Maybe her "leftish, community-centric" side told her that having 40 million uninsured people, mostly children, in the "greatest country in the world" is unacceptable.
It's a shame she has no objective, individualistic side that might have considered these facts:
- The "children" you speak of are not "most". They are 1/5. And more than half of that 1/5 are eligible for free healthcare through SCHIP programs but simply have not been enrolled by their parents. The majority of the rest live in families that could afford private health care if they chose to.
- The United States became the "greatest country in the world" by allowing individuals free choices in their lives and the obligations and responsibilities they chose rather than the ones chosen for them.
- "Unacceptable" is a subjective concept that begs the question unaccetable to whom?. While it may be "unacceptable" to Hillary Clinton or you that 40 million Americans are uninsured, it may also be "unacceptable" to me to allow the state to rob me in order to provide them "free" insurance. America is a country founded on a principle of your behavior being controlled by your standards of acceptability, rather than all our behavior being controlled by Hillary Clinton's or George Bush's standards of acceptability.
Right, this is a semantic arguement I won't be getting into.
You already got into it by suggesting that it's ok for politicans to be "power-hungry" and "overly-driven".
It's a shame she has no objective, individualistic side that might have considered these facts:
- The "children" you speak of are not "most". They are 1/5. And more than half of that 1/5 are eligible for free healthcare through SCHIP programs but simply have not been enrolled by their parents. The majority of the rest live in families that could afford private health care if they chose to.
- The United States became the "greatest country in the world" by allowing individuals free choices in their lives and the obligations and responsibilities they chose rather than the ones chosen for them.
- "Unacceptable" is a subjective concept that begs the question unaccetable to whom?. While it may be "unacceptable" to Hillary Clinton or you that 40 million Americans are uninsured, it may also be "unacceptable" to me to allow the state to rob me in order to provide them "free" insurance. America is a country founded on a principle of your behavior being controlled by your standards of acceptability, rather than all our behavior being controlled by Hillary Clinton's or George Bush's standards of acceptability.
The above is a good example of why I don't be joining you in any semantic arguements.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
The above is a good example of why I don't be joining you in any semantic arguements.
Excellent. We must be closer in opinions than I thought. Since the differences between us are only semantical, you must also be a firm individualist who believes he has no inherent obligation to others and would therefore dislike the message of any politician who suggested otherwise.
Excellent. We must be closer in opinions than I thought. Since the differences between us are only semantical, you must also be a firm individualist who believes he has no inherent obligation to others and would therefore dislike the message of any politician who suggested otherwise.
I feel I have no inherent obligation to continue this line of debate.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
I feel I have no inherent obligation to continue this line of debate.
Excellent! Now you know how I feel when Hillary Clinton suggests I have an inherent obligation to raise her children and pay for her medicine before I do the same for myself. I knew our positions weren't very different.
Excellent! Now you know how I feel when Hillary Clinton suggests I have an inherent obligation to raise her children and pay for her medicine before I do the same for myself. I knew our positions weren't very different.
To be fair, you'd be paying for both at the same time.
To be fair, you'd be paying for both at the same time.
No, I'd be required to pay for her's. If I had anything left over I'd be "kindly allowed" to pay for my own. If taxation were optional, then you'd be correct.
Probably not, I imagine that Chelsea already has some kickass health insurance.
I don't know about Chelsea, but I'm already paying for Hillary's "kickass health insurance". As a US Senator she has better insurance than I do. And I'm paying for both.
No, I'd be required to pay for her's. If I had anything left over I'd be "kindly allowed" to pay for my own. If taxation were optional, then you'd be correct.
No, if healthcare was universal, you'd be required to pay for both at the same time - her's and yours.
No, if healthcare was universal, you'd be required to pay for both at the same time - her's and yours.
Again, not really. I'd be paying for her healthcare and whatever healthcare she wished to provide me. I'd have absolutely no choice in the matter at that point. She'd have the healthcare she wanted. I'd have whatever she thinks I want.
Regardless, Hillary Clinton was not proposing a single-payer system.
Perhaps. But you'd still be paying for both at the same time.
