The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 547

Alex · 01-20-2010, 01:28 PM

Now that's just slanderous hyperbole.

If you wanted people to get sick and die it would only be people without income, or with insufficient income, that you'd want to get sick and die.

Of course, you don't want people to get sick and die. However, if people do get sick you are accept that access to money or certain employment will be a key factor in their attempt to avoid death (or remediation of sickness).

But that's fine, since support of a free market (or mostly free market) health care system is one of pragmatism. That despite individual harm, it is does more good overall than the alternative.

At core, I'm ok with this as well. However, my view is that this will be on the losing side of history. So, since my core view is unlikely to prevail I'd rather have the best option of the other side rather than a mishmash of things that is likely to make things worse individually and collectively.

sleepyjeff · 01-20-2010, 01:29 PM

Just outlaw ALL Health insurance and watch the prices fall......(I know, I know, too easy

)

JWBear · 01-21-2010, 09:32 AM

All hail our new corporate overlords!

scaeagles · 01-21-2010, 10:23 AM

I was exceptionally happy about portions of McCain/Feingold being overturned.

JWBear · 01-21-2010, 10:32 AM

scaeagles · 01-21-2010, 10:52 AM

I've long thought them to be unconstitutional. I view it as restrictive of free speech. It specifically banned groups from run ads mentioning specific candidates within 60 days of an election. They could be corporations, advocacy groups, me and my freakin' neighbor pooling our money, whatever. I think that's wrong.

Gemini Cricket · 01-21-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

All hail our new corporate overlords!

You know, I've always felt they were our overlords anyway.

Big business owns the media... etc etc etc.

In related news, I have never been more disinterested in the news, politics and government in my whole life than I am at this very moment.

Alex · 01-21-2010, 12:01 PM

I too do not approve of McCain Feingold or any other limitations on my ability to participate in the political process by use of my own money.

I have no problem with saying that only human individuals are allowed to participate in the process and am fine with barring institutions from financial involvement. But if I want to put my entire salary and effort behind getting my convenience store clerk elected to the U.S. Senate I do believe that should be my right.

Haven't yet read the news to see what parts were overturned.

flippyshark · 01-21-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

In related news, I have never been more disinterested in the news, politics and government in my whole life than I am at this very moment.

Then why'd ya click on this thread, huh?

Gemini Cricket · 01-21-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Then why'd ya click on this thread, huh?

To post what I wrote. Then I saw JW's flag picture. I often do not read everything in this thread.

01-20-2010, 01:28 PM	#5461
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Now that's just slanderous hyperbole. If you wanted people to get sick and die it would only be people without income, or with insufficient income, that you'd want to get sick and die. Of course, you don't want people to get sick and die. However, if people do get sick you are accept that access to money or certain employment will be a key factor in their attempt to avoid death (or remediation of sickness). But that's fine, since support of a free market (or mostly free market) health care system is one of pragmatism. That despite individual harm, it is does more good overall than the alternative. At core, I'm ok with this as well. However, my view is that this will be on the losing side of history. So, since my core view is unlikely to prevail I'd rather have the best option of the other side rather than a mishmash of things that is likely to make things worse individually and collectively.
	Submit to Quotes

01-20-2010, 01:29 PM	#5462
sleepyjeff Go Hawks Go! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parkrose Posts: 2,632	Just outlaw ALL Health insurance and watch the prices fall......(I know, I know, too easy ) __________________ River Guardian-less
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 09:32 AM	#5463
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	All hail our new corporate overlords! __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 10:23 AM	#5464
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I was exceptionally happy about portions of McCain/Feingold being overturned.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 10:32 AM	#5465
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	Why? __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 10:52 AM	#5466
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I've long thought them to be unconstitutional. I view it as restrictive of free speech. It specifically banned groups from run ads mentioning specific candidates within 60 days of an election. They could be corporations, advocacy groups, me and my freakin' neighbor pooling our money, whatever. I think that's wrong.
	Submit to Quotes

01-21-2010, 12:01 PM	#5468
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I too do not approve of McCain Feingold or any other limitations on my ability to participate in the political process by use of my own money. I have no problem with saying that only human individuals are allowed to participate in the process and am fine with barring institutions from financial involvement. But if I want to put my entire salary and effort behind getting my convenience store clerk elected to the U.S. Senate I do believe that should be my right. Haven't yet read the news to see what parts were overturned.
	Submit to Quotes