patrick.net

4X says

I haven’t, but I have seen Chris Rock, Bill Maher openly support everything from drug use, pornography, profanity. While voicing their political views through their comedy they secretly build their families the way every American should…that is where they conflict comes in. They tell my children its ok to scream out profanity, smoke dope but silently teach their children those same things are wrong/immoral.

Why do you hate freedom? Frankly I don't watch Bill Maher I find him an annoying jerk. So I don't know EXACTLY what you are talking about here. However generally speaking I support Freedom of Speech & drug decriminilization for the general public. This is not inconsistent however with raising your children to be good citizens. Having a few bottles of wine about and occasionally having a drink, is not the same as mixing it in the formula for your baby.

4X says

Nomograph says

4X says

Liberals believe whatever Bill Maher, Chris Rock tell them.

When was the last time you saw Chris Rock convince a bunch of people to staple tea bags to their caps and stomp around like lunatics?

Next to the original post, this is the dumbest thing I’ve seen all day.

I haven’t, but I have seen Chris Rock, Bill Maher openly support everything from drug use, pornography, profanity. While voicing their political views through their comedy they secretly build their families the way every American should…that is where they conflict comes in. They tell my children its ok to scream out profanity, smoke dope but silently teach their children those same things are wrong/immoral.

Chris Rock and Bill Maher don't tell your children anything. You have the responsibility to monitor your kids tv and movie viewing. Right wing paranoia never ceases to amaze me. How do you know what they "secretly" tell their kids? I have never seen or heard of Chris Rock's kids and Bill Maher is a confirmed bachelor with NO KIDS.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Is this what Glenn Beck is feeding you this week?

MarkInSF says

Do you have any obligations to the society you live in?

It is hard to justify an individuals obligation to an abstract conglomeration called society. So no. An individual may have an obligation to another individual but not every individual.

Individuals do have an obligation not to use force against another individual except in self defense or defense of another individual (not that an individual has an obligation to protect another individual unless they so choose).

"The problem I have with libertarians is that they appear to think they have no obligation whatsoever to others or the society they live in."

In other words the problem you have with liberty is that people might use it to do what they want instead of what you think they are obligated to do.

Not very liberal of you is it?

If libertarians want to reclaim the "liberal" label, fine by me. I prefer "progressive" anyway. It's more accurate, what with the progressive/conservative difference of persuasion, and the historical example of the Progressive Party run of 1912 ~ 1916.

Libertarians are perfectly free to imagine they owe nothing to society, and society via its collective mechanisms of agency (AKA government) is perfectly free to attempt to disabuse them of this notion.

It's a stupid debate anyway. Libertarians are maybe 2% of the population; they only have any societal footprint by the fact that among the uberwealthy this percentage gains an order of magnitude.

It is telling that so many people who consider themselves liberals are so unwilling to allow people to do what they want instead of what the "liberals" think they are obligated to do.

NOMO is not a liberal, I'm not sure what to call him, but it he surely has a warped view of freedom. He claims that we are free to build our own roads, make our own money, etc...

Are we also free to sell ice to Eskimos? Wow, that is genius. Hmmn, so freedom means you have the right to compete with the government. How is that freedom? The government is a monopoly. It has a monopoly on roads, it has a monopoly on money, it even has a monopoly on mail. Yeah, we sure are free to compete against Big brother all right. Sorry but your brand of freedom sounds more like serfdom.

So nobody wants to talk about how liberal they are?

Would you allow government to quit funding public roads?
Would you allow federal government to quit funding public schools?
Would you allow government to quit running the drug war?
Would you allow the government to quit all foreign wars except those declared by congress?

And for that matter where is the "left" now with their war protests, their anti-globalization demonstrations, etc... seems like since the Dems got on power they turned off their righteous indignation and are turning a blind eye to the fact that it is business as usual with the powers that be.

AdHom, it's a stupid direction of debate.

I'm more interested in outcomes than ideology.

I think everyone on this planet should have access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

I don't care how this is realized, through state action or through Randian science fiction. In the real world, examples of the Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

The central problem with laissez faire is that wealth attracts power which attracts wealth in closed-loop feedback. The 2002-2007 economic experience was a textbook example of the destructive, centrifugal nature of unregulated feedback on economy and society.

