The vast majority of people also have cable TV and vast amounts of consumer debt. Maybe it would be better to say in the US, the vast majority of people are dumbasses when it comes to managing their finances.
Subsidizing farmers IS the traditional American way of doing things. But farmers still work for profit in a market system, which was my essential point.
If a company's given me poor service in the past, it doesn't bother me if that company continues to exist so long as there's another company I can get better service from. That's the great thing about voting with your wallet--you're NOT stuck with the candidate that other people vote for so long as there are other candidates in the field.
Besides, the way our political system works, I'm still "outvoted" by Monsanto, Union Carbide, and AT&T. And if it wasn't for that, I'd be outvoted by all the dumbasses who make up the rest of American society. I get the same president as everyone else--I don't have to get the same insurance company, or the same computer, or the same pants if I don't want to.
And, incidentally, Monsanto, Union Carbide, and AT&T shouldn't be in the market to buy health insurance anyway. "Health insurance is provided by your employer" is a silly, silly idea that crushes consumer choice, opens the door to collusion, benefits insurance companies to the detriment of everyone else, and helped get us into this mess in the first place. What next--they're going to buy my groceries?
There's a difference between the government getting involved in a market system and the government taking over an industry and providing a monopoly service.
This was just a case where I was less interested in what you had to say, and more interested in how poorly you said it. Also, issues of morality aside, asserting that the numbers of "lazy, unemployed bums" will grow if we don't give them free health care is...dubious. If we don't give them free health care, they'll have more trouble reproducing, and be more likely to die. While your heart is in the right place in wanting to take care of these people, you probably gave the worst possible argument for doing so.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions--that's why I said "more often" instead of "exclusively". Bill Gates might even be one of these exceptions, but considering he "won" on a continuous basis for more than a decade, I think philanthropy is his way of trying to gracefully leave the game more than it is an indication that he never played it to begin with.
I'd rather have my money go to Medicaid, which if the state elected bureaucrat fucks it up, I can vote the asshole out of office
You're going to track down the elected official who appointed the bureaucrat who appointed the bureaucrat who fucked up a huge federal program, and vote for his one opponent up to 4 or 6 years later, for that and that alone, in spite of every other political issue? When are you going to get around to that? After you finish voting out of office the idiots who wrote the federal laws specifically to benefit (even create) Aetna and Kaiser? Shit, if I don't like a company, I just vote against them then and there by not buying their services anymore. And I don't even have to count on 51% of everyone else voting the same way as I do to make an immediate impact in the service I get. Of course, the very same politicians who you haven't gotten around to voting out of office keep passing stupid health care laws that make it difficult for me to do that with health insurance companies...
When people's lives are at stake, profit should be the last thing on anyone's mind.
Good idea. Let's nationalize the farms before everyone dies of starvation.
Yes, but will we have to learn Gaelic? I mean, your English is pretty lacking, which suggests to me you don't usually use it...
Seriously though, I wouldn't consider Michael Moore a credible source. He's an incredibly talented propagandist (I loved Fahrenheit 9/11) but "truthful" is not a word I would use to describe his work.
Most unemployed people are not lazy bums who don't want to work. They are people with psychological problems who feel being outcast from society, and don't belong anywhere.
Psychological problems such as, for instance, being lazy bums who don't want to work? You're essentially saying, "most unemployed people don't have a defective personality. They have a defective personality." Except the first time, you make a "defective personality" sound like a moral failing, and the second time, you make it sound like something beyond their control. It would have been more direct to say, "being a lazy bum who doesn't want to work is a psychological problem and not a moral failing".
If you discovered you were one of the successful people in the world at something, would you be satisfied and give up? Or would you keep going, and try to beat everyone else, if there was an easy and convenient way to "keep score"? Guess what--the type of people who are competitive enough to become billionaires are going to choose the second option more often than the first.
2112 AD: Jenna-Neil Bush IV, hermaphrodite scion of the Bush family, changes last name to eradicate shame of connection to President Bush
Meanwhile, the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx smash an ancient guitar that someone discovered and brought in, right on the eve of an interstellar war between Earth and some distant human colonies. To the accompaniment of some mad 1970's era guitar riffs and choice drumming.
Juanita Broaddrick is an attention whore who was, at best, in a room alone with Clinton once, and years later decided to come out with absurd allegations of rape that have never been proven. I hope you mean "accessory to murder" in the broadest possible sense, because most Presidents are accessories to murder.
That makes Australia's history fortunate--but not necessarily morally superior. There are times when spilling blood is a perfectly reasonable reaction--most Australians had no problem helping Americans spill some blood to protect Australia from Japan, did they?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, but I already get enough shoddy indoctrination reading Slashdot comments.
The vast majority of people also have cable TV and vast amounts of consumer debt. Maybe it would be better to say in the US, the vast majority of people are dumbasses when it comes to managing their finances.
Subsidizing farmers IS the traditional American way of doing things. But farmers still work for profit in a market system, which was my essential point.
