Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

 

2010-01-21 10:07:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


Well, Islrael pre-emptively struck during a build up of troops, threats and closure of its waterways, yet they are blamed for starting the war. So all of the US/Bush haters would have an even bigger field day if Bush had struck before the attacks.
I didn't say a foreign strike. The hijackers were on US soil and should've been arrested.
that is a surface problem, the underlying problem was then and is now, terrorism and its infrastructure, and its general support against the west.
We can't stamp that out no matter how many troops we send into the region or how long we keep them there. You can't wipe out an ideology with force.

We're better off having our FBI and CIA do a better job communicating and thwarting attacks before they strike on our shore.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:08:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


I didn't say a foreign strike. The hijackers were on US soil and should've been arrested.
that is a surface problem, the underlying problem was then and is now, terrorism and its infrastructure, and its general support against the west.
We can't stamp that out no matter how many troops we send into the region or how long we keep them there. You can't wipe out an ideology with force.

We're better off having our FBI and CIA do a better job communicating and thwarting attacks before they strike on our shore.
I edited, my post in anticipation of this exact response, please re-read
2010-01-21 10:11:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


that is a surface problem, the underlying problem was then and is now, terrorism and its infrastructure, and its general support against the west.
We can't stamp that out no matter how many troops we send into the region or how long we keep them there. You can't wipe out an ideology with force.

We're better off having our FBI and CIA do a better job communicating and thwarting attacks before they strike on our shore.
I edited, my post in anticipation of this exact response, please re-read
No, I have no problem with profiling. I don't have a problem with the FBI and CIA screening email for potential terrorist threats either. I do have a problem if that information is used as evidence for other domestic crimes. For a specific threat like terrorism? Fine.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:12:09
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

nlsme1 wrote:

How bout this, what if they chickened out and left the country on 9/11, would you still have considered it an attack?
fair question.  but, even though i hate to i have to answer with a scenario/question....

lets say israel launched a cruise missile towards iran.  then lets assume it broke down and splashed down harmlessly in the desert about 20 miles outside of tehran.  was that an attack?
2010-01-21 10:14:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


We can't stamp that out no matter how many troops we send into the region or how long we keep them there. You can't wipe out an ideology with force.

We're better off having our FBI and CIA do a better job communicating and thwarting attacks before they strike on our shore.
I edited, my post in anticipation of this exact response, please re-read
No, I have no problem with profiling. I don't have a problem with the FBI and CIA screening email for potential terrorist threats either. I do have a problem if that information is used as evidence for other domestic crimes. For a specific threat like terrorism? Fine.
That is an argument for the detractors, not for me. However you know as well as I, what the ACLU and its supporters will turn that into. Look what they have tried to do even AFTER 911 occured.
2010-01-21 10:15:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

11 Bravo wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

How bout this, what if they chickened out and left the country on 9/11, would you still have considered it an attack?
fair question.  but, even though i hate to i have to answer with a scenario/question....

lets say israel launched a cruise missile towards iran.  then lets assume it broke down and splashed down harmlessly in the desert about 20 miles outside of tehran.  was that an attack?
ouch, I can say I am 50/50 on this one. both great arguments.
2010-01-21 10:17:23
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


I edited, my post in anticipation of this exact response, please re-read
No, I have no problem with profiling. I don't have a problem with the FBI and CIA screening email for potential terrorist threats either. I do have a problem if that information is used as evidence for other domestic crimes. For a specific threat like terrorism? Fine.
That is an argument for the detractors, not for me. However you know as well as I, what the ACLU and its supporters will turn that into. Look what they have tried to do even AFTER 911 occured.
I am a strong supporter of civil liberties... for American citizens. If foreigners are coming here they don't get the same rights as American citizens. Of course, then we're forced to deal with diplomatic fallout but w/e, protecting American citizens should be our governments priority, not worrying about a butthurt foreign government.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:23:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, I have no problem with profiling. I don't have a problem with the FBI and CIA screening email for potential terrorist threats either. I do have a problem if that information is used as evidence for other domestic crimes. For a specific threat like terrorism? Fine.
That is an argument for the detractors, not for me. However you know as well as I, what the ACLU and its supporters will turn that into. Look what they have tried to do even AFTER 911 occured.
I am a strong supporter of civil liberties... for American citizens. If foreigners are coming here they don't get the same rights as American citizens. Of course, then we're forced to deal with diplomatic fallout but w/e, protecting American citizens should be our governments priority, not worrying about a butthurt foreign government.
preaching to the choir.

but since we are a majority pussified, limp wristed, bottled water drinking, nation now, it matters.
2010-01-21 10:24:58
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

lowing wrote:

bottled water drinking.
That is the weirdest insult that I have ever heard.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-01-21 10:26:24
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704

11 Bravo wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

How bout this, what if they chickened out and left the country on 9/11, would you still have considered it an attack?
fair question.  but, even though i hate to i have to answer with a scenario/question....

lets say israel launched a cruise missile towards iran.  then lets assume it broke down and splashed down harmlessly in the desert about 20 miles outside of tehran.  was that an attack?
Yes, because a button was pushed where there was no turning back from. It wasn't by choice the attack failed. It would be chance. IN the 9/11 it would be the choice that stopped the attack from happening, not chance.
Now if Isreal took all the steps to prepare said cruise missile, and was ready to launch but decided not to then no it wouldn't be. Even if the whole world knew they were about to attack.
2010-01-21 10:26:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

bottled water drinking.
That is the weirdest insult that I have ever heard.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.c … -of-water/
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:28:52
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, I have no problem with profiling. I don't have a problem with the FBI and CIA screening email for potential terrorist threats either. I do have a problem if that information is used as evidence for other domestic crimes. For a specific threat like terrorism? Fine.
That is an argument for the detractors, not for me. However you know as well as I, what the ACLU and its supporters will turn that into. Look what they have tried to do even AFTER 911 occured.
I am a strong supporter of civil liberties... for American citizens. If foreigners are coming here they don't get the same rights as American citizens. Of course, then we're forced to deal with diplomatic fallout but w/e, protecting American citizens should be our governments priority, not worrying about a butthurt foreign government.
So protecting us from rock throwers half way around the world should be our governments priority, why should protecting us from countless illness' not?
2010-01-21 10:30:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


That is an argument for the detractors, not for me. However you know as well as I, what the ACLU and its supporters will turn that into. Look what they have tried to do even AFTER 911 occured.
I am a strong supporter of civil liberties... for American citizens. If foreigners are coming here they don't get the same rights as American citizens. Of course, then we're forced to deal with diplomatic fallout but w/e, protecting American citizens should be our governments priority, not worrying about a butthurt foreign government.
So protecting us from rock throwers half way around the world should be our governments priority, why should protecting us from countless illness' not?
Justice and Defense are the only things that government should be involved in.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:31:50
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
Defense from illness? The flu could hurt us a lot more than Osama could dream.
2010-01-21 10:32:25
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

nlsme1 wrote:

Defense from illness? The flu could hurt us a lot more than Osama could dream.
You're really reaching.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:35:10
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
No I'm not. I am dead serious. If the government has the responsability of protecting us from someone who could do minimal damage, why are they not charged with protecting us from something that could wipe out our entire populace?
2010-01-21 10:41:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

nlsme1 wrote:

No I'm not. I am dead serious. If the government has the responsability of protecting us from someone who could do minimal damage, why are they not charged with protecting us from something that could wipe out our entire populace?
The philosophy I described is there to prevent humans from having a negative impact on each others lives. Justice includes police enforcing laws against murder, rape etc. Crimes that involve one human being negatively impacting the life of another.

In the same way, the government is responsible for national defense in the form of a group of humans in another country having a negative impact on our lives. Not drug laws or seatbelt laws or any other silly nanny bs.

Everything else is the personal responsibility of the individual.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-21 10:42:01)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 10:42:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

bottled water drinking.
That is the weirdest insult that I have ever heard.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.c … -of-water/
that pretty much sums it up.

THat is one funny blog by the way.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 10:51:54)

2010-01-21 10:49:33
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
So what can the government do to stop the negative impact I feel from all the uninsured getting treated at twice the cost at the ER only to have inflated bills passed on to me when my ins. premium goes up?
Personall responsability is good in theory, but we are Americans. Let's face it, leave it up to the populace and the populace takes a nose dive. Guess what happens when half our country goes to shit, the rest is dragged down too. Why would someone pay for health coverage when they know they can be seen for free? Especially if they could bareley afford it in the first place. What happens when 150 mil people pass the buck? The other 150 mill inherit one huge bill. I say fuck that.
2010-01-21 10:58:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
You want more responsible Americans? Make economics and personal finance integral parts of high school education. Why is four years of English plus two years of a foreign language required to graduate? Most Americans struggle balancing their checkbook, of course they'll have issues with credit card debt and prioritizing their bills. Who's at fault? Our education system that is beholden to the idea of a 'classical education'. Sorry, not reality based.

Personal responsibility is not only good in theory, it's the best in practice as well. Who knows what is in our own best interests better than us? Does a politician know what I need in order to succeed in life? Hardly.

The problem is twofold. People like you who say people are idiots and can't be trusted to run their own life and the people that whine and cry about how unfair life is and want someone else to make their choices for them. If you could somehow create a tiered system where people could opt out of government making decisions for me while catering to the pussies who want big brother to take care of them I'd be all for it. But it's impossible so it's an all or nothing proposition.

I did my time in the Army. I had sergeants telling me when to jump and how high. Because of this, I value my freedom and my right to make my own decisions in life. I'll be damned if I ever give away a single ounce of my freedom, economic or social, without a fight.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 11:21:13
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
Wow, so health reform is an assault on your freedom. I am not trying to appeal emtionally to you here.

You blame 50 dollar aspirins on Pharma comapanies, I blame it on the uninsured. That is how hospitals recoup money spent on treating the uninsured. You blame the fact that you can get drugs outside the U.S. at less then half the cost as here on R&D? Well me and you pay for most R&D through OUR taxes. Yet pharma companies feel so obliged to charge us more for the same product as they charge in a country that put $0 into the R&D. You say it is ones own responsability to live a healthy lifestyle. So how about the millions of people who do just that, and still get sick? There are countless things that can put someone of any age and any lifestyle into hospital. A lot of wich are outside of anyones control.

Our government is incredibly inneficient RIGHT NOW. If they were just 5 percent more efficient then healthcare could be complety government run without using one dollar from increased taxes. Our bussinuss are struggling to cope with the exponentially rising healthcare costs. The government could take that away and make us competetive on the global market again. I see how government health care could be a win win for everyone except for private ins. It COULD be done without raising the cost to anyone, while easing the burden that is weighing down our economic backbone.

Or we could continue to do nothing. Let the average american get raped by ins comapnies out to appease the shareholders, and pharma companies that have no reason for charging more for a drug that was R&Ded through our gov funding/universities, made by our workforce, then they do abroad. Makes no sense how changes like that could be construed as you being forced to give anything up.
2010-01-21 11:31:37
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

nlsme1 wrote:

Wow, so health reform is an assault on your freedom. I am not trying to appeal emtionally to you here.

You blame 50 dollar aspirins on Pharma comapanies, I blame it on the uninsured. That is how hospitals recoup money spent on treating the uninsured. You blame the fact that you can get drugs outside the U.S. at less then half the cost as here on R&D? Well me and you pay for most R&D through OUR taxes. Yet pharma companies feel so obliged to charge us more for the same product as they charge in a country that put $0 into the R&D. You say it is ones own responsability to live a healthy lifestyle. So how about the millions of people who do just that, and still get sick? There are countless things that can put someone of any age and any lifestyle into hospital. A lot of wich are outside of anyones control.

Our government is incredibly inneficient RIGHT NOW. If they were just 5 percent more efficient then healthcare could be complety government run without using one dollar from increased taxes. Our bussinuss are struggling to cope with the exponentially rising healthcare costs. The government could take that away and make us competetive on the global market again. I see how government health care could be a win win for everyone except for private ins. It COULD be done without raising the cost to anyone, while easing the burden that is weighing down our economic backbone.

Or we could continue to do nothing. Let the average american get raped by ins comapnies out to appease the shareholders, and pharma companies that have no reason for charging more for a drug that was R&Ded through our gov funding/universities, made by our workforce, then they do abroad. Makes no sense how changes like that could be construed as you being forced to give anything up.
Executive Order 10988. Look it up. That one EO precluded the government from ever having the ability to run anything at a more efficient level than they currently run the local DMV.

If people are poor they are covered by Medicaid right now. If they're not poor, they're forced to buy medical coverage. I see nothing unfair or burdensome in this. I also don't feel the need to stick up for the 'poor' because the vast majority of them made poor life choices that led to them not being able to rise in the world.

Appealing to my emotions on this subject fails, sorry. I grew up poor with three brothers supported by my single mother. I've been working since I was 13 and have been putting myself through college after joining the Army and spending a year overseas in exchange for the GI Bill. I went to public school until high school and watched most kids spit on the education that was handed to them on a silver platter, nevermind that education is the only real way out of a shitty life situation. They didn't care. Half of them had mom's who were on welfare and collecting food stamps and they saw that as their future. If I can make it out, anyone can make it out. It just takes effort and most people in this country don't want to put any more effort into their lives than they put into changing the channels on their tv.

The only people I have any pity for are those born with mental or physical disabilities. Everyone else was born with the ability to succeed in life and if they are in the poorhouse it's their own fault.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 11:45:12
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
What is unfair is when someone who chooses not to hold insurance is seen that buck gets passed on. No matter if they are poor or not.

As far as anyone can pull themsolves out of poverty. Well that is not so black and white. Sure some can like yourself, and although I wouldn't say I was poor growing up, I was FAR from privelaged. The fact remains that not all of them can.
As far as it being their own fault, sure some of them it is. But to say it is for all is ignorance. That is like saying the ONLY way you can be successful is through hard work.

I already posted that I am not trying to appeal to your emotions. I am trying to put it as simple as possible. People w/o health ins. are a very big factor in our rising healthcare costs.The reason being is those that do pay for it pay MORE because of them. These rising costs are being put directly onto small businuss'. FACT

How bout debunking what I said about Pharma companies being allowed to rape us. Or the real reason hospitals charge 2 times what the care actually cost?
To say that thereis a law saying "government is not allowed to be more efficient at anything over the level of the dmv" is absurd.Not saying that they are more efficient then that, rather stating that if they were healthcare would no longer be a concern for anyone.
2010-01-21 11:54:13
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
The executive order I named was the one that lifted the restriction on government workers joining unions. Union employees have no reason to push for more efficiency because inefficiency gives the union a reason to hire more members.

I already told you that hospitals shouldn't be forced to take all comers. I also already stated that it's the right of pharma companies to charge whatever they can get away with for their products. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to take the medication. In many cases a generic drug is available that does the same thing but no one wants them. Hell, when I go to CVS I have the choice between a name brand drug and the CVS brand generic and 99 times out of 100 I will choose the name brand product. Why? I guess it makes me feel safer. It's not entirely rational.

I also never said that all you need to do to succeed in life is to work hard. You can work hard all your life at being a ditch digger and you'll never be anything more than a ditch digger. The key to success in life is a value for education coupled with a willingness to work hard. One without the other does you no good. Most Americans don't value education. It's a fact. If you gave the average American 1 in 1000 odds of an easy life Paris Hilton style vs 999 out of 1000 odds of success that required hard work both physically and mentally most of them would roll the dice to be Paris.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-21 12:19:26
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704
Employees never push for anything outside of their own best interest,union or not, generally nobody does. Does not mean the government cannot improve efficiency. The civil servants are not who run the government. VOTERS are.
Hospitals are not forced to take all comers, they are forced to treat LIFE THREATENING conditions. I asked earlier, you would face no moral dilemna going to he ER for a broken finger, and walking past 3 people that are left to die because they dont have health ins. Pharma companies shouldn't have the right to charge whatever they want. Considering the drugs they sell are usually the result of AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS. Sure, let them sell it for whatever they want when there is no tax money going into their product.
Again, if you think all you need to be successful in life are what you stated, then you are wrong and a dreamer. And as I stated not ALL of them can make it out of the poor house. Even if they all had the 2 things you think are all it takes.
But, don't even respond to the point of our small businuss bearing the brunt of our weight for rising health costs.
As far as what you saw growing up, you say you saw everyone spitting on the education provided them, well I say the government should have provided education worth the time.
Now as you go back to personal responsability, what one person can you blame for a country of 300 mil failing because of the cost to do bus. here? How many people have lost their jobs due to businuss cost/ben anal. to move? What about millions of people there? How about when you get out school, and there is no jobs for you? Is that gonna be your fault? BTW good luck finding a job when your done. Maybe you will, maybe all you will fid is something that barely gets you by to pay your bills,but maybe you wont be able to afford health ins.. Just don't get sick.

Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-01-21 12:25:36)

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard