Question for the teabaggers out there...

soulsinging

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

But as far as people complaining about government involved in health care -- you can see why there is the uproar if you think about it. Insurance companies are awful. The whole concept of insurance is a scam, really, and they pretty much operate in the same fashion as major banks, which is working with money that they don't even have-- but still have no problem charging US for their imaginary money. Who has allowed these companies such privileges? Government. Insurance wants to worm their way into everyone's lives, doing their best to make themselves necessary, all while trying to pay out as little as possible-- that's their bag. The only reason this type of "enterprise" is not only allowed to exist, but to thrive to the point where it actually becomes mandatory through law, is because of government. It is the merger of corporations and government (fascism) that is killing this country. Government and medical insurance gave us HMOs, and was the start of the horrible system we have in place today. Anywhere insurance becomes mandatory introduces exploitation and price inflation from all angles. With insurance, the patients believe that they have a potential never-ending source of money for everything from medication to mal-practice, the doctors are forced to charge additional money for cover-your-ass dollars in case the insurance companies do what they do best, which is try NOT to pay for everything. It's a 3-way tug of war, when really, it should either be doctor-serves-patient for money, or what UHC advocates want: doctor-serves-patient for government money.

This part's spot on. My biggest frustration with the current debate is that anything to curtail the power of insurance companies was off the table from day one. They are a joke and they only operate because they made enough money off the misfortune of their customers quick enough to pass laws to protect themselves before anyone could realize what a disgusting racket it is. By the time it became clear to some, they'd already convinced everyone else that insurance was an absolute necessity for everyone for every situation. The shit they do should be illegal.

aerial

Jasunmark wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers."

Um.. honey... that's what they call themselves. They came up with the term. That's what Glenn Back calls them.

And honestly... if they really thought we were "Taxed Enough Already," why did they only suddenly start to care about it 14 days after the new president took over?

Why aren't they supporting a man who says he wants to lower the taxes of he middle class and raise them on the richest 1%?

Jasun


Look no one likes war! One wrong does not make a right. Not everyone will have insurance just like not everyone will be a home owner. If you work hard in America you can have things. But in America it is our choice to pick what we want. We are free people.
You act as if that money is being spent on war only. Most of that money is being spent on nation building which I don’t agree with, but I can’t say my military knowledge is that vast at all. The polar bear thing with Glen Beck is stupid....he does not want to kill a polar bear unless it is keeping people from resources they need. Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.



Why do you keep posting the same question. It has been answers several times.
How the hell do you know what Glen Beck said. You don't even watch the show you said. For the record he never called them that he just repeated what others said.

For the record it's not teabaggers dumb asses it's Tea Party!

Latest thing I heard on tv is if you don't purchase the Obama insur. plan there will be a $25,000 fine and could do prison time. How do you like that?! Like I said before the tea party and those who March on Washington are not trying to keep people from having insurance. We don't want to be told what we have to purchase. We do want those who have no insurance to have it. We do not want to have to pay for ILLEGALS to have insurance. We want to keep the declaration of independents and we want it followed. We want to keep our FReedom. Does that make us bad people?

aerial

The first paragraph was another post please ignore.

Byrnzie

Jasunmark wrote:

Look.. The teabaggers don't even understand why they were all in Wasington last week. Or.. two weeks ago.

whenever it was.

They're the ones shouting "get your government hands off my medicare" and screaming about "socialism is bad" while they're taking public transit on their way to the city-run park.

Don't ask people a question if they've demonstrated that they don't have even the loosest grip on the issue.

They're the ones who wanted to revoke the citizenship of the Dixie Chicks for making some flip joke about where George Bush lived because they were "criticizing the president on foreign soil" but after sarah Palin gave some meandering speech criticizing the president at lengths in Asia last week, half of them are donating to her PAC.

Tea baggers have demonstrated that they don't understand the first thing about the issues they claim to care about this week. Please, they think a Czar is a "Russian King."

Good post.

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.

...
Been watching Sean Hannity, i see. There is a bigger picture out here in California than the one painted by Sean Hannity. Did Sean Hannity tell you this whole thing came into light by a guy named Stewart Resnick, a billionaire who lives down here in Southern California who just happens to own and operate some of the state's largest farming operations? Didn't think so.
I understand this is from another thread... but, this one item caught my eye.
...
It's more about the preservation of the river Deltas with the salmon and smelt being a side effect. The greater picture is because of the housing boom and the massive stress we have been putting on our resources. We have been depleating the available resources to provide water works to housing developments in the Central Valley. In order to maintain the same level would mean a massive overload on California's water lifeline... a lifeline that is made up of 100 year old Earthen levees that were built by farmers, not civil engineers. A breach (which happens all the time here... because farmers built the levees, not engineers) would draw in bracish waters from the bay's estuary into the farmlands and housing/commercial districts. Salt water is disasterous for farming... and floods are not good for people's homes.
So, which do you prefer... water for the farmers or water for people's homes?
...
Also, those farmers... who do you think they hire to work the fields from dawn til dusk for less than minimum wage? You guessed it.
So, you cannot complain about illegal aliens in this country and care about their well being as employees at the same time. Pick one or the other... do you want them here to make a living... or do you want them deported, because you can't have both.

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

Latest thing I heard on tv is if you don't purchase the Obama insur. plan there will be a $25,000 fine and could do prison time. How do you like that?!

If there were any truth to that I'd be very angry. Luckily for us both, that's not true. Not even close. There is NOTHING in ANY version of the bill that says if you don't purchase the public option insurance that you'll be fined or sent to jail. Anyone who's telling you any different is full of crap.

And that's the real problem. We haven't been able to debate the REAL issues because we're so busy dealing with bullshit lies. There are no "Death Panels." There is nothing in the bill that limits coverage to people under 40. There is nothing that says any of he things have people so upset.

Like I said before the tea party and those who March on Washington are not trying to keep people from having insurance.

Then we have a problem. Because that's JUST what you're doing.

We don't want to be told what we have to purchase.

Good. Because there's nothing in the bill that tells you what insurance you have to purchase.

We do not want to have to pay for ILLEGALS to have insurance.

Good. Because the bill has ALWAYS spelled out VERY CLEARLY that only people who are here legally can be covered.

We want to keep the declaration of independents and we want it followed. We want to keep our FReedom. Does that make us bad people?

I assume that you mean the Declaration of Independence. And I don't see how allowing anyone to access Medicare goes against it.

How does only being able to buy low-quality, high-cost insurance from a company that's free to cut you off at their own whims "Freedom?" Because I'm stumped.

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.

Have YOU heard that that silly story was made up? The water was turned back on MONTHS ago.

See, the real problem is that you get your news from one source and you don't check what you've been told. Because that story was discredited and isn't true. Please check your facts before you lie to me again. I don't like it.

Cosmo

Jasunmark wrote:

aerial wrote:

Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.

Have YOU heard that that silly story was made up? The water was turned back on MONTHS ago.

See, the real problem is that you get your news from one source and you don't check what you've been told. Because that story was discredited and isn't true. Please check your facts before you lie to me again. I don't like it.

...
I believe it's 'Basic Rule Of Thumb #17: Anything you see on Hannity's america requires a fact check'
...
Or maybe it's #27... I need to fact check that.

gimmesometruth27

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

TriumphantAngel

Jasunmark wrote:

aerial wrote:

Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.

Have YOU heard that that silly story was made up? The water was turned back on MONTHS ago.

See, the real problem is that you get your news from one source and you don't check what you've been told. Because that story was discredited and isn't true. Please check your facts before you lie to me again. I don't like it.

The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.

I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.

catefrances

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

aerial wrote:

Have you heard about the farmers that had the water too there farms cut off because of a fish getting caught in the pipes? Now they cannot make a living because some feel the fish is more important than the welfare of the people.

Have YOU heard that that silly story was made up? The water was turned back on MONTHS ago.

See, the real problem is that you get your news from one source and you don't check what you've been told. Because that story was discredited and isn't true. Please check your facts before you lie to me again. I don't like it.

The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.

I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.

why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)

TriumphantAngel

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.

