Anti Obama protesters not sure why they're anti Obama
110 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926915]Any deeper political discussion isn't really relevant to the topic. This is where I stand ideologically. And while I have a pragmatic, conservative approach to "realpolitik" I respect anyone that questions and protests against infringement of rights.[/QUOTE]
"Here's my opinion"
"Stop commenting on my opinion guys it's not relevant"
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926915]Any deeper political discussion isn't really relevant to the topic. This is where I stand ideologically. And while I have a pragmatic,[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic[/url]
[quote]dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories[/quote]
anarcho-capitalism could not possibly be more the opposite of that
In fact, you could not have chosen a better word for the antithesis of your political beliefs
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46927425][url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic[/url]
anarcho-capitalism could not possibly be more the opposite of that
In fact, you could not have chosen a better word for the antithesis of your political beliefs[/QUOTE]
Uhm, thanks for clarifying I guess although no one requested it.
I took a "political spectrum" test years ago and didn't answer all the questions, but I ended up being grouped with green party / obama. I THOUGHT I was "Half and half" just about, so I was at least a little surprised
I don't get THAT involved in politics, but most shit I hear from people are people who say things without actually understanding them
If you're going to seriously support a party and don't even know why, you're a pure-breed dimwit
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926277]The key difference being that you're not forced by law to indebt yourself.
Welfares state are completely dependent on the immoral practice of taking peoples money, under the threat of violence. This is a violation of basic human rights and protesting against it is justified.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, and the idea of having to work for a living implies that people that cannot or will not work do not deserve to live.
[QUOTE=Levithan;46927728]Ah yes, and the idea of having to work for a living implies that people that cannot or will not work do not deserve to live.[/QUOTE]
Who deserves what is subjective. People that cannot or will not provide for themselves will be dependant on others providing for them, whether there is taxation or not.
THREE WORDS
NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY
did he even think before he spoke
anyone who is against taxation is demonstrably an idiot
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;46914325]Obamacare is clearly a tax. I have seen nothing that proves otherwise (you're fined if you don't have health insurance FFS)
Highest debt in US history by one administration. All money borrowed from China. Now, China can say "hey let's use the Euro." Then the US becomes as poor as Cuba.
Excessive use of executive orders
He signed the NDAA act to secretly arrest American citizens without a trial if they ''suspect you of being a terrorist''.
Obama is a liar. When running for President he said he would respect States rights and not raid medical marijuana dispensaries. He has raided them countless times.
Obama ignored the law of th land ( The Constitution ) and bombed Libya without even consulting the Congress and kept bombing past the time allowed under the War Powers Act. This is a crime.
The occupation of Afghanistan has continued for almost 15 years on taxpayers dollars, under the pretense of training Afghan security forces. The longer we are there, the more money the Afghan government demands to train and rebuild. (I realize this is an open ended issue)
First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to Defy a Federal Judge’s Court Order to Cease Implementing the ‘Health Care Reform’ Law.
He doesn't understand our economy.
Focuses on other countries first, USA is a clear last.
[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]
But at least Gitmo is closing (hopefully, several years after he promised it before he was elected) and Americans will probably be able to go to Cuba again. That's cool. That's one thing, and one thing only, that he did good in my eyes[/QUOTE]
So you think that when a new President is sworn in that everything before hand is erased and he gets a clean slate? Obama is dealing with the repercussions of the last Republican President. He's also using more executive power because you're congress is fucked.
In fact the reason why your healthcare is so fucking weird is because of the republicans who kept voting against it even when it was altered to fit their ideas.
Plus who cares about China? China is doomed when 3D printers get big.
[editline]14th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926277]The key difference being that you're not forced by law to indebt yourself.
Welfares state are completely dependent on the immoral practice of taking peoples money, under the threat of violence. This is a violation of basic human rights and protesting against it is justified.[/QUOTE]
If you're so against socialism you need to stop drinking the water you drink and go drink sewage water , stop eating the food you eat and instead go eat some rancid meat and take out all of the safety measures in your car for they only exist due to socialism.
If I remember correctly the GOP was against clean water and the free market was against the idea of fresh food way back in the 1900s
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46927485]Uhm, thanks for clarifying I guess although no one requested it.[/QUOTE]
You don't get to just say "I get the last word here"
[QUOTE=Levithan;46927728]Ah yes, and the idea of having to work for a living implies that people that cannot or will not work do not deserve to live.[/QUOTE]
That's not how the world works. People don't get what they deserve.
Are you seriously willing to give away part of your salary so some guy who doesn't wanna work can play video games all day?
Giving money to those who cannot provide for themselves I understand but those who are able but not willing do work for themselves? Why?
