A Canadian Against ObamaCare, Eh? - Armor Games Community

79	15445

offline

Paradoxymoron

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 14, '10 4:57pm UTC

So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it.

So basically 'fuck the truth, let's go based on popularity'. That is half the problem with American politics. I understand it is easier, but that means that instead of government decisions based on their inherent rationality and validity, we get government decisions based on the popularity of the party that puts them forth.

What if the government makes a law limiting the amount of salts, sugars, and fats that may go into food?

Fine with me.

What if the government thinks it is best to give everyone a gun?

Again fine with me, because both these ideas are inherently rational and valid. Then again, in this case, I think the government would have one hell of a firefight on their hands!

As soon as you allow the government the power to go against the will of the majority because you think the majority is wrong, then you give the government the power to go against the will of the people when the people are right.

Here I agree. But what you are missing is that I do not advocate government action based on subjective moral principles. Whilst there is always a degree of subjectivity when legislating on any law, certain things like UHC and gun prohibition have been empirically proven to increase the health of a people and to reduce murder rates.

So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it.

Let's look at the issue of democracy vs rationality this way. Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the majority decree that they cannot? Vox populi is never a good system of government, especially when there is so much misinformation in the media which leads to a misinformed public at best, and at worst an ignorant and prejudiced one.

Let's go back 40 years. Jim Crow laws were ok because the majority hated blacks right? Or even further back. The majority of Germans benefitted economically from the aryanisation of Jewish property. Democracy wins again!

Look at everyone at the Tea Party Rallies. They are the working class of America. They are the ones who work to make the economy better. They are the ones paying the taxes. They should get a say in what they must and must not pay for.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to see some statistics to back up the claim that the tea party represent blue collar Americans. I happen to have blue collar relatives in the States who wouldn't touch the tea party with a barge pole.

Also do you not see the irony in saying they should decide what they pay for. By keeping a private systeem they hold people to ransom by ensuring they have to pay private health insurance, much higher than the rise in tax would be for the average American.

[quote]So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it. [/quote]\r\n\r\nSo basically 'fuck the truth, let's go based on popularity'. That is half the problem with American politics. I understand it is easier, but that means that instead of government decisions based on their inherent rationality and validity, we get government decisions based on the popularity of the party that puts them forth. \r\n\r\n[quote]What if the government makes a law limiting the amount of salts, sugars, and fats that may go into food?[/quote]\r\n\r\nFine with me. \r\n\r\n[quote]What if the government thinks it is best to give everyone a gun?[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain fine with me, because both these ideas are inherently rational and valid. Then again, in this case, I think the government would have one hell of a firefight on their hands!\r\n\r\n[quote]As soon as you allow the government the power to go against the will of the majority because you think the majority is wrong, then you give the government the power to go against the will of the people when the people are right.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHere I agree. But what you are missing is that I do not advocate government action based on subjective moral principles. Whilst there is always a degree of subjectivity when legislating on any law, certain things like UHC and gun prohibition have been empirically proven to increase the health of a people and to reduce murder rates. \r\n\r\n[quote]So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLet's look at the issue of democracy vs rationality this way. Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the majority decree that they cannot? Vox populi is never a good system of government, especially when there is so much misinformation in the media which leads to a misinformed public at best, and at worst an ignorant and prejudiced one. \r\n\r\nLet's go back 40 years. Jim Crow laws were ok because the majority hated blacks right? Or even further back. The majority of Germans benefitted economically from the aryanisation of Jewish property. Democracy wins again! \r\n\r\n[quote]Look at everyone at the Tea Party Rallies. They are the working class of America. They are the ones who work to make the economy better. They are the ones paying the taxes. They should get a say in what they must and must not pay for.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm afraid I'm going to have to see some statistics to back up the claim that the tea party represent blue collar Americans. I happen to have blue collar relatives in the States who wouldn't touch the tea party with a barge pole. \r\n\r\nAlso do you not see the irony in saying they should decide what they pay for. By keeping a private systeem they hold people to ransom by ensuring they have to pay private health insurance, much higher than the rise in tax would be for the average American.

offline

wolf1991

3,437 posts

Farmer

Posted September 14, '10 5:54pm UTC

As soon as you allow the government the power to go against the will of the majority because you think the majority is wrong, then you give the government the power to go against the will of the people when the people are right.