We are not a rational, well-ordered people. We are conniving, thieving, back-stabbing assholes, on our good day. When the founding fathers got together they did not attempt to create the ideal libertarian utopia, the attempted to create a Government that would exists above and beyond commercial society, working in partnership but ultimately its final regulator via democratic oversight and intervention.

And for that matter where is the “left” now with their war protests, their anti-globalization demonstrations, etc… seems like since the Dems got on power they turned off their righteous indignation and are turning a blind eye to the fact that it is business as usual with the powers that be.

The educated "left" is not particularly happy with the current admin wrt war policy. We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

Obama actually ran on expanding the war in Afghanistan and that's what he's done. It's above my pay grade to know if this is the correct long-term strategy, and above yours too I would add.

The bugout is fully underway in Iraq -- we've lost 176 KIA in Iraq 2009-now. This is half the 2008 loss, one-sixth the 2007 loss, and 6% of the losses 2003-2006. There really isn't much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you'd already know this.

Troy says

Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

Wait, are you talking about the same eurosocialists who are now on the brink of bankrupting the european union? Yeah, I wish the world was more like them. Not.

Troy says

We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

aka there is no change

Troy says

There really isn’t much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you’d already know this.

Tell that to the Iraqis, if you talked to them you would already know that it is you who does not live in reality.

roughly 100,000 civilians dead and counting. and this doesn't include insurgents defending their homeland.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

AdHominem says

Troy says

Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

Wait, are you talking about the same eurosocialists who are now on the brink of bankrupting the european union? Yeah, I wish the world was more like them. Not.

Actually the kleptocracy happened under conservative watch, in Greece at least. The whole "drown the government in the bathtub" strategy of committing to public spending without the concomitant taxation.

Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark -- that's more my speed.

See this chart:

Socialist, socialist, semi-socialist, socialist, socialist, socialist, semi-socialist, semi-socialist.

Empiricism, look into it sometime.

AdHominem says

Troy says

We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

aka there is no change

The AG deciding not to enforce Federal law over State law WRT access to marijuana was pretty progressive in the change department.

The recent events with the Time Square bombing underscore the present threat that requires the PATRIOT act BS, so going forward into the 2010s doesn't require radical change, just measured change. Rome wasn't rebuilt in a day.

AdHominem says

Troy says

There really isn’t much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you’d already know this.

Tell that to the Iraqis, if you talked to them you would already know that it is you who does not live in reality.
roughly 100,000 civilians dead and counting. and this doesn’t include insurgents defending their homeland.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Damage's been done. The Dems let the Republicans f--- over Iraq 2003-2007, to their shame. Plus of course the 90s sanction regime that was no picnic for ordinary Iraqis, either. Thing is, we don't have a system where I get to put into power the people I think who would do the best job, I've got to pick the least worst. This is a pretty easy bar to clear with the present Republicans power structure that's in play.

I voted for Campbell in 2000 and don't regret that vote, since Feinstein has done precious little in the Progressive department. But the constitutional system we have now requires more opposition to the Republican wrecking crew than ardent support of the Dems, so going forward I've really got to reexamine who I vote for at the DC level.

I'd love to boot the Dems out for the Free Ice Cream and a Pony party. Thing is, in the real world, it's the electorate who puts the people into government, and our electorate is none too wise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-05-prayer05_ST_N.htm

AdHominem says

NOMO is not a liberal, I’m not sure what to call him, but it he surely has a warped view of freedom. He claims that we are free to build our own roads, make our own money, etc…

I'd call him Nomo. A guy whose posts are intelligent, thoughtful, and pertinent. A guy with an acerbic wit who has the ability to make some random woman sneeze soda pop outta her nose on a regular basis. Why is it that you feel the need to label him as anything - and what in the world leads you to believe that your opinion of him matters to anyone but you? This is just another excuse to rant against the Man, and evokes memories of the liberal sixties. Kinda ironic, doncha think?

But assiging him, or any of us, your narrow definition of "liberal" or "conservo" or whatever else you dream up is a waste of time. This is a ridiculous thread - you need to get back on your meds and cut back on the caffeine.