Yes. But your earlier statement implied that I'd be paying for her healthcare and my healthcare. What you didn't consider is that healthcare includes an element of choice. Remove that choice, and that healthcare is no longer mine.
So, being a Senator should be considered unpaid volunteer work?
Yes. But your earlier statement implied that I'd be paying for her healthcare and my healthcare. What you didn't consider is that healthcare includes an element of choice. Remove that choice, and that healthcare is no longer mine.
I didn't mean to imply anything other than the healthcare you were both paying for would be paid for and provided to both at the same time. I didn't consider "choice" because I didn't realize that choice needed to be involved for something to be considered healthcare.
I didn't mean to imply anything other than the healthcare you were both paying for would be paid for and provided to both at the same time. I didn't consider "choice" because I didn't realize that choice needed to be involved for something to be considered healthcare.
If we passed a "Universal transportation" bill and you were then forced to pay $50,000 for a unicycle, would you consider that your unicycle?
For a full time job? Damn, and here I pegged you as someone who believed time should be compensated monetarily.
Who said anything about a full-time job? Being a federal Senator should be a 1-2 week per year position.
Furthermore, you pegged me incorrectly (although only slightly). Time should always be compensated. But monetary compensation requires a payer as well as a payee. And forced compensation is exactly what I'm railing against here. Any political figure who believes that the reward of ensuring this country protects the rights of all individuals (including their own) is not a justifiable compensation for the effort involved should seek other employment. However, if citizens wish to voluntarily compensate such people for their efforts, I have no problem with that.
If we passed a "Universal transportation" bill and you were then forced to pay $50,000 for a unicycle, would you consider that your unicycle?
Perhaps sarcastically. But that wouldn't change the fact that it was a unicycle and that I'd be paying for the one I use at the same time as the ones everyone else got.
Furthermore, you pegged me incorrectly (although only slightly). Time should always be compensated. But monetary compensation requires a payer as well as a payee. And forced compensation is exactly what I'm railing against here. Any political figure who believes that the reward of ensuring this country protects the rights of all individuals (including their own) is not a justifiable compensation for the effort involved should seek other employment. However, if citizens wish to voluntarily compensate such people for their efforts, I have no problem with that.
Perhaps sarcastically. But that wouldn't change the fact that it was a unicycle and that I'd be paying for the one I use at the same time as the ones everyone else got.
But here's the difference. If you unicycle breaks or doesn't meet your needs, it's not yours to fix or to replace. You don't own it because you didn't own the options to acquire it or choose it or replace it. Be it unicycles or healthcare, once you make it "Universal" it is no longer yours. It is owned only by the people who control it.
But it isn't. For that, you'd need to amend the Constitution, I believe.
Nope. The Congress says that the Senate only need meet once per year. However, it does say that they shall be paid out of the US Treasury. If the Senators wish to collect $0.01 per year from the Treasury, I can make my peace with that.
It is sad it would come down to that "choice." The fact is the republican candidate probably wins again, that side has a way of getting their voters to turn out(abortion/gay marriage/God). If a dem. wins it'll be a bigger surprise then Clinton over HW Bush. They are waiting for Obama to develop more, then maybe they have a chance. He might be the best choice of anyone, if Americans are ready for a prez. of color. I know it sounds bad, but it is true.
Problem is, the best and brightest won't go anywhere near public office! Oh, that and politicians are all a bunch of liars and cheets and thieves and egomaniacs and hypocrites and........
Oh, that and politicians are all a bunch of liars and cheets and thieves and egomaniacs and hypocrites and........
I don't think that is a fair statement. I've been around politics for a while and I can assure you that not all politicians are "egomaniacs" and "hypocrites". A lot of them are really in it for the people they represent.
Yes, until it comes to getting re-elected. Then it becomes about keeping their job. I think some people get involved for the right reason, but that is not what keeps them there. Politics is a sleazy business!
hey new to the voting process since i just became a US citizen and a registered one so i need to research any advice from my fellow pj family thanks.....
Ok. Let's pretend all 7,000 of those alleged deleted votes were for John Kerry.
