Young whippersnappers. When I was "at a young age", we had to code with our bare hands, in Assembler, at 110 baud both ways. It was called vi, and it didn't have any of this fruity syntax highlighting, and if you wanted to navigate around a document you had to use h,j,k,l, not those hand-holding arrow keys. And we LIKED it!
There are also many Muslims that serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, but I don't see you bitching about them. So it's okay for them to die for this country, but not okay to lead it?
I never said that and I would appreciate it if you would keep your Straw Man out of this.
Now, I don't care if the guy is a frickin' Jew-hovah's Witness Mormontologist that handles snakes in church and practices polygamy -- as long as he's HONEST about it. What's getting under my skin is the niggling feeling that we're being sold a "bill of goods" and when we open the box on 20 Jan. we'll find out that we got a Doberman when what we ordered was a kitten.
Only 45 percent of the people polled correctly identified Obama as a Protestant Christian.
Excuse me,/. editors, but your hubris is showing.
What makes you so cock-sure that the Big O is a Christian?
Muslims all over the world believe that he is a Muslim. Louis Farrakhan says that he's a Muslim. Muammar Qadhafi says that he's a Muslim. Even Obama himself said on national TV that he is a Muslim.
Consider this: Muslims in America are going all-out for him with fundraisers, rallies, etc. Yet according to the Koran, he's an infidel and must be killed, because he was raised Muslim but is now a Christian.
Unless, of course, he really IS a Muslim and he's hiding something from the rest of us that the Muslim world already knows.
That answer does not address the question. The question asked for a specific "serious economist or capitalist", not a generic "school."
Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?
That means, quoted recently, specificly addressing this crisis; not quotes showing they said years ago "well, in the future when the mortgage default crisis is going to cause a liquidity crisis in the world, our theoretical analysis is going to recommend that no action should be taken."
And I don't know whether or not any of these are of the Austrian School (if you're going to make me do your research, then I'm going to make you do mine), but here is a whole shitload of economists who think that doing nothing was the best choice.
And yet you put up with a public police and fire service... remarkable. How do you sleep at night, paying for all those fires to be put out, all those criminals to be arrested?
Troll. Don't expect me to believe that you honestly don't know the difference between a legitimate government service (none of which mentioned above are at the Federal level, and therefore are Red Herrings to this discussion) and wholesale redistribution of wealth.
Bottom line: ANY kind of "health care" (in the context we're discussing it, of course) at the Federal level is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The item "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble should allow for that.
First, that doesn't mean what you think it does. Second, the Tenth Amendment specifically forbids the Federal government any powers that are not delegated to it by the Constitution.
The Preamble delegates no powers to the Federal Government. It is simply a statement of intent, and nothing more.
Nowhere does it say to "share" someone ELSE'S wealth.
Deuteronomy 23,25, also referred to in Matthew 12,1? And that's just one example
Funny, I don't see anything in there that says, "And lo I say unto you, thou shalt take a gun over to thy neighbor's house, point it at his head, and demand that he share his wealth....
But I DO see something in the Ten Commandments that forbids coveting thy neighbors' wealth....
Yours must be fairly odd translation of the Book.
P.S. When I looked up the Deuteronomy passage just now, I thought at first that it was saying, "When you enter your neighbor's girlfriend...." and I was going WTF???
Yeah, this is a wonderful idea! Because, as you know, deregulating the financial industry just worked out dandy!
The financial industry has never been deregulated. Airlines have been deregulated. Railroads have been deregulated. Electricity has been partially deregulated. The financial industry has not.
"My personal health is my responsibility. If I want to smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods until I die of a massive heart attack, that's my business. Nobody else should be concerned with it. If it can't afford to pay for the health problems I've brought on myself, nobody else should be required to pay one red cent to cover me."
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay?
And... just exactly HOW does this make your need a claim on someone else's money?
While this is a problem of individuals, the repercussions of those individuals actions spills over to the rest of the US citizenship
And THAT is precisely why Government involvement in healthcare is a supremely Bad Idea®.
ANY time someone else is paying your bills, you give that person (or Government) control of part of your life. You have thereby given zir authority to dictate to you what you will be allowed to smoke, what you will be allowed to eat, whether you will be allowed to ride a motorcycle, and an endless stream of other incursions into your personal liberty as the costs of Socialism inevitably spiral ever upward.
You think it will stop with smokers? Think again. Next they'll go after fat people, and suddenly Government will be telling YOU (yes, just like "in Soviet Russia") what you're allowed to eat. Then they'll decide for you that some other aspect of your lifestyle isn't "healthy" and you'll be forced to ride a bike to work in the rain.
