U.S. House of Representatives Passes Bill to Repeal the New Healthcare Law

157	20547

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 23, '11 7:15pm UTC

It isn't failing. Ours is failing.

This explains why they have such high taxes along with many other troubles caused by social programs such as education.

With healthcare you have to pay a monthly premium even when you are not sick. No matter if you pay for healthcare to the government or insurance companies, you are still paying when you aren't sick.

Don't preach to someone who CHOOSES not to have health insurance. Whether you like it or not, I have a good amount of money saved up in case of an emergency, and if I manage to stay healthy, I will be all the richer in the future. I think I might spend my "survival" money on my children's education or their car. Maybe a different family member will get sick or they will need something replaced such as a TV.

The economy works when there is a rich and poor. It would be impossible to eradicate the poor. There is no upper and middle class alone without a working class. Who is going to work at Burger King or sweep floors or drive dumpster trucks?

The young will start out poor, but they generally room with others or live with their parents. So many low paying jobs will be taken by them. Dump truck drivers, I believe, make a pretty decent wage.

So if I buy a candy bar, I don't have the right to eat it?

This is a weak analogy and does not work.

A right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.

You see, even though your analogy was false, it would have still been more accurate to assume I meant you did have a right to eat the candy bar that you bought.

The right to health care is the ability to get healthcare without the government being able to unjustly prevent you from getting that care. It is NOT a right for them to give you health care. If they give you something, such as health care, it is not a right but rather an entitlement.

They can't take away your home if you live in it. Obviously they won't pay for you to have a home, but they can't take it away. Many houses are being foreclosured, and people are being evicted from their homes. In the EU, you can't do that.

I was explaining the difference between a right and an entitlement.

I'm pretty sure I didn't contradict myself.

I have read the article you quoted. I find it funny that you quoted those specific paragraphs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was not offering what he claims to be fact, but rather one way of looking at the health care bill.

Here's the rest of the article.

Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform. The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well. Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing. Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.

So, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well. To be honest, I don't really need the money. But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.

Here's another article by Greg Minkiw I think you should read.

In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.

[quote]It isn't failing. Ours is failing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis explains why they have such high taxes along with many other troubles caused by social programs such as education.\r\n\r\n[quote]With healthcare you have to pay a monthly premium even when you are not sick. No matter if you pay for healthcare to the government or insurance companies, you are still paying when you aren't sick.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDon't preach to someone who CHOOSES not to have health insurance. Whether you like it or not, I have a good amount of money saved up in case of an emergency, and if I manage to stay healthy, I will be all the richer in the future. I think I might spend my "survival" money on my children's education or their car. Maybe a different family member will get sick or they will need something replaced such as a TV.\r\n\r\n[quote]The economy works when there is a rich and poor. It would be impossible to eradicate the poor. There is no upper and middle class alone without a working class. Who is going to work at Burger King or sweep floors or drive dumpster trucks?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe young will start out poor, but they generally room with others or live with their parents. So many low paying jobs will be taken by them. Dump truck drivers, I believe, make a pretty decent wage. \r\n\r\n[quote]So if I buy a candy bar, I don't have the right to eat it?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is a weak analogy and does not work.\r\n\r\nA right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.\r\n\r\nYou see, even though your analogy was false, it would have still been more accurate to assume I meant you did have a right to eat the candy bar that you bought.\r\n\r\nThe right to health care is the ability to get healthcare without the government being able to unjustly prevent you from getting that care. It is NOT a right for them to give you health care. If they give you something, such as health care, it is not a right but rather an entitlement.\r\n\r\n[quote]They can't take away your home if you live in it. Obviously they won't pay for you to have a home, but they can't take it away. Many houses are being foreclosured, and people are being evicted from their homes. In the EU, you can't do that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was explaining the difference between a right and an entitlement.\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm pretty sure I didn't contradict myself.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI have read the article you [url=http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/01/give-me-1-billion-to-reduce-budget.html]quoted[/url]. I find it funny that you quoted those specific paragraphs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was not offering what he claims to be fact, but rather one way of looking at the health care bill. \r\n\r\nHere's the rest of the article.\r\n\r\n[quote]Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform.  The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well.  Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing.  Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.\r\n\r\nSo, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well.  To be honest, I don't really need the money.  But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHere's another [url=http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare-tradeoffs-and-road-ahead.html]article[/url] by Greg Minkiw I think you should read. \r\n\r\n[quote]In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.[/quote]

offline

Kevin4762

2,420 posts

Nomad

Posted January 24, '11 1:29am UTC

This explains why they have such high taxes along with many other troubles caused by social programs such as education.