If a company's given me poor service in the past, it doesn't bother me if that company continues to exist so long as there's another company I can get better service from. That's the great thing about voting with your wallet--you're NOT stuck with the candidate that other people vote for so long as there are other candidates in the field.
Besides, the way our political system works, I'm still "outvoted" by Monsanto, Union Carbide, and AT&T. And if it wasn't for that, I'd be outvoted by all the dumbasses who make up the rest of American society. I get the same president as everyone else--I don't have to get the same insurance company, or the same computer, or the same pants if I don't want to.
And, incidentally, Monsanto, Union Carbide, and AT&T shouldn't be in the market to buy health insurance anyway. "Health insurance is provided by your employer" is a silly, silly idea that crushes consumer choice, opens the door to collusion, benefits insurance companies to the detriment of everyone else, and helped get us into this mess in the first place. What next--they're going to buy my groceries?
There's a difference between the government getting involved in a market system and the government taking over an industry and providing a monopoly service.
Hey moderators! You downmodded the wrong post!
Wow, linking to a Slashdot story from yesterday is "insightful" now. Perhaps "informative", but "insightful"?
Indeed, especially since iPhone has two pre-set-up accounts, "root" and "mobile".
This was just a case where I was less interested in what you had to say, and more interested in how poorly you said it. Also, issues of morality aside, asserting that the numbers of "lazy, unemployed bums" will grow if we don't give them free health care is...dubious. If we don't give them free health care, they'll have more trouble reproducing, and be more likely to die. While your heart is in the right place in wanting to take care of these people, you probably gave the worst possible argument for doing so.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions--that's why I said "more often" instead of "exclusively". Bill Gates might even be one of these exceptions, but considering he "won" on a continuous basis for more than a decade, I think philanthropy is his way of trying to gracefully leave the game more than it is an indication that he never played it to begin with.
You're going to track down the elected official who appointed the bureaucrat who appointed the bureaucrat who fucked up a huge federal program, and vote for his one opponent up to 4 or 6 years later, for that and that alone, in spite of every other political issue? When are you going to get around to that? After you finish voting out of office the idiots who wrote the federal laws specifically to benefit (even create) Aetna and Kaiser? Shit, if I don't like a company, I just vote against them then and there by not buying their services anymore. And I don't even have to count on 51% of everyone else voting the same way as I do to make an immediate impact in the service I get. Of course, the very same politicians who you haven't gotten around to voting out of office keep passing stupid health care laws that make it difficult for me to do that with health insurance companies...
Good idea. Let's nationalize the farms before everyone dies of starvation.
I was 7 when he was elected and 15 when he left office, you sick fuck.
Yes, but will we have to learn Gaelic? I mean, your English is pretty lacking, which suggests to me you don't usually use it...
Seriously though, I wouldn't consider Michael Moore a credible source. He's an incredibly talented propagandist (I loved Fahrenheit 9/11) but "truthful" is not a word I would use to describe his work.
Psychological problems such as, for instance, being lazy bums who don't want to work? You're essentially saying, "most unemployed people don't have a defective personality. They have a defective personality." Except the first time, you make a "defective personality" sound like a moral failing, and the second time, you make it sound like something beyond their control. It would have been more direct to say, "being a lazy bum who doesn't want to work is a psychological problem and not a moral failing".
If you discovered you were one of the successful people in the world at something, would you be satisfied and give up? Or would you keep going, and try to beat everyone else, if there was an easy and convenient way to "keep score"? Guess what--the type of people who are competitive enough to become billionaires are going to choose the second option more often than the first.
Yeah, you should totally click "Post Anonymously" on that comment so you can do that. Oh, wait. Shit. Too late!
I find that highly unlikely.
Who is Benoit? Benoit Mandelbrot, discoverer of the Mandelbrot set, is enraged about hemorrhoids?
Meanwhile, the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx smash an ancient guitar that someone discovered and brought in, right on the eve of an interstellar war between Earth and some distant human colonies. To the accompaniment of some mad 1970's era guitar riffs and choice drumming.
Shouting words like "motherfucking" at people is not an effective means at political change. Just ask Zack de la Rocha.
You won't believe how much controversy that one kicked up among "states' rights" racist loonies back in the day.
Juanita Broaddrick is an attention whore who was, at best, in a room alone with Clinton once, and years later decided to come out with absurd allegations of rape that have never been proven. I hope you mean "accessory to murder" in the broadest possible sense, because most Presidents are accessories to murder.
That makes Australia's history fortunate--but not necessarily morally superior. There are times when spilling blood is a perfectly reasonable reaction--most Australians had no problem helping Americans spill some blood to protect Australia from Japan, did they?
"Can't we just move forward, beyond all this?" is the worst possible defense for a crime. Doubly if the crime involves political corruption.
Wow, an Anonymous Coward repeating half-truths from Free Republic. Truly insightful, moderators. Good job.