[QUOTE=bitches;46914051]
bonus:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/FqvoGov.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Wait I thought that copper bracelet and magnets was actually a thing that did something? Somebody told me it has something to do with blood and iron and stuff. I don't wear one but I didn't know it was fake.
How someone can be against universal healthcare just boggles my mind. It's one of the greatest concepts of the modern age.
[QUOTE=Wolverunder;46931686]Wait I thought that copper bracelet and magnets was actually a thing that did something? Somebody told me it has something to do with blood and iron and stuff. I don't wear one but I didn't know it was fake.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Magnetic_therapy]The most it can do is cause the placebo affect.[/url]
[QUOTE=Wolverunder;46931686]Wait I thought that copper bracelet and magnets was actually a thing that did something? Somebody told me it has something to do with blood and iron and stuff. I don't wear one but I didn't know it was fake.[/QUOTE]
Copper isn't magnetic enough for that small of an object.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;46914261]Yeah I mean I think his removing the National Day of Prayer is BS and some other BS atheist related things he's done are messed up but I'm not going around saying: "He's a moslum" and shit. Yes, he's obviously infringed on the constitution and been gluttonous in spending and yes many of his decisions lean towards socialist views and so on, but I'm not some idiot redneck about it. I'm more right-center focused. Mostly because Republicans have no spine anymore. But the left is doing more things I disagree with than the right, only reason I'm a registered Republican instead of an independant.
I'm glad Maryland (where I live) finally has a Republican governor though. Maybe the bullshit taxes and dumb gun laws that save no lives will go away.
All this above of course is just to clarify my stance on things since most of Facepunch seems to like Obama[/QUOTE]
atheist things?
Hey
I live in Maryland too
its not so bad.
But the bullshit taxes aren't going to go away, believe me. I go to the State Legislature a lot, was invited twice to sit and observe a floor session, but theres just more talk of more stuff lol.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;46913833]and then having your credit absolutely destroyed if you do it again[/QUOTE]
hold on what
[QUOTE=TheTalon;46913833] having your credit absolutely destroyed if you do it again by the government is kind of bullshit[/QUOTE]
How does this post have 30 agrees. It's completely false.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;46914325]All money borrowed from China.[/QUOTE]
This is factually incorrect
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926277]The key difference being that you're not forced by law to indebt yourself.
Welfares state are completely dependent on the immoral practice of taking peoples money, under the threat of violence. This is a violation of basic human rights and protesting against it is justified.[/QUOTE]
seriously?
social safety nets are there because most of society has agreed to protect and help those that can't, its exactly like herd immunity with vaccinations, when most people are vaccinated people who can't be vaccinated are protected too
theres no forced indebtedness, you don't have to live there to use a favorite republican phrase, you can move to another country and live there, oh wait... every other country in the west has 10x as many safety nets as the US
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46926277]The key difference being that you're not forced by law to indebt yourself.
Welfares state are completely dependent on the immoral practice of taking peoples money, under the threat of violence. This is a violation of basic human rights and protesting against it is justified.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want taxation go live on a fucking island. Oh wait most of those are owned by people so you might get taxed there as well! If taxation is so immoral why not stop paying them and go make a case to the government?
[QUOTE=Sableye;46936120]seriously?
social safety nets are there because most of society has agreed to protect and help those that can't, its exactly like herd immunity with vaccinations, when most people are vaccinated people who can't be vaccinated are protected too
theres no forced indebtedness, you don't have to live there to use a favorite republican phrase, you can move to another country and live there, oh wait... every other country in the west has 10x as many safety nets as the US[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;46937252]If you don't want taxation go live on a fucking island. Oh wait most of those are owned by people so you might get taxed there as well! If taxation is so immoral why not stop paying them and go make a case to the government?[/QUOTE]
Ownership of land is a critical but complicated question. What exactly legitimizes a states (often enormous) claims on land?
What moral right does the Sweden the right to stop me from building a house in the middle of nowhere and do drugs all day?
Instead I am to pay lots of money to be allowed to cultivate a piece of worthless land, then get the approval of state bureaucrats and finally abide laws decided by people that will never be there.