I don't see the correlation between my statement and yours.

This is a weak analogy and does not work.

Why not?

A right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.

So your saying is the cashier is forcing you to buy the candy bar and eat it? What's wrong the candy? Either way, you win. You pay more to to the cashier if he hadn't forced you. You win either way because you get a better tasting candy bar and it is cheaper.

The right to health care is the ability to get healthcare without the government being able to unjustly prevent you from getting that care. It is NOT a right for them to give you health care. If they give you something, such as health care, it is not a right but rather an entitlement.

Not the same thing but what is wrong with the government giving you an entitlement?

I have read the article you quoted. I find it funny that you quoted those specific paragraphs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was not offering what he claims to be fact, but rather one way of looking at the health care bill.

Here's the rest of the article.

[quote]Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform. The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well. Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing. Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.

So, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well. To be honest, I don't really need the money. But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.

[/quote]

This proves my point that it did actually reduce the deficit.

In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.

Hmm. I find it interesting how both of his statements contradict each other. In one he says it will add financial problems and in another he says it will reduce financial problems. But when in doubt, I turn to .gov, .org, and .info.

Please read this. Healthcare reform will easily slash the deficit by 6 trillion dollars over a projected ten years.

[quote]This explains why they have such high taxes along with many other troubles caused by social programs such as education.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't see the correlation between my statement and yours.\r\n\r\n[quote]This is a weak analogy and does not work.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy not?\r\n\r\n[quote]A right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo your saying is the cashier is forcing you to buy the candy bar and eat it? What's wrong the candy? Either way, you win. You pay more to to the cashier if he hadn't forced you. You win either way because you get a better tasting candy bar and it is cheaper.\r\n\r\n[quote]The right to health care is the ability to get healthcare without the government being able to unjustly prevent you from getting that care. It is NOT a right for them to give you health care. If they give you something, such as health care, it is not a right but rather an entitlement.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot the same thing but what is wrong with the government giving you an entitlement?\r\n\r\n[quote]I have read the article you quoted. I find it funny that you quoted those specific paragraphs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was not offering what he claims to be fact, but rather one way of looking at the health care bill.\r\n\r\nHere's the rest of the article.\r\n\r\n[quote]Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform.  The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well.  Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing.  Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.\r\n\r\nSo, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well.  To be honest, I don't really need the money.  But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.[/quote][/quote]\r\n\r\nThis proves my point that it did actually reduce the deficit.\r\n\r\n[quote]In the end, while I understood the arguments in favor of the bill, I could not support it. In part, that is because I am generally more of a libertarian than a communitarian. In addition, I could not help but fear that the legislation will add to the fiscal burden we are leaving to future generations. Some economists (such as my Harvard colleague David Cutler) think there are great cost savings in the bill. I hope he is right, but I am skeptical. Some people say the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation a clean bill of health regarding its fiscal impact. I believe that is completely wrong, for several reasons (click here, here, and here). My judgment is that this health bill adds significantly to our long-term fiscal problems.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHmm. I find it interesting how both of his statements contradict each other. In one he says it will add financial problems and in another he says it will reduce financial problems. But when in doubt, I turn to .gov, .org, and .info.\r\n\r\nPlease read [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/HealthCareDeficit.pdf]this[/url]. Healthcare reform will easily slash the deficit by 6 trillion dollars over a projected ten years.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 2:35am UTC

I don't see the correlation between my statement and yours.

The social programs cause problems. That's the correlation.

[quote]This is a weak analogy and does not work.

Why not?[/quote]

I already explained why it didn't work. I even explained that if it did work, you would still be wrong.

A right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.

You see, even though your analogy was false, it would have still been more accurate to assume I meant you did have a right to eat the candy bar that you bought.

So your saying is the cashier is forcing you to buy the candy bar and eat it? What's wrong the candy? Either way, you win. You pay more to to the cashier if he hadn't forced you. You win either way because you get a better tasting candy bar and it is cheaper.

So you're okay with being forced to buy the candy bar? Good grief.

[quote] Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform. The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well. Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing. Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.

So, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well. To be honest, I don't really need the money. But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.

This proves my point that it did actually reduce the deficit.[/quote]

No, it doesn't prove your point at all. He was merely explaining the logic behind the idea of the deficit.

Hmm. I find it interesting how both of his statements contradict each other.

