OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
]Have I written anything about supporting Republicans??? NO ! So despite your vast mind reading abilities you are wrong here. I am not supporting either side... just don't want Kerry because he is trying to make huge changes which will give us HIGHER taxes, more government intervention and he is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.

He'll give us higher taxes? Than what we have now? Which are at near historical lows, at least and especially for the rich, since when income taxes were first put in effect in the USA.

Not to mention that we're _STILL_ getting more government intervention right now - you'd think that with the "war on terror", our government would have better things to do than ... crack down on strip joints and Online porn, on Online music sharing (Oh! The terrorists are financing their bombings via Online music sharing!), on legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, on abortion, on people having the state-legalized right to die with a little dignity.

Not to mention that the current administration has asked Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to delay the presidential election, "just in case". Delay, postpone, cancel - screw that.

We're not going away from big government - we're just watching our civil liberties being stripped away ("He better watch what he says" - White House Press Secretary, on camera, speaking about Bill Mahrer's Politically Incorrect TV show - what the F@# happened to free speech and the first amendment?) in the name of "national security" as done by the Three Studges (Baby Bush, Dick "What an *******" Cheny, and Big Biziness), and in the name of corporate profits.

Your morality is against abortion? Fine! Don't get an abortion. It isn't like Kerry is going to _FORCE_ your girlfriend/wife/sheep to get one.

I'm with Arryn - blood and bone, I wish McCain had gotten the nomination. Or Bradley. Or Charlie f-ing Manson even. I'd vote for McCain. I'd have voted for Bradley. And right now, I'd vote for Manson if I thought he could defeat Boy George.

None of the presidents have changed the national debt from increasing to decreasing.... when one of them can do this then I'd have enough faith to give him a shot at some national healthcare system which is also a huge financial task/responsibility.

Gee - under Clinton (who only screwed a few women, and not the country) the national debt _DID_ decrease.

[ July 27, 2004, 02:49: Message edited by: Cainehill ]

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by vigabrand:
His job as a senator and possibly president is to represent the beliefs of a certain group of people and govern by them. He is supposed to create legislation and administer based on those beliefs. That is his job. That is why someone would vote for him. Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill.

Oh, you mean like Dumb ****'s 49 percent - that was what made him say it didn't matter, he was 100% of the president.

No - _Dubya_'s job may be to create laws based on the beliefs of the far right fundamentalist Xians and the corporations, but that _isn't_ what a senator's job, or a president's job, is supposed to be.

We're not a bloody theocracy, nor a monarchy, and given that any particular group is going to represent at most maybe 20-25% of the population, you think that group's morals and standards should be imposed as law?

Swive me, and bugger you.

Heh. On the bright side - maybe Thomas Ricks was right in his book on the Marine Corps, and the Corps _will_ rebel against society as it finds society's mores and standards increasing divorced from its own.

Or maybe we'll wake up to guillotines on the White House and Senate steps, or a return to the "one bullet, one vote" philosophy.

Sheesh.

[Boron]

thats what it is like in germany NTJedi :

everyone has to pay tax for healthcare . but once you break a border like 100000$ / year you may chose between these 3 options :
1. still pay tax for healthcare .
2. pay no tax anymore but pay instead to superior private healthcare insurance companies with better insurance quality than that one given by the state
3. chose to pay nothing and pay everything yourself if you need to .

this way healthcare for everyone is guaranted but you have still motivation to improve by not needing the state health care anymore but get the better private health care or pay all your own .
everybody has to pay a state healthcare insurance fee but if he is rich enough he may chose instead a private health care insurance which provides better treatment . if you go to the doctor e.g. patients with private health insurance are treated before that with state health care expect in emergency cases .
if you are multimillionaire you may even pay all yourself and need no insurance at all .

but i think the american health care system is superior because of the following reasons :

in young years in general most people are quite healthy . so you can invest that money which you would otherwise have to pay as health care taxes and so get interest . this way you have more money when you are older and it is hopefully enough to pay for most medical treatment .

because that's the next problem :
medicine has improved so much in the Last decades that the average life-span is increasing and increasing . but because more and more ultraexpensive technic devices are needed for that treatment it can't be paid much longer from the state for everyone and not only the few who can afford it .
germany is almost bankrupt because or huge social programs like health care , pensions and unemployment benefit become unpayable .

so conclusion NTJedi : you are totally right and wait 10 years and many nations like germany will have abolished national healthcare and have a system similiar to the USsystem .


the main "problem" is just : when you are very ill with the age of e.g. 75 years expensive medical measures will keep you alive for 5 additional years . but you won't have much life qualitiy in that additional years but it costs something like X00.000 $ . of course almost everybody would prefer to life that 5 years longer because at least i will live as long as possible but it is just impayable .

[Arryn]

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Here is a more accurate picture.
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,23..._1_1_1,00.html

I was pretty close, with Germany in the 50% of household income for a single worker.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Not that the numbers either of you are citing are wrong. Per se. The problem is that statistics are subject to interpretation, and interpretation is often wrong. None of these numbers are truly meaningful because they fail to measure what is the crux of the issue being debated: cost vs. benefit. On average, workers in EU countries pay a higher % of income in taxes than those in the U.S. But do they get value for their extra expenditure? None of you have answered that question. Until you can, comparisons between the U.S. and elsewhere are meaningless. Does the U.S. have better healthcare? Depends on who you ask. Millionaire celebrities get better care than night shift janitorial workers. But this is true most everywhere in the world, not just the U.S. There are U.S. laws already in place that mandate that no one is turned away from hospitals, regardless of ability to pay. Whether they get the same level of service is a seperate argument. The proper question to ask is: whose citizen's pay more, per capita, for healthcare (after factoring taxes, out-of-pocket costs, etc.)? Once you have a table of how much each country's citizens pay, only then can you compare the quality of care between nations.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
This is most likely completely incorrect. There are any number of illnesses that will kill you even though you "feel fine".