OLD RESULTS:
GWB: 56.01%
KERRY: 43.58%
NEW RESULTS:
GWB: 55.91%
KERRY: 43.70%
look, i'm not trying to say 'kerry really won NC!!!!' all i'm saying is when a state uses voting machines that delete several thousands of votes, that we know of you can hardly argue the results as being representative.
7,000 deleted votes seems like something ppl should be up in arms about
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'll vote for myself as the Massachusetts Secession candidate.
If I don't win, I will declare personal sovereignty and no longer be bound by any of the laws or policies of the United States. As I own no land (no one does really... all land is owned by the state in the end) I will not be able to declare a claim for my national territory, but dammit, it will feel righteous.
look, i'm not trying to say 'kerry really won NC!!!!'
I know you're not. You can't say that because the facts don't support anything close to that. But what you are trying to do is create a reasonable doubt about the margin, hoping that people will assume Kerry really won.
all i'm saying is when a state uses voting machines that delete several thousands of votes, that we know of you can hardly argue the results as being representative.
Hehe..."that we know of"...there you go again with that fun "reasonable" doubt thing.
Regardless, of course you can say it's representative since it has nearly zero bearing on the results. If each and every one of those votes had been counted, not a single thing would have changed.
7,000 deleted votes seems like something ppl should be up in arms about
They were. There was an investigation. The cause was discovered. Hopefully the affected localities change their practices.
I know you're not. You can't say that because the facts don't support anything close to that. But what you are trying to do is create a reasonable doubt about the margin, hoping that people will assume Kerry really won.
no, actually i'm hoping ppl will see the flaws in our electoral system and not permit ANY to happen no matter if it helps the demcrats or republicans...but i guess it's always funner to just assume, eh?
when it comes to the election of the president of the world's only super power zero irregularites should be allowed to exist.
Regardless, of course you can say it's representative since it has nearly zero bearing on the results. If each and every one of those votes had been counted, not a single thing would have changed.
if 100% of the irregularities were caught, then yes...i, however, am skeptical...
They were. There was an investigation. The cause was discovered. Hopefully the affected localities change their practices.
i hope so, too
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no, actually i'm hoping ppl will see the flaws in our electoral system and not permit ANY to happen no matter if it helps the demcrats or republicans...but i guess it's always funner to just assume, eh?
when it comes to the election of the president of the world's only super power zero irregularites should be allowed to exist.
Then you better be preparted to ditch the concept of a secret ballot.
yeah, are you sure there weren't any other irregularities or problems anywhere else? are you comfortable w/ thinking 100% were found?
I'm not sure that each and every problem was found. But I am comfortable because I'm quite sure that there are no unknown irregularities that actually would have changed the results.
Comments
It's a shame she has no objective, individualistic side that might have considered these facts:
- The "children" you speak of are not "most". They are 1/5. And more than half of that 1/5 are eligible for free healthcare through SCHIP programs but simply have not been enrolled by their parents. The majority of the rest live in families that could afford private health care if they chose to.
- The United States became the "greatest country in the world" by allowing individuals free choices in their lives and the obligations and responsibilities they chose rather than the ones chosen for them.
- "Unacceptable" is a subjective concept that begs the question unaccetable to whom?. While it may be "unacceptable" to Hillary Clinton or you that 40 million Americans are uninsured, it may also be "unacceptable" to me to allow the state to rob me in order to provide them "free" insurance. America is a country founded on a principle of your behavior being controlled by your standards of acceptability, rather than all our behavior being controlled by Hillary Clinton's or George Bush's standards of acceptability.
You already got into it by suggesting that it's ok for politicans to be "power-hungry" and "overly-driven".
The above is a good example of why I don't be joining you in any semantic arguements.
Excellent. We must be closer in opinions than I thought. Since the differences between us are only semantical, you must also be a firm individualist who believes he has no inherent obligation to others and would therefore dislike the message of any politician who suggested otherwise.
I feel I have no inherent obligation to continue this line of debate.
Excellent! Now you know how I feel when Hillary Clinton suggests I have an inherent obligation to raise her children and pay for her medicine before I do the same for myself. I knew our positions weren't very different.