Except he never contradicted himself. The article he wrote that you sourced was him explaining the idea behind health care saving money. He never once stated that it was true.

In one he says it will add financial problems and in another he says it will reduce financial problems.

In one he stated his opinion, in the other he was clearing what those who support the bill think.

But when in doubt, I turn to .gov, .org, and .info.

Sorry to break it to you, but .gov doesn't always mean your source is fact. Go back to the article that I linked you and click where the author says "here, here, and here."

[quote]I don't see the correlation between my statement and yours.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe social programs cause problems. That's the correlation.\r\n\r\n[quote][quote]This is a weak analogy and does not work.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy not?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI already explained why it didn't work. I even explained that if it did work, you would still be wrong. \r\n\r\n[quote]A right is protection from the government, so yes, you would have a right to eat that candy bar. The government does not have the ability to stop you from eating it. On the flip side, they also don't have the right to force you to eat the candy bar.\r\n\r\nYou see, even though your analogy was false, it would have still been more accurate to assume I meant you did have a right to eat the candy bar that you bought.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]So your saying is the cashier is forcing you to buy the candy bar and eat it? What's wrong the candy? Either way, you win. You pay more to to the cashier if he hadn't forced you. You win either way because you get a better tasting candy bar and it is cheaper.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo you're okay with being forced to buy the candy bar? Good grief.\r\n\r\n[quote][quote]        Healthcare reform, its advocates tell us, is fiscal reform.  The healthcare reform bill passed last year increased government spending to cover the uninsured, but it also reduced the budget deficit by increasing various taxes as well.  Because of this bill, the advocates say, the federal government is on a sounder fiscal footing.  Repealing it, they say, would make the budget deficit worse.\r\n\r\n        So, by that logic, giving me $1 billion is fiscal reform as well.  To be honest, I don't really need the money.  But if I can help promote long-term fiscal sustainability, I am ready to do my part.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis proves my point that it did actually reduce the deficit.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, it doesn't prove your point at all. He was merely explaining the logic behind the idea of the deficit.\r\n\r\n[quote]Hmm. I find it interesting how both of his statements contradict each other.[/quote]\r\n\r\nExcept he never contradicted himself. The article he wrote that you sourced was him explaining the idea behind health care saving money. He never once stated that it was true.\r\n\r\n[quote]In one he says it will add financial problems and in another he says it will reduce financial problems.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn one he stated his opinion, in the other he was clearing what those who support the bill think.\r\n\r\n[quote]But when in doubt, I turn to .gov, .org, and .info.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSorry to break it to you, but .gov doesn't always mean your source is fact. Go back to the article that I linked you and click where the author says "here, here, and here."

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 2:48am UTC

Ever drive a car in the USA? Odds are you bought car insurance, as is required by the DMV. How is health insurance any different from having to buy car insurance?

If I don't want to pay for car insurance, I can choose not to drive.

If I don't want to pay national health care, I can choose not to... oh ****. I guess the only way out of paying is suicide.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 24, '11 2:54am UTC

Ever drive a car in the USA? Odds are you bought car insurance, as is required by the DMV. How is health insurance any different from having to buy car insurance?

Beyond the obvious difference that NoName pointed out, car insurance is state by state, not a nation wide thing.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 4:10am UTC

yes but state government is still government.

And this rock is still a rock!

Noname, amongst other things in life, you pay taxes, if you do not wish to pay taxes, you can go to jail. Whenever you pay something, you pay sales tax. guess the only way to opt out of that is to never buy anything. There is no opt out for it. Because, noname, there are things in life you have to do whether or not you like it. It's called being an adult.

Basically you're telling me, "It's life, just accept it." I hope you understand that such an argument holds no ground in a debate.

When it comes to sales tax, each good I buy is taxed. However, I have a choice in which goods I want to buy and yes, I even have the choice to buy nothing. You see, I can choose which goods, how many goods, from whom I buy the goods, and so on. As for national health care, I don't have that option. Not only that, but I'm paying for a service that I do not want. That being said, you can't compare sales tax with national health care.

National health care will raise taxes. Understand that even if I don't mind paying taxes, the amount I pay is still important to me.

"It's life so deal with it," are words of conformity. I do not wish to conform, therefore these words are meaningless to me.

