I'm 100% on board with @MaxWilder. @Yogi, and @ghark seem to be falling into the same trap the tea party is falling in. By using your ideological base to hold your party hostage, you make your party less electable with the centrists. Right now, the centrists run this country, and Obama is our CEO.

To paraphrase Obama, "if we were to start from scratch, single-payer is the way to go, but we aren't starting from scratch." I agree, and in fact almost everybody agrees, there is little in this bill to effectively control costs. This bill is more about the moral imperative, not the financial one. It makes healthcare obtainable for more people, and it ensures that the people paying for coverage receive it. That is, it focuses more on the "quality and availability of care" problem, than the "cost of care" problem.

There is a very good reason for this. The cost issue is trickier to deal with.

On one hand you have the single payer direction. How do you do that? Presumably you just start offering medicare for everybody, which in effect means raising taxes substantially to pay for it. Remember, we just got out of a recession. Politically, nobody can stomach more taxes. Granted, in theory, everyone should receive a commensurate pay raise for the insurance they were previously receiving. If you thought that was going to happen... well... I think I've got a bridge that can get over that ocean for you...

On the other hand, you have the public option. In effect, that's making medicare optional for everyone. Well, if you talk to anyone in the medical industry, they'll tell you that medicare under-compensates. They don't cover the cost of care, and doctors are forced to subsidize that care by over charging patients with private insurance. Many doctors stop accepting medicare for exactly this reason. This puts you in a pickle. You can either A) force doctors to accept medicare, or B) reduce the availability of care to medicare subscribers. Of course, this is a false choice. Option A causes doctors to operate at a loss, which discourages entry into the medical profession more generally, and results in consequence B. Government price controls result in supply-demand imbalances. This is well documented.

If you really want to control costs, the best (maybe only) way is to lower the barriers to entry to the medical profession. Becoming a doctor should be a less costly endeavor, and doctors shouldn't be the only ones providing care. Nurses and technicians can do much of what is currently on the doctor's plate. Routine prescription renewals, diagnoses of common illnesses, and basic preventative tests could all be handled by people that didn't spend ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars becoming a practicing doctor. Also, the creation of medical schools should be heavily subsidized. If you increase the number of care providers, the costs will come down.

The other aspects of costs are lawsuits, and medical technology (e.g. pharma, medtronic, etc). Dealing with lawsuits is hard, but one way to do it is to push liability to the people actually providing the care (like those nurses and techs, not the deep pockets), and make sure that the person getting the care understands the risks involved and signs waivers. That is where the dems are weakest because of their close ties to the ABA. With medical technology, we've got bigger problems that really have to do with overhauling our deeply flawed system of intellectual property in this country (and protectionist tendencies surrounding it). I agree, it's ridiculous that titanium screws cost 8k just because they go in your spine, or that 10 cents worth of pills can cost $600, but dealing with that is another whole TL;DR.

Why do markets allow people to suffer?

1. Better system than capitalism would be a balanced hybrid system of capitalism and socialism controlled by people in a true democracy - as opposed to the plutocratic charade we live under now. Think Finland, Switzerland, Nordic Slavic type social democracies. These systems are infinitely better than our capitalist nightmare by any metric.

2. All the think tanks that tell you what to think are funded by deep corporate pockets. Your guru milton Friedman was chummmy with all the neocons - Reagan, Rummy and some pretty nasty dictators. David Koch was even on the libertarian ticket. Open your eyes to reality, friend.

3. Feudalism is only freedom for the wealthy elite. You don't seem to understand that you have a very subjective and limited concept of 'liberty'.

7. Free market reforms are terrible to labor, as we are seeing right now, where libertarians are calling on American labor to 'get competitive' with Chinese slaves. No fucking thank you.

8. There's no shortage of excuses for your belief system, and never any empirical data. This is why I deride your political beliefs as religious beliefs.

9. It's nice that you used 'Corporatist America' as a way of refuting my contention that European social democracies are superior.

It's amazing to me that someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality could call anyone else ignorant. Time and time again your politics are debunked on this site, only for you to redouble your efforts. I hope one day you are able to overcome your indoctrination.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

How about this--it is both small governments and big government's fault! Small government because lax regulations have allowed this company to become a beast and big government for pumping more money into it.

Is this imbalance really so hard to see? Do we split our own culture so far that it boils down to talking points? Too much government = GOP talking point, Unchecked Capatalism = DNC talking point... Mixture of both = Who cares, let's party in Jamacia and Lawdeedaw is a dumass...

Let's think for ourselves and realize balance is the key. Moderation.

You're right. National Propaganda Radio is only a drop in the bucket. Even the 100 billion the fakeservatives originally wanted to slash is nothing.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it could have been better. He should have kept his focus on the fact that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget imbalance, let alone our debt.

