>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
Are you implying I changed subject?
mnealtx 0
Quote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
You tried, with the war spending and corporations bullshit. Didn't succeed, though.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
No, I was not. Politics is all about changing the subject. Check out the war on crack. What did Reagan do? Appoint Bennett as drug Czar. He went on a war against guns and let crackheads OD themselves out of existence. Then took credit.
Clinton did it. Bush did it. This admin does it. Distract. The economy sucks. So, go to health care.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
TomAiello 25
Quote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
He's saying that foreign wars can be a great way of getting the public to forget real issues.
Ever see "Wag the Dog"?
If healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
QuoteQuote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
You tried, with the war spending and corporations bullshit. Didn't succeed, though.
"Thread drift happens", mnealtx
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
TomAiello 25
QuoteIf healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
Why are we not providing food and shelter before thinking about healthcare?
An interesting follow up question: if food and shelter are more important than healthcare (and for basic survival they obviously are) should we prioritize health care for everyone in our country above food for everyone in the world? Shouldn't all the hungry be fed before we start providing healthcare for anyone?
BTW, there's a huge difference between "not providing" and "denying." Do you really think of yourself as denying food to the 800 million hungry people in the world? That's quite a chunk of personal responsibility you've chosen for yourself.
QuoteQuoteIf healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
Why are we not providing food and shelter before thinking about healthcare?
WE provide some stingy welfare payments and foodstamps, and most local governments provide shelters for the homeless.
Quote
An interesting follow up question: if food and shelter are more important than healthcare (and for basic survival they obviously are) should we prioritize health care for everyone in our country above food for everyone in the world? Shouldn't all the hungry be fed before we start providing healthcare for anyone?
BTW, there's a huge difference between "not providing" and "denying." Do you really think of yourself as denying food to the 800 million hungry people in the world? That's quite a chunk of personal responsibility you've chosen for yourself.
No, our "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is only responsible to (and for) our people. We are NOT responsible for the rest of the world. But we (through our government of the people, by the people, for the people) are responsible to ALL our people, even the destitute. So not providing for someone who is unable for some reason to provide for herself, is indeed denying.
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
turtlespeed 212
Quote...why not food and shelter?
It seems odd that we argue about whether the government ought to provide healthcare for all, yet we've never faced the issue of food and shelter.
Food and shelter are both far more essential to survival than healthcare. Why aren't we providing them first, before we even consider healthcare?
Shouldn't we have food stations set up in every neighborhood, where people can pick up their government issued 1000 calories per day and a multivitamin (or whatever)? Why don't we have free bunkrooms for those without shelter? Why aren't food and shelter higher priorities for government spending?
Seriously, why are we looking to address healthcare, when these much more important human needs are left to the whims of the marketplace?
I will support public healthcare and public housing and welfare, when, and ONLY when, I can go to the state sponsored hospital, or go home after work, or go to the mail box and see our beloved representatives, that voted this legislation in, Sitting next to me, Living Next door to me, and being charged the same rate of taxes as me.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
QuoteIf healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
You would not "deny" it to anybody. On the other hand, you would not "provide" it to the significant part of the population that both "provides" it for themselves and "provides" it to others.
Let's say food is a right. Who is going to "provide" the food? Obviously, some people have to. There are people who will provide the food. Others will be provided food.
This is why the "rights" provided in the Bill of Rights were freedoms that the government cannot take. Nowadays, "rights" are viewed as products and services that the government (or, more accurately, someone else) is to provide to others.
The right to a job necessarily implies that someone lacks the right to not hire somebody. The right to healthcare implies that someone else has no choice but to provide it.
At present, people have a right to procure health care, and the vast majority do so on their own dime.
Think of Homer Simpson running for an election with his slogan, "Can't someone else do it?"
Genius parody that gained momentum, eh?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,625
QuoteQuoteIf healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
You would not "deny" it to anybody. On the other hand, you would not "provide" it to the significant part of the population that both "provides" it for themselves and "provides" it to others.
If people provide it for themselves, it IS being provided. The issue is people who ae unable to provide it for themselves. If they are unable due to age, sickness or whatever to provide for themselves and society won't provide it either, then they ARE being denied the basic necessities of life.
There's a document signed 233 years ago today that mentions the right to "Life...". There isn't any small print saying "not applicable to orphans, the elderly, or the handicapped)
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?
You would not "deny" it to anybody. On the other hand, you would not "provide" it to the significant part of the population that both "provides" it for themselves and "provides" it to others.
If people provide it for themselves, it IS being provided. The issue is people who ae unable to provide it for themselves. If they are unable due to age, sickness or whatever to provide for themselves and society won't provide it either, then they ARE being denied the basic necessities of life.
There's a document signed 233 years ago today that mentions the right to "Life...". There isn't any small print saying "not applicable to orphans, the elderly, or the handicapped)
Ok - so by your words that life is a "right", abortion is a violation of one's rights. Please confirm or deny.
Also - If I have a right to Life - as you quoted, I should live forever, correct? OR perhaps you edited the sentence to your illistrate your point without taking the contect of the sentence into consideration.
What that sentence means is that you have the right to pursue what you think is necessary in your life to keep your life as you want it. Not that I have to provide life for you. Seems kind of silly, doesn't it?
How many kidneys have you given up for those that have the right to life? Liver? Heart muscle? Have you donated ANY organs to date? I am sure that someone that had the right to life could have used them, but you denied that to them. You really shouldn't violate their rights like that.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteWhy don't we have free bunkrooms for those without shelter?
Thought we did.
Why are there still people living on the street, then? Clearly the system, if it exists, is failing.QuoteIt also seems inconsistent to spend $600 billion per year on "national defense" when we could care less about the immediate needs our own people have.
Well, "national defense" (as, from your quotes, I'm sure you realize) is more about pushing people around in other parts of the world than it is about actually defending the nation. We could defend the nation quite effectively on a tenth of the current "defense" budget--but then we wouldn't be able to go out and force other people in other countries to live their lives in accordance with our wishes. Wouldn't that be a crying shame?
LOL
Have you ever heard of the term "Preventative Maintenance"?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Andy9o8 0
QuoteWhy are there still people living on the street, then? Clearly the system, if it exists, is failing.
"Failing" is an understatement. I've worked in and around the intersection of criminal justice and social services in several urban areas. Some observations:
- About 80% of urban homeless are mentally ill (even if that may be, in some people, co-morbid with other factors, such as substance addiction).
- Since the early 1970's, it has been legally very difficult to just "warehouse" mentally-ill people with long-term or indefinite involuntary commitments to mental hospitals. This alone resulted in a significant increase in the amount of homeless people living out on the streets. (A whole subject of its own.)
- A large portion of mentally-ill street people are so profoundly ill that they are highly resistant to living in public shelters.
- Many public shelters tend to be nasty, scary, dangerous places to stay.
- For this reason alone, many less-mentally-ill people are justifiably scared-off from staying in shelters unless the weather is brutal, and so they, too, stay on the streets.
- Most shelters will only put you up for short stays, and then you have to move on.
-There tend to be a lot more homeless people than available shelter beds.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
You tried, with the war spending and corporations bullshit. Didn't succeed, though.
"Thread drift happens", mnealtx
Thread drift is when there's MORE than one post taking it in a different direction.
Fail.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteThere's a document signed 233 years ago today that mentions the right to "Life...". There isn't any small print saying "not applicable to orphans, the elderly, or the handicapped)
Evidently there IS a line in there about "not applicable to healthcare industry workers, construction workers and farmers".
Someone refresh my memory... wasn't there a little dust-up about 150 years ago over something very similar?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Darius11 12
Because food and shelter are attainable with a little bit of work, and health there are no guaranties for anyone. I can think of a lot of people who take care of there health but still get sick, still get cancer. Disease doesn't care if you work hard, it doesn't care if you have money or not.
Oh and we take pride in helping people who can not feed themselves when it is not a lack of work bur simply impossible to get food. We donate to help a lot of people. The good news is in the US food is very cheep compared to minimum income.
I don't get the whole issue you free market guys have with a single payer option? Is it that hard to understand that every one gets sick, and me or you or any other citizens should worry about there health when there sick and not the money. I have no problem with my taxes being used to help pay for my fellow Americans treatments. I actually can't think of something i would be more for when it comes to my taxes being spent then health.
I am a free market guy however i have not sold my soul to the idea, and understand there are gray areas. I really don't have a problem with saying insurance companies should not make a profit on cancer. I am ok with that.
Oh and we take pride in helping people who can not feed themselves when it is not a lack of work bur simply impossible to get food. We donate to help a lot of people. The good news is in the US food is very cheep compared to minimum income.
I don't get the whole issue you free market guys have with a single payer option? Is it that hard to understand that every one gets sick, and me or you or any other citizens should worry about there health when there sick and not the money. I have no problem with my taxes being used to help pay for my fellow Americans treatments. I actually can't think of something i would be more for when it comes to my taxes being spent then health.
I am a free market guy however i have not sold my soul to the idea, and understand there are gray areas. I really don't have a problem with saying insurance companies should not make a profit on cancer. I am ok with that.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
You tried, with the war spending and corporations bullshit. Didn't succeed, though.
"Thread drift happens", mnealtx
Thread drift is when there's MORE than one post taking it in a different direction.
Fail.
Who made you the arbiter of the Internet?
Arrogant!
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Because changing the subject is easier.
Are you implying I changed subject?
You tried, with the war spending and corporations bullshit. Didn't succeed, though.
"Thread drift happens", mnealtx
Thread drift is when there's MORE than one post taking it in a different direction.
Fail.
Who made you the arbiter of the Internet?
Arrogant!
Odd - YOU seemed to be the arbiter of the internet in another recent thread.
Hypocrital?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Sorry....just reminded me of this tape of him..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3GT9UN7nDo&feature=related
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites