Skronk wrote:That's not my point, to dissect every ill person's situation. I just don't like the assumption that being ill can never be your own responsibility.

It's ridiculous to think people deserve their illnesses. I don't agree with denying anyone treatment, but in our country, where corruption is seemingly at intolerable levels, I don't believe universal health care can be pulled off effectively. That has been my point in this argument since the beginning.

So then,what do we do with people who can't afford adequate health care, who have, at least at some point in their life, used bad judgment, who've suffered misfortune through no fault of their own, who have bad genes, who aren't smart enough to do the right thing, etc.?

What becomes of them?

How do you deal with that in an humanitarian way without universal health care?

I'm gonna tattoo the word "determinism" onto a gorilla's dick and get that ape masturbating on the podium next time Ron Paul gives a speech.

Free will, my gigantic onanist ape's arse.

big_dave wrote:In that case 'free will' and 'choice' is just idle rhetoric.

I don't agree with denying anyone treatment, but in our country, where corruption is seemingly at intolerable levels, I don't believe universal health care can be pulled off effectively.

And how is corruption is an argument against universal care? Some people might make money off people being sick? Surely this is the situation you have now.

What progress do you intend on seeing in this system when the average person is set to fail? Don't kid yourself, wealth will always be concentrated to the upper class no matter what political structure we have.

The government intended to run a universal health care system is the same one dropping bombs on innocents, engaging in what looks like an endless war, and idly standing by when natural disasters hit. Where do you even see the initiation for universal health care system coming from? From where I'm standing, it's all rhetoric. The democrats can talk all they want about universal health care, but once they're elected, their promises are a hazy memory.

I do not think the American Government's domestic mistakes are made with the same degree of malicious as their foreign police mistakes.

I do not think that there is a system intentionally set up In America, that aims to repress, enslave and finally slay the common man.

That there are powerful and rich people does not mean that we shouldn't try and be constructive. Otherwise political thinking becomes S&M, with the Just being passive, welcoming the inevitable bullwhipping by the Elite.

big_dave wrote:I do not think the American Government's domestic mistakes are made with the same degree of malicious as their foreign police mistakes.

Then you are naive. Their reluctance to help those in need, whether health care or Katrina, is intentional.

big_dave wrote:I do not think that there is a system intentionally set up In America, that aims to repress, enslave and finally slay the common man.

Slay, no. We're already repressed, and the banks have enslaved us. They can't slay all of us, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to rule over.

big_dave wrote:That there are powerful and rich people does not mean that we shouldn't try and be constructive. Otherwise political thinking becomes S&M, with the Just being passive, welcoming the inevitable bullwhipping by the Elite.

If all the average man can do is simply vote, the political landscape won't be changed. You can try and be constructive all you want, but realistically, if we keep getting politicians from the same pool, politics is just masturbation.

You don't seem to understand we're already 'bullwhipped'.

Skronk wrote:Then you are naive. Their reluctance to help those in need, whether health care or Katrina, is intentional.

Reluctance and incompetance are not the same as bloodlust. I didn't say I liked the guys.

Slay, no. We're already repressed, and the banks have enslaved us. They can't slay all of us, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to rule over.

You are cream crackers.

If all the average man can do is simply vote, the political landscape won't be changed.

No, the 'average' man has a life to lead with which he can accomplish much. You don't need a revolution to do good in the world.

This is what slays me. You're all for individual responsibility and freedom, but you don't like the idea that the average individual has more sway over his own life than any hypothetical Majestic Twelve group of Shadow Administrators could ever have.

This is why ideology and not conspiracy is the root of bad politics and poor ethics.

You don't seem to understand we're already 'bullwhipped'.

But not all of us are getting off on it.

big_dave wrote:

Slay, no. We're already repressed, and the banks have enslaved us. They can't slay all of us, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to rule over.

You are cream crackers.

Of course. You really are naive.

big_dave wrote:No, the 'average' man has a life to lead with which he can accomplish much. You don't need a revolution to do good in the world.

Can the average man accomplish much without having a bank or an authority butting in? I don't think so.

big_dave wrote:This is what slays me. You're all for individual responsibility and freedom, but you don't like the idea that the average individual has more sway over his own life than any hypothetical Majestic Twelve group of Shadow Administrators could ever have.

This is why ideology and not conspiracy is the root of bad politics and poor ethics.

What sway? Labor from 17, 18 'till 65 or death, whichever comes first? "Own" a house that can be taken away because of eminent domain? Option of paying in installments, or in full? Simply choosing where you can work, and if you'd like children doesn't amount to "sway".

Ultimately, we should live our lives to the fullest, but it's increasingly harder when modern life is structured as it is.

You don't seem to understand we're already 'bullwhipped'.

But not all of us are getting off on it.

You are a dimwit. But hell, you won't even point a finger towards a bank, or even the upper class. I guess if money runs in your family, it wouldn't be right to bite the hand that feeds. You'd rather ignore the obvious truth.

Rick Reuben wrote:World War III

unarmedman wrote:A second Revolution

Are these the promised or threatened outcomes of not voting for Paul?

You smartass, you.

Rick was saying he was trying to avert WWIII by voting for anti-fed, anti-globalist candidates. And the WWIII threat was obviously exaggerated.

I don't advocate a second Revolution, but in my more exasperated moments wonder if anything short of that will change the entrenched dog & pony show we got here called U.S. politics.

And that really has nothing to do with Paul, so leave him out of it!

Skronk wrote:Can the average man accomplish much without having a bank or an authority butting in? I don't think so.

We are surrounded by wonderful people doing wonderful things. If you haven't met them, get out more. There are more people about leading awesome lives than there are 'average' people. Sure, the class system and capitalism limit the lives of many, many people, but by and large I wouldn't say that this limits people in general to the extent that most lives accomplish nothing. Have a little more value on other peoples' lives.

What sway? Labor from 17, 18 'till 65 or death, whichever comes first? "Own" a house that can be taken away because of eminent domain? Option of paying in installments, or in full? Simply choosing where you can work, and if you'd like children doesn't amount to "sway".

I hate working, I think my labour is stolen from my every time I clock in. I'd rather be studying, writing and playing music. Every time I'm at the water cooler at work I'm thinking, there is no reason for me to be here aside from the rent. But still, life goes on and I'm not defeated yet.

Ultimately, we should live our lives to the fullest, but it's increasingly harder when modern life is structured as it is.

The lack of structure in modern life causes more problems. Flexible shifts, flexible working hours, flexible pay mean that the workforce has to be "on demand" more than it has to be. Workers and salary-guys alike should support structure in their favour, rather than cheer on flexibility and mobility in the workplace.

A good example is disabled rights. The counter argument was "we can't all accomadate the disabled, it will destroy the liberty of employers and make the workplace less competitve". But no, they lobbied and lobbied, and now workplaces in the UK are structured in favour of the disabled, with ramps and services whether they are needed or not. They won, and 'dynamic' executive management lost.

You are a dimwit. But hell, you won't even point a finger towards a bank, or even the upper class. I guess if money runs in your family, it wouldn't be right to bite the hand that feeds. You'd rather ignore the obvious truth.

I'm poor as shit, thanks for asking. Aside from the bloodline.

Yes, the rich suck. Yes, the materially motivated are neurotic and alienating arseholes. No, there is not a new world order. No, the two ideas are not related. No, banks aren't evil.

I won't respond to your NWO paranoia, but I will defend myself. Reluntantly. Like George Bush caring about black people, I care enough only to save face.

I work a part time job to help my partner pay the bills, and to cover my tuition fees. I couldn't get welfare even if I wanted to, if they'd pay me, I'd take it.

A few years ago I didn't pay tuition fees and I had a bursury of a few grand a year. Plus, while at University I had a scholarship pay for my books and "pocket money" and my partner worked freelance. I had to get work because 1) being a student left me with two grand debt (interest free, from the wonderful Cooperative PLC bank) and 2) I don't want to be a burden on my partner or my mother by living off them. If they were wealthy, I'd reconsider.

In a few years when I've paid my dues and got some experience, I'll doubtlessly be doing something more worthwhile 24/7. But until then I'm comfortable being a part-time adminstrator at a bank. Plus, I earn enough to keep myself in real ale, beef and LPs. I'm not as greedy as I am arrogant.

When I was a kiddie I dreamed of being just like James Joyce. I bought a smart jacket and I lost some weight, so maybe some Rothschild will patronise me and I won't have to go to work anymore.

In short: fuck off.