The only reason we have this mentality that the majority is right is because they BELIEVE they are right. The vast majority of people are ill equipped to make true rational and intelligent decisions. I would rather have a minority who is intelligent pass a law than have a horde of unintelligent people pass a law because at least the minority will have reasonings other than "We don't like this!".

What if the government makes a law limiting the amount of salts, sugars, and fats that may go into food?

Good. Healthy living is good for everyone.

Where do you draw the line?

Same question. Where do you draw the line with the majority making a choice for everyone? I realize the government cannot provide for everyone, but surely passing a law because a bunch of people say it's good does not make it so (Yes I realize you'll tell me UHC is in the same boat).

So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it.

But they need it.

Look at everyone at the Tea Party Rallies. They are the working class of America. They are the ones who work to make the economy better. They are the ones paying the taxes. They should get a say in what they must and must not pay for.

Ah yes, the Tea Party, America's psychotic rednecks. Did you see the video of the rally where a member decided to start dropping f-bombs and accuse a man filming the rally of being a Communist simply because the man who was filming asked on the views of said Tea Party member?

The majority of Germans benefitted economically from the aryanisation of Jewish property. Democracy wins again!

History Note: Germany was democratic before Hitler. And evem Hitler was technically elected.

[quote]As soon as you allow the government the power to go against the will of the majority because you think the majority is wrong, then you give the government the power to go against the will of the people when the people are right.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe only reason we have this mentality that the majority is right is because they BELIEVE they are right. The vast majority of people are ill equipped to make true rational and intelligent decisions. I would rather have a minority who is intelligent pass a law than have a horde of unintelligent people pass a law because at least the minority will have reasonings other than "We don't like this!".\r\n\r\n[quote]What if the government makes a law limiting the amount of salts, sugars, and fats that may go into food?[/quote]\r\n\r\nGood. Healthy living is good for everyone. \r\n\r\n[quote]Where do you draw the line?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSame question. Where do you draw the line with the majority making a choice for everyone? I realize the government cannot provide for everyone, but surely passing a law because a bunch of people say it's good does not make it so (Yes I realize you'll tell me UHC is in the same boat).\r\n\r\n[quote]So regardless if UHC works or not, many American's don't want it. [/quote]\r\n\r\nBut they need it. \r\n\r\n[quote]Look at everyone at the Tea Party Rallies. They are the working class of America. They are the ones who work to make the economy better. They are the ones paying the taxes. They should get a say in what they must and must not pay for.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAh yes, the Tea Party, America's psychotic rednecks. Did you see the video of the rally where a member decided to start dropping f-bombs and accuse a man filming the rally of being a Communist simply because the man who was filming asked on the views of said Tea Party member?\r\n\r\n[quote]The majority of Germans benefitted economically from the aryanisation of Jewish property. Democracy wins again! [/quote]\r\n\r\nHistory Note: Germany was democratic before Hitler. And evem Hitler was technically elected.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 14, '10 9:19pm UTC

So basically '**** the truth, let's go based on popularity'. That is half the problem with American politics. I understand it is easier, but that means that instead of government decisions based on their inherent rationality and validity, we get government decisions based on the popularity of the party that puts them forth.

Easier? The government should work for the people, not the other way around.

Fine with me.

Quick question. What happened to your spine?

I guess you're fine with the government throwing everyone who has an STD in prison then? As long as it is for the greater good? A parent let their 8 year old stay up past midnight, should we lock those horrible people up for neglecting their child the sleep they need?

Here I agree. But what you are missing is that I do not advocate government action based on subjective moral principles. Whilst there is always a degree of subjectivity when legislating on any law, certain things like UHC and gun prohibition have been empirically proven to increase the health of a people and to reduce murder rates.

Yeah, you're right. I'm wrong. How could I forget about the government's war on drugs? The drug wars have obviously protected the people!

Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the majority decree that they cannot?

Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the minority in America decree they cannot?

at worst an ignorant and prejudiced one.

Ignorance? I mean, the people want to think for themselves. That is ignorant, selfish, and we should give up our freedom to promote safety through government control so we can let a crooked elite decide what is best for the people.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to see some statistics to back up the claim that the tea party represent blue collar Americans. I happen to have blue collar relatives in the States who wouldn't touch the tea party with a barge pole.

You're family must be too busy kissing Obama's feet as they say, "I'm so afraid of the real world. I'm afraid of baddies. Tell me what to eat. Tell me who to fuck. Tell me when to sleep. Tell me what to buy. Tell me how to walk. Tell me how to breath. Oh tell me how I can trade in my freedom for protection so called protection."

Also do you not see the irony in saying they should decide what they pay for. By keeping a private systeem they hold people to ransom by ensuring they have to pay private health insurance, much higher than the rise in tax would be for the average American.

There is no irony. You are complaining that everyone should be covered, and therefore they should be forced to pay for insurance. You don't even know what insurance is.

I believe we should have a choice when it comes to our own health, lifestyle, and actions.

But they need it.

No, they don't. Even if they did, it should not be forced.

Same question. Where do you draw the line with the majority making a choice for everyone? I realize the government cannot provide for everyone, but surely passing a law because a bunch of people say it's good does not make it so (Yes I realize you'll tell me UHC is in the same boat).

I don't draw a line. I believe in free speech and protest. Therefore I believe it is up to THE PEOPLE to persuade the minds of the majority, not the government.

Ah yes, the Tea Party, America's psychotic rednecks.

Psychotic rednecks? I'm sorry to say this, but you're nothing more than a stereotyping bigot who can't think for themselves. You know what pisses me off with people like you? People like you are trying to say things like "the tea party is racist." Yet, you're stereotyping the tea party as a bunch of rednecks. You're no better than a racist.

Bigot.

Did you see the video of the rally where a member decided to start dropping f-bombs and accuse a man filming the rally of being a Communist simply because the man who was filming asked on the views of said Tea Party member?

Sorry, what was that? I was too busy watching this.

History Note: Germany was democratic before Hitler. And evem Hitler was technically elected.

Yeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.

Stop with the strawman bullshit.