Socialism, for all it's merits, is oppressive at its core. Its purpose is literally to take and redistribute wealth by force. While democracy can legitimize it to an extent, the individual still has little influence over what the taxation of their wealth is used for. Now, despite these flaws, the welfare state may still be the best solution for this day and age. We should still maintain ideals, however, both for today and the future.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46936120]seriously?
social safety nets are there because most of society has agreed to protect and help those that can't, its exactly like herd immunity with vaccinations, when most people are vaccinated people who can't be vaccinated are protected too
theres no forced indebtedness, you don't have to live there to use a favorite republican phrase, you can move to another country and live there, oh wait... every other country in the west has 10x as many safety nets as the US[/QUOTE]
The thing is the public healthcare is not just for those who can't afford it, it's for everyone. If everyone who can afford healthcare paid a small amount for those who can't afford it at all, everyone would be happy. It would be just another tax and just another benefit for the poor. Public healthcare is a different thing entirely. And seeing how it works in Poland I just don't believe in it. The ques are so long you die before you get treated. Now we are getting a big reformation regarding cancer because they figured out after that many years that waiting a year between figuring out you have a cancer and starting treatment is kinda too long. I mean fuck, if you sign up for public dentist you'll have to wait 3-4 months. I had something wrong with my thyroid, I waited 5 months for consultation, 2 months for tests, another 5 months for consultation (because they just give you results and you have to see your doctor to tell you if they are good or bad) and he wanted to send me do some more tests, after a year, I got better and said fuck it. But if it was cancer or something else but also serious it would be too late for me. Did I mention that pretty much all the hospitals are underfunded? Basically, in my experience, public healthcare is complete garbage. But even if it wasn't, it's still a waste of resources and money. Just need to pay for those who can't afford it. Not for everyone.
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46937684]Ownership of land is a critical but complicated question. What exactly legitimizes a states (often enormous) claims on land?
What moral right does the Sweden the right to stop me from building a house in the middle of nowhere and do drugs all day?
Instead I am to pay lots of money to be allowed to cultivate a piece of worthless land, then get the approval of state bureaucrats and finally abide laws decided by people that will never be there.
Socialism, for all it's merits, is oppressive at its core. Its purpose is literally to take and redistribute wealth by force. While democracy can legitimize it to an extent, the individual still has little influence over what the taxation of their wealth is used for. Now, despite these flaws, the welfare state may still be the best solution for this day and age. We should still maintain ideals, however, both for today and the future.[/QUOTE]
Your proposal, which is basically anarchy, is the opposite. Where "unity" based fascism or communism ignores the fact that humans are individuals, what you propose ignores the fact that humans are interdependent. We need structures in society to protect people's freedoms; that's what the government is supposed to be, and governments can not survive without money. The only way for the government to get money is through taxation or owning and selling the country's natural resources (or both). A society without a well-funded government is a society where nobody's rights are protected. Abolishing taxation based on a twisted "it's TAKING MONEY so it's WRONG" ideology is the pinnacle of moronic.
[editline]15th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46937792]The thing is the public healthcare is not just for those who can't afford it, it's for everyone. If everyone who can afford healthcare paid a small amount for those who can't afford it at all, everyone would be happy. It would be just another tax and just another benefit for the poor. Public healthcare is a different thing entirely. And seeing how it works in Poland I just don't believe in it. The ques are so long you die before you get treated. Now we are getting a big reformation regarding cancer because they figured out after that many years that waiting a year between figuring out you have a cancer and starting treatment is kinda too long. I mean fuck, if you sign up for public dentist you'll have to wait 3-4 months. I had something wrong with my thyroid, I waited 5 months for consultation, 2 months for tests, another 5 months for consultation (because they just give you results and you have to see your doctor to tell you if they are good or bad) and he wanted to send me do some more tests, after a year, I got better and said fuck it. But if it was cancer or something else but also serious it would be too late for me. Did I mention that pretty much all the hospitals are underfunded? Basically, in my experience, public healthcare is complete garbage. But even if it wasn't, it's still a waste of resources and money. Just need to pay for those who can't afford it. Not for everyone.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying because it's bad in Poland it must be bad everywhere, including in countries where the majority of the population wouldn't give it up for anything?
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46938316]So you're saying because it's bad in Poland it must be bad everywhere, including in countries where the majority of the population wouldn't give it up for anything?[/QUOTE]
No, read what I posted.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46937792]Basically, in my experience, public healthcare is complete garbage. [B]But even if it wasn't,[/B](this implies that the quality doesn't have to be shit just because it's shit here) it's still a waste of resources and money. Just need to pay for those who can't afford it. Not for everyone.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46938355]No, read what I posted.
