of course, someone sitting on the judicial bench somewhere doesn't think the first amendment trumps all of the other issues here. that doesn't make their ruling correct. and so, more creative legal avenues need to be considered to enforce the most important principle in play here. unfortunately the legal system seems to have waylaid the first amendment in this particular case, and they need to be corrected
and completely morally bankrupt (in your argument here, not in general, no personal attack)
if the first amendment is not vigorously protected from idiotic legal decisions, the entire basis of the society upon which this might legal code rests begins to decay
my use of the term "fiduciary duty" is still 100% fine in this situation, since the use of term is not beholden to a purely legalistic interpretation. all businesses have, indeed, a fiduciary duty (not in legal terms) to protect and foster the trust of their clients, just as you note. that i am not using the term with 100% legality is besides the point, because there is a larger legal issue here in play that must be fought, however shoddy the ammunition
the legal code has no meaning if it corrodes the principles upon which it stands, which, in this case, it obviously does (the first amendment). despite all polemics and verbose gyrations to the contrary, despite the (supposed) legal preeminence of whomever is authoring such polemics
i respect no legal decision that obviously abridges the first amendment, and i expect no one else to either. of course, who the hell am i to declare my moral preeminence here over the decisions of those far more legally learned than myself? lots of people believe in such self-grandiosity, from al qaeda terrorists to morons who shoot abortion doctors. you would and should retort that this is a dangerous position for an obvious legal buffoon like myself to take, without a firm understanding of the subtleties involved. leave the legalities to the professionals
i would respond that normally, yes, it is not my position to speak, but when vital concepts are abridged, it is my duty to speak. the questionable opinions of legal buffoons like myself are moot as long as the legal structure and those charged with upholding the essential principles of the country actually do that job, and do it zealously. they haven't done so here
for the common people such as myself may not be legal scholars, but we're not idiots, and we will not tolerate a clear and obvious stray from a clear and obvious directive, which the ruling that compels google to divulge the identity of blogger obviously violates the spirit of the first amendment, if not the minuscule and mechanical letter of the law
most of the time those declaring their moral ascendency over legal rulings are deluded quacks. but every once in awhile, the system is in error, and the common layperson actually has it right. that is the case with the decision to divulge the blogger's identity: the legal system has failed to hold the most important principles up. and so we legal buffoons take notice, and we should take notice. the stakes are too high not too
so be careful that your fine tuned legal interpretations do not provide you cover for ignoring the most important principles in play here. not that you are doing such a thing, but someone in the system here obviously is. it effects us, and it is important to us, when the first amendment is grossly violated as is the case here. the first amendment should be important to you to
not that i am saying it isn't, but if you think that the use of the term "fiduciary duty" is incorrectly used in the fight against a completely bogus legal decision that obviously, even to a legal buffoon, goes against the first amendment, i would simply ask that you mute your objection in the name of the more important principles in play here
identity to Google to look after for her until she grew up?"
yes, absolutely. until the end of time, forever. what is your rationale for this not to be the case?
as for your confusion about how fiduciary duty comes into play, i think the idea of earning the trust of your customers is a simple and easy concept to understand in terms of growing and maintaining a successful business, no? apparently ethics and morality mean nothing to you, only the shareholder's bottom line. in which case, you should be able to understand, in the vast reaches of business acumen, how and why the shareholder's bottom line is served by not breaching the customer's trust
it is often the case that someone who wishes to whistleblow on a company dumping into an aquifer, or having proof of a bullshit reason to invade iraq, is pitting themselves against a furious entity with a lot of power. such that you want anonymity ensured in communication channels where individuals are not afraid to speak out against crimes and abuses of the public trust by the government or other powerful entities
of course, the flip side of that concept is you get this ridiculous skankfight and the legal idiocy resulting from that. but protecting skanks from identifying each other is a small price to pay considering the upside of protecting the concept of anonymity
to protect the first amendment, but suing companies for not more zealously protecting anonymity from idiot rulings is better than no protection at all. so let this retarded catfight proceed in the only way it can:
1. one dumb biatch gets a bucketload of cash from google 2. the other dumb biatch gets a career boost fom the streisand effect
as if getting on the front page of newspapers is bad for your career, no matter how lascivious. didn't paris hilton's "career" get started when video of her surfaced giving some trust fund ahole a hummer? and didja see her ass(ets)?