[quote]So basically '**** the truth, let's go based on popularity'. That is half the problem with American politics. I understand it is easier, but that means that instead of government decisions based on their inherent rationality and validity, we get government decisions based on the popularity of the party that puts them forth. [/quote]\r\n\r\nEasier? The government should work for the people, not the other way around.\r\n\r\n[quote]Fine with me. [/quote]\r\n\r\nQuick question. What happened to your spine?\r\n\r\nI guess you're fine with the government throwing everyone who has an STD in prison then? As long as it is for the greater good? A parent let their 8 year old stay up past midnight, should we lock those horrible people up for neglecting their child the sleep they need?\r\n\r\n[quote]Here I agree. But what you are missing is that I do not advocate government action based on subjective moral principles. Whilst there is always a degree of subjectivity when legislating on any law, certain things like UHC and gun prohibition have been empirically proven to increase the health of a people and to reduce murder rates. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah, you're right. I'm wrong. How could I forget about the government's war on drugs? The drug wars have obviously protected the people!\r\n\r\n[quote]Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the majority decree that they cannot?[/quote]\r\n\r\nDo you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the minority in America decree they cannot?\r\n\r\n[quote]at worst an ignorant and prejudiced one. [/quote]\r\n\r\nIgnorance? I mean, the people want to think for themselves. That is ignorant, selfish, and we should give up our freedom to promote safety through government control so we can let a crooked elite decide what is best for the people.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm afraid I'm going to have to see some statistics to back up the claim that the tea party represent blue collar Americans. I happen to have blue collar relatives in the States who wouldn't touch the tea party with a barge pole. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYou're family must be too busy kissing Obama's feet as they say, "I'm so afraid of the real world. I'm afraid of baddies. Tell me what to eat. Tell me who to fuck. Tell me when to sleep. Tell me what to buy. Tell me how to walk. Tell me how to breath. Oh tell me how I can trade in my freedom for protection so called protection."\r\n\r\n[quote]Also do you not see the irony in saying they should decide what they pay for. By keeping a private systeem they hold people to ransom by ensuring they have to pay private health insurance, much higher than the rise in tax would be for the average American.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere is no irony. You are complaining that everyone should be covered, and therefore they should be forced to pay for insurance. You don't even know what insurance is.\r\n\r\nI believe we should have a choice when it comes to our own health, lifestyle, and actions.\r\n\r\n[quote]But they need it. [/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, they don't. Even if they did, it should not be forced.\r\n\r\n[quote]Same question. Where do you draw the line with the majority making a choice for everyone? I realize the government cannot provide for everyone, but surely passing a law because a bunch of people say it's good does not make it so (Yes I realize you'll tell me UHC is in the same boat).[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't draw a line. I believe in free speech and protest. Therefore I believe it is up to THE PEOPLE to persuade the minds of the majority, not the government.\r\n\r\n[quote]Ah yes, the Tea Party, America's psychotic rednecks. [/quote]\r\n\r\nPsychotic rednecks? I'm sorry to say this, but you're nothing more than a stereotyping bigot who can't think for themselves. You know what pisses me off with people like you? People like you are trying to say things like "the tea party is racist." Yet, you're stereotyping the tea party as a bunch of rednecks. You're no better than a racist.\r\n\r\nBigot.\r\n\r\n[quote]Did you see the video of the rally where a member decided to start dropping f-bombs and accuse a man filming the rally of being a Communist simply because the man who was filming asked on the views of said Tea Party member?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSorry, what was that? I was too busy watching [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47WQwRUXHQ]this.[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]History Note: Germany was democratic before Hitler. And evem Hitler was technically elected.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.\r\n\r\nStop with the strawman bullshit.

offline

Paradoxymoron

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 14, '10 9:48pm UTC

Easier? The government should work for the people, not the other way around.

How does improving health care and lowering the cost not serve the people?

I guess you're fine with the government throwing everyone who has an STD in prison then? As long as it is for the greater good? A parent let their 8 year old stay up past midnight, should we lock those horrible people up for neglecting their child the sleep they need?

Talk about straw man arguments.

Yeah, you're right. I'm wrong. How could I forget about the government's war on drugs? The drug wars have obviously protected the people!

I am actually in favour of total drug legalisation, however that's a topic for another thread.

Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the minority in America decree they cannot?

If it went to a referendum I would estimate the results would be the same as prop 8 whiich was held in one of the US much more liberal states too.

I mean, the people want to think for themselves.

Not really. Most tea party coverage I have seen they worship Beck, Palin and Limbaugh as demi gods, thoughtlessley clinging onto their very word.

That is ignorant, selfish, and we should give up our freedom to promote safety through government control so we can let a crooked elite decide what is best for the people.

Better and cheaper healthcare for everyone is not selfish. If UHCs proven superiority over a fully private system were up for debate you may have a case here. As it stands, making the system more public isn't crooked at all. It's logical.

You're family must be too busy kissing Obama's feet as they say, "I'm so afraid of the real world. I'm afraid of baddies. Tell me what to eat. Tell me who to ****. Tell me when to sleep. Tell me what to buy. Tell me how to walk. Tell me how to breath. Oh tell me how I can trade in my freedom for protection so called protection."

Strawman number two. Your attitude actually sums up the republican argument pretty well actually. Fearmongering about socialism and 1984 with no basis in fact.

You are complaining that everyone should be covered, and therefore they should be forced to pay for insurance. You don't even know what insurance is.

Perhaps we should act like adults and not tell each other what we know and don't know. It stands to reason that if everyone contributes to an NHS, the average quality goes up due to increased revenue, but the contribution per person goes down as the cost is spread out.

I believe we should have a choice when it comes to our own health, lifestyle, and actions.

I don't see how paying tax instead of insurance for your healthcare changes any of those things.

Yeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.

