Originally Posted By SpokkerJones No one really cares where you post, no matter what your political beliefs are.
Originally Posted By DAR First of all I consider myself to be more of a libertarian despite what many of you think. Second of all I ain't goin anywhere. I'll stand in there and take my shots I'm a big boy I can handle myself.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Long time no see RC Collins, thank you for my first reminder of the New Year that some sections of humanity can be scary. I have writted for time immemorium on the rationale in favour of socialised medicine, and something tells me that it would not make a difference to you. All I will say is that once upon a time, it was not seen as a right to have clean water and sanitation (people died much younger, and everyone was poorer). It was not a right to have a free education for children. There were no bodies to protect abused children and very little for taking children into care. Salvery was once seen as an ok socio/economic structure. And not everyone had the right to vote. Things change. Socialised medicine provides a more cost effective model of provision through block buying mechanisms and reduced bureaucracy with more money being spent on front line care. If I still lived in the US, my insurance company would still pay for billy bob to get patched up after his hunting excursion (something I am not a fan of), Travis would have his busted bones fixed after playing that assenign sport of football, and people with STIs would get treatment and stop them spreading it to others. Under social medicine, those situations that I do not agree are great would get dealt with. But so would someone with a congenital disorder that is not their fault (where in many cases insurance companies already cut off funding), also they deal with epidemeological issues like the spread of diseases (learn about the black plague sometime - it effected everyone irregardless of wealth), and a number of other programmes that stem abuse and other social ills. All at a much cheaper price. By centralising provision, it is much better in controlling costs, easing access to service, and improving outcomes for society. The free market can have it's place, but the outcomes are often terrible and corrupt. Happy New YEar. And yes, Bush was evil, and he set the US back at least 50 years when it comes to international affairs and domestic policy. The President is resonsible for a polysystemic support network, of which defence is a very small part (except in that war criminal's case).
Originally Posted By Mr X BOOM goes the dynamite! Dave Was Baloo...FOR THE WIN. (he won't reply, cause he can't...enjoy the silence for what is is Dave...they don't have a leg to stand on when you come right down to it, and they KNOW it)
Originally Posted By Labuda "First of all I consider myself to be more of a libertarian despite what many of you think." Ahhhhh, so you're a pot-smoking conservative! Got it!
Originally Posted By DAR What people do in the privacy of their own homes provided that nobody else gets hurt in the process is nobody's business.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <NOTICE: So far, not one argument. C'mon! Nobody is going to counter my arguments> Well, dave just did. But it's no surprise no one did previously, as you said you wouldn't respond to us mere rabble. Since dave handled the health care question so brilliantly (especially when he pointed out that clean water and sanitation were also once considered privileges for the wealthy few), let me take another one... < or a right to a state-issued license> Ahh, the usual simple-minded (in the guise of libertarianism) argument that if something is not explicitly in the constitution, it doesn't exist. And yes, there's nothing in the constitution that says explicitly "everyone has a right to a state-issued license." However, there is that pesky 14th amendment to that document you claim to know so much about but clearly don't understand. The one that mandates equal treatment under the law. Your argument - no inherent right to a state-issued license - was, of course, used for decades to argue against interracial marriage. You know that, right? (Well, that and other arguments like "it's against God's law" and other arguments that should have no place in a non-theocracy.) People argued it with a straight face, even though almost certainly something else was going on in them below the surface. But guess what? Ultimately, those arguments came up against the 14th amendment and lost. It took a full 100 years between the 14th amendment and for that amendment to be APPLIED to this issue, but it happened. And nowadays, almost everyone understands it was the right decision that should have been made much earlier. A few people still do not - and since you once argued vociferously against non-discrimination laws in employment and housing, perhaps you're one of them; I don't know. But if you are one of those people - sorry, you lose. And eventually same sex marriage will be decided on the basis of the 14th amendment also. Not as soon as it should have been, but eventually. The courts will belatedly recognize that - gasp! - not all US citizens are straight. This is something that was not understood at the time the marriage laws were written. Everyone was assumed to be straight, with homosexual activity just being straight people doing a bad thing. But we now understand that a certain percentage of our citizenry are inherently homosexual, can and do form marriages, and recognizing them is not only fair, but makes us a stronger and better nation by instituting that equality, just as ending segregation made the country better for all of us, not just black people. <Finally, being smarter with my time is not cowardice.> No, doing a drive-by and preemptively announcing that you are simply correct and won't bother to counter arguments made by people not worth arguing with - that's cowardice. (And arrogance.) You now have two posts out there that counter your points, and do so reasonably and based on facts. In fact, they're far less emotion-based than your original post (the primary emotion on display being contempt). You no doubt won't see it that way, and hey - you're free to respond. Or free to be a coward.
