Jump to content

Hating Bush Is Like Hating Paris Hilton


Recommended Posts

meh, i fully expect to be responded to with a handful of made up lies and revisionist history. it's pretty much the only way to argue that iraq wasn't a colossal bumbleoff.
You know deep down you respect Bush for sticking to his guns.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

wow, in one post i was lied to, misrepresented, grouped in with arguments with which i don't necessarily agree, and faced with some hilarious hypocrisy about my knowledge of how the UN functions. all without any real, factual content.and i wasn't even offered a cigar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, in one post i was lied to, misrepresented, grouped in with arguments with which i don't necessarily agree, and faced with some hilarious hypocrisy about my knowledge of how the UN functions. all without any real, factual content.and i wasn't even offered a cigar.
I'm good what can I say?And come to the golf tourny and I'll give you 3 cigars.You know in the process of proving you wrong I found this website some guy put together of the timetables leading up to the Iraq War.Wow is it complete. Tons of stuff I forgot.Definatly left slant so you'll love it, but you got to step back and look at the scale and say: what kind of person really thinks this is a valid way to spend your life?Link
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm good what can I say?And come to the golf tourny and I'll give you 3 cigars.You know in the process of proving you wrong I found this website some guy put together of the timetables leading up to the Iraq War.Wow is it complete. Tons of stuff I forgot.Definatly left slant so you'll love it, but you got to step back and look at the scale and say: what kind of person really thinks this is a valid way to spend your life?Link
un security council resolution 1441. inspectors were returning, bush tried to block them and was partially successful. i have no idea how you don't remember this. yes, i'm well aware that there weren't any for a while, but they had returned prior to the start of the war.as to golf and cigars, i wish i could, honestly. damn college reunion which is like one of five things i'd rather attend than the golf outing.and yes, i agree that that guy is lame. but there's info in that very thing that backs up what i'm saying.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the Dutch, great culture etc.
I like America as well, just not the way your government is running this now.
I would start by saying that to imply that Bush's reasons were personal require you to know the thinking of Bush. Better for you to say they weer not in the best interest of the country. Your side seems to want to be able to tell us what is in the man's soul and that makes you come across as arrogant, please leave arrogance to Americans, we do it much better.
I added to the personal reasoning (US government) to indicate that is was in the personal intrest of certain US government officials not as mutch Bush personal. I do not believe it was or is in the best intrest of the US citizens.
The UN had weapon's inspectors in Iraq. these guys were kicked out by Saddam. the UN screamed bloody murder, and placed a referendam on the table demanding that Saddam allow them back in. Saddam was given a deadline, and he ignored it. Now the UN was in a pickle, what do you do when a country doesn't obey you? The whole point of the UN is for all nations to speak as one. They spoke, Saddam said pound sand.
There was definatly a conflict between the UN an Iraq. It is not the only one. There have been conflicts between North-Korea, China, Sudan, etc, etc, etc. However no one asked the US to invade Iraq because of this conflict, there where still diplomatic outs, but the US decided to attack prematurly and without saction.
and mostly because a major source of oil in the world was in the hands of an unstable dictator.
So you agree that Oil was a major factor in deciding to attack. Sadam was a lot of things, but his reign was certainly not unstable. By unstable you mean anti US, go figure. He invaded Koewiet and the Saudie Bin laden family called in Bush senior (long time friend of the family) to attack Iraq.
In fact America gets little to no oil from Iraq
Could be true, but these are long term plans. Who no's what happens. And guess what, the objective is control. The US is not getting the Oil, but neither are any other Anti Us countries.
A) So what does the US gain by protecting the oil fields of Iraq? A stable world economy. B)This helps you guys a lot more than it helps us.
A) See above.B) I think a stable world economy is in both our intrests equally.But stable isn't really the right word. A western oriented world economie is a better term.
Britian agrees so that's why they sided with us, along with australia and 30+ other countries.
They where put on the spot by the US invasion and had no choice but to support. It's like with your wife.When she rear ends someone else with a car and they and the other driver get into an heated argument. Regardless who's fault it is you will need to support your wife in this argument or you will not be getting any for a long, long time.That is even if you secretly agree she shoulda checked here rear view mirror.