That's not what he was saying. And please do address the argument of why rationalism is inferior to democracy. It goes right to the heart of this discussion.

[quote]Easier? The government should work for the people, not the other way around.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHow does improving health care and lowering the cost not serve the people?\r\n\r\n[quote]I guess you're fine with the government throwing everyone who has an STD in prison then? As long as it is for the greater good? A parent let their 8 year old stay up past midnight, should we lock those horrible people up for neglecting their child the sleep they need?[/quote]\r\n\r\nTalk about straw man arguments.\r\n\r\n[quote]Yeah, you're right. I'm wrong. How could I forget about the government's war on drugs? The drug wars have obviously protected the people![/quote]\r\n\r\nI am actually in favour of total drug legalisation, however that's a topic for another thread.\r\n\r\n[quote]Do you think it is right that gay couples cannot marry because the minority in America decree they cannot?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf it went to a referendum I would estimate the results would be the same as prop 8 whiich was held in one of the US much more liberal states too.\r\n\r\n[quote]I mean, the people want to think for themselves. [/quote]\r\n\r\nNot really. Most tea party coverage I have seen they worship Beck, Palin and Limbaugh as demi gods, thoughtlessley clinging onto their very word. \r\n\r\n[quote]That is ignorant, selfish, and we should give up our freedom to promote safety through government control so we can let a crooked elite decide what is best for the people.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBetter and cheaper healthcare for everyone is not selfish. If UHCs proven superiority over a fully private system were up for debate you may have a case here. As it stands, making the system more public isn't crooked at all. It's logical.\r\n\r\n[quote]You're family must be too busy kissing Obama's feet as they say, "I'm so afraid of the real world. I'm afraid of baddies. Tell me what to eat. Tell me who to ****. Tell me when to sleep. Tell me what to buy. Tell me how to walk. Tell me how to breath. Oh tell me how I can trade in my freedom for protection so called protection."[/quote]\r\n\r\nStrawman number two. Your attitude actually sums up the republican argument pretty well actually. Fearmongering about socialism and 1984 with no basis in fact.\r\n\r\n[quote]You are complaining that everyone should be covered, and therefore they should be forced to pay for insurance. You don't even know what insurance is.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPerhaps we should act like adults and not tell each other what we know and don't know. It stands to reason that if everyone contributes to an NHS, the average quality goes up due to increased revenue, but the contribution per person goes down as the cost is spread out. \r\n\r\n[quote]I believe we should have a choice when it comes to our own health, lifestyle, and actions.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't see how paying tax instead of insurance for your healthcare changes any of those things. \r\n\r\n[quote]Yeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's not what he was saying. And please do address the argument of why rationalism is inferior to democracy. It goes right to the heart of this discussion.

offline

Avorne

3,085 posts

Nomad

Posted September 14, '10 9:53pm UTC

Ahh, the Tea Party. Bunch of Anti-Obama shmucks who are about as smart as a member of the KKK and in some places twice as racist. This is the impression I get of them at least - certainly the impression I get from the ones that shout the loudest. Frankly - the teabaggers seem to be the people we used to call 'Republicans' until Faux News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrish and the like decided to take the supposedly 'grass-roots' movement and astroturf it forward.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 14, '10 9:58pm UTC

Ahh, the Tea Party. Bunch of Anti-Obama shmucks who are about as smart as a member of the KKK and in some places twice as racist. This is the impression I get of them at least - certainly the impression I get from the ones that shout the loudest. Frankly - the teabaggers seem to be the people we used to call 'Republicans' until Faux News, **** Armey, Newt Gingrish and the like decided to take the supposedly 'grass-roots' movement and astroturf it forward.

It's hard for me not to point out how close minded you are being, but you must be a Liberal. I don't support all the people's views in the Tea Party, but I do support smaller government. Maybe more people would find something they have in common with the Tea Party if they weren't so brainwashed by the rest of the media.

offline

Avorne

3,085 posts

Nomad

Posted September 14, '10 10:03pm UTC

Meh, you still have to admit that the Tea Party has a fair few crazies, fundies and 'tards - E.G:

"If you like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government."