against low iq morons in the usa attempting to participate in a debate over healthcare in this country informed with nothing but propaganda and lies and low iq, and not a shred of understand WHAT IT IS REALLY FUCKING ABOUT
fact, solid fucking FACT: universal healthcare is SUPERIOR to what we currently have in this country, most definitely and importantly including IT SAVES YOU MONEY
as if the bite hmos take out of your paycheck isn't a tax that would actually go DOWN in a single payer system
and what do these ignorant retards rant about? it has nothing to DO with healthcare. it has to do with their irrelevance and their ignorance, and all they can do to try to matter is yell their ignorance at the top of their lungs
all i want is for some propagandized morons in this country to actually fucking understand what SOCIALISM actually is, philosophically, and how it is BETTER than the bullshit system we currently live under, before they open their ignorant low iq propagandized mouths
what the hell is socialism? its MEDICARE. its MEDICAID. HOW THE HELL DOES THAT THREATEN ANYONE YOU IGNORANT RETARDS
goons? goons with guns are going to force you to pay? WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT I IN YOUR BEST INTEREST O PYA, THAT IT MAKES YOU RICHER BECAUSE YOUR SOCIETY IS RICHER FOR SUPPORTING BASIC FUCKING INFRASTRUCTURE YOU FUCKING MORON
oh noes! its a secret communist muslim conspiracy to destory all that america values!
you go visit a hospital. you go visit their billing department. you figure out why hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy
people don't pay their bills. because they aren't $50 under current hmos, moron, they are $1000 before the insurance company pays a dime
its called a DEDUCTIBLE
this is ON TOP OF THE monthly gouge out of their paycheck
the majority of people are living paycheck to paycheck. you think they can afford a sudden $750 charge for getting a broken arm? do we not fix their arm?
so force the hmos to have no deductible? ok, boom: now that monthly swipe from your paycheck doubles
or just pay a LITTLE HIGHER TAXES, which would be CHEAPER than what hmos gouge from your paycheck, and let single payer without the shitstorm of paperwork between hmos and doctors and hospitals wasting all that cash flow
my god, you are genuinely ignorant
you imagine the situation in simple pat ways that do NOT resmeble reality
yes, you need to help support your society, your community, and if you don't then we have every right to insist you pay your fair share
most people understand this concept implicitly. but if you need goons with guns before you pay your fair share, then i'm all for it
why do you think you deserve to contribute less than everyone else?
do you enjoy your roads? your infrastructure? or did god make it?
you think you are an island? that your cash in your bank is some magic stuff that exists independently of your society?
fact: it is CHEAPER for all of us, for YOU to pay your fair share of health insurance for your society. if we don't do that, then society decays in such a way that this effects the overall richness of society, and therefore the amount of cash you have in the bank
that you are too ignorant to understand this doesn't mean you get a pass
if you are too stupid to understand this simple fact, and all you understand is goons with guns, then i'm all for those goons to come have a knock at your door
you aren't fighting tyranny, you aren't fighting fascism
you're fighting the SIMPLE COMMON GOOD. oh noes! my taxes might go up 5%! its the communist apocaplyse!
fucking moron
no, i'm sorry, we can't agree to disagree. that would require some sort of mutual respect. and i don't respect you, because you're IGNORANT
ps: the "help the guy with a broken leg" is morals just as Christian as it is Muslim or Hindu or Secular Humanist. And morals go obsolete only on the day humanity goes obsolete
if someone can't AFFORD healthcare, do you let them die?
then stop it with the free market nonsense
free markets do NOT apply to something like healthcare, its a need that doesn't fit the philosophical underpinnings of what makes free markets work in CERTAIN human endeavours
applying the free market model to ALL human endeavours is some sort of monomaniacal fundamentalist insanity
free market is not a religion, or at least, it shouldn't be. unfortunately, you seem to be some sort of blathering free market fundamentalist idiot
do you know how much paperwork are current system entails? how much money is wasted in the shuffling around of forms between entities and fighting about line item approved and denieds?
a government system would be chock full of bureaucratic waste, just as you say
and it would still be more efficient and less wasteful than what we currently have!
is not done because you have a cattle prod at your ass of death and disease
personal responsibility is an aspect of higher character that develops in a social environment of modest rewards and modest punishments
in other words, if the social safety nets aren't there, you don't suddenly create people with more personal responsibility
you have the same amount of people with little personal responsibility in a society with a lot of social safety nets as you do in a society with no safety nets
except now they don't have a foot because of diabetes, so they can't provide for their family, so that hungry mouth tries to mug you, so you have to pay for their jail cell
or how about you just pay to fix the motherfucker's diabetes in the first place so he still has a foot and save yourself some dough you ignorant propagandized moron?
is one of the most paramount concepts in this world
you should be punished for the poor choices you make in life
absolutely
well, you know, you turned down that road in a rain storm, should have known better. so yes, you've called emergency services on your cell to report that you slid off the road, but you know what? emergency servies is really expensive. so we're going to force you to walk back to town in the rain for 20 miles, to teach you a lesson
look: you punish people for making bad choices in this world. ABSOLUTELY. but in a CIVIL society the punishment is always LESS in impact than the actual CRIME. it HAS to be. why?
in sharia law, you get your hand cut off for stealing. you get stoned to death for adultery. why is this wrong? because the punishments are worse than the crime. this makes for a less civil society, it rots society, it does not increase people's sense of responsibility, it just rots the very social fabric because society itself is now promoting crime itself
when a kid steals from the proverbial cookie jar, you give them a spanking and send them to their room. do you lock them in their room and don't feed them for a week? why is this wrong? what are you teaching your child about "personal responsibility" in that scenario? do you understand the punishment has to be calibrated to the crime?
in the same way, you are basically saying: "i'm sorry you are poor and have diabetes, but if you don't have insurance, you have to have your foot cut off. next time, you will learn to keep a job, even in a tough economy, to pay for your diabetes treatments. learn personal responsibility next time"
are you beginning to understand me?
the actual effect of your so-called "moral" position: a punishment worse than the crime. rotting the richness (literal, financial) of society by rotting people's concept of right and wrong. the guy who can't provide for his family because his arm is broken and he can't get it fixed at the hospital becaus ehe has no insurance leads hungry mouths to feed. one of those hungry mouths will rob you on the street. so do you "teach a lesson" to that hungry mouth about personal responsibility and send him to jail, which you have to pay for? maybe its CHEAPER just to fix the fucker's arm in the first place, no?
if you don't have a job, and you have diabetes, in the country with the best healthcare imaginable, your life is still a living hell of consequences for poor choices. enough to teach people to act better. your whole: "bad choice"="punishment" STILL APPPLIES. but you don't let them lose their foot! not because you are bleeding heart liberal who thinks death row inmates deserve better healthcare than hard working honest folks, but because in a civil society, the punishment for crimes is always LESS the crimes itself
or society rots, because then society is the criminal
that's the fucking honest to goodness truth
ruminate, and learn, ignorant motherfucker, and don't talk to me about morality, as you don't even fucking understand the concept
with a coherent response. that was charitable of you
socialist healthcare has absolutely every problem you ascribe to it, and more
but what you fail to see is our current system is even WORSE than that
i don't appreciate universal healthcare single payer because it will make cotton candy come out of my ass and my grandma to come back to life, i appreciate universal healthcare because its BETTER than the bullshit we have now
take any negative you can launch at "socialist" healthcare and our current system fares worse:
1. bureaucratic waste: you ever actually deal with an hmo? 2. rationed care. what the hell do you think that hmo worker in a cubicle looking at your charges and saying "approved" "denied" is doing? 3. shoddy care: ever been to an emergency room? why is every poor person there gumming up the system? furthermore, with socialist healthcare, you get an emphasis on PREVENTATIVE medicine so you don't even need to cut your foot off from diabetes or get a heart transplant for cardiomyopathy 4. underpaid doctors who don't care: your doctor looks at you now as nothing more than a series of expensive tests to run in order to get paid more, while the hmo is doing its best to deny those expensive tests. where's your actual well-being in that mix?
etc., etc.
borrowing liberally (pun intended) from winston churchill: socialist healthcare is the worst system of healthcare in the world... except for every other form of healthcare that has been tried
what exactly is this ignorant aversion to socialism all about?
if a guy breaks his leg, do you walk by him in the street?
no, you help him up
that's all universal healthcare is, on a societal scale. the cost of NOT helping those with medical need is far greater to society than helping those who are in need: a guy who can't provide for his family, a guy who can't show up for work, a mother who can't care for her chidlren, etc.: these situations have cost. add them up, and getting these people healthcare they can't afford currently means FINANCIAL SAVINGS for society
why is it you are so propagandized you can't see this?
did you ever actually stop and consider what "socialism" actually means on a philosophical level rather simply kneejerk in mindless propagandized ignorance?
the west coast and the east coast should join with canada and just let the fat lower middle of the usa (pun intended) descend into the third world fundamentalist hell hole it is
the civil war turned out badly. it should have been "lost" by the north. and today maybe we'd have a smaller, but much better usa without the morons in flyover country holding us back with their low iq reactionary politics
GB: There's also maybe some heritage linking it to "Dances With Wolves," considering your story here of a battered military man who finds something pure in an endangered tribal culture.
JC: Yes, exactly, it is very much like that. You see the same theme in "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" and also "The Emerald Forest," which maybe thematically isn't that connected but it did have that clash of civilizations or of cultures. That was another reference point for me. There was some beautiful stuff in that film. I just gathered all this stuff in and then you look at it through the lens of science fiction and it comes out looking very different but is still recognizable in a universal story way. It's almost comfortable for the audience - "I know what kind of tale this is." They're not just sitting there scratching their heads, they're enjoying it and being taken along. And we still have turns and surprises in it, too, things you don't see coming. But the idea that you feel like you are in a classic story, a story that could have been shaped by Rudyard Kipling or Edgar Rice Burroughs.
GB: Or Joseph Conrad...?
JC: Yes, exactly. And I think returning to classic tales is a powerful thing. Look, right now is a special time because we can basically do anything we imagine. I mean you have to work hard at it, and you've got to have the technique and you have to be willing to throw money at the problem. Sometimes you have to be a little bold and go out on a limb. But if you can imagine it, you can do it. That's why we're seeing this renaissance of visual imagination. It's just a growth. Films look better now than they've ever looked. Sometimes they get a little lost in it though. I'll go to a "Transformers" film for the fun of seeing the spectacle but, personally, my soul craves a little more story, a little more meat on the bone and characters and that sort of thing. Look, I think it's about finding a balance between story and all of this gimmickry. I think I veer toward classicism, being solidly rooted in the classic stuff. I mean really old-school science fiction. This is a movie I would have loved to have seen when I was a 14-year-old kid in 1968.
avatar looks amazing though, a must see
the bit with the blue guys riding flying dragons reminded me a bit of "the dragonriders of pern" too
he may be the man indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions, one way or another, if nukes ever percolates down to even sketchier countries and entities
but pakistan's nukes are mostly a point of pride in pakistan's blood feud with india
as for iraq, iraq would have never have gotten nukes. even if the usa never existed. the reason being is that iraq's main problem is that it couldn't stop invading its neighbors: iran and kuwait. either israel or iran would have bombed any iraqi nuclear sites to stop it from acquiring nukes if no one else was going to (israel already bombed a syrian nuclear site). of course, iraq never was building nukes (ah cheney, you lying manipulative sleazebag)
north korea meanwhile, is insane and evil, but not stupid: it doesn't actually live up to all its endless military propaganda of its insurmountable strength (actually invade south korea), because then it knows it would be wiped from the earth in less than a week. its old cold war sponsors beijing and moscow have long since tired of north korea, and mainly barely tolerate it nowadays, as a rabid dog that serves the vaguely useful purpose of scaring the west and keeping its attentions diverted
the north korean government works as a blackmailing entity: lob missiles over japan, set off nukes... get shipments of food and oil from concerned countries. rather than gee, i dunno, figuring out the korean war is over and engaging in peaceful trade with its neighbors so its able to afford food and oil on its own?
now all of what you said might be true, but i always thought the purpose of a government was to serve it's people. but a nuclear power whose people eat leaves? does that make any sense to you? to me, its the dictionary definition of an illegitimate government
the only thing the government of north korea serves is the ego of a little old man in 4 inch lifts. the north korean government does not deserve to exist. not that anyone is in a position to remove it. and even when it finally decays or implodes (which people have been waiting for it to do for fifty years) you have to deal with a psychologically traumatized population who have spent their entire lives extremely propagandized about all of the japanese and americans on hair trigger readiness to come and rape the women and eat the babies... if it weren't for dear leader vision and genius saving them. have some more leaves
its not some company's property. if its in their vaults from decades ago and they won't let it out, we have every right to let it out. its OUR culture according to any philosophically coherent line of reasoning. of course, legally, its not our right to enjoy our own culture. that companies can purchase the allegiance of congresspeople to pass laws that only serve corporations, at the shrinking of our right to engage in the enjoyment of our own culture, doesn't mean anything of any logical coherence we should respect. its about force, not reason, that copyright laws exist at this point. its a group of bullies set up to wring cash out of everyday people, not to serve the further creation of media
we the people liked the original idea: to give content creators limited short term monopolies in order to encourage them to create. what distributors (not creators) have done with that idea is to create nothing but a perversion of that original idea, over time
a limitation on my culture so that someone can make a buck? it is high time we the people simply ignore copyright law. or even better, outright destroy the financial underpinnings of the parasites that sleazily purchase philosophically invalid laws from our government in order to justify their continued unnecessary parasitical existence. technology has made them defunct. rapacious legal action is simply a last desperate attempt at relevancy