Troy says

Rome wasn’t rebuilt in a day.

The saying is: "Rome wasn't built in a day." LOL

AdHominem says

Troy says

We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

aka there is no change

Because our arch-conservative friends dont want to make the current president look good we refute and denounce every piece of legistlation. That is why you and I are known as members of the PARTY OF NO.

AdHominem says

It is hard to justify an individuals obligation to an abstract conglomeration called society. So no.

Really? So you have no obligation to pay for police services, or the military? Or roads? Or courts? Serve as a juror?

You have no obligation to clothe yourself and otherwise behave in public to the moral standards of your society?

That's a rather extreme position to take. But I guess I'm not surprised.

simchaland says

Well, be patient. He’s waiting for Glenn Beck to call him to tell him the answers. You do know that that’s how it works with conservatives, right?

Nice try at generalizing. Unfortunately, you are totally wrong. I've never even seen Glenn Beck on TV being that I don't even own an idiot box. Give it another try. I'm sure you'll imagine something equally wrong.

Troy says

Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark — that’s more my speed.

Cherry picking I see. But lets look closer at your beloved Germany.

The debts of German states such as Berlin, Bremen or Sachsen-Anhalt are four to six times worse than California when you compare them to local GDP.
The cities are in tough shape. In North Rhine-Westphalia alone there are 19 cities fighting to avoid bankruptcy. The problem cities include Bochum and Dortmund, Essen and Duisburg. These areas are riddled with high unemployment, mounting social costs and plunging tax revenues. States are the first resort for bailouts for desperate city governments. As of 2020, all new borrowing by these states will cease in order to get a handle on the growing debt problems. No wonder the Germans are so stern with the greeks, they are in trouble themselves.

How liberal am I?

I'm SOOO LIBERAL that I can smile and tolerate a fair amount of guff from morons.

Leigh says

I’d like to see a post defining/discussing “compassionate conservative.”

Someone willing to start/fight a war or two, but otherwise generally liberal.

4X says

The problem with the right is that their issues are spoon fed to them. Out of control spending was never an issue under Bush.

Talk about spoon fed! the problem with the left is that they are equally "spoon fed" ideas, such as that generally speaking conservatives had no problem with Bush's spending.

Just curious... Since you describe Bush's spending as "out of control," do you also consider Obama's spending to be "out of control?" For the sake of not being "spoon fed" excuses or being one of the extreme fringes described in this thread, I certainly hope so, even though you might have to consider yourself a racist....

RayAmerica says

simchaland says

Well, be patient. He’s waiting for Glenn Beck to call him to tell him the answers. You do know that that’s how it works with conservatives, right?

Nice try at generalizing. Unfortunately, you are totally wrong. I’ve never even seen Glenn Beck on TV being that I don’t even own an idiot box. Give it another try. I’m sure you’ll imagine something equally wrong.

I would guess that he has not seen Glenn Beck either. I've found that most liberals who need to resort to blindly accusing conservatives of taking lines from talking heads, whether they know individual circumstances or not, are simply doing exactly the same thing... parrotting what the left talking heads tell them about anyone who has positions on the right. Folks in this thread are no different.

Para ...

Exactly. Even though I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I have fun with the left when they invariably claim that "everything the big fat Limbaugh says is a lie." After hearing this claim, I always ask them to be specific and tell me a lie they've heard him utter. Always, and I do mean ALWAYS, I'm met with dead silence until they repeat the same bland "well, I mean everything he says is a lie, etc." My limited understanding of Beck is that he promotes governmental obedience to the U.S. Constitution. In the little minds that occupies the cavernous cranial region of the left's collective head, that is an extreme and radical concept.

RayAmerica says

Exactly. Even though I’m not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I have fun with the left when they invariably claim that “everything the big fat Limbaugh says is a lie.” After hearing this claim, I always ask them to be specific and tell me a lie they’ve heard him utter. Always, and I do mean ALWAYS, I’m met with dead silence until they repeat the same bland “well, I mean everything he says is a lie, etc.” My limited understanding of Beck is that he promotes governmental obedience to the U.S. Constitution. In the little minds that occupies the cavernous cranial region of the left’s collective head, that is an extreme and radical concept.