Also - how is government too big? And why would size matter - I'd prefer we focused more on having a functional government than a small one.

offline

wwiifan

272 posts

Nomad

Posted September 14, '10 10:13pm UTC

Easier? The government should work for the people, not the other way around.

Unfortuantly It usually doesn't work that way. I don't like the new Obama health care, one, im a republican, two, his ideas affect small business owners in a negative way. my dad owns a small business, and he only gets 30 cents if he makes a dollar.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 14, '10 10:54pm UTC

Also - how is government too big? And why would size matter - I'd prefer we focused more on having a functional government than a small one.

Size relates to how much power the government has. A big government has a lot of control on personal liberties and economic liberties. It's easier for a big government to become corrupt than a small one.

I do not think the government should force people to be moral or force protection onto the people. If you allow the government to protect you, then you have to give up some of your personal freedoms. Many people are okay with this, but eventually the government will grow big enough to were they will start censoring views that threaten their power. They may start to enforce laws that are unfair.

I like what Penn Jillette said. Obama can be absolutely correct with every single thing that he does. He can be president for a week or for 20 years. By allowing the government to have so much power, Obama can fix the economy and save every last human being in the country. However, Obama will not be president forever. Eventually, someone who is mad will step up as President. This president may use the government's power to harm the people or push unfair views and laws. Obama can be a saint with all the power, but the power won't stay with him, it will be passed down man to man to man.

That is why I support small government, so that when mad men like Bush do become president, they don't have as much power to abuse.

[quote]Also - how is government too big? And why would size matter - I'd prefer we focused more on having a functional government than a small one.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSize relates to how much power the government has. A big government has a lot of control on personal liberties and economic liberties. It's easier for a big government to become corrupt than a small one.\r\n\r\nI do not think the government should force people to be moral or force protection onto the people. If you allow the government to protect you, then you have to give up some of your personal freedoms. Many people are okay with this, but eventually the government will grow big enough to were they will start censoring views that threaten their power. They may start to enforce laws that are unfair.\r\n \r\nI like what Penn Jillette said. Obama can be absolutely correct with every single thing that he does. He can be president for a week or for 20 years. By allowing the government to have so much power, Obama can fix the economy and save every last human being in the country. However, Obama will not be president forever. Eventually, someone who is mad will step up as President. This president may use the government's power to harm the people or push unfair views and laws. Obama can be a saint with all the power, but the power won't stay with him, it will be passed down man to man to man.\r\n\r\nThat is why I support small government, so that when mad men like Bush do become president, they don't have as much power to abuse.

offline

wolf1991

3,437 posts

Farmer

Posted September 15, '10 4:01am UTC

Therefore I believe it is up to THE PEOPLE to persuade the minds of the majority, not the government.

How does one persaude a fanatic? You see the majority often consist of people who are ill informed and of a like mind to those around them. It's like religion really. The believe in something so much they refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs. One person, or even a group of people often would never succeed without a great deal of charisma. However, those people would then turn the fanatic belief to their own profit. Think Hitler.

Yeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.

Really not sure what this has to do with my arguement. I was pointing out the irrationality behind a democratic state. Hitler was a Nazi, a member of the Nazi Socialist Party of Germany. However, HE DID NOT follow in the strict sense a socialist view (mainly the holocaust). In many cases he was a great leader he provided for the people when the people needed a strong government. Therefore THE PEOPLE elected him. It was THE PEOPLE who gave Hitler power and thus THE PEOPLE, delluded and in a flock mind allowed room for irrationality.