Originally Posted By ecdc Note to self: Do not get dave or dabob fired up; they will outsmart the crap out of you! Brilliant posts, guys!
Originally Posted By dshyates I would like to thank RC Cola for the first post of this thread. It reaffirms my belief that many conservative believe they are very intellectual while proving that they have no frickin' clue what they are talking about. The OP is a brilliant example in tone and substance of the intellectual depth of the modern conservative movement. PS: I bet RC thinks Sarah Palin is smart.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'll give him this much - I'd like to see him stick around for awhile. He's right about one thing, we don't have the cadre of right-wingers that we used to around here. Their positions are always going to be shot down with available facts at hand, so it's sometimes a difficult and thankless task for them to even try. But calling conservatives on their faults isn't the same as running them out of the room. I agree that RC comes out swingin' with a chip on his shoulder a mile wide. But maybe we should try to coax him into the light rather than make him feel more unwelcome than he already does. So here's a carrot ... >> A while back, I stopped actively participating here, as what is the point of trying to have logical discussions with people who are basing their positions on their personal feelings? << Isn't the entire opposition to gay marriage "based on personal feelings"? It's certainly not based on any reading of the constitutionality of equal protection under the law. >> And how many people are going to see it, and be persuaded? << I'd say you have a better chance than most conservative posters of persuading people to come around to your way of thinking. You'd need to employ the usual circular logic and self justified reasoning to do it, but that's never stopped you before. And the people who are already predisposed to agree with you would see their point of view represented. In sum, it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it - why not you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Their positions are always going to be shot down with available facts at hand, so it's sometimes a difficult and thankless task for them to even try.> Yeah, that's not what usually happens, but like RC said, it's pretty much useless trying to point out facts to most of you.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Quid pro quo DD, hence why in the dark days of bush I disappeared for a while
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The writers of the Declaration of Independence, the founders of our country, felt this statement to be so important that they included it in the document that literally paved the way for our entire government. I think it applies to both of RCs little rant topics; healthcare and gay marriage. As far as gay marriage is concerned "all men are created equal" and "pursuit of happiness" are both pretty self explanatory. Being able to choose who you share life with is probably one of the most important tenets of pursuing happiness. Because all men are created equal, gay people have just as much right to that pursuit of happiness as straight people. Plus, they should have equal rights under the law in regards to property, insurance, visitation/ end of life decision making, child custody, etc. as everyone else. As mentioned above, the 14th amendment also applies here. Now for healthcare. One of our unalienable rights, the most basic one, is the right to life. Lack of medical care takes that right away from anyone unable to pay for it. It should not only be the rich that have to right to live. Because the health insurance industry charges so much money for coverage, they are literally denying anyone under certain income brackets the right to life. The 5th amendment of the constitution also says that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law." No one shall be deprived of life without the due process of law? People are being deprived of life every day by the decisions of insurance companies. RC, you say that you no longer come here because you cannot persuade people to your point of view. I sincerely hope that you are never able to persuade people to your misguided, short sighted, and, yes, unconstitutional point of view here or anywhere else.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Wow...it looks like I chose the perfect thread to sneak into. In fact it is the first WE thread I have ventured into in several weeks. One thing that Collins did say that I thought is very accurate is this: << LP is a great place, but there are better places to discuss world events.>>> Anyway, enjoy.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>One thing that Collins did say that I thought is very accurate is this:<< I hope you saw Dabob2's response. I've been to other places as well and LP really is about as good a place to discuss politics as any. I'd suggest that RC Collins very clear and very extreme bias makes him unreliable on this point.