copyright law and intellectual property has become nothing but farce. i do not respect it. if you have any conscience, neither should you. luckily we live in a world where technology empowers us, at the frustration of corporate parasites:
1. a thousand lawyers versus 2. a million technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers
Slashdot Mirror
of course, someone sitting on the judicial bench somewhere doesn't think the first amendment trumps all of the other issues here. that doesn't make their ruling correct. and so, more creative legal avenues need to be considered to enforce the most important principle in play here. unfortunately the legal system seems to have waylaid the first amendment in this particular case, and they need to be corrected
and completely morally bankrupt (in your argument here, not in general, no personal attack)
if the first amendment is not vigorously protected from idiotic legal decisions, the entire basis of the society upon which this might legal code rests begins to decay
my use of the term "fiduciary duty" is still 100% fine in this situation, since the use of term is not beholden to a purely legalistic interpretation. all businesses have, indeed, a fiduciary duty (not in legal terms) to protect and foster the trust of their clients, just as you note. that i am not using the term with 100% legality is besides the point, because there is a larger legal issue here in play that must be fought, however shoddy the ammunition
the legal code has no meaning if it corrodes the principles upon which it stands, which, in this case, it obviously does (the first amendment). despite all polemics and verbose gyrations to the contrary, despite the (supposed) legal preeminence of whomever is authoring such polemics
i respect no legal decision that obviously abridges the first amendment, and i expect no one else to either. of course, who the hell am i to declare my moral preeminence here over the decisions of those far more legally learned than myself? lots of people believe in such self-grandiosity, from al qaeda terrorists to morons who shoot abortion doctors. you would and should retort that this is a dangerous position for an obvious legal buffoon like myself to take, without a firm understanding of the subtleties involved. leave the legalities to the professionals
i would respond that normally, yes, it is not my position to speak, but when vital concepts are abridged, it is my duty to speak. the questionable opinions of legal buffoons like myself are moot as long as the legal structure and those charged with upholding the essential principles of the country actually do that job, and do it zealously. they haven't done so here
for the common people such as myself may not be legal scholars, but we're not idiots, and we will not tolerate a clear and obvious stray from a clear and obvious directive, which the ruling that compels google to divulge the identity of blogger obviously violates the spirit of the first amendment, if not the minuscule and mechanical letter of the law
most of the time those declaring their moral ascendency over legal rulings are deluded quacks. but every once in awhile, the system is in error, and the common layperson actually has it right. that is the case with the decision to divulge the blogger's identity: the legal system has failed to hold the most important principles up. and so we legal buffoons take notice, and we should take notice. the stakes are too high not too
so be careful that your fine tuned legal interpretations do not provide you cover for ignoring the most important principles in play here. not that you are doing such a thing, but someone in the system here obviously is. it effects us, and it is important to us, when the first amendment is grossly violated as is the case here. the first amendment should be important to you to
not that i am saying it isn't, but if you think that the use of the term "fiduciary duty" is incorrectly used in the fight against a completely bogus legal decision that obviously, even to a legal buffoon, goes against the first amendment, i would simply ask that you mute your objection in the name of the more important principles in play here
identity to Google to look after for her until she grew up?"
yes, absolutely. until the end of time, forever. what is your rationale for this not to be the case?
as for your confusion about how fiduciary duty comes into play, i think the idea of earning the trust of your customers is a simple and easy concept to understand in terms of growing and maintaining a successful business, no? apparently ethics and morality mean nothing to you, only the shareholder's bottom line. in which case, you should be able to understand, in the vast reaches of business acumen, how and why the shareholder's bottom line is served by not breaching the customer's trust
it is often the case that someone who wishes to whistleblow on a company dumping into an aquifer, or having proof of a bullshit reason to invade iraq, is pitting themselves against a furious entity with a lot of power. such that you want anonymity ensured in communication channels where individuals are not afraid to speak out against crimes and abuses of the public trust by the government or other powerful entities
of course, the flip side of that concept is you get this ridiculous skankfight and the legal idiocy resulting from that. but protecting skanks from identifying each other is a small price to pay considering the upside of protecting the concept of anonymity
to protect the first amendment, but suing companies for not more zealously protecting anonymity from idiot rulings is better than no protection at all. so let this retarded catfight proceed in the only way it can:
1. one dumb biatch gets a bucketload of cash from google
2. the other dumb biatch gets a career boost fom the streisand effect
as if getting on the front page of newspapers is bad for your career, no matter how lascivious. didn't paris hilton's "career" get started when video of her surfaced giving some trust fund ahole a hummer? and didja see her ass(ets)?
http://internetdefamationblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/liskulacohen.jpg
skank?
skankalicious!
against low iq morons in the usa attempting to participate in a debate over healthcare in this country informed with nothing but propaganda and lies and low iq, and not a shred of understand WHAT IT IS REALLY FUCKING ABOUT
fact, solid fucking FACT: universal healthcare is SUPERIOR to what we currently have in this country, most definitely and importantly including IT SAVES YOU MONEY
as if the bite hmos take out of your paycheck isn't a tax that would actually go DOWN in a single payer system
and what do these ignorant retards rant about? it has nothing to DO with healthcare. it has to do with their irrelevance and their ignorance, and all they can do to try to matter is yell their ignorance at the top of their lungs
all i want is for some propagandized morons in this country to actually fucking understand what SOCIALISM actually is, philosophically, and how it is BETTER than the bullshit system we currently live under, before they open their ignorant low iq propagandized mouths
what the hell is socialism? its MEDICARE. its MEDICAID. HOW THE HELL DOES THAT THREATEN ANYONE YOU IGNORANT RETARDS
goons? goons with guns are going to force you to pay? WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT I IN YOUR BEST INTEREST O PYA, THAT IT MAKES YOU RICHER BECAUSE YOUR SOCIETY IS RICHER FOR SUPPORTING BASIC FUCKING INFRASTRUCTURE YOU FUCKING MORON
oh noes! its a secret communist muslim conspiracy to destory all that america values!
fucking morons
you go visit a hospital. you go visit their billing department. you figure out why hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy
people don't pay their bills. because they aren't $50 under current hmos, moron, they are $1000 before the insurance company pays a dime
its called a DEDUCTIBLE
this is ON TOP OF THE monthly gouge out of their paycheck
the majority of people are living paycheck to paycheck. you think they can afford a sudden $750 charge for getting a broken arm? do we not fix their arm?
so force the hmos to have no deductible? ok, boom: now that monthly swipe from your paycheck doubles
or just pay a LITTLE HIGHER TAXES, which would be CHEAPER than what hmos gouge from your paycheck, and let single payer without the shitstorm of paperwork between hmos and doctors and hospitals wasting all that cash flow
my god, you are genuinely ignorant
you imagine the situation in simple pat ways that do NOT resmeble reality
yes, you need to help support your society, your community, and if you don't then we have every right to insist you pay your fair share
most people understand this concept implicitly. but if you need goons with guns before you pay your fair share, then i'm all for it
why do you think you deserve to contribute less than everyone else?
do you enjoy your roads? your infrastructure? or did god make it?
you think you are an island? that your cash in your bank is some magic stuff that exists independently of your society?
fact: it is CHEAPER for all of us, for YOU to pay your fair share of health insurance for your society. if we don't do that, then society decays in such a way that this effects the overall richness of society, and therefore the amount of cash you have in the bank
that you are too ignorant to understand this doesn't mean you get a pass
if you are too stupid to understand this simple fact, and all you understand is goons with guns, then i'm all for those goons to come have a knock at your door
you aren't fighting tyranny, you aren't fighting fascism
you're fighting the SIMPLE COMMON GOOD. oh noes! my taxes might go up 5%! its the communist apocaplyse!
fucking moron
no, i'm sorry, we can't agree to disagree. that would require some sort of mutual respect. and i don't respect you, because you're IGNORANT
and socialism is better than our current system
ps: the "help the guy with a broken leg" is morals just as Christian as it is Muslim or Hindu or Secular Humanist. And morals go obsolete only on the day humanity goes obsolete
anything else i can help you with retard?
if someone can't AFFORD healthcare, do you let them die?
then stop it with the free market nonsense
free markets do NOT apply to something like healthcare, its a need that doesn't fit the philosophical underpinnings of what makes free markets work in CERTAIN human endeavours
applying the free market model to ALL human endeavours is some sort of monomaniacal fundamentalist insanity
free market is not a religion, or at least, it shouldn't be. unfortunately, you seem to be some sort of blathering free market fundamentalist idiot
have you ever dealt with an hmo?
do you know how much paperwork are current system entails? how much money is wasted in the shuffling around of forms between entities and fighting about line item approved and denieds?
a government system would be chock full of bureaucratic waste, just as you say
and it would still be more efficient and less wasteful than what we currently have!