I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.

why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)

You're right as usual. I've as much chance of them listening to me, as i have of convincing people that prawns are not shrimps. sigh.

catefrances

TriumphantAngel wrote:

catefrances wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

The way I see it, is that if you can play into peoples feelings, comforts, thoughts and mental perversions, then you can manipulate them. That's what fox network does to people. Sometimes it feels like i spend half my time online, trying to dispel one myth after another perpetrated by fear and partisanship. It's not so much that i get frustrated because i can't change their mind about things, it's not even that, it's that they have tunnel vision and believe that everything fox says is gospel and don't even look to verify information fed to them.

I for one have learnt plenty on here from people who have opposing views to mine, simply because i am open to others views. I question everything, and i at least do my own research from various places (not just one), and try and make an informed decision.

why bother? if these people listen only to fox then clearly youre wasting your time. they listen to fox cause it tells them what they want to hear.it soothes them with lies and validates their narrow minded opinions. they feel safe in their bubbles and will kill the messenger(in this case you not fox)

You're right as usual. I've as much chance of them listening to me, as i have of convincing people that prawns are not shrimps. sigh.

im not always right.

VINNY GOOMBA

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?

I never understood why people associate callousness towards our fellow man with Libertarianism. I view it as the most compassionate of political ideologies which fosters volunteerism and tolerance above all of the others. To me, it contains the social conscience that most associate with the "left" combined with the work ethic and drive to accomplish things as efficiently as possible that people typically associate with the "right." What we are against is coercion. Force. Take away the government programs which take our earnings from us, which are frequently looted from all angles, and there will be a need for everyone to step it up, and do things right. Where there is a need to help your fellow man, it will be filled. It is in the best interests of everyone to make their community a better place, it does not require a government mandate. I would argue that both the incentive, and means of accomplishing a better life for everyone is greater when we are given the choice of how and when we want to help, AND, we are allowed more time to do so once those of us who work are allowed to keep our earnings, and no longer have to devote 55 hours a week to our jobs.

But, in the interim, and reality.... You are not likely to find a Libertarian who will oppose disaster relief from the federal government, especially if voluntary and charitable donations can't cover the bill. If it's going to cost 100 million to cover the costs, what you will find is Libertarians who want that 100 million to be used out of the Iraqi nation-building budget on the disaster relief rather than the war and all the bullshit that's come with it.

Generally speaking, the more a situation is beyond one's control, coupled with the exhaustion of other resources and hence the NEED to get the biggest gun (the fed gov't) involved, the more permissible it is in the eyes of a Libertarian to use the federal government. Natural disasters would certainly be one of these cases for how rare, catastrophic, and beyond one's control.

Flood insurance sure couldn't hurt, though-- however, these companies may go bankrupt in trying to insure tons of houses in a flood zone. However, that is their problem. If they take on the risk, they are required to keep all of the reserves necessary for the payout in case of such an event, else it is FRAUD. They should not be bailed out. If each state or individual cities were run more efficiently, to the point where they actually had budget surpluses, that money should be considered first if public money were to be used. After all, it would be people in the affected city actually using their own money to take care of each other, versus people in Pennsylvania providing for people in Louisiana, with their money making a week-long layover in Washington, before it gets to where it needs to be... at half the value.

Health care would be an ongoing thing that would continually take from people who work to (inefficiently) provide for people that do not. It doesn't exactly fit that "rarity" description that a natural disaster might. A libertarian-free market solution would be to maximize competition within the medical industry, bringing costs down. Mal-practice reform is needed. Allowing insurance or the government to continually come between the patient and doctor should be eliminated-- as again, insurance is fraudulent and is providing this "grab bag" that is driving prices up all the way around. Private hospitals should not be extended public money, and should be run on donations, and therefore should be run frugally and efficiently. No public money = no government obligations, because after all, that's how the MACHINE works. Debt = control.

Basically, it is really the only fair system in my eyes.

soulsinging

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?

Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed

VINNY GOOMBA

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.

In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.

I don't see it happening, though.

VINNY GOOMBA

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?

Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed

Agreed. Hence the winky at the end. But why? I think it's because people have accepted government as more than a safety net, but a full provider of EVERYTHING for us. Where this has probably eroded intelligence, rationality and reason in a lot of people, I do believe that there is still the human spirit and compassion in most of us that provides the BEST safety net. Basically, I think it should be sink or swim, but if I have any capacity to help a family member, friend, or even a stranger from sinking, I will certainly try. I believe most people would.

soulsinging

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If we followed a Libertarian's model for running government, it is possible that the government would not need to ever be involved in disaster relief. Maybe we'd all have enough resources and sense of personal responsibility to not live in areas which are subject to severe flooding?

Any argument that starts from the premise that people are generally intelligent, rational, and reasonable is inherently flawed

Agreed. Hence the winky at the end. But why? I think it's because people have accepted government as more than a safety net, but a full provider of EVERYTHING for us. Where this has probably eroded intelligence, rationality and reason in a lot of people, I do believe that there is still the human spirit and compassion in most of us that provides the BEST safety net. Basically, I think it should be sink or swim, but if I have any capacity to help a family member, friend, or even a stranger from sinking, I will certainly try. I believe most people would.

I think it's just that technology has made it so easy for us to survive, there's no longer any evolutionary thinning of the herd, so too many people our gene pool would be better off without are not only living, but thriving and breeding. It's dragging us down.

soulsinging

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this thread has gotten long since i have last read it. i have learned more about the libertarain philosophy in this thread than in a few years on the board.

i still do not get the quick reversal though. these people were marching and protesting against government spending 2 weeks ago, then biden shows up and they are begging him for help. i think a libertarian would say "you should have bought flood insurance and you are on your own". or am i missing something?

a public option for health care will not be bringing a big government into your life. it will cove those that are down on their luck, just like those that lost their houses in the flooding. i still do not get why it is ok to give disaster relief and not give money for public health insurance. i think both are necessary, but i am playing devil's advocate in picking the brains of people that think differently than me.

And for the record-- Libertarians are NOT opposed to certain things being "socialized," in some ways it goes hand in hand with the volunteerisim that I wrote about in my last post-- what they do not want is socialism coming from the highest levels of government, as in the federal government, or even worse, world government. The more local, the more control, the better the chance of your private property being protected (as in your wages, and anything else you might own, as people you know are more likely to be of assistance). The best examples of this that I can see are local fire departments and ambulance corps., where in many cases, the ambulance corps. are pretty much volunteer-run. Many fire departments use volunteers all the time, and probably make up the majority of their force. There is a need there, and a void to fill. People will fill it out of the goodness of their own hearts, as well as pragmatic reasons.

In some ways, if practiced on a small enough and manageable scale, Libertarianism could resemble the type of utopian socialism that many people would love to see. If it was of EVERYONE'S choosing in a community to move towards a more socialized structure, that would still be consistent with Libertarianism-- and would have no affect on how any other town, city, or state ran their own governments.

I don't see it happening, though.

There are a whole lot of things in this life that I am a lot more concerned about protecting than just my "stuff" like wages and property. You're dreaming of some delusional ideal of westward expansion where rugged plain folk lend each other sugar and help each other plow fields. Life will never be like this again. The world is too interconnected for the kind of isolated depencence that built that kind of communal spirit, and it has nothing to do with government and everything to do with computers, the internet, phones, tv, mass media and telecommunications, etc. In addition, such small communities are vulnerable, there is power and strength in numbers and always will be. The moment you reduced things to the local, they'd start working their way back up to gargantuan size again... because being just a bit bigger than your neighbor means the next time your community is in trouble, the easier it will be to take what you need from the weaker community next door. This is the one recurring pattern of history... imperial buildup, top heavy excess, a collapse, smaller fractured society, move to rebuilding and alliances, back to imperialism. The US, British Empire, Rome, Greece, Persia, etc...

VINNY GOOMBA

soulsinging wrote:

I think it's just that technology has made it so easy for us to survive, there's no longer any evolutionary thinning of the herd, so too many people our gene pool would be better off without are not only living, but thriving and breeding. It's dragging us down.

I'm sure technology has something to do with it, but so is the system that provide for these people to have the same access to technology as those who work hard to earn it.

Ah well, Idiocracy here we come!