Sicko

great post.

 

providing that public service...when you CAN afford it...is a moral issue, to me. particularly when you prioritize other things over it. if there was no way we could afford it, i'd agree. it would be nice to do...but we just couldn't. we can. we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. so for us, i believe, it is a moral question.

 

this is a distribution of wealth issue versus morality. is money more important than what's right? universal healthcare ought to be our number one priority. anyone with children disagree?

 

Here's the problem. No matter what, this has to be done with taxes. So we let politicians decide how much they want to tax us, how much to rob that money for pet projects, and then how much coverage they want to extend to us. Those politicians now get to make judgement calls on when to pull plugs, when to decide that a surgery is too high of risk. In my mind, asking for universal healthcare isn't making a moral choice. It's turning a moral choice over to a group of 535 men and women in Washington. (And most are lawyers, and therefore inherently immoral.)

Edit: And that doesn't even touch the fact that socializing healthcare takes away much incentive for development.

 

great point. turning the moral choice over to 535 of the most immoral people

 

Lets see...

You waffle around a position and, when cornered, proclaim it to be merely a restatement of someone else's position, not your own. Then, several posts later, after making yourself some sort of "thread martyr" you basically come forward acknowledging that you do agree with that position after all.

Frankly - the onus is not on me to try and gauge the perfect magic question to ascertain your convictions. If you cannot articulate posts that convey your sentiments appropriately - it ain't my fault.

So, if you don't like the fact that no one takes you seriously or that everyone seems to be somehow misjudging your awesome internet character - try posting a little more definetively.

 

when was i cornered? when you blindly attacked and insulted me? when did i waffle? by stating that someone else was talking a more naturalistic stance?
"basically" come forward...wow, thats an binding statements.

the onus is on anyone wishing to participate in a discussion to understand where someone is coming from. Its a 2 way street. Plus, I dont know what you do and dont understand when you read my posts. im not a freaking mind reader! You have to communicate with someone. Obsiously you dont understand much. But rather than asking for clarification you hurl insults. the simple fact is you are too stubborn, arrogant, immature or flat out stupid to actually discuss, or consider, ideas that arent your own.

try not posting so definitetively! Especially when you try to judge ones moral character. who knows, maybe you will open your closed mind and learn something new from other people. You're too busy trying to be "right" than trying to figure out what is "right".

so do you really want to try to have a discussion about this or just turn it into a freaking philosophy 101 class where the niave freshman hold their ground and are too close minded to at least consider other possibilities?

 

Here's the problem with a publicly funded military. No matter what, this has to be done with taxes. So we let politicians decide how much they want to tax us, how much to rob that money for pet projects, and then how much defense they want to extend to us. Those politicians now get to make judgement calls on when to invade other countries, when to decide that military intervention is too high of risk. In my mind, asking for publicly funded military isn't making a moral choice. It's turning a moral choice over to a group of 535 men and women in Washington. (And most are lawyers, and therefore inherently immoral.)

 

Typical donkey nonsense. Your little hypersensitivity issue aside - I'm guessing the irony above is a bit over your head.

Ah I see now. We should all be nebulous. After all, that's a great way to experience other ideas. I can see it now: "I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds great! Count me in."

Nice strawman. It's never been about my ability to consider alternatives, it's your inability to actually supply one and stick to it. You lack a coherant position - in fact, you seem to abhor the concept. That's not a big deal, but you couple that with some sort of pariah-complex where everyone who points out this silly charade of yours is suddenly "close-minded". That's really ****ing irritating.

whatever.

 

See, this is where my child tax would really help.

 

again, you arent even interested in trying to have a discussion. pure comedy!

are you actually going to try and discuss the issue or continue your personal vendetta because of your lack of simple asking me direct questions?

go nip at someone elses heals doggy.

 

You gonna put him on ignore too?

 

By your "definition"? No, probably not.

An insult!

 

So many of our "issues" are.

Capitalism doesn't work.

 

i didnt mean for it to be insult...more like an illustration of whats happening.

but im glad i have a new fan

later on bro.

 

btw, way to completely kill a perfectly good thread. you must be proud

 

nah, just make sure that all children have access to healthcare and education and then let them sink or swim. i'm cool with that.

 

dude, you should know by now that rhad is a blow-hard raging libpig. put him on ignore so we can get on with the thread. tia

 

ohhh. that explains some of it. I thought maybe it was just me so i was giving him a fair chance, several to be exact. But thank you for reassuring my impression

 

i would agree with that. we could use govt aid to fund both of those