[QUOTE]Basically, in my experience, public healthcare is complete garbage. But even if it wasn't,(this implies that the quality doesn't have to be shit just because it's shit here) it's still a waste of resources and money. Just need to pay for those who can't afford it. Not for everyone.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Why is that a problem though? Why does it matter if the resources end up evenly distributed anyway? The people who benefit from healthcare and can afford it have contributed towards it through their income already, something they wouldn't have done if they didn't benefit. Heck, if those contributions are proportional to their income, it even helps poor people more because you end up with a higher benefit per capita, whereas if only people who can't afford it contribute to the healthcare pool, you end up with a benefit per capita that is insufficient for proper treatment, which kind of goes against the point of universal healthcare in the first place.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46939326]Why is that a problem though? Why does it matter if the resources end up evenly distributed anyway? The people who benefit from healthcare and can afford it have contributed towards it through their income already, something they wouldn't have done if they didn't benefit. Heck, if those contributions are proportional to their income, it even helps poor people more because you end up with a higher benefit per capita, whereas if only people who can't afford it contribute to the healthcare pool, you end up with a benefit per capita that is insufficient for proper treatment, which kind of goes against the point of universal healthcare in the first place.[/QUOTE]
What? People who can't afford it contribute to healthcare? I'm so confused. It doesn't make sense.
Everyone who works pays taxes. Some of that money goes for those who can't work for themselves. Right now it goes for their food and a place to live in. It should also cover their medical treatment. Why create something for everyone if you're doing it for a small group? If the point is to make sure that those who can't afford it can have medical treatment, just pay for those people. No need to include everyone in there. It's just such a waste of money to have all that bureaucracy and so many people shoveling all that paperwork.
Also,[B] and this might not apply in other countries than Poland[/B], non-profit, government owned companies are not doing their job very well. There is no incentive to excel at the job because no matter how good or shitty the job will be done, the hospital for instance will get the same funding. And if the administrator fucks up, there really isn't any major responsibility for it. It's not the administrator's/owner's money that's gonna get wasted. It's gonna be nobody's (government's, everyone's) money. At the very worst he's gonna lose his job instead of losing millions if it was his private company. That's how it works here at least, maybe it's not gonna happen in other countries.
And don't kid yourself with the whole "even distribution". The richest ones will still get the best treatment privately anyway.
Holy shit, I want to be in a Harry Potter world!
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46939881]What? People who can't afford it contribute to healthcare? I'm so confused. It doesn't make sense.
Everyone who works pays taxes. Some of that money goes for those who can't work for themselves. Right now it goes for their food and a place to live in. It should also cover their medical treatment.
[/QUOTE]
That's how it works in France though, part of your salary goes towards a health insurance pool, which is used to redistribute healthcare costs. That way people who need money for treatment can effectively afford it.
[QUOTE]Why create something for everyone if you're doing it for a small group? If the point is to make sure that those who can't afford it can have medical treatment, just pay for those people. No need to include everyone in there. It's just such a waste of money to have all that bureaucracy and so many people shoveling all that paperwork.[/QUOTE]
In addition, people who could theoretically afford the average costs of medical treatment are still able to be healed if they fall victim to more grave conditions, such as cancer or important accidents, something which wouldn't be possible if it were set up like you propose.
[QUOTE]Also, and this might not apply in other countries than Poland, non-profit, government owned companies are not doing their job very well. There is no incentive to excel at the job because no matter how good or shitty the job will be done, the hospital for instance will get the same funding. And if the administrator fucks up, there really isn't any major responsibility for it. It's not the administrator's/owner's money that's gonna get wasted. It's gonna be nobody's (government's, everyone's) money. At the very worst he's gonna lose his job instead of losing millions if it was his private company. That's how it works here at least, maybe it's not gonna happen in other countries.[/QUOTE]
To my knowledge, this is not the case in France. People rarely complain about having bad medical treatment.
[QUOTE]And don't kid yourself with the whole "even distribution". The richest ones will still get the best treatment privately anyway.[/QUOTE]
I doubt people who couldn't afford healthcare in the first place give a shit that they don't get the best treatment possible, that's not the point.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942166]That's how it works in France though, part of your salary goes towards a health insurance pool, which is used to redistribute healthcare costs. That way people who need money for treatment can effectively afford it.
In addition, people who could theoretically afford the average costs of medical treatment are still able to be healed if they fall victim to more grave conditions, such as cancer or important accidents, something which wouldn't be possible if it were set up like you propose.[/QUOTE]
You just said 2 completely different systems are the same. It's either everyone pays for everyone or those who work pay for themselves and for those who can't afford it. It can't be both at the same time.
As for your second point that's why you buy insurance and pay subscription for medical care. Those who can afford it should pay for themselves. That's the point. Why should I pay for some other person's treatment who was irresponsible or did drugs or whatever and now needs medical care? If my neighbor decided to throw away all his money to buy a new car and now can't afford food for the next month, should my money be taken away from me and given to my neighbor without me having anything to say about it? Why is it different with healthcare?
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942166]To my knowledge, this is not the case in France. People rarely complain about having bad medical treatment.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how it works in france so I'm not going to argue with this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.