all arguments against universal healthcare are not just morally bankrupt, they are logically bankrupt.
Argument 1. The government has repeatedly proven itself incompetent and inefficient.
So, that argument proves your statement wrong.
Argument 2. I do not wish to place responsibility for my healthcare in the hands of the government, as I don't trust them to keep my information private. In addition, I do not trust that healthcare access will not be used as a barrier to future action/ an enticement to behave in ways that are beneficial to the government.
Neither one of those arguments fit your criteria, so in short, you statement was incorrect.
I made a comment to the head of the Psych department that Psychology was nothing more than the vieled scientific study of the completely fucking obvious.
And you were wrong. Nicely done.
Let me ask you a question Mr. I took a first-level psych course, so I know all I need to know. Why does someone who gets hit over the head every day for five years expect to get hit on the head tomorrow?
More importantly, and a tremendous demonstration of why you need to maybe take a second psych course, why does someone who gets hit over the head on random days have a MUCH STRONGER response than someone who gets hit every day?
They do. You didn't know that. And it's certainly not obvious.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you found things so obvious is the lack of sophistication of your first level course?
You'd think that to someone as intelligent as you that would be... obvious.
Citibank is raping my wife $1300 a month to pay for her loan...
I have about 35,000 in loans from my BA/MS, and my payment is around 300 a month. No matter how I work it, I can't make your math add up unless you owe like 150,000 or so. So the question then is, what's missing? What kind of job does your wife have that she makes what you say but had to get a 150k education to do?
And honestly, you can work with your lenders. Something just doesn't add up in your post.
It makes absolutely no sense to me that anyone can find support for money taken from me so that you can get your college education.
Minds are a public resource as much as any other. The fact that you're an anti-tax troll doesn't negate that.
The Constitution says
Section 8: The Congress shall have power
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I hope you're not trying to say that a well educated populace doesn't fall under general welfare, and since that's quite clearly one of the enumerated powers of Congress, I have no idea what you're complaining about. It's perfectly Constitutional.
Whether it's a good idea or not, well, that's the more interesting debate. But when you say "I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support..." all you're doing is displaying your ignorance of Constitutional Law.
I think the people who make the claims you discussed are just looking for justification for their apathy. I doubt any of them have done the hard work of electing a worthy candidate, or even tried. It's not easy to change something as big as government, so they use the "both sides are the same evil blah blah blah" as an excuse to avoid actually doing something.
And honestly, I think some of them just like to bitch and display how they're opposed to "the man".
Sorry, but you're trying to hard and your post reflects it. Going to prison makes the draft decidedly involuntary by every definition except the most contrived.
Before that first bomb was dropped, do you really think those who died had any real choice in whether they lived or died?
Absolutely, they could have overthrown their government and surrendered but chose not to.
China's currency, which for the previous decade had been tightly pegged at 8.28 yuan to the U.S. dollar, was revalued on July 21, 2005 to 8.11 per U.S. dollar, following the removal of the peg to the US dollar and pressure from the United States.
I think you're two years behind the curve on this one.
Because it's not just China we have to worry about if they dump their holdings. You think any other country is going to want dollars if they're low value.
It's interesting that you can make a statement like that and yet not see why you're wrong.
If no one wants low value dollars, and China dumps dollars, thus lowering their value, who, exactly, do you think will be buying them? You just said no one wants low value dollars, and by dumping them, that's exactly what China will have.
"They're poor, rural whites that revel in their lack of education. It's not used as an insult because they're "poor rural whites" but, rather, because they revel in their lack of education."
Please provide evidence of this beyond your profoundly and obviously prejudiced opinion.
You won't be able to, so you'll result to insults like the last time.
Slashdot Mirror
"it is still far better than an equally wasteful system"
Please prove with facts that the current system is equally wasteful in comparison to a government system which does not currently exist.
I'll wait.
Argument 1. The government has repeatedly proven itself incompetent and inefficient.
So, that argument proves your statement wrong.
Argument 2. I do not wish to place responsibility for my healthcare in the hands of the government, as I don't trust them to keep my information private. In addition, I do not trust that healthcare access will not be used as a barrier to future action/ an enticement to behave in ways that are beneficial to the government.
Neither one of those arguments fit your criteria, so in short, you statement was incorrect.
And you were wrong. Nicely done.
Let me ask you a question Mr. I took a first-level psych course, so I know all I need to know. Why does someone who gets hit over the head every day for five years expect to get hit on the head tomorrow?
More importantly, and a tremendous demonstration of why you need to maybe take a second psych course, why does someone who gets hit over the head on random days have a MUCH STRONGER response than someone who gets hit every day?
They do. You didn't know that. And it's certainly not obvious.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you found things so obvious is the lack of sophistication of your first level course?
You'd think that to someone as intelligent as you that would be... obvious.
Because that's the only method he has for discrediting your very lucid post.
Minds are a public resource as much as any other. The fact that you're an anti-tax troll doesn't negate that.
The Constitution says
I hope you're not trying to say that a well educated populace doesn't fall under general welfare, and since that's quite clearly one of the enumerated powers of Congress, I have no idea what you're complaining about. It's perfectly Constitutional.
Whether it's a good idea or not, well, that's the more interesting debate. But when you say "I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support..." all you're doing is displaying your ignorance of Constitutional Law.
Without telling anyone. I think that difference matters.
I think the people who make the claims you discussed are just looking for justification for their apathy. I doubt any of them have done the hard work of electing a worthy candidate, or even tried. It's not easy to change something as big as government, so they use the "both sides are the same evil blah blah blah" as an excuse to avoid actually doing something.
And honestly, I think some of them just like to bitch and display how they're opposed to "the man".
You claimed I said this
"the GP's assertion that redneck means white, poor, and working class"
I never did.
But that "bigot" thing was a good attempt to save face, it's too bad your post was around for me to quote and prove you were full of shit.
"Wow. The point is..."
No, AC who is actually OP, the point is, when you gave your opinion, your first statement was factually incorrect.
I couldn't care less about your "slavery" troll, and didn't address it.
No actually, you don't. Scholarships don't need to be repaid.
Enough to let me move anywhere else I wanted.
"from the pockets of the current Chinese workforce"
Who are poor as hell. They magically have money to replace that which was coming from Americans, some of the richest people in the world.
You have STILL failed to answer the question.
You can't answer my question, so you make vague hand waving proclamations instead.
No genius, I didn't. That was someone ELSE, I took issue with your characterization, but NEVER made claims about what a "redneck" is.
If you plan to be an asshole, at least TRY to pay attention to who you're talking to.
But that doesn't explain why you're liberal, even if it were true.
And you need to learn to read smart guy, I never asserted what you claim I did, that was someone else.
Which will destroy their economy in the process. I fail to see why you think they can/will do that.
You don't seem to have any real idea how this stuff works.
Your post is a tacit admission that you can't.
Please source your definition like I asked you to do already, it shouldn't be hard if it is in fact the true definition.
I asked for sources, not more of your ignorance and bigotry.
SOURCES
Got it?
Absolutely, they could have overthrown their government and surrendered but chose not to.
Really, stop trying so hard.
Where does the money to buy come from?
That's the only question that I cared to hear you answer, and you didn't.
You still didn't answer HOW it's going to happen.
No, that's wrong.
It's pegged to a basket of currencies now, of which the dollar is only a small percentage.
I think you're two years behind the curve on this one.
How?
You can't just assert something like that and expect the money fairy to do the work.
It's interesting that you can make a statement like that and yet not see why you're wrong.
If no one wants low value dollars, and China dumps dollars, thus lowering their value, who, exactly, do you think will be buying them? You just said no one wants low value dollars, and by dumping them, that's exactly what China will have.
Either way, someone chose to make them legitimate targets for agression.
You're right, the Japanese did that when they attacked unprovoked.
Save the revisionism, you've already demonstrated that your opinion isn't informed enough to matter.
"They're poor, rural whites that revel in their lack of education. It's not used as an insult because they're "poor rural whites" but, rather, because they revel in their lack of education."
Please provide evidence of this beyond your profoundly and obviously prejudiced opinion.
You won't be able to, so you'll result to insults like the last time.
You're a bigot. Your post proved it definitively.