Probably not, I imagine that Chelsea already has some kickass health insurance.
No, I'd be required to pay for her's. If I had anything left over I'd be "kindly allowed" to pay for my own. If taxation were optional, then you'd be correct.
I don't know about Chelsea, but I'm already paying for Hillary's "kickass health insurance". As a US Senator she has better insurance than I do. And I'm paying for both.
Again, not really. I'd be paying for her healthcare and whatever healthcare she wished to provide me. I'd have absolutely no choice in the matter at that point. She'd have the healthcare she wanted. I'd have whatever she thinks I want.
Regardless, Hillary Clinton was not proposing a single-payer system.
Yes. But your earlier statement implied that I'd be paying for her healthcare and my healthcare. What you didn't consider is that healthcare includes an element of choice. Remove that choice, and that healthcare is no longer mine.
Ideally, yes.
For a full time job? Damn, and here I pegged you as someone who believed time should be compensated monetarily.
If we passed a "Universal transportation" bill and you were then forced to pay $50,000 for a unicycle, would you consider that your unicycle?
Who said anything about a full-time job? Being a federal Senator should be a 1-2 week per year position.
Furthermore, you pegged me incorrectly (although only slightly). Time should always be compensated. But monetary compensation requires a payer as well as a payee. And forced compensation is exactly what I'm railing against here. Any political figure who believes that the reward of ensuring this country protects the rights of all individuals (including their own) is not a justifiable compensation for the effort involved should seek other employment. However, if citizens wish to voluntarily compensate such people for their efforts, I have no problem with that.
But it isn't. For that, you'd need to amend the Constitution, I believe.
Don't you live in this country voluntarily?
But here's the difference. If you unicycle breaks or doesn't meet your needs, it's not yours to fix or to replace. You don't own it because you didn't own the options to acquire it or choose it or replace it. Be it unicycles or healthcare, once you make it "Universal" it is no longer yours. It is owned only by the people who control it.
Nope. The Congress says that the Senate only need meet once per year. However, it does say that they shall be paid out of the US Treasury. If the Senators wish to collect $0.01 per year from the Treasury, I can make my peace with that.
Of course.
Problem is, the best and brightest won't go anywhere near public office! Oh, that and politicians are all a bunch of liars and cheets and thieves and egomaniacs and hypocrites and........
I don't think that is a fair statement. I've been around politics for a while and I can assure you that not all politicians are "egomaniacs" and "hypocrites". A lot of them are really in it for the people they represent.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
look, i'm not trying to say 'kerry really won NC!!!!' all i'm saying is when a state uses voting machines that delete several thousands of votes, that we know of you can hardly argue the results as being representative.
7,000 deleted votes seems like something ppl should be up in arms about
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
If I don't win, I will declare personal sovereignty and no longer be bound by any of the laws or policies of the United States. As I own no land (no one does really... all land is owned by the state in the end) I will not be able to declare a claim for my national territory, but dammit, it will feel righteous.
I know you're not. You can't say that because the facts don't support anything close to that. But what you are trying to do is create a reasonable doubt about the margin, hoping that people will assume Kerry really won.
Hehe..."that we know of"...there you go again with that fun "reasonable" doubt thing.
Regardless, of course you can say it's representative since it has nearly zero bearing on the results. If each and every one of those votes had been counted, not a single thing would have changed.
They were. There was an investigation. The cause was discovered. Hopefully the affected localities change their practices.
no, actually i'm hoping ppl will see the flaws in our electoral system and not permit ANY to happen no matter if it helps the demcrats or republicans...but i guess it's always funner to just assume, eh?
when it comes to the election of the president of the world's only super power zero irregularites should be allowed to exist.
yeah, are you sure there weren't any other irregularities or problems anywhere else? are you comfortable w/ thinking 100% were found?
if 100% of the irregularities were caught, then yes...i, however, am skeptical...
i hope so, too
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Then you better be preparted to ditch the concept of a secret ballot.
I'm not sure that each and every problem was found. But I am comfortable because I'm quite sure that there are no unknown irregularities that actually would have changed the results.