wake the fuck up you propagandized fool
is not done because you have a cattle prod at your ass of death and disease
personal responsibility is an aspect of higher character that develops in a social environment of modest rewards and modest punishments
in other words, if the social safety nets aren't there, you don't suddenly create people with more personal responsibility
you have the same amount of people with little personal responsibility in a society with a lot of social safety nets as you do in a society with no safety nets
except now they don't have a foot because of diabetes, so they can't provide for their family, so that hungry mouth tries to mug you, so you have to pay for their jail cell
or how about you just pay to fix the motherfucker's diabetes in the first place so he still has a foot and save yourself some dough you ignorant propagandized moron?
marry me
i'm joking of course, but with all of my liberalness, that obviously makes a socialist muslim homosexual, so it's all good
is one of the most paramount concepts in this world
you should be punished for the poor choices you make in life
absolutely
well, you know, you turned down that road in a rain storm, should have known better. so yes, you've called emergency services on your cell to report that you slid off the road, but you know what? emergency servies is really expensive. so we're going to force you to walk back to town in the rain for 20 miles, to teach you a lesson
look: you punish people for making bad choices in this world. ABSOLUTELY. but in a CIVIL society the punishment is always LESS in impact than the actual CRIME. it HAS to be. why?
in sharia law, you get your hand cut off for stealing. you get stoned to death for adultery. why is this wrong? because the punishments are worse than the crime. this makes for a less civil society, it rots society, it does not increase people's sense of responsibility, it just rots the very social fabric because society itself is now promoting crime itself
when a kid steals from the proverbial cookie jar, you give them a spanking and send them to their room. do you lock them in their room and don't feed them for a week? why is this wrong? what are you teaching your child about "personal responsibility" in that scenario? do you understand the punishment has to be calibrated to the crime?
in the same way, you are basically saying: "i'm sorry you are poor and have diabetes, but if you don't have insurance, you have to have your foot cut off. next time, you will learn to keep a job, even in a tough economy, to pay for your diabetes treatments. learn personal responsibility next time"
are you beginning to understand me?
the actual effect of your so-called "moral" position: a punishment worse than the crime. rotting the richness (literal, financial) of society by rotting people's concept of right and wrong. the guy who can't provide for his family because his arm is broken and he can't get it fixed at the hospital becaus ehe has no insurance leads hungry mouths to feed. one of those hungry mouths will rob you on the street. so do you "teach a lesson" to that hungry mouth about personal responsibility and send him to jail, which you have to pay for? maybe its CHEAPER just to fix the fucker's arm in the first place, no?
if you don't have a job, and you have diabetes, in the country with the best healthcare imaginable, your life is still a living hell of consequences for poor choices. enough to teach people to act better. your whole: "bad choice"="punishment" STILL APPPLIES. but you don't let them lose their foot! not because you are bleeding heart liberal who thinks death row inmates deserve better healthcare than hard working honest folks, but because in a civil society, the punishment for crimes is always LESS the crimes itself
or society rots, because then society is the criminal
that's the fucking honest to goodness truth
ruminate, and learn, ignorant motherfucker, and don't talk to me about morality, as you don't even fucking understand the concept
with a coherent response. that was charitable of you
socialist healthcare has absolutely every problem you ascribe to it, and more
but what you fail to see is our current system is even WORSE than that
i don't appreciate universal healthcare single payer because it will make cotton candy come out of my ass and my grandma to come back to life, i appreciate universal healthcare because its BETTER than the bullshit we have now
take any negative you can launch at "socialist" healthcare and our current system fares worse:
1. bureaucratic waste: you ever actually deal with an hmo?
2. rationed care. what the hell do you think that hmo worker in a cubicle looking at your charges and saying "approved" "denied" is doing?
3. shoddy care: ever been to an emergency room? why is every poor person there gumming up the system? furthermore, with socialist healthcare, you get an emphasis on PREVENTATIVE medicine so you don't even need to cut your foot off from diabetes or get a heart transplant for cardiomyopathy
4. underpaid doctors who don't care: your doctor looks at you now as nothing more than a series of expensive tests to run in order to get paid more, while the hmo is doing its best to deny those expensive tests. where's your actual well-being in that mix?
etc., etc.
borrowing liberally (pun intended) from winston churchill: socialist healthcare is the worst system of healthcare in the world... except for every other form of healthcare that has been tried
what exactly is this ignorant aversion to socialism all about?
if a guy breaks his leg, do you walk by him in the street?
no, you help him up
that's all universal healthcare is, on a societal scale. the cost of NOT helping those with medical need is far greater to society than helping those who are in need: a guy who can't provide for his family, a guy who can't show up for work, a mother who can't care for her chidlren, etc.: these situations have cost. add them up, and getting these people healthcare they can't afford currently means FINANCIAL SAVINGS for society
why is it you are so propagandized you can't see this?
did you ever actually stop and consider what "socialism" actually means on a philosophical level rather simply kneejerk in mindless propagandized ignorance?
the west coast and the east coast should join with canada and just let the fat lower middle of the usa (pun intended) descend into the third world fundamentalist hell hole it is
the civil war turned out badly. it should have been "lost" by the north. and today maybe we'd have a smaller, but much better usa without the morons in flyover country holding us back with their low iq reactionary politics
socialism! socialism!
jesus shut the fuck up you ignorant angry retards
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42087
lol
cameron even says so himself:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/08/james-cameron-the-new-trek-rocks-but-transformers-is-gimcrackery.html
avatar looks amazing though, a must see
the bit with the blue guys riding flying dragons reminded me a bit of "the dragonriders of pern" too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern
now someone should make THAT into a movie
mainly by cutting waste. but if military spending is below 5% gdp, in any country, i don't see the problem
if military spending were 10% or more of gdp, i'm with your words completely
otherwise, something as vital as military spending is under 5%? i'm trying to get upset or concerned, and i can't
and he sold it to the iranians, libyans, and the north koreans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
he may be the man indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions, one way or another, if nukes ever percolates down to even sketchier countries and entities
but pakistan's nukes are mostly a point of pride in pakistan's blood feud with india
as for iraq, iraq would have never have gotten nukes. even if the usa never existed. the reason being is that iraq's main problem is that it couldn't stop invading its neighbors: iran and kuwait. either israel or iran would have bombed any iraqi nuclear sites to stop it from acquiring nukes if no one else was going to (israel already bombed a syrian nuclear site). of course, iraq never was building nukes (ah cheney, you lying manipulative sleazebag)
north korea meanwhile, is insane and evil, but not stupid: it doesn't actually live up to all its endless military propaganda of its insurmountable strength (actually invade south korea), because then it knows it would be wiped from the earth in less than a week. its old cold war sponsors beijing and moscow have long since tired of north korea, and mainly barely tolerate it nowadays, as a rabid dog that serves the vaguely useful purpose of scaring the west and keeping its attentions diverted
i wholeheartedly support it
but the usa only ranks 27th in military spending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
but the usa ranks only 27th in military spending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
the north korean government works as a blackmailing entity: lob missiles over japan, set off nukes... get shipments of food and oil from concerned countries. rather than gee, i dunno, figuring out the korean war is over and engaging in peaceful trade with its neighbors so its able to afford food and oil on its own?
now all of what you said might be true, but i always thought the purpose of a government was to serve it's people. but a nuclear power whose people eat leaves? does that make any sense to you? to me, its the dictionary definition of an illegitimate government
the only thing the government of north korea serves is the ego of a little old man in 4 inch lifts. the north korean government does not deserve to exist. not that anyone is in a position to remove it. and even when it finally decays or implodes (which people have been waiting for it to do for fifty years) you have to deal with a psychologically traumatized population who have spent their entire lives extremely propagandized about all of the japanese and americans on hair trigger readiness to come and rape the women and eat the babies... if it weren't for dear leader vision and genius saving them. have some more leaves
its not some company's property. if its in their vaults from decades ago and they won't let it out, we have every right to let it out. its OUR culture according to any philosophically coherent line of reasoning. of course, legally, its not our right to enjoy our own culture. that companies can purchase the allegiance of congresspeople to pass laws that only serve corporations, at the shrinking of our right to engage in the enjoyment of our own culture, doesn't mean anything of any logical coherence we should respect. its about force, not reason, that copyright laws exist at this point. its a group of bullies set up to wring cash out of everyday people, not to serve the further creation of media
we the people liked the original idea: to give content creators limited short term monopolies in order to encourage them to create. what distributors (not creators) have done with that idea is to create nothing but a perversion of that original idea, over time
a limitation on my culture so that someone can make a buck? it is high time we the people simply ignore copyright law. or even better, outright destroy the financial underpinnings of the parasites that sleazily purchase philosophically invalid laws from our government in order to justify their continued unnecessary parasitical existence. technology has made them defunct. rapacious legal action is simply a last desperate attempt at relevancy
copyright law and intellectual property has become nothing but farce. i do not respect it. if you have any conscience, neither should you. luckily we live in a world where technology empowers us, at the frustration of corporate parasites:
1. a thousand lawyers versus
2. a million technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers
ding, ding
game on, motherfuckers
war