That's a risk I'm willing to take. So far, it's paid off nicely.

You are making the fallacious assumption that unnecessary treatment will be given. You are also making the fallacious assumption that such treatment will hurt the body.

A little bit of suffering and pain builds character and toughness. Toughness you won't have if you constantly over-medicate everything and become dependent on the stuff.

Like I said, given your _maturity level_, you can't be much more than 20 at the most. Probably more like 12 - 15, since you've demonstrated the standard teenage "me first" mentality.

Oh, yes, the ever-subtle insult.

And the fact that there are people who are not _able_ to take care of themselves is completely lost on you. Like I said, that's a complete lack of empathy.

I do not have a complete lack of empathy. I am, for instance, known by my friends as being one of their more generous and helpful friends. Why do I help them? Because they're my friends, and that's what friends are for. The same cannot be said for some random person who's predicament I am utterly unfamiliar with, and strongly suspect he brought upon himself. Like I said: I am, in no way, opposed to helping people. I do, however, find reprehensible, the idea that you should dictate that I *MUST* help people who I feel are utterly undeserving of help, at my expense, just so *YOU* can feel like you've done a good thing. This is worse than robbery. At least thieves are risking their own safety and security in their attempt to acquire what is mine. Should get manage they manage to succeed, I will certainly curse them, but it can't be denied that they stole it fair and square. Your attitude, however, is worse than thievery. You can't even bring yourself to steal honestly. Instead you resort to cowardly tricks like this.

Last but not least, I most certainly donate more money to charity than you probably even earn. You know what? I can do that. It's my choice. When you start trying to mandate it, it's no longer charity, it's worse than thievery.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Boron:
the main "problem" is just : when you are very ill with the age of e.g. 75 years expensive medical measures will keep you alive for 5 additional years . but you won't have much life qualitiy in that additional years but it costs something like X00.000 $ . of course almost everybody would prefer to life that 5 years longer because at least i will live as long as possible but it is just impayable .

You could just die. Your children will thank you for not wasting their inheritance on prolonging your own miserable existence because you were too cowardly to embrace death when it should have rightfully come for you. The problem is that people have this bizarre, unnatural hangup about embracing their own deaths that they're willing to spend ridiculous sums of money that they don't even have in an attempt to prolong their own sorry, misbegotten, miserable existence. In a few years I'm going to be at this crossroads...and you know what? Rather than being a miserable leech and spend way more than I actually have in a sorry attempt to stay alive as a pathetic loser, I'm just gonna bite it with some dignity, and maybe will my fortune off to some worthy cause, as I lack children. That worthy recipient will undoubtedly thank me for my choice of oblivion over fruitless misery.

[LintMan]

Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.

If we want to fit this into your baseball analogy, this is equivalent to Kerry having a religion that condemns 3rd base, and then with him saying that he agrees 3rd base is bad but the standard rules of baseball have it, and he won't make laws trying to change that to fit his religion's teachings.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by LintMan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.

---

Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people. Or, to make it a matter of life and death - a person who thinks that killing animals for food is heinous. Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat? I wouldn't. Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings. Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.

And why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't ... "slipping out" murder? Those sperm cells were alive, and just as sentient as a newly fertilized ova.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same.

Sadly, Boy George only puts the laws that support his monomaniacal beliefs (that campaign contributors are good, and dissenters are Hitler/Bin Laden/Anti-Christ supporters) above his personal feelings, and pushes new laws that support his beliefs.

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet."

[Arryn]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Have I written anything about supporting Republicans???

In a long-running flamefest that happened many months ago, and was eventually pruned by the Moderators, you did. Alas, since it was pruned, I cannot quote it back to you (throw it in your face). You very firmly bashed all things Democratic and favored all things Republican.

Kerry ... is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.

Kerry is for the right to choose an abortion. Which is not the same thing, and is a distinction that appears to be too subtle for you. Personally, he's against abortion. But he won't cram his personal beliefs down other's throats, unlike the Bushies. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to choose someone else's path. That's tyranny of the worst sort. We Americans condemn the lack of freedom in many other countries, notably those in the mideast, yet if the Bushies have their way, they'd happily turn the U.S. into the same sort of theocracy/plutocracy that Saudi Arabia is.

Please spare us your moral indignation. It's hypocritical.

EDIT: typoes.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people.

Actually, they tried that. It actually managed to become a constitutional amendment. Scary. Eventually it was repealed for being an awful idea.

Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat?

That'd be awful. I'd start my own resistance movement right there. I mean, no meat? We'd all starve and die horribly of malnutrition.

Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings.

You can quickly reach logical coherency by discarding this premise as false. Graeme, however, would likely call me a horrible person for saying such a thing, as if I was some sort of serial killer or mass-murderer merely because I have logically discarded an internally inconsistent belief.

Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.

You mean like the people who oppose the right to die? There are people out there, trying to tell you that you're not allowed to die. In fact, they've managed to make it illegal to do so in many places! Fortunately, if you actually succeed, you'll be too dead to be brought to trial, so nobody really takes this one seriously.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.

Well, you could keep asking "why", but the logical answer is simply "It isn't."

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet."

Meh, drugs. Didn't they learn that this didn't work back in the 20s? It's deja vu all over again.