What would you do first?
Printable View
What would you do first?
Thank whoever got the constitution changed.
Come on the first lady's tits.
You'd have been doing that 4 yrs @ this point simonj. Assuming you were able to find a mate of the opposite seks by the time you were 50. Jp jp. Don't get all choked up.
Who says I'll be 50 by the time I become British? My youth won't stand in my way, nor will my British nationality.
Why do you keep posting threads that just ask a simple question, but then you don't actually post your own answer? Are you really that unimaginative?
hopeyoudie do you know what? i don't actually think you're beef. i believe you, because you've done nothing to make yourself seem untrustworthy.
i also like your many questions. they liven up the board and make me laugh :)
1. Eliminate about 90% of the Department of Education and privatize all schools. Institute a permit trading system allowing for parents to choose to pay tuition for their children or purchase education-exemption permits. Effectively, replace the current failing mandatory education system with the same system used to handle CO2 pollution; rather than CO2 as a pollutant, we'll treat ignorance.
2. Approve construction of the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. Repeal ban on new nuclear power facilities. Repeal ban on nuclear waste recycling. Institute permit trading program for coal-generated pollutants to curb use of coal-fired power plants within 10 years. Offer tax incentives to large oil firms to ensure they maintain marketshare in energy market. America's pension plans own Big Oil and we can't afford to rapidly cut into their success.
3. Reform medical malpractice law to grant further leeway to Doctors, particularly in the area of punitive damages. Increase difficulty of Board exams in order to proactively promote better health practitioners. Use anti-trust laws to attend to any malpractice insurance carriers who do not appropriately reduce rates. This will cut the cost of healthcare almost immediately and will severely decrease the bargaining power of HMOs.
4. Broaden scope of insurance laws to require cash backing for any service that acts as insurance, whether or not it is specifically labeled as such. This will largely prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis because it would be significantly more difficult to inflate the apparent value of mortgage-backed securities.
5. Officially define marriage as a civil union between a man and woman. Allow for domestic partnerships between and two people that 1. live together 2. maintain joint finances 3. are responsible for one another's well-being. Require all government offerings currently available to married couples also be available for all domestic partners. Notice that this does not allow for "gay marriage" nor does it restrict the benefits of a domestic partnership to those who are having sex. Two roommates could therefore receive the same benefits as the gay couple across the hall because they serve the same purpose to society.
1) Put more money into Education and abolish the No Child Left Behind Act.
2) Have a no tolerance gun control act past.
3) By some miracle, make Social Security an independent trust fund once again.
4) Allow inmates to fight to the death in exchange for freedom (in which they would be shipped off to Canada) in a Gladiator style pit of death.
Yeah.
i definately like this one but give them the chance to chose canada or franceQuote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
Though I wouldn't want to appear soft on someone who had to kill fellow inmates and survive the lion pit, I suppose I could at least give them the option of France.Quote:
Originally Posted by fried chicken
1. Get an intern
2. Invite intern to the oval office
3. Grab dick
These questions are meant for me to get to know you and to stir up discussion on this otherwise stagnant board. It's apparent no one wants to get to know me that's why I sit back and let you guys discuss. Besides where's your contribution to this board?Quote:
Originally Posted by Who
OKAY DEN. Also I really like the other answers as well. And I vote France because it's further away from America.
Find the fountain of youth.
Destroy New Joisey
Instead of destroying New Jersey, just kick out the undesirables! Thank you!
Blow the shithole up
where the preposition at
same thing
get a mini nuke
jinx pauly hehe
hehehe
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeYouDie
I point out flaws in other people.
He's our Socrates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Who
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.
If I was president...
If I was president
Instead of spending billions on the war,
I can use that money, to feed the poor.
I know some so poor, when it rains that's when they shower,
when screaming "fight the power".
That's when the vulture devoured
[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.
If I was president...
If I was president...
If I was president...
If I was president
But the radio won't play this.
They call this rebel music.
How can you refuse it, children of moses?
[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.
If I was president...