Funny but recently I played golf with a Marine General that said that one of his battalions was being sent into Afghanistan to take over from the UN their area of responsibility. they have so far established a fort, and stayed inside for their entire time in country. the area has never seen a friendly troops becuase the UN has never left their compound. The UN works on paper, in real life they are as useful as a French Army division.
The Dutch have millitairy in Afganistan to help rebuild the country under the UN flag. How come we are tacking casualties from road side bombings during patrols when they stay in the fort?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that the UN has failed at most of it's efforts. The corruption levels are so high that the only ay to deal with it now os to remove it from American soil and sit back and just veto everything.
The reason it has failed a lot historically is because of the existance of 2 major power blocks, the US and Russia. There intrests where almost always conflicting so pretty mutch every vote was Veto'd by one or the other.
Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />i knew you'd say something along those lines. our arguments about libertarianism don't really go anywhere, so i'm gonna concentrate on BG lying about iraq for a while <img src="style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":club:" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
I've yet to see you explain why you think that the govt should be allowed to make personal decisions for some mysterious "stupid other people", but not for *you personally*. I am absolutely positive that a federal commission would not approve of the choices you've made in your life. So, you have to decide: should they have the power to restructure *your* life, or do you have to admit that you have no right to decide for other people how they should run *their* life? You can't have it both ways; that's just not how federal power works.
Link to post
Share on other sites
that's why henry and i don't really end up going anywhere, because we don't seem to agree on precisely where to start. both places are perfectly valid, but it's hard to convince someone to change their primary concern with respect to politics, so things don't tend to really go anywhere fruitful. libertarians tend to think that if we start from freedom in an absolute sense, then the basic services things can be taken care of in a secondary manner or work themselves out. liberals tend to think that if we start by taking care of everyone, then things like freedom to be a dipshit or whatever can be considered in a similarly secondary way.
But I don't believe that that really *is* your starting point. If that truly is your starting point, then your first political concern should be about setting up a federal dept to analyze *your* choices, not somebody else's. It's easy to claim that you are willing to submit to the wisdom of the federal govt when you know it will never bleed down to your life, but when you argue for programs for *those other stupid people*, you are arguing for that in somebody else's life. I have yet to see a supporter of big government programs say "we need program XYZ because my life is out of control and I need the govt to protect me from my persistent bad decision making skills". That has *never* been said. It is always for, you know, those *other* people. Always. It's perhaps the most dishonest shell game currently going on in politics. It's insulting and elitist.
Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />The fact is that whether or not these people choose to be uninsured for selfish reasons or monetary ones, when they end up in the hospital after a car accident or catastrophic illness, who do you think foots the bill? The hospital and doctors. Do you see a connection between this and the rising cost of healthcare for the ones that can afford health insurance? Do you think that this might be reduced somewhat, if the people with catastrophic illness get diagnosed more quickly by going to the doctor's office instead of the emergency room? Do you think that maybe just maybe some of those illnesses might actually be prevented by such visits? And how much does a doctor's visit cost as opposed to a hospital stay. I can tell you that my recent hospital stay of 4 days cost in excess of $40,000. In this case, it was a necessary operation. But how many doctor visits do you think that $40,000 would cover? Regardless of what you may think, we do pay for the uninsureds health care. And we pay more than should be necessary in most cases. Because many emergency room visits by those who are uninsured are for things that could easily be taken care of in a doctor's office if they had health insurance.