How about him moving to Costa Rica?

RayAmerica says

Para …
Exactly. Even though I’m not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, I have fun with the left when they invariably claim that “everything the big fat Limbaugh says is a lie.” After hearing this claim, I always ask them to be specific and tell me a lie they’ve heard him utter. Always, and I do mean ALWAYS, I’m met with dead silence until they repeat the same bland “well, I mean everything he says is a lie, etc.” My limited understanding of Beck is that he promotes governmental obedience to the U.S. Constitution. In the little minds that occupies the cavernous cranial region of the left’s collective head, that is an extreme and radical concept.

Where are the death panels?

simchaland says

Where are the death panels?

Right now, in America you are free to buy or not buy health insurance. If you choose to buy health insurance, you agree to let someone else decide what treatment is covered. If you choose not to buy health insurance you are free to decide what treatment you will pay or not pay for.

Would you prefer that we nationalize health insurance or health care so that someone else makes decisions about your health?

Not very liberal of you is it?

Paralithodes says

4X says

The problem with the right is that their issues are spoon fed to them. Out of control spending was never an issue under Bush.

Talk about spoon fed! the problem with the left is that they are equally “spoon fed” ideas, such as that generally speaking conservatives had no problem with Bush’s spending.
Just curious… Since you describe Bush’s spending as “out of control,” do you also consider Obama’s spending to be “out of control?” For the sake of not being “spoon fed” excuses or being one of the extreme fringes described in this thread, I certainly hope so, even though you might have to consider yourself a racist….

That's not my quote...that is someone else response to another post. But YES, I do see Obama's spending as out of control. 8K tax credit, Cash for Clunkers, and Economic Recovery Act are useful tools that give an outer appearance of the government taking action however I am not sure we will know their actual effect until much later.

I do know the 8K tax credit has stabilized home prices temporarily, thereby making a new home purchase unattainable for millions of others in my same situation. I refuse to buy a 500k cottage when the same home was going for 100k 10 years ago. With inflation that home shouldnt be selling for more than 150-175K.

Paralithodes says

Leigh says

I’d like to see a post defining/discussing “compassionate conservative.”

Someone willing to start/fight a war or two, but otherwise generally liberal.

There is no such thing as a passionate conservative. Conservatives see our society as perfect and not in need of change, thereby leaving the poor to fend for themselves with "hard" work and "strong" effort. Conservatives do not take into consideration the emotional trauma that have been inflicted upon people during their childhood by their parents that lead people in the wrong direction in life.

I am a conservative-liberal and would cut off people from welfare after 2 years, require full time enrollment in college for welfare and support Arizona's enforcement of illegal immigration laws.

We have too much freedom and not enough responsibility.

AdHominem says

Right now, in America you are free to buy or not buy health insurance. If you choose to buy health insurance, you agree to let someone else decide what treatment is covered. If you choose not to buy health insurance you are free to decide what treatment you will pay or not pay for.
Would you prefer that we nationalize health insurance or health care so that someone else makes decisions about your health?

That is really a dumb post. Under all those scenarios, you are free to seek treatment or not--you have the ultimate control. The only difference is who pays for it.

In the first scenario--large profit maximizing companies decide whether or not to pay for your treatment. Or you can pay for it out of you pocket.

In the second scenario--you pay for everything out of your own pocket, assuming you can afford the treatments..

In the third scenario--it depends on which system would be implemented, but it would probably be Drs. deciding whether or not your treatment is covered. Or you could pay for it out of your pocket as in the other two scenarios.

Does that help your understanding AdHom?

liberal and conservative are pigeon hole categories, and i can't honestly see how any free thinking individual would allow themselves to be thrown into either hole, how about thinking for yourself for a 'change'

surfingerman says

liberal and conservative are pigeon hole categories, and i can’t honestly see how any free thinking individual would allow themselves to be thrown into either hole, how about thinking for yourself for a ‘change’

Careful - the Bobsey triplets will attack you and claim that you're nazi-like. Dunno why... must make them feel better about themselves.

every time i get called a nazi i wear it as a badge of honor, everything in the world is nazi apparently.. or so i have learned over the past few years

lets se, against illegal immigration.. nazi against soicalist health care.. nazi check, support govt health-care.. nazi check, obama bails out banks and corporations, nazi check, im more interested at this point at what isn't nazi , i don't think anyone knows

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Right now, in America you are free to buy or not buy health insurance. If you choose to buy health insurance, you agree to let someone else decide what treatment is covered. If you choose not to buy health insurance you are free to decide what treatment you will pay or not pay for.