If i was president
Tell the children the truth, the truth.
Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
Tell them the truth.
The truth
YEAH! Tell them about Marcus Garvey.
Tell the children, the truth, yeah! The truth
Tell them about Martin Luther King.
Tell them the truth.
The Truth.
Tell them about JFK
If I was President
[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.
If I was president...
If I was president
Soup is also HACKAN UPLOADAN UPDATAN the server
Atmofear's points are valid and excellent
No brains no worries is clearly a pinko
Too bad the president has no direct power over pretty much anything mentioned in this thread.
If I were president:
I would stop being a dick about oil and money (dunno how Obama is but I'm still looking at the previous ones)
That's because I'm a visionary Mr. E unfortunately I dislike lolitics too much to ever act on any of this.
I'd kill myself so I wouldn't have to live life as a half black man.
In all seriousness though, I'd probably just dick around, blow up some countries, do a lot of blow and get bjs in the oval office. Oddly enough I know people that said they would vote for me if I ever ran.
OH LAWD!!! :ppslash:Quote:
Originally Posted by djwolford
What? It's a combination of all the awesome things that our last few presidents have done. I'd be the pinnacle of greatness.
Why do you support nuclear power? We have no way to get rid of it, and it stays active for millions of years. Putting it in a mountain doesn't seem like the greatest idea either. You probably support it because it doesn't effect you directly. Can we store it in your garage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Thank you America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
If I was president:
1) Separate church and state since people are obsessed with pushing on agenda that i consider "bibltics" (like defining marriage as between a man and a woman)
2) Create a national healthcare system since those who can, should help those who can't help themselves, and it seems to be working in other countries (with around the same tax rate).
3) Move progressively away from oil and towards natural gas, which we have plenty of in the U.S. while also looking into other alternatives. There would be tax credits for companies who consistently reduced their emissions and were working towards clean facilities.
4) Undo everything Bush did in opening up areas for more drilling in the U.S. Although we would still rely on oil for awhile (since it's idealistic to think you could just switch) I believe that opening up drilling in the U.S. would only perpetuate our dependence on it.
5) Put more money into education and reduce or eliminate the cost of college and technical schools so we can reduce the amount of ignorance in this country.
Assassinate myself. I'd be a horrible president
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Most intelligent post I have read in a LONG time. Thank you and +repd you good sir
Because nuclear power is safe. It doesn't stay active for millions of year, there are recycling programs in use in Europe at the moment that greatly reduce the volume of waste produced. Coal-fired plants are guaranteed destruction. Nuclear plants are minimal risk, minimal waste, and easily planned and accounted for. Furthermore, the U.S. is full of nuclear plants that are near or past their life expectancy that cannot be retired due to the ridiculous ban on further construction. It's simply burying your head in the sand if you think we should be getting by without nuclear power. Nuclear energy has minimal effects on the environment, while coal, solar, and wind energy all have profound effects on the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
The Yucca Mountain facility is about as perfect a site for waste storage as you can imagine. It's more than 100 miles from any people and is geologically ideal for an underground facility. Do some fucking research.
This is a fantastic proposal from the near-sighted revisionist historians who refuse to acknowledge that the very concept of marriage was created by religion. While Christianity was not the major religion of the founders, but it was the reason that marriage became an institution of our government. The Church ought to be the ones to define the term marriage as they are the ones who created it. It's simply arrogant tomfoolery of the gay community to demand access to the term and, in turn, reject equal rights to two people who serve an identical purpose with the exception of not having sex (which is, in most states, still a crime.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Socialist faggot get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Tax credits are an antiquated system which require the government to determine the cost of abatement for all firms and then set the tax rate appropriately, leaving the total level of abatement up for chance. Of course, you don't appear to believe very strongly in the free market so I won't bother fixing the stupid inefficiencies of this suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Punishing the oil companies is punishing every single American with any type of retirement or pension. That will help the economy and help finance you're retarded plan for socialized medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Well you obviously put a lot of thought into this so I'm sure that will turn out just fine. Who are you, LBJ? Add government oversight and throw money at your problems and maybe they will go away long enough for the next president to deal with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
While I agree with the marriage thing (and possibly nuclear power, I am not educated on that subject so I can't really comment) I think that the socialist perspective has much more to offer in terms of a sustainable future. If we continue dependency on oil we're simply perpetuating environmental costs. I think we need to look for clean and renewable energy asap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Also, public medicare is great...it works perfectly in Canada.