[quote] Therefore I believe it is up to THE PEOPLE to persuade the minds of the majority, not the government.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHow does one persaude a fanatic? You see the majority often consist of people who are ill informed and of a like mind to those around them. It's like religion really. The believe in something so much they refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs. One person, or even a group of people often would never succeed without a great deal of charisma. However, those people would then turn the fanatic belief to their own profit. Think Hitler.\r\n\r\n[quote]Yeah, we should not be allowed to elect our leaders. Our leaders should be allowed to inherit their positions.[/quote]\r\n\r\nReally not sure what this has to do with my arguement. I was pointing out the irrationality behind a democratic state. Hitler was a Nazi, a member of the Nazi Socialist Party of Germany. However, [b]HE DID NOT[/b] follow in the strict sense a socialist view (mainly the holocaust). In many cases he was a great leader he provided for the people when the people needed a strong government. Therefore THE PEOPLE elected him. It was THE PEOPLE who gave Hitler power and thus THE PEOPLE, delluded and in a flock mind allowed room for irrationality.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted September 15, '10 4:29am UTC

How does one persaude a fanatic? You see the majority often consist of people who are ill informed and of a like mind to those around them. It's like religion really. The believe in something so much they refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs. One person, or even a group of people often would never succeed without a great deal of charisma. However, those people would then turn the fanatic belief to their own profit. Think Hitler.

No, I won't think Hitler because the people were desperate and Hitler used what his people lost in WWI to gain support. Yes, people can elect bad leaders. Did I ever say democracy is a way to avoid bad leaders? NO! However, people should always have a choice.

Really not sure what this has to do with my arguement. I was pointing out the irrationality behind a democratic state

You do understand that there is no such thing as a perfect solution right? Just because you can find a flaw doesn't mean it is irrational.

Your solution to fixing these irrational problems is to oppress people and take away their freedom. You don't see the irrationality in this?

You need to use your brain and stop being so biased. You don't apply your own arguments to your twisted logic, only mine. It's easy to say Hitler was voted into power, therefore democracy is flawed, but you don't think of all the other leaders who inherit their positions or take control through military force.

You want to live an extra 10 years in a foam lined cage and a muzzle to keep you from speaking out, then good for you.

[quote]How does one persaude a fanatic? You see the majority often consist of people who are ill informed and of a like mind to those around them. It's like religion really. The believe in something so much they refuse to accept anything other than their beliefs. One person, or even a group of people often would never succeed without a great deal of charisma. However, those people would then turn the fanatic belief to their own profit. Think Hitler.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, I won't think Hitler because the people were desperate and Hitler used what his people lost in WWI to gain support. Yes, people can elect bad leaders. Did I ever say democracy is a way to avoid bad leaders? NO! However, people should always have a choice.\r\n\r\n[quote]Really not sure what this has to do with my arguement. I was pointing out the irrationality behind a democratic state[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou do understand that there is no such thing as a perfect solution right? Just because you can find a flaw doesn't mean it is irrational.\r\n\r\nYour solution to fixing these irrational problems is to oppress people and take away their freedom. You don't see the irrationality in this?\r\n\r\nYou need to use your brain and stop being so biased. You don't apply your own arguments to your twisted logic, only mine. It's easy to say Hitler was voted into power, therefore democracy is flawed, but you don't think of all the other leaders who inherit their positions or take control through military force.\r\n\r\nYou want to live an extra 10 years in a foam lined cage and a muzzle to keep you from speaking out, then good for you.

offline

Paradoxymoron

65 posts

Nomad

Posted September 15, '10 9:39am UTC

However, people should always have a choice.

They had a choice, and they elected Obama. Feel free to protest against the healthcare, but let's not pretend they live in some police state. The fact the tea party gets away with even chanting some of these frankly outrageous slogans in public is testament to how free they actually are. The double standards are breathtaking.

After you and Avorne's little dialogue I gave the tea party the benefit of the doubt and did some research of my own. What I found out was truly astounding.

It seems to me that the tea party amounts to little more than conspiracy theorists, reactionaries and other sorts of demagoguery. It's all words and no content, fueled by fears of big bad government (not rational fears of a slide towards a police state mind you) and following causes without or directly against evidence (birthers).

Now I realise being a Brit I am a bit of a noob when it comes to US politics, and realise that ideologically you have to shift everything to the right when comparing the US to Europe to get the context. However, when other conservatives in the US are embarassed by them, that's when you know something's up.

I also think the vast number of slogans they have is quite telling. After watching some youtube videos of their rallies and speeches, I've come to the conclusion that it's because they actually have nothing to say. No one can get them off talking points, because they have no beliefs. The entire movement is intentionally reactionary.

