>> ^BansheeX:

What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers.


Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!

Dude, you clearly can't comprehend what was said. He said European Socialism works, not that Europe is socialist. He then pointed to socialist programs in Europe, such as universal health care, paid for college tuition, pension programs, etc. How are those programs not socialist? Hint: THEY'RE SOCIALIST PROGRAMS! There's no two ways about it. How idiotic can a person be who proclaims socialism is bad, but they send their kids to public school, or they collect unemployment benefits, or draw social security, or they live in the Tennessee River Valley and appreciate the fact they have electricity, or they have an affordable federal gov't backed mortgage, or they safely assume the food they eat won't kill them, or that they can safely assume the house they live in won't fall on their heads because of government safety code, or their tires won't blow out driving down the road, or they can still get medical care if they become poor, or...

Guess what? Every single one of those above are examples of either direct gov't intervention into the economy, or were outcomes from a time when the government did. That's direct opposition to free market principles. And before anyone says it, YES, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DON'T ALWAYS WORK WELL. We know that. But it's absolutely positively ridiculous to suggest socialist ideas and solutions NEVER work. It's absolute bullcrap to the extreme that you can see everyday in your life that it does make everyone's life better.

This editorial is spot on. It's what I've tried hammering home with no effect to QM and WP that there are too many examples of ideas within the US that have or did work that were socialist in nature. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's one approach of several economic philosophies that can help solve problems, just as free market ideas can work. Neither work 100% of the time, so stop with the ridiculous notion that neither is the be all end all of all economic ideas. Every industrialized nation is a mixed economy. A completely 100% free market economy doesn't exist, and would fail if it did. (Ditto 100% true communist economies.)

>> ^conan:

WTF has any one of you actually an idea what socialism means? This rant of Bill is just useless. "European socialism"? The last socialist country was the DDR (east germany) back in the 80s. I just can't stand it anymore. Stupid throwing around of buzzwords. Socialism is a specific form of government. Switzerland is NOT a socialist country. Germany is NOT a socialist country. Sweden is NOT a socialist country. Get your facts straight and read a book from time to time!

While there are sycophantic unions out there the majority are holding the line on little items like cost of living increases and medical care. I'll take a union any day over a non-union one.

This is just an ad for rich people trying to get others to fight THEIR fight. And it works...

As a christian myself I want to emphatically disown these kinds of people. Their crazed opposition to doctors is no more a Christian value or teaching than it is a value of white people or Americans. You simply can not find a single scriptural basis for refusing medical care. Sure there are plenty of miraculous healings in the Bible, but nowhere are there any examples of refusing any other forms of more basic assistance.

Almost every christian church has read out the following parable:
A man is in house as a flood comes sweeping in. A truck from the fire dept. comes by and asks him if he needs a ride out, and he refuses insisting that God will provide. The dikes break and as the flood waters come in he has to climb onto his roof. While there, a rescue boat comes by and tries to rescue him, but again he refuses insisting God will provide. As his roof is almost covered, a rescue chopper comes in and pleads for him to climb up, but yet again he insists that God will provide. The water then covers the roof and he drowns. When he gets to heaven he asks God why he never answered his prayers. God answers, well I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?

The nutty crazy folks like in this video need to recognize that, if they really do believe in God, modern medicine and doctors are a way for God to answer yes to their prayers for healing. Anything more and they are DIRECTLY contradicting the teachings they claim to hold to by making demands that God give them the answer they want, rather than just accepting his perfectly good but less flashy answer.

@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

@hpqp

Did you read the book??? Even reading the foreward and the first chapter should be enough to show that what Harris (and you) are proposing is nothing but--in the author's own words--"a slur."

No, I don't think you are the one who gets it. You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion. If you say, for example, a particular religion is stupid then by default you imply that the people who practice said religion are also stupid (after all, they're following a stupid religion... doesn't seem like something a smart person would do). By the way, you are also backtracking now. When you "fixed" my quote earlier you said:

people who practice Islam as a religion are more likely to commit violence or cause misery to others in the name of religion than those who practice other religions

Either Islam causes its followers to be violent or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why is Harris making so much noise? If it does, where's the evidence of that? I keep bolding it because you keep misunderstanding it. A newspaper article is not empirical evidence. A quote from the Koran is not empirical evidence. A study of domestic violence that breaks down rates of domestic violence between religious beliefs and finds that there is a statistically significant higher chance of it occurring in a Muslim home--now THAT might be evidence (depending on a lot of factors, such as the methodology used, whether other factors such as education and income were controlled for, whether the study found causation and not just correlation, etc.). But neither your nor Harris provides such evidence, which is what I need before I go off and decide that millions of people around the world are a potential threat to me and themselves due to their beliefs and I should campaign actively against those beliefs.

Now, if Harris's (and your) argument is that maybe Islam might cause some people to be violent then that is something else entirely. We have to ask under what conditions does that happen? We also need to ask which Islamic interpretation we are talking about, because just as the term Christianity refers to an incredibly diverse group of faiths (everything from 7th Day Adventists to Unitarians), Islam refers to an incredibly diverse group of people who have some similar core beliefs but differ greatly in the details of how the faith is practiced. Neither Harris nor you are taking that third option though. Your statements in this thread and his statements in this and other videos on the topic are categorical.

Therefore, I am asking you to prove to me that Islam is the religious ideology causing the most harm in the world. No, it isn't obvious, any more than God's existence is obvious because of the vast variety of animal life that lives on earth. Stats? Figures? Studies that support your view? You don't have them, do you? You believe what you believe without evidence and given that you are a follower of Harris, Dawkins, etc. that is just plain ironic.