End womans suffrage!!!!
Despite being a barefooted member of the filthy left, I actually think nuclear power is pretty $ and I'm not sure why people are so terrified of it.
I mean, I played Sim City 2000 and those nuke meltdowns were not a big deal if you had enough fire departments.
I do think nuclear power is necessary, but not in place of other energy sources. We should be putting more money into energy research, into fine tuning wind and solar power to maximize efficiency and minimize environmental impact. I also think we should be using natural gas - not for personal automobiles, but for large cargo trucks and so forth.
You're right. We really should be burying nuclear waste in mountains. Maybe we could put it in Colorado too. We could just dig holes and drain it down some number of miles and pretend it doesn't exist too. The effects of radiation from nuclear waste don't go away in our lifespan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Well then let them be allowed the same rights as married couples. Though to make it fair, we really should remove 'married' as a listed status then and change it to 'civil union'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Canada does it. Britain does it. Norway does it. Finland does it. France does it. Australia does it. It's working for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
I'll give you this one. I'm not up to date on tax credits and that such. The point of what I was saying was that there needs to be some benefit to companies that are trying to change for the better. And I do enjoy the free market, except for when it becomes corrupted and we end up in the financial crisis we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
I've often thought about this. How can we move forward when the middle class is struggling? Because I think the reason that the middle class is unwilling to support a lot of this is the cost of it all. But at the same time, the people want a cleaner world. And our government is supposed to do what we want, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
LBJ escalated a war that was useless. And the president that followed was even worse. And Nixon, that president, was the one who got us started on the healthcare system we currently have. Ever listened to the tapes of him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
He's an Administrator yo. And he contributes to the board, but unlike the rest of us, I'm sure he has real life activities that require his attention more than the board does.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeYouDie
Nuclear power is the best and most efficient power and developments have been made in the past 30 years where Uranium can be reprocessed and used again several times, making nuclear waste practically nada. Cheaper than what we have, more efficient than what we have, quit being an ignorant pussyfoot and learn your stuff before you say dumb things Icarus.
Most of you seem to have some impressively good ideas. Surprize surprize.
I'll accept your argument if you expand on what improvements they've made, and also tell me how they cool the water around the reactors. I was told once it was done by coal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
I thought it was graphite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Once again, you're just displaying ignorance. The Yucca Mountain facility is 1. secure to the point that unless its the end of the world anyways, it's utterly safe and 2. necessary only because or moronic, antiquated laws banning Uranium recycling that would allow nuclear facilities to recycle almost all of their waste to the point it has a negligible impact on the environment (less so than, say, clean coal.) Yucca Mountain is a solution to idiotic policies of the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
How does that make it "fair"? It's just a slap in the face to straight couples and the religious right. And once again, how is that fair to same-sex (or even opposite-sex) roommates who aren't having sex? Is the act of sodomy all it takes for the state to bless the relationship? That's inane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Socialist. Socialist. Socialist. Socialist. Socialist. Most Socialist. All of your examples are countries whose governments were built on the basis of egalitarian redistribution of wealth following monarchical control. Find that concept in the Federalist Papers, I defy you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
There is never a benefit to business if the government is requiring these controls. If there was a net benefit for pollution control in the free market, firms would be voluntarily putting them into place because they would make more money from it (probably due to social consciousness increasing demand for products of companies that enact these controls.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Furthermore, stricter pollution controls increase the incentive for firms to move their operations from our country to those that have fewer controls. Just like minimum wage, stricter financial filing requirements, and other government-imposed costs.
I don't think you grasp the complexity of a national economy in any way shape or form.
The government is supposed to secure our right to life and liberty. A government that acts wantonly in the application of the will of 51% is likely to turn tyrant against 49%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
*cough*socialism*cough*
Did you hear that? That was the sound of the comment going entirely over your head. The point wasn't about foreign policy, it was about LBJ's social philosophy of casually passing legislation and expanding the government to fix any problem that anyone might face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
They've figured out how to reprocess uranium to make it reusable hundreds of times before having to be disposed of, and the technology the plants used has improved to the point that one use of the uranium goes rather far, on top of the fact that it is reusable. I don't know the science behind it, I just know someone who is responsible for dealing with nuclear waste and he explained it to me. As far as dealing with the heat pollution, I'm not quite sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...s/cfr/part020/Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
There's the government regulation on cooling. None of the cooling emissions of nuclear plants have any radiation. The major concern is thermal emissions.
Update: here is the non-science version http://men.style.com/gq/features/lan...d=content_6424
Socialism is awesome.
for lazy peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
Also the USA is the only industralised wealthy nation that does not provide Universal health care.
Universal health care makes humanity weak and makes people live longer than they should. Fuck it
Universal health care will eat your family and rape your cat.
I know, that's one of the reasons I'm against it
To lazy to answer these all directly. So fuck you (that's just simpler).Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Someone who works for a facility. That sounds like something I could trust (seriously), because they would have a real perspective on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
Oh look something useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Because the USA doesn't care about those who are sick, poor, suffer from mental illness, or have pre-existing conditions (or so it would seem).Quote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
Universal health care will blow up the Golden Gate Bridge.
More like someone who runs the facility, ok?
Also, seriously, fuck the poor. Poor people are poor because nature didn't give them what they needed to not be poor. Sick people are sick because nature made them that way. People have pre-existing conditions because nature made them that way. If you're too poor to get the help that you need to fight nature, then you don't deserve to be able to fight it.
The mentally ill are the only exception to this imo, because, while nature is responsible for that too, we can't just kill them and they aren't able to help themselves.
Casey you have a very weird outlook. If "nature" made them that way how is their fault? If "nature" made them that way shouldn't you superior human beings who nature have made perfect help them out?
I didn't say it was their fault, but it is their problem to deal with, since they have the mental facilities to do so. As far as superior beings, why should they help out the inferior ones? The cost-benefit analysis of helping someone who is not capable of supporting themselves, be it due to circumstances or lack of industriousness, is ludicrously one-sided. Survival of the Fittest.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
qftQuote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
I love how the extreme capitalists hate on socialism because they are scared that they might lose nice things if everything is equal. Gogo materialism.
Some things are completely out of peoples control, such as those who grow our coffee and are essentially forced into economic slavery to support out habits.
Capitalism is not sustainable under the current circumstances and we will eventually kill ourselves or piss off everyone else enough to kill us first
I'm not a capitalist when it comes to domestic policy, I'm a naturalist. Survival of the fittest. It is the model nature means for us to live. Socialism would kill us all much more absolutely than capitalism. Any windfall from capitalism (your assumptions are terrible, btw) can be undone or dealt with. If an incurable superbug comes into existence because people who were supposed to die lived and bred making their progeny even weaker then it is game over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzle
Eh. You didn't say that before. I already agreed with the credibility, yeesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
Your logic is flawless. /heavy sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
If by nature you mean the society in which they are born, then you would be correct. But genetics has nothing to do with poverty. It's actually based on a perpetuation of socioeconomic status since those who are poor regress during summer months because they don't have proper stimulation (like a library they can visit or a museum to go to) while those who are wealthy continue to grow. And thus, it is all perpetuated.
Also, I hope you have a genetic disorder and can't afford to fix it.
We don't take care of them though. If you look into deinstiutionalization (which JFK signed in 1963 before his assassination) we were supposed to let them out into a supportive community, with community clinics, supportive family and housing. The pilot studies of this showed that it had a great effect. But the pilot studies involved people who were cared for by psychiatric nurses, visited by counselors, had jobs, and were provided meals a couple times a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
When the deinstitutionalization actually took place, the mentally ill had no family to fall back on, and if they did get housing, they would go through medication cycles until eventually they were kicked out of their housing. What we got? the homeless mentally ill
Read through this to be less ignorant: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...67/ai_76398484
*yawn*Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus
Let me tell my story to someone for the 11 millionth time.
I was born poor. I was born in a single-parent household. I had little to no parental support. However, I was determined to become more than what society had told me I would be. I have been blessed by nature with excellent faculties, and I took advantage of them to become one of the smartest people I have ever known, and nobody helped me get to where I am.
You can blame society all you want, but at the root of everything is initiative. If you lack the initiative to strive to not be poor, then you deserve to be poor. If you have the initiative but don't have the faculties then you deserve to be poor.
And by the way, I'm in the process of becoming an actuary, and my genetics are clean (had a check done a few years ago for markers). I'm here for the long haul buddy.
Also, don't lecture me on American history. I am well aware of how mental healthcare in America fell apart, and I am supportive of reform in that area. If America wanted to socialize mental health care I'd be the first person to speak up for it, but that's where it should stop.
What a wonderful American story. You are amazing. I am amazed. How did all of your friends from your school make out? Were you an exception? Are you special?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
Also, are you familiar with the psychological process that we all fall prey to, where we attribute good things to our own doing and bad things to things outside of us? Maybe it wasn't all you.
That's unfortunate for all the people not as "perfect" as you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
I digress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
1. Ban niggers from being president.
2. Ban women from being president.
3. Legalize any and all weapons so that any average joe that wants them could buy them.
4. Legalize pot.
5. Kick out all the fucking illegal foreigners.(or declare open season on them)
6. Tell the rest of the world to go FUCK themselves.
Intense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
Who are you quoting? I never said I was perfect.
Most of my actual (not just acquaintances) friends (I have like, maybe 12, and only 4 or 5 from high school) aren't doing super well. From having unwanted children to being squatters to being straight up doing nothing and living with and off of their parents, they are definitely not doing super well. I try and give them moral support and advice, but some people don't learn. Some of them have gotten stuck in their situations due to circumstances beyond their control, but they've gotta do what they've gotta do.
There may have been some contributors to my success I don't know about, but I don't know who. My friends were moral support on occasion, but they certainly didn't help me learn or anything.
So if your friends didn't follow your rise, then do you think that maybe other things similar to what happened to your friends would hold back other people? Maybe even, circumstances beyond their control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
I sure do. That still doesn't mean I think they should be given something they didn't earn.
grab my dick
legalize weed
resign
smoke weed
I'm not going to go on a mini-rant about this, but Mr. E you know where I would go with it if I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
Other than #4, I'm stealing the rest of these ideas for my own personal platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
I'll be pressing for mandatory five year prison sentences for marijuana possession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djwolford
youre a faggot
I only agree with 2,4, and part of 5 with jojo
Yeah well, when I become dictator of these great United States I'll be a faggot that will have you imprisoned for being a pothead.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClownPrinceOfCrime
Whatcha think about that? Huh? Huh?
Exactly.
:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djwolford
you afraid of pot heads?
huh? are you?
dont be a pussy
I would imprison potheads because pot is for faggots
Having universal or "socialised" health care doesn't mean your whole precious capitalist system has to be destroyed. A country is supposed to take care of it's citizens. You could use the Australian and tax people who earn over a certain amount (say $100,000 a year or whatever a little bit (I think it's 2.5% here) if they don't have private health care. Those who can afford and want private health care have it and those who can't afford it still get treatment and medication.
tl;dr: You can still keep all the other aspects of capitalism even if you have Universal health care.
WTF is a pinko? And how can you, someone who's come from a poor upbringing, agree with only private schools? Where does that leave those below the poverty line? Perhaps people wouldn't be so down on public schooling if it got the funding it deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
Whoa, I just had an Atlas Shrugged flashback....and fucking hated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
A "Pinko" is a a person sympathetic to Communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
It's mainly used by conservatives when they can't think of a proper comebackQuote:
The term has its origins in the notion that pink is a lighter shade of red, the color associated with communism; thus pink could be thought of as a "lighter form of communism" promoted by mere supporters of socialism who weren't, themselves, "card-carrying" communists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClownPrinceOfCrime
What he said. Also, no, I'm not afraid of potheads. They do annoy the dickens out of me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't get it because I thought we'd officially buried the Red Scare. Silly me.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
If you had read anything that I'd said at all you'd know that my argument has nothing to do with capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulyt
If I recall correctly, he said something about the government issuing credits to people for the privatized education, which is fine by me. If he didn't mention that, then scratch my support of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
While you may not think it, your way of thinking is the capitalist way.
Your arrogance and ego are quite astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
I also find it quite ironic how you preach that those who are poor are pool at, essentially, their own fault (or at least remain so that way) but yet YOUR friends are in unfortunate situations because of circumstances beyond their control right?
While I would say that many situations are self-inflicted, it is completely ignorant and absolutely ridiculous to assume that ALL people in bad situations are their because of lack of initiative etc. You say how you were poor and still managed to change all that doesn't mean this same situation applies to everyone, you display egocentrism at its finest. You also display a nice use of the self-serving bias, everything good is due to your own good but yet bad things (such as being poor previously or your unfortunate friends) are beyond personal control.
For someone who claims themselves so intelligent your logic could use some work. While I could sit here and debate whether capitalism or socialism is better for our society (which would be a neverending debate), it is much more pertinent to tell you that it what you suggest (in terms of "survival of the fittest") is completely flawed. You cannot attribute everything to innate attributes, that is completely ignorant...anyone with even a basic introductory course in Psychology could tell you this. Nothing is ever a product of 100% environment OR genetics/biology...there is an interaction between the two. You could be the most intelligent person in the world with absolutely NO opportunity to develop this innate ability just as easily as you could be the most retarded person in the world with access to as many resources as you could imagine. Man is becoming less dependent of instincts, as we develop technology the natural world is further distanced from us...NATURAL selection occurs in the natural world, which we are distancing ourselves from at an increasing rate. Survival of the Fittest is a concept that people like to hold onto because they happen to be in a fortunate position in life and want to hold this position at all costs no matter who else suffers in the process (well they are poor people, I guess they are just weak and don't deserve to live right?).
Fuck survival of the fittest, inclusive fitness is much more reasonable.
Capitalism, at its root, is merely the wealthy trying to hold on to their wealth. Another lame version of survival of the fittest which is pretty much irrelevant in todays age
paulyt how much money do your top doctors make?
The cost of education is significantly higher in America than in other countries. The standards for medicine are prohibitively high. The cost of insurance for American doctors is horrible. You're acting like this is the perfect system, but all it does is force members of a highly skilled and specialized trade to practice their craft under market value. While it is true that all patients get to have their cake and eat it too, doctors in America will be afforded no such luxury. Doctors will begin leaving the market until we end up with waitlists that rival Canada. That's the system I want... I'll pay up front in my taxes and then pay out the ass for private treatment as well. How fantastic.
I can see why you think this, but my rationale isn't economic. I do believe in capitalism, but that's not where my argument against universal health care is coming from. I realize that you can socialize medicine and leave everything else the way that it is (unlike most conservatives), I just don't think we should.
Pretty much, I learned early in life that life wasn't fair and will only be what we make of it. Therefore, I think making life fair to some while burdening others is backwards thinking and an affront to the natural order of things.
EDIT: Oh, and Kozzle, I never said that poor people aren't sometimes poor because of circumstances beyond their control. I just think they should deal with it.
And I am far from egocentric. I am well aware of my faults, and anyone who knows me knows that one of them isn't arrogance. I am not an outstanding person. I lack diligence, I'm lazy, I'm impatient, I self-victimize, I'm overemotional, I'm ADHD, manic-depressive, and I'm apprehensive in social situations. However, I dealt with all that and fought it so that I could better myself and I succeeded, so if being proud of overcoming all the obstacles I've overcome makes me arrogant, then color me arrogant, but what I'm basically saying is, 'if I can do it, anyone can,' and I fail to see the arrogance in that.
Man becoming less dependent on instinct and man's destruction of survival of the fittest will lead to the doom of the species.
I'm done arguing.
Our doctors make as much as they want to make. They can choose whether to accept Medicare or make people pay. A fair few charge more than what Medicare pays which means patients have to pay the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
We ARE less dependent of our instincts...civilization dulls certain instincts down simply through evolution. Unnecessary traits are eventually lost. And it isn't your attitude towards yourself per se that I said was arrogant but mostly your attitude about rich and poor people. Just because you had the circumstances of being raised decently (even if you were poor) doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. Did you know the QUALITY of care you receive as an infant directly affects your cognitive development (and subsequently, intelligence?). Not every child has the luxury of being raised by ANY parent that actually loves them.
Survival of the fittest is not a concept that should be taken 100% literally. SOME situations are at people's fault and they should not be able to leach off society as they do but you also have to realize that SOME of these situations ARE legitimate (outside mental health as well) and deserve to be helped by those that can.
Oh, for fuck's sake. All you assholes who talk about survival of the fittest in relation to society apparently lack a basic understanding of evolution and evolutionary psychology. "Survival of the fittest" should really be "reproduction of the fittest" because survival is completely irrelevant to your species unless you mix gametes with another person. So. Live long enough to fuck, and then it doesn't matter anymore. Bodies are sinking ships to genes.
Poor people reproduce in staggering numbers and on an evolutionary scale they are totally fucking winning because rich academia-tainted yuppies do not want baby vomit on their sweaters, or they want only one child to spoil just positively rotten.
In conclusion I support killing the poor because they should not dominate the gene pool.
Some sacrifices must be made for the good of the species. The weakening of the genome by extending health care to everyone will lead to our eventual destruction. That's all I'm saying. But I'm going to bed for real this time, so I guess I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree since neither one of us is budging.
You have a point about the nurture thing, but in America that usually isn't the problem. Notice I said usually isn't, not never is. I realize there are some cases where this is true, but most of the people who would be taking advantage of socialized medicine are people like this guy I know Cameron. He's in an assload of debt, but the creditors can't find him because he got kicked out of the address he gave them. He lives off of his mom because he got fired from a place that a trained monkey could work at. His grandmother gave him $2000 to pay off his debt, but instead he went on a two week vacation to Europe and asked one of my friends to call unemployment every week and say that it was him so he wouldn't lose his unemployment (my friend didn't comply thank god).
It is the people like him who are much more abundant and who deserve nothing.
Ok, now I'm going to bed for real for real.
Also, lol sole.
The world will be fucked because of climate change before this "weakening of the species" you think will happen has any time to destroy us. Also, as I mentioned earlier the USA is the only wealthy, industralised nation without universal health care. I don't see all the countries with universal health care dying out. Lat time I checked Australia is enjoying a baby boom.
Genomes don't weaken over night, it takes generations
and global warming is overrated
damn it, I really want to go to bed. I have no will power at all.
Amen brother! I can't believe that in this day and age people still cling to that idealism, especially here in the states. We need to help our fellow man, which doesn't mean feeding them the crumbs of the rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzle
Oh man. A guy at my work who was a skin-head said the same exact thing, word for word. Only then he claimed that we should kill all handicaps at birth, so that eventually the handicap genes will be bled out of mankind and thus, take the human race one step closer towards perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
And since he also claimed to be a firm believer in the good lord's will, I quoted Jesus.
“What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.”
This is why rationality does a good job of removing itself from the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
I'm not from the states but sure why not :sole:Quote:
Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries
Mr. E, sorry if I came out a little rash on my earlier post, sometimes it gets the best of me.
But see the whole dilemma (on the healthcare issue) here is, essentially, this: Provide healthcare for everyone so those that truely need it and deserve it are able to get it or provide it for no one (in terms of public HC) so neither those that deserve it (but cant afford it) and those that don't do not get it.
Survival of the Fittest comes in many different forms. Though it is highly irrelevant in today's society (like Sole pointed out) it CANNOT be taken in the literal terms of "The strongest survive". Think of this as an analogy:
Humans once had to survive off of hunting/gathering. Now, not EVERYONE can have the best physical strenght just the same as not EVERYONE can have the best intelligence. You need people from the whole spectrum for the SPECIES to survive as a whole. Inclusive fitness is the idea that the species must survive as a whole, not the individual.
The idea that the capitalist paradigm thinking those that are poor deserve to die is utterly flawed. IF YOU WERE TO ELIMINATE ALL POOR PEOPLE OUR WAY OF LIVING WOULD EFFECTIVELY END.
Who makes all the clothes you wear? Most of the coffees and teas you drink etc? The capitalist way THRIVES off of the poor people who are essentially made slaves to sustain OUR way of life. Do you think people in africa/asia REALLY have a choice? Do you think they just "lack initiative" to get out of that life? What about people who are forced to mine diamonds out in Africa so we can wear fancy jewelry? I suppose they simply aren't intelligent enough to get away with their family from literal private ARMIES.
You can't just go ahead and apply the survival of the fittest rule (which is laughable at best because if you applied the rule like most of you interpret it as we would be fucked) but cherry pick it and apply it ONLY to the western society. Man should be helping man, help those less fortunate. At the cost of what? Materialistic things we DONT NEED? Luxuries are useless at the end of the day.
Fight Club, Lord of War, Blood Diamond, Zeitgeist: Addendum...all great movies that illustrate these points
Well, I'm not saying that what I think society should be is the best thing for everywhere in the world. This thread is about being president of America (I presumed), not emperor of the world. You're right about other countries, and I don't think the poor should die anywhere. I just think they should be given the tools they need to succeed instead of the tools they need to keep on doing exactly what they are doing now (in America). The rest of the world is in such dire need of reform it isn't even funny, but I don't intend to tackle that thought right now.
PS: and luxuries aren't useless, they both provide utility and stand as potential opportunity costs in any economic system. That's just basic thugonomics.
Unfortunately luxuries come, generally, at the cost of the poor people of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. E
American (and subsequently, Canada) is in dire need of reform. Our very way of life in the west is completely dependent on, essentially, the poor people in other countries and the destruction of our environment (pollution, waste of paper etc.). Our way of life is not sustainable and is definitely not ethically right.
Luxuries are not needed, they are just that...luxuries. Luxuries DO create incentive, which is a basis for technological advancement, however.
Capitalism is a necessity to advance technologically, but there will come a point (and I believe it is rapidly approaching) where Capitalism would only lead to the detriment of our species, a significant paradigm shift will eventually have to take place. Only when the technology is fitting can a true socialist society work.
People should be given the tools, I agree, rather than simply be let to continue their way of life. However the best alternative is for everyone to have equal rights to everything where such situations as being poor effectively would not exist.
The reason third world countries fail to industrialize is very simple: they lack security in property rights
China refutes every possible example you could give.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
China is not a 3rd world country...I've actually seen the technical term "2nd world country" which would describe China perfectly.
What about continents with extremely poor and enslaved countries such as Africa? Or other Asian countries that are not Chinese?
Slavery is not something you can just get up and get away from. And the slavery in Africa is, in all probability, "worse" than any slavery found in China.
*facepalm* "2nd world" isn't a technical term. The proper term is developing nation.
And how do you think China got where they are? The Communist dictatorship began strictly enforcing property rights. How can you cite African slavery as a counterexample when slavery is about the ultimate violation of property rights?]
You can talk all you want about poverty, imperialism, and the horrors of capitalism, but there is not a single country in the world that can be considered successful in any economic sense that does not viciously protect property rights.