[quote]yes but state government is still government.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd this rock is still a rock!\r\n\r\n[quote]Noname, amongst other things in life, you pay taxes, if you do not wish to pay taxes, you can go to jail. Whenever you pay something, you pay sales tax. guess the only way to opt out of that is to never buy anything. There is no opt out for it. Because, noname, there are things in life you have to do whether or not you like it. It's called being an adult.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBasically you're telling me, "It's life, just accept it." I hope you understand that such an argument holds no ground in a debate.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to sales tax, each good I buy is taxed. However, I have a choice in which goods I want to buy  and yes, I even have the choice to buy nothing. You see, I can choose which goods, how many goods, from whom I buy the goods, and so on. As for national health care, I don't have that option. Not only that, but I'm paying for a service that I do not want. That being said, you can't compare sales tax with national health care.\r\n\r\nNational health care will raise taxes. Understand that even if I don't mind paying taxes, the amount I pay is still important to me. \r\n\r\n"It's life so deal with it," are words of conformity. I do not wish to conform, therefore these words are meaningless to me.

offline

valkery

1,255 posts

Nomad

Posted January 24, '11 4:15am UTC

Not only that, but I'm paying for a service that I do not want.

Why do you not want that specific service?

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 4:33am UTC

Why do you not want that specific service?

Because I'm not sick.

offline

Freakenstein

9,504 posts

Jester

Posted January 24, '11 4:39am UTC

Why do you not wnat that specific service?

Nemo's argument (I think) is that he should not have to pay health care as a tax, but rather only in the times that he actually needs it. Since this NHC is given to us, we must give back via taxes. So for those that aren't sick, they have to still pay. If you were a pretty healthy guy, this would be lame.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 24, '11 4:47am UTC

Out of curiosity, would you still have to pay if your employer paid for health insurance?

offline

Freakenstein

9,504 posts

Jester

Posted January 24, '11 4:52am UTC

Benefits such as that must come with strings attached. My mom worked in a chemical depot that yielded full dental/health/auto care, but had a really lousy paycheck for the job she had. She could have gone to a different company with less benefits to grab more money.

offline

Moe

1,714 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 24, '11 7:51am UTC

Normally I would agree, but this job includes nearly 30 years of working at the same place. With benefits increasing over time.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 10:07am UTC

Normally I would agree, but this job includes nearly 30 years of working at the same place. With benefits increasing over time.

A business can only afford to pay their customers so much. Depending on your job, your employer may not be able to afford to give you extra benefits and an increase in pay if they don't have the money to do so.

Every year I tend to get some cash as well as gift cards. Let's say I get $100, a $15 gift card to Wall-Mart, a $5 gift card to subway, and a another $5 gift card to the Bass Pro Shop. That's a total value of $125. However, I am limited to where I can spend the $25 in gift cards. I would much rather have the $25 in cash.

I view benefits in a similar manner as I do with gift cards. If those benefits go towards something I would spend money on anyway, such as health insurance, then I have no problem. However, if there's something I don't want, then the benefits become a problem. Why wouldn't I want the benefits? Maybe I'm just a risk taker who doesn't want health insurance. Maybe there's a different plan I would rather have.

Benefits are absolutely pointless. I see no reason to have them when you can make more money without. Why not pick the option that gives you more choices and control over those choices?

[quote]Normally I would agree, but this job includes nearly 30 years of working at the same place.  With benefits increasing over time.[/quote]\r\n\r\nA business can only afford to pay their customers so much. Depending on your job, your employer may not be able to afford to give you extra benefits and an increase in pay if they don't have the money to do so. \r\n\r\nEvery year I tend to get some cash as well as gift cards. Let's say I get $100, a $15 gift card to Wall-Mart, a $5 gift card to subway, and a another $5 gift card to the Bass Pro Shop. That's a total value of $125. However, I am limited to where I can spend the $25 in gift cards. I would much rather have the $25 in cash.\r\n\r\nI view benefits in a similar manner as I do with gift cards. If those benefits go towards something I would spend money on anyway, such as health insurance, then I have no problem. However, if there's something I don't want, then the benefits become a problem. Why wouldn't I want the benefits? Maybe I'm just a risk taker who doesn't want health insurance. Maybe there's a different plan I would rather have. \r\n\r\nBenefits are absolutely pointless. I see no reason to have them when you can make more money without. Why not pick the option that gives you more choices and control over those choices?

offline

Kevin4762

2,420 posts

Nomad

Posted January 24, '11 4:35pm UTC

The social programs cause problems. That's the correlation.

Prove it.

I already explained why it didn't work. I even explained that if it did work, you would still be wrong.

No, you didn't.

So you're okay with being forced to buy the candy bar? Good grief.

If I am going to pay a higher price for a worse tasting candy bar, I don't care.

Sorry to break it to you, but .gov doesn't always mean your source is fact. Go back to the article that I linked you and click where the author says "here, here, and here."

Ha! You're joking. I would rather take information from a ****ing government runned website than some blog. Besides, my teacher only allows .gov, .org, and .info.

offline

NoNameC68

5,043 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 24, '11 5:15pm UTC

No, you didn't.

I said health care is not a right. You explained that this is like saying you don't have a right to eating a candy bar after you buy it. That correlation doesn't work for two reasons.

1. The government did not forced you to pay for the candy bar.
2. The government did not pay for the candy bar.

This is the last time I will explain why your candy bar analogy was weak and does not work.

If I am going to pay a higher price for a worse tasting candy bar, I don't care.

Ha! You're joking. I would rather take information from a ****ing government runned website than some blog. Besides, my teacher only allows .gov, .org, and .info.

This proves my hunch to be correct. You were explaining facts about the government without understanding how they work. It was quite obvious this nonsense was your attempt at mirroring your teacher.

I am fully aware of the rule which your teacher mentioned. This only applies to writing papers. When you debate, however, all sources are as welcome to be used as they are to be scrutinized. The source you used against me was actually a very good source, the only mistake you made was that you misinterpreted what he was trying to say.

So, I linked you to a .com website. Does this make my argument too unreliable so that it can't be used? Of course not. This is where you do your research about the author and you try to look into the possibilities of the things he says. You never clicked those links where he said "here, here, and here" did you?

www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj_legal.pdf+why+marijuana+is+bad&hl=en&gl=us&ampid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShKftdS2ds7G3GgicEYXVeJ4Y-zJaW_-03qIxRQqGW_DA3vwGZbPpjeS-HUFlG4Un3x5IiVZfz9_NmrWBzY9DLAsr6HnrL-jJ93Qgws6vKAu7aJa3dfxPpsxDnrc0TEJIJHGw5j&sig=AHIEtbQ6nt17B6eoRQ50fURhWqzzpNKb3A">Here's an article from a .gov source stating why marijuana legalization would be bad. I'm hoping you've done your homework when it comes to marijuana. If you have, you would know that this source is absolute bull****. This is evidence that .gov sites are not always reliable, especially when it comes to politics.

[quote]No, you didn't.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI said health care is not a right. You explained that this is like saying you don't have a right to eating a candy bar after you buy it. That correlation doesn't work for two reasons.\r\n\r\n1. The government did not forced you to pay for the candy bar.\r\n2. The government did not pay for the candy bar.\r\n\r\nThis is the last time I will explain why your candy bar analogy was weak and does not work.\r\n\r\n[quote]If I am going to pay a higher price for a worse tasting candy bar, I don't care.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]Ha! You're joking. I would rather take information from a ****ing government runned website than some blog. Besides, my teacher only allows .gov, .org, and .info.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis proves my hunch to be correct. You were explaining facts about the government without understanding how they work. It was quite obvious this nonsense was your attempt at mirroring your teacher.\r\n\r\nI am fully aware of the rule which your teacher mentioned. This only applies to writing papers. When you debate, however, all sources are as welcome to be used as they are to be scrutinized. The source you used against me was actually a very good source, the only mistake you made was that you misinterpreted what he was trying to say.\r\n\r\nSo, I linked you to a .com website. Does this make my argument too unreliable so that it can't be used? Of course not. This is where you do your research about the author and you try to look into the possibilities of the things he says. You never clicked those links where he said "here, here, and here" did you?\r\n\r\n[url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VcT8yp1LpTIJ:www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mj_legal.pdf+why+marijuana+is+bad&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShKftdS2ds7G3GgicEYXVeJ4Y-zJaW_-03qIxRQqGW_DA3vwGZbPpjeS-HUFlG4Un3x5IiVZfz9_NmrWBzY9DLAsr6HnrL-jJ93Qgws6vKAu7aJa3dfxPpsxDnrc0TEJIJHGw5j&sig=AHIEtbQ6nt17B6eoRQ50fURhWqzzpNKb3A]Here's an article from a .gov source stating why marijuana legalization would be bad. I'm hoping you've done your homework when it comes to marijuana. If you have, you would know that this source is absolute bull****. This is evidence that .gov sites are not always reliable, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to politics.[/url]

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → U.S. House of Representatives Passes Bill to Repeal the New Healthcare Law