Then, a Republican administration will be swept into power and they'll decide that homosexuality is "unhealthy" -- and they'll have to power to deny healthcare to every queer and suspected queer in the country.
Think long and hard before voting to take The Land of the Free down that road.
That's what health insurance is for. It is NOT what Government is for.
Bottom line: ANY kind of "health care" (in the context we're discussing it, of course) at the Federal level is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
Got a problem with it, go amend the Constitution. Then come back here and we can discuss it. Right now there is nothing to discuss, because WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS ILLEGAL.
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
No. It is not your place, or mine, or the Government's, to decide for other people what they "should" or "should not" do, or have, etc.
It's THEIR business, not yours.
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
Absolutely. It's not society's responsibility to enable other people's irresponsibility. If someone dies because s/he can't make rational choices between health care and the other things s/he is spending money on, that's zir own business, not yours, or mine, or society's.
If you believe that someone should help them, then either do it with your OWN money or start a charity. Don't show up at my doorstep with a gun telling me that I have to pay for someone else's healthcare expenses.
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have
No, we don't. That makes the rest of your argument invalid.
...you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
It's real simple. SOME of us don't believe that armed robbery is a solution -- to ANYTHING.
Government should get completely out of health care. Period.
Most of the mess that health care has become is because of Government interference in the first place. More of the same is NOT going to make anything better.
Therefore, from a health care perspective, Bob Barr is the only reasonable candidate in the race.
Slashdot Mirror
Or talking about owning a Canon.
How is it "showing off" to talk about having the technological equivalent of a small penis?
Some people want to INCREASE the odds of human extinction.
In fact, they're rather "VeHEMenT" about it!
This thread is now officially closed, and Chrisq has lost the argument.
You may return to your regular flame-throwing.
Young whippersnappers. When I was "at a young age", we had to code with our bare hands, in Assembler, at 110 baud both ways. It was called vi, and it didn't have any of this fruity syntax highlighting, and if you wanted to navigate around a document you had to use h,j,k,l, not those hand-holding arrow keys. And we LIKED it!
There, fixed that for you.
I don't think I've yet seen a remake of a Sci/Fi or horror that was as good as,much less better than the original.
WHAT??? Now, just WHAT was wrong with Young Frankenstein?
Seriously though, I have seen only one remake that was >= the original: The Thing. I really enjoyed the remake that starred Kurt Russell.
But everything else -- yeah. What you said.
No, it isn't. The Presidential election is on Dec. 15th this year.
The only people being elected today are congresscritters and local pols.
How about if YOU cite one that supports YOUR position? You're the one making ridiculous "interpretations" of the Constitution.
There are also many Muslims that serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, but I don't see you bitching about them. So it's okay for them to die for this country, but not okay to lead it?
I never said that and I would appreciate it if you would keep your Straw Man out of this.
Now, I don't care if the guy is a frickin' Jew-hovah's Witness Mormontologist that handles snakes in church and practices polygamy -- as long as he's HONEST about it. What's getting under my skin is the niggling feeling that we're being sold a "bill of goods" and when we open the box on 20 Jan. we'll find out that we got a Doberman when what we ordered was a kitten.
Only 45 percent of the people polled correctly identified Obama as a Protestant Christian.
Excuse me, /. editors, but your hubris is showing.
What makes you so cock-sure that the Big O is a Christian?
Muslims all over the world believe that he is a Muslim. Louis Farrakhan says that he's a Muslim. Muammar Qadhafi says that he's a Muslim. Even Obama himself said on national TV that he is a Muslim.
Consider this: Muslims in America are going all-out for him with fundraisers, rallies, etc. Yet according to the Koran, he's an infidel and must be killed, because he was raised Muslim but is now a Christian.
Unless, of course, he really IS a Muslim and he's hiding something from the rest of us that the Muslim world already knows.
Well, asshole, there's Thomas Sowell for starters.
And I don't know whether or not any of these are of the Austrian School (if you're going to make me do your research, then I'm going to make you do mine), but here is a whole shitload of economists who think that doing nothing was the best choice.
(Yeah, I'll get modded down for trolling or whatever, but this needless brainwashing has got to stop!)
Yup. The bastards modded you down. And then they accuse YOUR ilk of "censorship"!
Yes, it's in the Preamble, and as I've already pointed out, the Preamble delegates no powers whatever to the Federal Governemnt.
Please read the Constitution before attempting to discuss it. You might even try including the Tenth Amendment in your reading.
Again, "general welfare" doesn't mean what you think it does.
And yet you put up with a public police and fire service... remarkable. How do you sleep at night, paying for all those fires to be put out, all those criminals to be arrested?
