>> ^Fletch:

She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!


Right. That's sort of the point. Want to stick it to corporations? Don't do those things.

If instead you'd rather just benefit from all the fruits of corporations, but don't want the corporations, well, what does that say?

She acted like someone using a Mac was some ironic "gotcha" moment? What are they supposed to use to communicate? Smoke signals? And I bet they wear clothes that originated from some large textile company. Or ate some food from a huge Agricorp for lunch. Or grabbed a cab burning evil Exxon gas. Are those Nikes on your feet?!

I know what this is . .. this is one of those blimming optical illusions !!! GOTCHA

>> ^blankfist:

And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

But you can't. You're constantly misapprehending and misrepresenting my position on things, and you don't listen when I try to correct you on what I think.

>> ^blankfist:
If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

So it's okay for a doctor to choose to let the guy die if he wants to? Morally and legally, that's his right?

Keep in mind that at the same time, you're saying it's totally off-limits for there to be any kind of compulsory solution. No law saying that patients in life-threatening situations need to be treated regardless of their ability to pay. No taxes collected to compensate doctors for the services they render to people who are unable to pay. No collective bargaining to keep prices on drugs and treatments low. No national health insurance program, or even health insurance regulation, and definitely no subsidization of anything.

Maybe doctors are supermen who have an infinite wellspring of compassion, but they still live in a market-dominated world. They're going to need money to pay off their college debt. They're going to need a place to live, food to eat, etc. The hospital is going to demand some level of compensation for the use of rooms, equipment, and medical supplies. Once all the donations and his own savings are exhausted, even the most noble doctor is going to eventually have to say no to somebody, whether he wants to or not.

So, you're saying the patient who's dying must not be given guarantees of any kind, while the doctor must as a matter of moral imperative, be guaranteed the right to refuse to treat people, even if that's a death sentence for their potential patient.

That is sensational, controversial, and in my opinion, morally reprehensible.

I'm not asking you this as some sort of "gotcha" question. I'm mostly using the question to try to get you to think about this conflict between mainline libertarian ideology, and what you know is right in your heart.

There's gotta be a better way. I'm not married to any one way to solve the issue, but I definitely reject the way you and Paul are insisting is the only way society can handle these kinds of situations.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist I'm pretty confident that by this point I could recite your position on health care and government in my sleep.
That's why I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. "Free market" rules work like this:
Person A has X dollars, and wants cherries. The market price of cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't have cherries, no matter how badly he might want them.
Should those rules ever be different if we're talking about life-saving medical procedures?
Since this keeps being answered with cries of "Charity!" I guess I need to point out that charity doesn't change that fundamental picture, nor does it eliminate the possibility of that ever happening to anyone.
So we're back to the same question, with just one more caveat. What should be done with people who can't pay, and didn't get helped by charity? Leave them to die?


And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

What you've created is a very specific scenario that appeals to our fears as mortal beings. And using it to promote a political agenda is just as disgusting as those who used 9/11 to justify taking away our liberties and rights.

What's worse, you think you've discovered some big gotcha question to rule them all. You didn't. It appeals to the basest of emotions instead of reason. And it shows the narrow-mindedness of your movement. We let people die all the time. It's almost an accepted part of our lives. You thump your chest over saving lives with universal healthcare, yet say nothing about military aggressions that lead to large scale life loss. At least dying in a hospice gives you some dignity and comfort unlike dying in a wartorn street from phosphorus burns.

Ah, I gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for the concern!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Ah, many apologies. Lann just stumbled on the account, and it looked as if there wasn't a reason for banning. Random bannings have happened in the past, so I thought I'd ask. No biggie. :

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Not sure why you would assume that. :-? Is he a friend of yours maybe?

He's a spammer who created > 20 accounts, so I'm certain he was banned intentionally (and ~5 years ago from what I can tell).

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006 @ 13:01:45" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0044ff">lucky760 this user was no doubt banned by accident, yes?

>> ^ant:

No cat fight?


Actually, I kinda liked the "HAHA! Gotcha!" playful swat at the end.

A few thoughts:

1. Personal Revelation: I'm not sure why "God Told Me" is accorded a privileged, absolute position (by many, not sure if by sb) in terms of an information source. Surely a universe that includes supernatural beings interested in human behavior could also include a trickster-God capable of whispering things to someone or creating literally any kind of mental experience or situation (you know, for giggles)? Now, this could be claimed as a counterpoint to almost anything, and it's not really evidence for anything. It's not a good reason to not believe the whispering or something. However, doesn't it preclude absolute surety here? I mean, sure you could say it's more likely the whispering would be from the more powerful, "right" God - but, again, can you be absolutely sure? And if you can say "OK, I'm not absolutely sure - but I'm pretty dang sure" I think that's healthy. There's nothing wrong with picking what you feel is the vastly more likely explanation for an experience, I'm just objecting to the way some attribute absolute value here (again, not sure if this applies to specific participants of this discussion, but would value their thoughts here).