So feel free to support them and cite them in this discussion, but I shan't be giving anyone associated with them any credence.

[quote]However, people should always have a choice.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey had a choice, and they elected Obama. Feel free to protest against the healthcare, but let's not pretend they live in some police state. The fact the tea party gets away with even chanting some of these frankly outrageous slogans in public is testament to how free they actually are. The double standards are breathtaking.\r\n\r\nAfter you and Avorne's little dialogue I gave the tea party the benefit of the doubt and did some research of my own. What I found out was truly astounding. \r\n\r\nIt seems to me that the tea party amounts to little more than conspiracy theorists, reactionaries and other sorts of demagoguery. It's all words and no content, fueled by fears of big bad government (not rational fears of a slide towards a police state mind you) and following causes without or directly against evidence (birthers). \r\n\r\nNow I realise being a Brit I am a bit of a noob when it comes to US politics, and realise that ideologically you have to shift everything to the right when comparing the US to Europe to get the context. However, when other conservatives in the US are [url=http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/02/12/conservative-backlash-against-conspiracy-theories-begins.html]embarassed[/url] by them, that's when you know something's up.\r\n\r\nI also think the vast number of [url=http://www.teapartyslogans.com/cgi-bin/web/index.cgi]slogans[/url] they have is quite telling. After watching some youtube videos of their rallies and speeches, I've come to the conclusion that it's because they actually have nothing to say. No one can get them off talking points, because they have no beliefs. The entire movement is intentionally reactionary.\r\n\r\nSo feel free to support them and cite them in this discussion, but I shan't be giving anyone associated with them any credence.

offline

gaboloth

1,612 posts

Peasant

Posted September 16, '10 7:22pm UTC

A point hasn't emerged much is that clandestine immigrants can't have a assurance and they hasn't medical caring.

offline

wolf1991

3,437 posts

Farmer

Posted October 27, '10 7:57pm UTC

Flag
Your instincts were right on. A report by consulting firm Deloitte in April this year showed that
nearly two thirds of the customers to Buy WOW Gold online reviews.
And 43 percent either confirmed their decision or their opinion changed based on the online reviews.
But PowerReviews did more than just places for people from the outlet. Chen and built another site
that aggregates opinions of its 3500 e-commerce sites in one place, which now can access more than
10 million WOW Gold for sale, the visitors. As the company
grew over the next two years, there was heated competition from other startups like Bazaarvoice.com
and Retrevo.com. In 2007 the team had to stimulate the growth and turned back to
Aion Gold partner in a $ 15,000,000 Series B round of
financing led by Lehman Brothers Venture Partners. "We liked the idea. And we wanted the team," said
John Jarve, managing director of Menlo Ventures. "Only a dedicated, fun group of
Lotro Gold."

What does that have to do with healthcare?

[quote] Flag\r\nYour instincts were right on. A report by consulting firm Deloitte in April this year showed that \r\nnearly two thirds of the customers to Buy WOW Gold online reviews. \r\nAnd 43 percent either confirmed their decision or their opinion changed based on the online reviews. \r\nBut PowerReviews did more than just places for people from the outlet. Chen and built another site \r\nthat aggregates opinions of its 3500 e-commerce sites in one place, which now can access more than \r\n10 million WOW Gold for sale, the visitors. As the company \r\ngrew over the next two years, there was heated competition from other startups like Bazaarvoice.com \r\nand Retrevo.com. In 2007 the team had to stimulate the growth and turned back to \r\nAion Gold partner in a $ 15,000,000 Series B round of \r\nfinancing led by Lehman Brothers Venture Partners. "We liked the idea. And we wanted the team," said \r\nJohn Jarve, managing director of Menlo Ventures. "Only a dedicated, fun group of \r\nLotro Gold."[/quote] \r\n\r\nWhat does that have to do with healthcare?

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 27, '10 8:42pm UTC

What does that have to do with healthcare?

Nothing. It's an advertiser for MMORPG item sales. We get them from time to time on the forums.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → A Canadian Against ObamaCare, Eh?