Would you prefer that we nationalize health insurance or health care so that someone else makes decisions about your health?

The only difference is who pays for it.
In the first scenario–large profit maximizing companies decide whether or not to pay for your treatment. Or you can pay for it out of you pocket.
In the second scenario–you pay for everything out of your own pocket, assuming you can afford the treatments..
In the third scenario–it depends on which system would be implemented, but it would probably be Drs. deciding whether or not your treatment is covered. Or you could pay for it out of your pocket as in the other two scenarios.
Does that help your understanding AdHom?

Lets see if this helps your understanding tat:

like you said the only difference is who pays for it, but that makes all the difference doesn't it.

Under the third system the citizen's savings/earnings are involuntarily confiscated.

Not very liberal is it? How liberal are you?

AdHominem says

If you choose not to buy health insurance you are free to decide what treatment you will pay or not pay for.

What that actually means for the people who do not buy health insurance is that they are free to choose what treatment they pay for or what treatment they let everyone else pay for. That's the problem. If I knew that the people who didn't pay for health insurance weren't using mine instead, I wouldn't have a problem with the current system.

It's irresponsible to own and operate a body without health insurance just like it's irresponsible to own and operate a car without auto insurance.

Car drivers without auto insurance force others to pay for their accidents instead of being responsibly covered in the case of a wreck.

People without health insurance force others to pay for their injuries and illnesses instead of being responsibly covered in the case of illness or injury.

More to the point, we all have a 100% fatal disease. It's called "life" and everyone has an expiration date. It costs money to die. When you die without health insurance it costs the taxpayers and people left behind to treat you in your final moments and then dispose of your body properly. If you are a responsible person, you get insurance to prepare for the inevitable.

AdHominem says

Under the third system the citizen’s savings/earnings are involuntarily confiscated.

No they aren't. If the citizens elect officials who pass nationalized health care, then they've effectively made the choice to pay for healthcare... That's the way a republic works.

simchaland says

When you die without health insurance it costs the taxpayers and people left behind to treat you in your final moments and then dispose of your body properly. If you are a responsible person, you get insurance to prepare for the inevitable.

Health insurance doesn't pay for the disposal of a body after death, nor does healthcare reform require this be covered. Mortuaries usually serve community hospitals under a rotation basis- and if there's no other payment and for whatever reason the deceased doesn't qualify for burial assistance thru the county or state, the mortuary eats it.

Also - most people die with health insurance - Medicare. If you're over 65, you're covered.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but this is how the system works.

bob2356 says

What that actually means for the people who do not buy health insurance is that they are free to choose what treatment they pay for or what treatment they let everyone else pay for. That’s the problem.

simchaland says

More to the point, we all have a 100% fatal disease. It’s called “life” and everyone has an expiration date. It costs money to die. When you die without health insurance it costs the taxpayers and people left behind to treat you in your final moments and then dispose of your body properly. If you are a responsible person, you get insurance to prepare for the inevitable.

What you are implying here taken to its logical conclusion is exactly what has happened in other totalitarian regimes. You have defined life in terms of dollars and cents, combined with "obligations" to society.

Under this mindset it is perfectly reasonable to tax people to pay for their own and others "health care" if they are irresponsible enough to refuse to save for themselves. Taken to the logical conclusion you will begin to exterminate those who do not or will not "contribute to society," and if extermination is not politically correct perhaps you should just strip them of their citizenship as Kevin mentioned on another thread and then you can deport these people and treat them like the terrorist scum they are in camps like Gitmo, Gulags and Buchenwalds.

Not very liberal of you is it?

their should be an exception if your net worth or assets are more than say 500,000, like in FL you don;t have to buy auto insurance if you place a surety bond or have a high net worth.. why would a multi-millionare want auto insurance? or health insurance? he can pay for anything that goes wrong ten times over