I think it could have been better. He should have kept his focus on the fact that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget imbalance, let alone our debt.

However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

I've argued with enough evangelicals to know that rational deconstruction and empirical scrutiny are useless against religious devotion and hero worship; and that task would be even more difficult with the brevity, power imbalance and lack of depth to the talk radio format. Text debate would be better, although when I did try to initiate a dialog in the guy's chat room, I got booted almost immediately for asking tough questions. They were clearly not interested in having their beliefs questioned. >> ^blankfist:

If it's so easy to deconstruct, then what are you waiting for. 1-800-259-9231
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, because it's so realistic and well thought out.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I don't blame ya. I'd be too scared to do that too. It's hard to punch holes in the voluntaryist argument.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
If I was going to do that, I'd want to study his show, suss out his debate techniques and get to know his stock answers so I could control the conversation without worry of rhetorical blindsides. That would take many hours which would be more productively spent masturbating. If he had a wider following, maybe.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, you call into Molyneux's show yet? Also, you interested in calling into FTL? I would be very interested to hear you debate these guys.

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

Modern combat is fought through surgical air strikes with a limited ground force. It minimizes invading state casualties but poor intelligence from limited local manpower inevitably leads to mass civilian casualties. This progressively undermines local support. Fostering a vibrant democracy or training a self sufficient military and police force, hell, let alone rebuilding the infrastructure from the initial invasion cannot be done quickly. As has been seen from Afghanistan especially, this allows insurgencies to organise and further air bombing simply adds to their recruitment numbers.

Removing totalitarianism also reveals long-held grudges and power imbalances such as how removing Saddam's minority Sunni Ba'ath Party fermented a civil war with the oppressed Shi'ite majority. Local revolutions on the other hand, without intervention create a sense of solidarity regardless of past differences. A foreign coup d'état does not.

States that have democracy thrust upon tend to squander them or relapse back into authoritarianism. Often this is from a lack of established and respectable candidates to choose from, haphazard transition to a market economy (e.g Russia) or a lack of consistent ground level demands from the people resulting in simple pandering by politicians to secure votes with no intentions of governance. Democracy is only able to work effectively when individuals with growing affluence over time begin to demand better infrastructure, services and generally representation of their interests.

Not to mention, especially in Africa, many countries were wished into existence by exiting colonial powers with no logical cultural, religious or ethnic links among them. There is simply no genuine sense of national unity. This is arguably what caused the violence in Kenya in 07-08 following the disputed election. Foreign interventions in ex-colonial countries also inevitably leads to the perception of renewed imperialism, not matter how pure actual intentions. This is why intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is inconceivable unless it by the African Union, which is far too weak and unwilling. Even now, Mugabe has considerable support by his colonial independence credentials.

Other countries simply have never had a legitimate and effective government in generations. The Taliban did not so much rule Afghanistan as loosely impose Sha'ria law on individual tribes who otherwise had signficant autonomy. Now that representational democracy has been imposed, there is simply no willingness on the part of an individual tribe to work together to improve the livelihood of all, but merely their own people. Politicians and officials are not corrupt because they are immoral but because political survival means following this creed.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong. The only place they are appropriate is preventing genocide or aggressor nations. NATO was correct to intervene in Kosovo, the UN was correct to prevent Iraqi aggression into Kuwait (ignoring Iraqi invasion of Iran was not). Intervention should have occurred in Rwanda and equally in Sudan.

The Powell Doctrine more or less sets out what I wrote above concisely. In short, intervention should occur only with mass popular local support, and be undertaken swiftly and effectively with overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy established.

Thanks to Bush though, the US is overstretched militarily and lacks the moral authority to incite other nations into intervening where necessary. More importantly it's lost the deterrence its successful interventions in Kosovo and Kuwait created.

>> ^bcglorf:

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.
RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.
I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.
I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

>> ^qualm:

"...The idea that your or an( interlectual , cultral , racail ,) group is anny more valid or deserving of basic human respect and rights than another."

Strawman. Correcting historical imbalances and injustices e.g., the US civil rights movement, is not unfairly preferential to privileged whites.


I dont understand what you mean.


My piont is that race inequality is just a component of a larger issue. and that although you can atack the indavidual components of the larger issue , to focus on one aspect iggnoring the others in th elong term is counter productive.

for example i have seen allot of things on Racialy inequality but far less on other issues such as socea ecanomic inequality.

I think all these issues have to be atacked simulary or discussed together rather than seperately as i belive them to all be of the same problem and all interalated.

"...The idea that your or an( interlectual , cultral , racail ,) group is anny more valid or deserving of basic human respect and rights than another."


Strawman. Correcting historical imbalances and injustices e.g., the US civil rights movement, is not unfairly preferential to privileged whites.

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).

But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

>> ^gorillaman:

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.
The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.
Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.

The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.

Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.