Troll. Don't expect me to believe that you honestly don't know the difference between a legitimate government service (none of which mentioned above are at the Federal level, and therefore are Red Herrings to this discussion) and wholesale redistribution of wealth.
Bottom line: ANY kind of "health care" (in the context we're discussing it, of course) at the Federal level is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The item "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble should allow for that.
First, that doesn't mean what you think it does. Second, the Tenth Amendment specifically forbids the Federal government any powers that are not delegated to it by the Constitution.
The Preamble delegates no powers to the Federal Government. It is simply a statement of intent, and nothing more.
Nowhere does it say to "share" someone ELSE'S wealth.
Deuteronomy 23,25, also referred to in Matthew 12,1? And that's just one example
Funny, I don't see anything in there that says, "And lo I say unto you, thou shalt take a gun over to thy neighbor's house, point it at his head, and demand that he share his wealth....
But I DO see something in the Ten Commandments that forbids coveting thy neighbors' wealth....
Yours must be fairly odd translation of the Book.
P.S. When I looked up the Deuteronomy passage just now, I thought at first that it was saying, "When you enter your neighbor's girlfriend...." and I was going WTF???
Yeah, this is a wonderful idea! Because, as you know, deregulating the financial industry just worked out dandy!
The financial industry has never been deregulated. Airlines have been deregulated. Railroads have been deregulated. Electricity has been partially deregulated. The financial industry has not.
"My personal health is my responsibility. If I want to smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods until I die of a massive heart attack, that's my business. Nobody else should be concerned with it. If it can't afford to pay for the health problems I've brought on myself, nobody else should be required to pay one red cent to cover me."
I agree. But what if the heart condition is hereditary and you can't afford to pay?
And... just exactly HOW does this make your need a claim on someone else's money?
Government should get completely out of health care. Period.
Yay, let's go back to the good ol' times of patent medicines, untested drugs and general quackery.
Nice Red Herring. Now can we get back to the actual discussion at hand? Thanks.
While this is a problem of individuals, the repercussions of those individuals actions spills over to the rest of the US citizenship
And THAT is precisely why Government involvement in healthcare is a supremely Bad Idea®.
ANY time someone else is paying your bills, you give that person (or Government) control of part of your life. You have thereby given zir authority to dictate to you what you will be allowed to smoke, what you will be allowed to eat, whether you will be allowed to ride a motorcycle, and an endless stream of other incursions into your personal liberty as the costs of Socialism inevitably spiral ever upward.
You think it will stop with smokers? Think again. Next they'll go after fat people, and suddenly Government will be telling YOU (yes, just like "in Soviet Russia") what you're allowed to eat. Then they'll decide for you that some other aspect of your lifestyle isn't "healthy" and you'll be forced to ride a bike to work in the rain.
Then, a Republican administration will be swept into power and they'll decide that homosexuality is "unhealthy" -- and they'll have to power to deny healthcare to every queer and suspected queer in the country.
Think long and hard before voting to take The Land of the Free down that road.
"There are some smart black people (think like Clarence Thomas and Walter Williams types) around today...."
There, fixed that for you.
I'm in a Southern Bible belt state and I hear this from Christians??? Isn't one of the messages in the Bible to share? Sadness me.
Check your Bible. Nowhere does it say to "share" someone ELSE'S wealth. That's called "stealing" and is expressly forbidden in the Bible.
The only thing the Bible says about sharing is to share your OWN.
That's what health insurance is for. It is NOT what Government is for.
Bottom line: ANY kind of "health care" (in the context we're discussing it, of course) at the Federal level is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
Got a problem with it, go amend the Constitution. Then come back here and we can discuss it. Right now there is nothing to discuss, because WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS ILLEGAL.
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
No. It is not your place, or mine, or the Government's, to decide for other people what they "should" or "should not" do, or have, etc.
It's THEIR business, not yours.
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
Absolutely. It's not society's responsibility to enable other people's irresponsibility. If someone dies because s/he can't make rational choices between health care and the other things s/he is spending money on, that's zir own business, not yours, or mine, or society's.
If you believe that someone should help them, then either do it with your OWN money or start a charity. Don't show up at my doorstep with a gun telling me that I have to pay for someone else's healthcare expenses.
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have
No, we don't. That makes the rest of your argument invalid.
...you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
It's real simple. SOME of us don't believe that armed robbery is a solution -- to ANYTHING.
Government should get completely out of health care. Period.
Most of the mess that health care has become is because of Government interference in the first place. More of the same is NOT going to make anything better.
Therefore, from a health care perspective, Bob Barr is the only reasonable candidate in the race.