Originally posted by RagnorakIf you choose to look upon an entirely positive scenario of your suggestion, that is up to you, but it is unrealistic....because you can't lift the whole system up to the highest standard that is impossible, the only alternative is you have to start hacking people back down to the same level, and that disgusts me. Free after school tuition would become a free child minding service, free summer camp would be a free way to unload the kids for a couple of weeks. An all 'free' will mean is: make someone else pay.
If you choose to look upon an entirely negative scenario of my suggestion, that is up to you. Instead of retarding everybodies education to the level of the poorest people, as you suggest, why not raise the level to that of the richest, ie: currently the best. Why should whether a childs parents didn't work hard or wasn't born wealthy mean that the chil ...[text shortened]... ental protection laws, anti tobacco laws, raise tax on oil, etc, etc. The list is endless.
D
When parents opt for private education (for some it's a real struggle to keep their kids out of the state brainwashing system) they are not penalising others. If anything they are easing the pressure on the state brainwashing system. They should be given tax relief.
As I pointed out before:
Free people aren't equal
Equal people aren't free.
Give people their freedom, they can then opt into a collectivist education system where everyone is equal....they just wouldn't be able to hold others back because that is the other side of your system and it is particularly despicable.
The same goes for health if peoplem want to spend more on their health care they are not TAKING somethin g from others. They may have a very good reason for opting for better health care...one I can think of is: it's their f*king life.
Work accident, badly cut face, right through upper lip and up through nose, 3 hours in A&E, shaking with shock, 28 hours waiting to get stitched up.
Hit by car, badly cut leg, bone visible, attended to within 2 hours.
What's the difference between these two, one is public health, one is the private, one is a human, the other is a cat. Yep the veterinary service is entirely private, and if they mess you around you just take your business to the next one, so they don't mess you around.
Originally posted by sasquatch672how bout the thought of SQ in a jello bath with Bush, Kerry, Don Young, Billary, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. ....
I've got to admit, the thought of Bush, Kerry, Don Young, Billary, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al., and oh, I could go on and on, in hot tar and feathers, welll...it kind of excites me! In a very weird way!
Originally posted by WajomaLOL! But was the cat a liberal or a conservative, that's what we really need to know.
Work accident, badly cut face, right through upper lip and up through nose, 3 hours in A&E, shaking with shock, 28 hours waiting to get stitched up.
Hit by car, badly cut leg, bone visible, attended to within 2 hours.
What's the difference between these two, one is public health, one is the private, one is a human, the other is a cat. Yep the veterin ...[text shortened]... hey mess you around you just take your business to the next one, so they don't mess you around.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Sas,
[b
We could start in Pennsylvania, where the state legisalature, in a bipartisan measure, gave themselves pay raises ranging in amounts of $37,000 to, I believe, $83,000. Overwhelm whatever meagre police force they send and grab up every last politician who voted yes, or voted no but still took the money. And tar and feather them. Beautiful.
BTW...i ...[text shortened]... there anybody else out there that is feeling taxed without being represented? Because I am.[/b]Sas
You hit the nail on the head there. The pay raise is a real hot issue here in PA. I'm all for "Operation Clean Sweep" Don't vote for the thieving incumbent bastards!!!!😠😠😠😠ðŸ˜
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaI have posted an entirely positive real life scenario for you, which you continually choose to ignore: Sweden.
If you choose to look upon an entirely positive scenario of your suggestion, that is up to you, but it is unrealistic....because you can't lift the whole system up to the highest standard that is impossible, the only alternative is you have to start hacking people back down to the same level, and that disgusts me. Free after school tuition would become a fre ...[text shortened]... hey mess you around you just take your business to the next one, so they don't mess you around.
As for the cat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the cat's owners are too poor to pay for the vet, what options exactly does the cat have, apart from living on in pain without treatment? Or having its neck wrung by its owners? Should civilised countries adopt a mercy killing policy for poor people who can't afford medical aid?
Also, medical insurance should be viewed as a non-compulsory tax. Anybody who can afford it, gets it. Insurance money goes to private companies, and money for treatment goes to private hospitals. How can any country expect to have a decent medical service, when the vast majority of money is seeping out of the public system, and into the pockets of shareholders? Would you not prefer to pay this extra money as a proper tax, so that the less fortunate of your society could have access to medical care as well?
D
Originally posted by Ragnorakwe have this now in America it is called "Medical Access". It is funded 100% by the tax payer. Basically as it stands now in the US if you have a job and work for a living you get a significant portion of your salary spent on medical insurance. Even then you pay quite a bit out of pocket should you actually want to seek medical care. However, Uncle sam has provided an easy solution for you! Stop working you fool! Better yet sit home and use meth amphetamine and collect welfare, you won't pay a dime for medical care, no copays, nothing! The goverment now compels physicians to see you and worry about payment later. sometimes there is a one dollar copay, which is rarely ever paid by the access recepient....they "just don't have it!" but curiously what DO they have? Cartons of cigareettes, booze, and cell pones(the basic life necessities) bought and paid for by u guessed it! The American Taxpayer! Literally billions every year is paid by the American taxpayer so meth heads and alcoholics can use the emrgency rooms to receive free tylenol, room and board, antibiotics etc. 80% of all ED visits today are for common every day aches pains sore throats and other ridiculously minor issues, because for the non working, it don't cost a dime!
I have posted an entirely positive real life scenario for you, which you continually choose to ignore: Sweden.
As for the cat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the cat's owners are too poor to pay for the vet, what options exactly does the cat have, apart from living on in pain without treatment? Or having its neck wrung by its owners? Should civilis ...[text shortened]... tax, so that the less fortunate of your society could have access to medical care as well?
D
Of course if you are 80 years old and you have 400 dollars a month prescription costs there isn't any money for you! No we as a country want to pay 200 for the 20 year old meth heads unnecessary ED visit for a pregnancy test (because they cost 6 dollars at wallgreens ya know!)
Originally posted by StarrmanWhere religion is a personal agenda which is practiced privately for those who hold it, but it has no place in influencing government.
Where's the debate here?
Anyway, my liberal view:
A world where physical violence of any sort, militaristic or civilian, is not present.
Where money is spent, not on treating symptoms, but eradicating problems a the source.
Where all people of all colours, creeds and nationalities, live without fear of violence, oppression, derision or exploitation ...[text shortened]... body remembers or understands.
Naive? Maybe, but I think it's worth hoping for nonetheless.
Just responding to this one point in your manifesto (which I think is nice overall).
1. If I have a philosophical justification of my stance against (say) abortion, then should I desist from bringing my views to the public sphere simply because I also happen to be Catholic?
2. Do you think that government has to it a moral aspect (in addition to fiscal, economic, administrative etc.)? For instance, do you feel that the government should have a moral obligation not to support repressive foreign regimes?
If so, then how should the government arrive at those moral decisions?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. If I have a philosophical justification of my stance against (say) abortion, then should I desist from bringing my views to the public sphere simply because I also happen to be Catholic?
[b]Where religion is a personal agenda which is practiced privately for those who hold it, but it has no place in influencing government.
Just responding to this one point in your manifesto (which I think is nice overall).
1. If I have a philosophical justification of my stance against (say) abortion, then should I desist from bringing my vi ...[text shortened]... ssive foreign regimes?
If so, then how should the government arrive at those moral decisions?[/b]
You have every right to be against abortion. You have every right to bring your views to the public sphere and shout them as loud as you like.
What you don't have the right to do is impose your beliefs on others through legislation. And through the use of legislation begin imposing legal penalties against those who have an abortion.
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Spend your time counseling others on the negative effects of it, build anti-abortion websites, mail out pamphlets, go on cable access TV and share your views, whatever you think will help make your point and share your beliefs, do it.
But don't impose your religious beliefs into another American citizen's private life.
2 edits
Originally posted by Canadaguyhttp://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gildpref.html
I'm interested in knowing what you left wingers actually believe in. All my life all I've ever heard is snide comments and conservative bashing from you guys. Never have I heard what you actually want from this world and what you believe to be true and right. Here is your chance to sell me on your beliefs.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
The crux: you have a right to a say in decisions in proportion to the extent to which you are affected by them. That is real democracy.
I'm not going to sell anything to you, though: ideas are not a fitting subject for commerce.
Originally posted by wibWhat you don't have the right to do is impose your beliefs on others through legislation.
[b]1. If I have a philosophical justification of my stance against (say) abortion, then should I desist from bringing my views to the public sphere simply because I also happen to be Catholic?
You have every right to be against abortion. You have every right to bring your views to the public sphere and shout them as loud as you like.
What you don't ...[text shortened]... it.
But don't impose your religious beliefs into another American citizen's private life.[/b]
Isn't it true that the US Government bans polygamy - although it is traditionally permitted in Islam and Mormonism? Is this an example of beliefs (primarily Christian) being imposed on people who do not share those beliefs?
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
That's like saying, "If you don't agree with homicide, don't kill".
---
* Btw, I am not American and I do not live in the US.
Originally posted by AmauroteThe crux: you have a right to a say in decisions in proportion to the extent to which you are affected by them. That is real democracy.
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/wkpaps/gildf/gildpref.html
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
The crux: you have a right to a say in decisions in proportion to the extent to which you are affected by them. That is real democracy.
I'm not going to sell anything to you, though: ideas are not a fitting subject for commerce.
Is it fair to infer that, if my neighbour is molesting his daughter, I have no say or right to intervene?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]
[b]What you don't have the right to do is impose your beliefs on others through legislation.
Isn't it true that the US Government bans polygamy - although it is traditionally permitted in Islam and Mormonism? Is this an example of beliefs (primarily Christian) being imposed on people who do not share those beliefs?
If you don't agree w ...[text shortened]... gree with homicide, don't kill".
---
* Btw, I am not American and I do not live in the US.
Good point. Yes, to my knowledge marrying more than one person is illegal in the US. For awhile law enforcement looked the other way, but in the last few years people have been prosecuted for it.
I disagree with that law. People have many different religious practices and customs in the US, and I say as long as no one is harmed they should be left alone. How a US citizen practices their faith is their business.
As for the abortion statement, you're incorrect. Murder takes the life, and violates a basic human right, of another human being. Abortion does not. But that brings us to the main difference you and I are going to have over abortion. You believe it's murder, I consider it to be a private medical procedure between a doctor and patient. So there's no point in discussing that.
I do live in the US, so all of my points of view are going to derive from my culture and life here. It can't be helped. 🙂
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, that is not fair to infer or state. Child molestation is a crime. You have every right to report a crime if you see one being committed or believe one is being committed.
[b]The crux: you have a right to a say in decisions in proportion to the extent to which you are affected by them. That is real democracy.
Is it fair to infer that, if my neighbour is molesting his daughter, I have no say or right to intervene?[/b]
Child molestation is a non-consenting violation of another person's body. No human being has to tolerate that. Even if it's considered part of some religious "ritual" no one should have to be subjected to physical/sexual abuse.
It's a crime. It should be reported.