This has nothing to do with cultural relativistic respect. This has to do with the truth--which according to Harris and Dawkins and the rest can only be found by science. So I'm saying to Harris--do some goddamned science and prove what you are saying. Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it. Then I will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. Until then, it's just speculation and fearmongering.

Damn. You must be good.>> ^peggedbea:

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:
>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

massages baby, massages. >> ^burdturgler:

>> ^peggedbea:
i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

>> ^peggedbea:

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.
free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!


I can't get people to do the shit that I actually pay them to do. What services are you exchanging for all of this? The mind wobbles ..

i learned the art and joy of bartering services with associates.

free medical care, free accounting, free oil changes, free pot, free babysitting, free coffee, free massages, free hair cuts ftw! now all i need is a good dentist!!

This is the kind of story that could make the guy rich from internet donations.

It's kinda funny that our tax money supports medical care for felons and illegal immigrants (ER visits), but not law-abiding tax payers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^flavioribeiro:

As for the top priority of the US Congress, I believe it should be balancing the budget. The national debt is the most pressing issue because especially over the last 4 years, US GDP growth has been fueled with borrowed money.

I say getting a solid economic recovery is job #1. A huge portion of the deficit right now is due to the recession itself -- it lowers our GDP (and therefore the tax revenues), and it means a lot more people going on government assistance because they're unemployed and can't find a job.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
Rolling over this debt will already cause a significant drop in the American standard of living, especially as inflation and interest rates start to rise.

"Rolling over" this debt? Why will it result in any drop in the standard in living? It seems to me that leaving the unemployment picture untouched is going to have a massively larger impact on our long-term prosperity than having a higher short- and medium-term national debt.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
To make things short, I refer you to Karl Denninger's blog (who I agree with). He posted short video about this today. To answer your question more precisely, the US Congress must 1) revise the tax code and 2) enact significant cuts to government programs. (1) is nearly impossible to pass because it effectively taxes everyone the same. We will at best see a weak version of (2), which will be insufficient and more painful in the long run.


I'll have to watch the video later, but the blog post probably gives me a clear enough picture. You know this guy is a founder of one of our dreaded Tea Party groups here, right?

In any case, I'll just respond to what I think he's got a valid point about.

First, he's right that medical care costs are essentially the entire problem with the long range debt picture. We've got to find a way to get health care cost inflation under control here. Other countries have done so with lots of government interventionism. We're still refusing to do that sort of thing, and the longer we put it off, the worse our deficits will get.

Second, while I think the "Fair" tax is a giant scam, I'm not opposed to the basic idea of replacing income taxes with consumption taxes.

Third, I like the idea of cutting back on the number of incentives baked into the tax code. But I don't oppose the very idea of them on principle, I just think we have a bunch that aren't doing any good for anyone, and a bunch that are actively doing harm (like oil & gas subsidies).

However, the vast majority of it is just lies and dogmatic ideology being presented as some sort of solution to a mundane budget issue. It's exactly what I was referring to when I said this:>> ^NetRunner:

The issue here [is] the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.


It's also just one step shy from suggesting that we euthanize our elderly, process them into soylent green, and sell it to pay down our debt.

Out of sheer curiosity, what country are you from?

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Funny how NO one was talking about government at all, but now that you mention it, @NetRunner, @dystopianfuturetoday and I are proposing legislation to carefully monitor the caloric intake of every single American. If your intake is too high, we starve you; if it's too low, we force feed you. And we'll force feed you Muslim food, and take away your Christian food. And then we'll all be forcibly relocated to Kenya Indonesia.



Well? Isn't the left's answer to everything MOAR BIGGER GOVERNMENT? After all, the herd has to be ruled by a cabal of powerful geniuses who knows what's best for everyone. And isn't obamacare the PERFECT license to rule? Now you can withold medical care when a citizen chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle.


Funny how you didn't mind the tyranny of the Bush regime when he presided over the biggest expansion of government in US history, but when someone tries to make sure that no one has to die for lack of insurance then suddenly it's tyranny. I've noticed as of late you've picked up blankfist's "statist" lingo, but you didn't mind it when Bush authorized the state to wiretap without warrants.


The Right was angry then and is still pi$$ed off now at fakeservative Bush's spending sprees (a drop in the bucket compared to the next guy). I wish the left took the threat of radical islam as seriously as those wiretaps, continued under His Earness.

Without unions, you are handing disproportionate power to the elites.

But in this matter, no one is talking about the complete dissolution of unions. There are only two things at play in WI... 1. A simple reapportioning of cost to benefits in terms of how much a public union member pays for medical care & retirement. 2. The right to collectively bargain when the average union pay & benefits exceeds the per capita average. They aren't trying to get rid of unions. They're trying to pull them back into a realm that is reasonable, fair, and financially possible. Right now the union contracts and benefits are not financially possible. Unions for years have gotten more and more for less and less to the point where the model is broken. All Walker is doing is trying to fix the system before it implodes and he as to fire thousands.

Now - the pessimist in me believes that the unions and Democrats would be PERFECTLY HAPPY if a GOP governor had to fire 12,000 people to balance the books. That way they could (like the protesters are doing) paint him as Hitler, evil, heartless, etc... But the fact remains that if the union had agreed to more reasonable terms, such an outcome would not be necessary. But rather than give up the right to collectively bargain when their members are ABOVE the per capita index, they would rather burn the house down. Pure idiocy.