2. Punishment: I don't believe there's any "virtue" to justice or punishment. I think there's a practical societal requirement for deterrent to certain behaviors, and I think jail is a horrible, currently necessary evil (jail is marginally better than some other options, I think, because it mechanically prevents further offenses during incarceration as well as being a deterrent - and ideally it would provide education for reform, etc.. though I don't have much faith that that's happening currently). I don't understand the value of "justice" as an ideal or why it's seen as a virtue independent of these practical concerns. If people have free will and some are good and some are bad... well, whatever. As long as we can keep the bad people from hurting the good people (which, again, doesn't require any notion of justice), I don't see why we'd need to go about punishing anyone.

3. The End of Days: I will point out that shinyblurry's vision of how the whole final judgement scenario goes down is not shared by all of Christianity. There's significant variation between Christian denominations (though many of those, I assume, sb would not consider actual Christians - like Catholics or the previously mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses).

I think some of the confusion in this thread revolves around differing visions of judgement, differing ideas about what "Hell" constitutes, and the nature of God's omnipotence (which I think is a very big question). SB's posts here are essentially Theodicy, and that's a muddy job when these premises aren't well defined. I have some general ideas on SBs positions on these ideas, but I think it might clarify the discussion a bit if we knew his positions more clearly on things like:

1. Who will be in Hell, and does Hell include actual pain/torment (or is the torment more like, say, regret)?
2. What is the nature of God's omnipotence? Does it extend to control/creation of logic? What is his general relation to virtue/right?
3. What is the nature of God's omniscience, and what is your general conception of free will?

To be clear, I'm not trying to ask gotcha questions, or suggesting these questions don't have answers. I'm just asking what your answers are, as I think it'll clarify the discussion.

Reasonable views QM, but how can we afford to fight Iran? And if so, could we really take on a threat like China or some other place afterwards...? We are weak as is... Extended like England, Rome, Greece... This isn't a gotcha question--this is a question conservatives must answer.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.
Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.
What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.
Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.
And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh*t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.

Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.

What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.

Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.

And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul

This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.

@NetRunner
@peggedbea
@marinara

And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.

EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.
>> ^NetRunner:
Oh, I guess I need to roll my eyes here. Apparently by "the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government and giving less back" you didn't mean corporations and rich people, you meant poor people, and mothers taking maternity leave.
I gotcha. No, I still stand by what I'm saying.
>> ^newtboy:
So then you retract your statement..." the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave"? You seem to have just agreed that it is too many people taking maternaty leave (among other programs) crashing Europe.
>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.

>> ^newtboy:
Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.

Oh, I guess I need to roll my eyes here. Apparently by "the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government and giving less back" you didn't mean corporations and rich people, you meant poor people, and mothers taking maternity leave.

I gotcha. No, I still stand by what I'm saying.

>> ^newtboy:

So then you retract your statement..." the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave"? You seem to have just agreed that it is too many people taking maternaty leave (among other programs) crashing Europe.
>> ^NetRunner:
@newtboy agreed, that's been a problem too.

>> ^newtboy:
Actually, what is taking down the global market right now seems to be the preponderance of people taking more and more from the government tit and giving less and less back. The economies of Europe are crashing because they spent themselves deep into the poor house, then the global market went lower (for many reasons, deregulation included), putting them exponentially deeper in their holes and compounding the problem for all. There is little to no question that's exactly what happened in Greece, and most likely is what's happening to Italy right now, causing the few 'responsible' (by comparison) countries in the union to 'bail them out'.

I'm very glad the video makes the distinction between grunts who are just doing what they're paid to do. Even the direct supervisor was given instructions on how to do this stuff.

corruption starts at the top, and they put those at the bottom in your way to act as a buffer.

This is what makes me glad that I live in Nebraska. We may be a red state, but we don't do fucked up shit like this. I will have to go ask my friend who is an election inspector how a homeless person goes about voting.

The problem with shit like this is not that it's hard to overcome these things. for the vast majority of people, providing these forms of id is not difficult...it's just the fact that they throw up these delaying tactics and hidden gotchas like that "special box" at all.

Voting is supposed to be easy and it's a right short of being in prison or judged mentally incompetent by a court of law