So because the system is broken in some ways, we have to break it in even worse ways to compensate?If people are making $50K per year, they can pay their hospital bills. The hospital will be happy to work out payment plans with them, give reduced costs, etc. In fact, if not for federal laws that required doctors and hospitals to charge certain amounts, this would be even more common. Here's the thing: people who make lots of money don't want their credit record ruined. A good credit record is an asset just like stocks and real estate. So if they go to the doctor, they are not just going to say "no, I'm not paying", because it will cost them in the long run to have their credit record ruined. So a rich person showing up at the emergency room is not the crisis you make it out to be. And in the end, yeah, if we were allowed free markets in hospitals, and each hospital could decide how to care for those who don't pay, I'd be happy to share the cost.And it should be noted, once again, the "one true solution" tone to your post. You act like it's always correct for each individual to behave in a certain way, regardless of their life circumstances, regardless of the tradeoffs in their life. It's not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So because the system is broken in some ways, we have to break it in even worse ways to compensate?If people are making $50K per year, they can pay their hospital bills. The hospital will be happy to work out payment plans with them, give reduced costs, etc. In fact, if not for federal laws that required doctors and hospitals to charge certain amounts, this would be even more common. Here's the thing: people who make lots of money don't want their credit record ruined. A good credit record is an asset just like stocks and real estate. So if they go to the doctor, they are not just going to say "no, I'm not paying", because it will cost them in the long run to have their credit record ruined. So a rich person showing up at the emergency room is not the crisis you make it out to be. And in the end, yeah, if we were allowed free markets in hospitals, and each hospital could decide how to care for those who don't pay, I'd be happy to share the cost.And it should be noted, once again, the "one true solution" tone to your post. You act like it's always correct for each individual to behave in a certain way, regardless of their life circumstances, regardless of the tradeoffs in their life. It's not.
We're not talking about the rich here are we? Because as you say, they would pay the hospital bill to keep their credit rating up. But for those that can't afford it, their credit rating is the least of their worries. The Obama plan doesn't force you to have health insurance. What it does is make health insurance available for all who want it and can't afford it. And it gives many options to have different levels as well. If you have private health insurance that you want to keep instead of using the government's program, you have that option. And unlike Hilary's plan, he doesn't FORCE you to have health insurance. To me that makes sense and again would allow more preventative medicine instead of picking up the more expensive pieces after it's too late for that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're not talking about the rich here are we? Because as you say, they would pay the hospital bill to keep their credit rating up. But for those that can't afford it, their credit rating is the least of their worries. The Obama plan doesn't force you to have health insurance. What it does is make health insurance available for all who want it and can't afford it. And it gives many options to have different levels as well. If you have private health insurance that you want to keep instead of using the government's program, you have that option. And unlike Hilary's plan, he doesn't FORCE you to have health insurance. To me that makes sense and again would allow more preventative medicine instead of picking up the more expensive pieces after it's too late for that.
Yes, we were talking about the rich here. It was in regard to the dishonest inflated numbers of uninsured that are constantly spouted in regard to our "healthcare crisis". As for Obama's plan, it does force you to buy insurance for children, so in that way, yes it does. It would also required employers to provide insurance. So while it may not directly force an employee to buy insurance, the effect is the same. And do you think such a mandate comes with no strings attached? Of course not, so now even *more* competition is eliminated. And what happens when competition is eliminated? Hint: See Economics 101 on supply and demand.Also, by creating a massive subsidized federal program that competes directly with private programs, you eliminate even *more* competition. So while Obama dare not admit what he's doing, he is basically creating a govt takeover of 1/7th of the economy. Yes, soon hospitals can be run with the efficiency of the DMV and the heart of the IRS.Forcing insurance on anyone who is employed or has children has no economic difference from just socializing medicine. Creating a subsidized federal insurance-of-last-resort creates a de facto one-size-fits-all plan for all but the very wealthy. So what you get is crappy medicine for the poor and middle class, and the rich continue to get the best care. You can't make people rich by making them poor.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we were talking about the rich here. It was in regard to the dishonest inflated numbers of uninsured that are constantly spouted in regard to our "healthcare crisis". As for Obama's plan, it does force you to buy insurance for children, so in that way, yes it does. It would also required employers to provide insurance. So while it may not directly force an employee to buy insurance, the effect is the same. And do you think such a mandate comes with no strings attached? Of course not, so now even *more* competition is eliminated. And what happens when competition is eliminated? Hint: See Economics 101 on supply and demand.Also, by creating a massive subsidized federal program that competes directly with private programs, you eliminate even *more* competition. So while Obama dare not admit what he's doing, he is basically creating a govt takeover of 1/7th of the economy. Yes, soon hospitals can be run with the efficiency of the DMV and the heart of the IRS.Forcing insurance on anyone who is employed or has children has no economic difference from just socializing medicine. Creating a subsidized federal insurance-of-last-resort creates a de facto one-size-fits-all plan for all but the very wealthy. So what you get is crappy medicine for the poor and middle class, and the rich continue to get the best care. You can't make people rich by making them poor.
Health insurance for children. How awful. How is it forcing insurance on the employed? Or is it that it's forcing insurance on the employer? I don't even see that in the plan. From what I can see it doesn't make you have insurance. It gives those who can't afford it the opportunity to have insurance. If you have insurance you're happy with, then you get to stay with it. As for health insurance for children, I guess I have an issue with parents who choose to not give their children the health care they need. That borders on neglect. And it's not like children aren't insured under CHIPS now. So it's not anything new. And yes I do believe that we need to protect those who can't protect themselves namely children. Adults have a choice. Children do not. I guess I'm kind of on the fence with this though since I don't like the government telling parents how to raise their kids. But we do that now with laws against child abuse and neglect. So in some instances the government does tell us how to raise our kids when their life and health are on the line. So while I'm not crazy about the government forcing parents to have health care insurance for their kids, I do understand the reasons behind it since there are parents who will do nothing to protect or insure their children's health without being forced into it. And children don't have any say in it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Health insurance for children. How awful. How is it forcing insurance on the employed? Or is it that it's forcing insurance on the employer? I don't even see that in the plan. From what I can see it doesn't make you have insurance.
Are you seriously going to pretend that you don't see how forcing all employers to buy insurance is the same as forcing *everyone* to buy insurance? God, I hate this "pretend it's something it's not" game. If you have the strength of your convictions, defend them, don't play make-believe.
It gives those who can't afford it the opportunity to have insurance. If you have insurance you're happy with, then you get to stay with it.
Again, let's not play pretend here. Under his plan, the government is creating a massive federally subsidized plan. And forcing all employers to offer health insurance. So let's see, everyone is forced to buy insurance, and the govt happens to have a one-size-fits-all plan that has the illusion of being slightly cheaper because it is subsidized (ignore those taxes behind the curtain!). And we're supposed to believe that the free market can still operate under those conditions? I guess it's similar to the theory that if private roads were feasible they would exist right now, despite having to compete with subsidized govt owned roads.Killing competition drives up costs. This is economics 101. Obama's plan will kill competition just as quickly as if insurance companies were made explicitly illegal. Again, if you (he, Obama) have the strength of your convictions, defend them, don't pretend it's a fantasy world where magic bureaucrats can wave a magic wand and defy the laws of supply and demand.
As for health insurance for children, I guess I have an issue with parents who choose to not give their children the health care they need. That borders on neglect.
If parents are neglecting their children, they may be arrested. We don't need socialized medicine for that. On the other hand, federal bureaucrats deciding that their magic solution is the best one for every family is insulting and dangerous. It may or may not be right for any family at any given time.
And it's not like children aren't insured under CHIPS now. So it's not anything new.
Then why make it a central feature of this supposedly new plan? It wouldn't be more pretending, would it? Pretending to do something noble while socializing 1/7th of the economy? Face facts, it's just a ploy to make a horrible plan politically feasible. After all, if you are against this plan, you must hate children, right? Evil, evil child haters! Any child lover would support socialized medicine. Die child haters, die!
And yes I do believe that we need to protect those who can't protect themselves namely children. Adults have a choice. Children do not. I guess I'm kind of on the fence with this though since I don't like the government telling parents how to raise their kids. But we do that now with laws against child abuse and neglect. So in some instances the government does tell us how to raise our kids when their life and health are on the line. So while I'm not crazy about the government forcing parents to have health care insurance for their kids, I do understand the reasons behind it since there are parents who will do nothing to protect or insure their children's health without being forced into it. And children don't have any say in it.
OK, this paragraph of yours is a bit more nuanced, and I like what you say here. So I'll just repeat -- we already have ways of protecting children from the neglect or abuse of parents. Destroying the market for medical care doesn't help that problem in the least. To add even more nuance, I don't have a problem with the govt being an insurer of last resort for poor kids. Again, it's not an ideal solution, but in the grand scheme of "problems that need fixing in the federal govt", it is definitely one of the bottom items on the list. It'll be several lifetimes before it bubbles up high enough on the priority list to be looked at.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...