areas of the country without any sort of connection. They couldn't call the police if they tried.
    Why is that? Are you saying that the private companies are running businesses they can't afford? Why should they exist if that is so? Shouldn't they be pushing something they can afford to provide?

    I didn't fail at anything. Unsafe drinking water, no crime deterence, no education, and no medicine = the standard mode of operation for a 3rd world country.
    They are conditions that are present in third would countries not what makes them a third world country.

  7. #77
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    - Nope. A city or state like what you're proposing would be pretty isolated. Makes no difference to me.

    - That testing is WHY the water is safe. We do have a way of knowing, which is whether or not people get sick and die from it. And they don't.

    - No. I'm saying they couldn't afford it if they had to support the entire infrastructure.

    - I never claimed it was cause or affect for a country being undeveloped. Just that it is the standard mode of operation.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    - Nope. A city or state like what you're proposing would be pretty isolated. Makes no difference to me.
    Why would it be isolated? If money for infrastructure disappeared other solutions would pop up.

    - That testing is WHY the water is safe. We do have a way of knowing, which is whether or not people get sick and die from it. And they don't.
    That is measuring on if the measurements you use now kill people as we speak, but it doesn't deal with long term effects. Which is part in figuring out if something is safe or not.

    - No. I'm saying they couldn't afford it if they had to support the entire infrastructure.
    The infrastructure model is still broken and needs serious reconsidering, Right? Why are tax payers paying to help a business with a failed business model? For self benefit? Wouldn't it better to not prop up businesses to start out with so they can create what we wish? It seems to me that all it does is further the need for government involvement in the situation, when we could of just accepted it as a bad idea and waited for a better more stable solution. What cellphones should of taught the country when dealing with these things is that these kind of situations are temporary and things move on pretty quickly.

    - I never claimed it was cause or affect for a country being undeveloped. Just that it is the standard mode of operation.
    So why does it matter? Just because something is present in a certain condition that is brought about by other actions and reasons just means what exactly? Why mention it? A country deals with wealth, wealth brings about caring for your life and conditions. When it is rich, people care for the environment and each other, when its not everyone is trying to get by and will do anything to do it. Sadly people take things to far in rich countries and end up back at the beginning...but that is the loop.

  9. #79
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Why would it be isolated? If money for infrastructure disappeared other solutions would pop up.
    Because such a society would have nothing to offer. The only interaction we would have is sending you aid. You can't compete in the world we live in without some sort of public pooling. You drop off the list of competitive nations immediately.

    That is measuring on if the measurements you use now kill people as we speak, but it doesn't deal with long term effects. Which is part in figuring out if something is safe or not.
    Time does. Time says our water is safe. Even if everything in it isn't the best thing in the world for us, it's a hell of a lot better than unclean water.

    The infrastructure model is still broken and needs serious reconsidering, Right? Why are tax payers paying to help a business with a failed business model? For self benefit? Wouldn't it better to not prop up businesses to start out with so they can create what we wish? It seems to me that all it does is further the need for government involvement in the situation, when we could of just accepted it as a bad idea and waited for a better more stable solution. What cellphones should of taught the country when dealing with these things is that these kind of situations are temporary and things move on pretty quickly.
    You don't get how this works. First of all, communication systems started out as a one- option system - Bell. Private business bought parts of the network. They pay their taxes for that system too, and they improve and build on top of the government-supported system. All of this they are capable of sustaining. There is no problem. Second, I don't think it is broken. I just think that governments should use all of the money they collect for infrastructure ON infrastructure. If they did, we would have no problems. Because we actually do collect enough money for it. Again, there is no problem. It's a great system. People choose their service, based on their needs and location, and the government is basically the ground work and border control making sure these systems can work together. It's just that the tax money for it is being re-directed into other things. It shouldn't be. That is the only problem.

    So why does it matter? Just because something is present in a certain condition that is brought about by other actions and reasons just means what exactly? Why mention it? A country deals with wealth, wealth brings about caring for your life and conditions. When it is rich, people care for the environment and each other, when its not everyone is trying to get by and will do anything to do it. Sadly people take things to far in rich countries and end up back at the beginning...but that is the loop.
    It matters because that is he kind of society you are asking for. Obviously you don't want to live in it, but everyone else should?

    Actually, no, historically people don't care for each other. What you are claiming is just not reality. You can wish it to be rainbows and butterflies all you like, but it isn't. Heavily deregulated countries are poor, violent, uneducated, and have terrible standards of living. Pretty much universally.

    Notice how every single developed country has an organized and fairly strong code of regulation. Much stronger than what you seem to be ok with. The kind of thing you seem to be ok with is what 3rd world countries have.

    I know it looks good on paper, but try looking at it in reality.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-26-11 at 07:26 AM.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    Because such a society would have nothing to offer. The only interaction we would have is sending you aid. You can't compete in the world we live in without some sort of public pooling. You drop off the list of competitive nations immediately.
    Business would come and things would get better. We would beat everyone on the list.


    Time does. Time says our water is safe. Even if everything in it isn't the best thing in the world for us, it's a hell of a lot better than unclean water.
    Not really. Questions have been raised by connections between the water and things like the raising of cancer in the country.

    You don't get how this works. First of all, communication systems started out as a one- option system - Bell. Private business bought parts of the network. They pay their taxes for that system too, and they improve and build on top of the government-supported system.
    No, I understand that very well. However, when they sold the parts they were no longer government, but private, and since private companies can't possibility work the system without government help. All it really means is the system is badly planned.

    It matters because that is he kind of society you are asking for. Obviously you don't want to live in it, but everyone else should?
    Why wouldn't I live in it? If I ask for something I generally want it. Why ask for it if I didn't?

    Actually, no, historically people don't care for each other. What you are claiming is just not reality. You can wish it to be rainbows and butterflies all you like, but it isn't.
    What I meaning is that people will care for people once their concerns are dealt with. This is proven by the generality of people in rich countries where the poverty level is low. You are looking for a solution that meets your qualifications and I never said it did such. Will they all care? No, but I never said they would. I was saying is that people care when their times are well, its them first, and then everyone else.

    Heavily deregulated countries are poor, violent, uneducated, and have terrible standards of living. Pretty much universally.
    Which is mostly caused by the government and lack of wealth, not the lack of what you talk about.

    Notice how every single developed country has an organized and fairly strong code of regulation. Much stronger than what you seem to be ok with. The kind of thing you seem to be ok with is what 3rd world countries have.
    Regulation equals less freedom by the very definition. Less economic freedom can't possibly lead to a better world. It just leads to an illusion of one. You can get many of the same results though simple laws and courts and that is something I can agree with.

    I know it looks good on paper, but try looking at it in reality.
    I think I am. What I support has never been done and you comparing it to a third would country is not accurate.

    ..and isn't this entire post of yours moving the goal post a bit?
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-26-11 at 07:42 AM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •