Bah-No = Bonno
Bow-No = Bono

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sean lock, bono, swap lives' to 'sean lock, bono, swap lives, bone o' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'qi, sean lock, bono, swap lives' to 'sean lock, bono, swap lives' - edited by brycewi19

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah /bono

Hipsters can't hi-jack that word (is that Bono in your avatar?) ulysses, they're only allowed to co-opt it...OH, and most of em look silly doin' the 2000's version, all the while reeking of ineffectual pretension touting sub-standard grooming and last-century literature! Oh, and if you're gonna call yourself a real hipster you'd better dig bebop and trad jazz, otherwise......POSER!!

..and please put-out the foul ciggy from Belarus, the shits' nasty and your teeth are mustard....Oh, and tell Betty there to shave her legs and you, TAKE A BATH!!.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

this is such a multi-faceted issue and soo many pieces on the board.
we can use history as a guide but history is nothing like math i.e:2+2=4 always.
people can read the same historical text and come to a different conclusion.

so i use a basic meter that helps me navigate difficult and complex situations.
1.governments lie
2.cue bono-who benefits
3.watch corporate media to taste the direction the government is pushing for i.e:propaganda
4.watch independent news to get a flavor of whats actually happening and possible solutions.

i am still sifting through the information but there are emerging more and more troubling aspects to this conflict.

what bothers me even more is how many people i know are totally ok with military aggression.
my facebook page was alight with my right wing friends (mostly HIGHLY educated) chastising obama for "allowing" congress to decide.

never ONCE questioning the fact that the president never HAD that power to use military force without congressional approval until addington and woo came along and started rewriting the executive powers charter.

if we are going to use history as a template,then it would behoove the powers that be in this country to tread lightly.

well look at my optimism showing!
thats not going to happen.
i read a book years ago and i have been watching the details unfold in real time over the past 15 yrs.

i suggest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

this book laid out the reasons for a destabilized arab spring.

wish i could be more optimistic but governments lie.

Damn... I was hoping it was Bono's final days.

The romans over 2000 years ago had a saying for this, "Cui Bono."

Bono's place in the big-boy's club-To make scheduled appearances to remind his ineffectual, 30-50 yr-old former fan base that the paradigm is here, it's fucked, and it's only going to get worse so let's all have a group sob for this species-threatening state-of-affairs.

Jolie can only adopt so many children from representative nations...AT which point, space entrepreneur Elon Musk will use his advanced vertical TOAL ships to ferry this collection of human DNA to their new homes on Mars.

Bonos' a tool.

If you're referring to me I actually brought up some legitimate points that ad to the discussion. I was responding to a post that was sort of off the mark when it comes to what analysis Bono can give.

Seriously Storm, it's Bono. And a one minute argument by ANYONE would be worthless.

Bono to Tribunal:- "I was following the orders of my greatest fan's aspirations."

Wonder if all his little A-list friends were invited?
Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey will be there, Harry Belafonte and Bono are gonna sing, Naomi Campbell and Cornel West will be coming together to make her look smart and him look sexy...Oliver Stone OHhh, and that whining bitch Cindy Sheehan can come and continue her 2nd or 3rd stage of grief with fellow mourners...

Human rights abuses and threats will no-doubt continue, maybe they'll let anyone have a television station and a constitution that let's you talk shit about el comandante' without being killed or disappeared...Or maybe they should pull an Alberto Fujimori and hire-out!!

Trey Parker and Matt Stone speak with their satire the words sympathetic fans know to be true. The self-deceived embrace with emotional fervor causes with ulterior substance and authentic sell-outs invest in the causes and become spokesmen for their keepers.
Sean Penn
Bono

Anyone who aligns themselves with any cause sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, RED CROSS,WWF, United Nations....Beware of cunts. Check the list of all UN organizations- IMF is one of them. Might as well join a private club, elitist assholes all.

PRO BONO