[QUOTE=Klammyxxl;25160602]Wasn't the Republican party created to oppose slaver?[/QUOTE]
Well the names switched at some point. During the civil war the republican party was in favour of federalism and abolitionism.
[QUOTE=Earthen;25194439]Well the names switched at some point. During the civil war the republican party was in favour of federalism and abolitionism.[/QUOTE]
Actually the Republicans were mostly Free Soilers during the Civil War. They opposed slavery not because it was wrong, but because they didn't want any black people living near them. (As in, they lived near plantations and found the large amount of black people unsightly).
Good for Arnold and California I guess.
And since the debate went on to social healthcare vs. private, I wanted to express my own opinions. I really do believe everyone should have access to medical care free of charge or at least at a very reduced price without having to have insurance. A government should protect the citizens' right to have a healthy life.
But it also brings pitfalls with it. As it was stated before, a government investing in citizen health might bring forth restrictive measures. Smoking bans might be justified for being harmful to others through secondhand smoke, but it soon spreads to salt bans (restaurants will not be allowed to put salt shakers to tables), fat monitoring and bans on high calorie foods etc...
It also causes a rift between public (free) and private hospitals and medical care. Since it is government funded, public hospitals are generally directly linked to the country's economic power. Medicine is quite likely the biggest drain on resources (after Defence and arms spending) of any country. It also forces doctors and medical staff into treating more patients, more quickly. It increases sloppiness and errors. Sure the more serious conditions are treated first, but just because something is not life threatening does not mean it doesn't significantly reduce the quality of life (as is the case with the broken finger argument).
Also someone said they wouldn't want a doctor who is in it to make money to take care of him/her. I really don't understand this point. Doctors are not magical creatures who don't have to eat, drink or pay rent. Medicine is becoming more and more a stanard profession these days and people obviously want to make money so they can have a better life. And if they are working in a public medical facility their life resembles more of a factory worker. They have to keep cranking out patients, doing the same repetitive tests and procedures over and over and over again. Do you really think the doctor who is doing his twentieth colonoscopy of the day is going to try to comfort the patient and help him/her or answer the patients questions as well as someone who is not doing a third of his work and getting more than twice his pay?
This is where I can't find a final answer. Surely completely privatized medical field can't be the answer because it does not allow everybody to have access to the basics they need. It also increases corporate greed and tries to screw people over when they are in dire need. But a completely government sponsored sector (with private facilities as well of course) is not a full answer either, because it brings forth many problems that create a vicious cycle. And once the government gets into medicine it is very hard to untangle all the red tape created. I don't think there is a simple answer and in these days when the average age rapidly rises and young population is going down, the issues will become much more severe in a few years or decades.
[QUOTE=Fetret;25196099]Good for Arnold and California I guess.
And since the debate went on to social healthcare vs. private, I wanted to express my own opinions. I really do believe everyone should have access to medical care free of charge or at least at a very reduced price without having to have insurance. A government should protect the citizens' right to have a healthy life.
But it also brings pitfalls with it. As it was stated before, a government investing in citizen health might bring forth restrictive measures. Smoking bans might be justified for being harmful to others through secondhand smoke, but it soon spreads to salt bans (restaurants will not be allowed to put salt shakers to tables), fat monitoring and bans on high calorie foods etc...
It also causes a rift between public (free) and private hospitals and medical care. Since it is government funded, public hospitals are generally directly linked to the country's economic power. Medicine is quite likely the biggest drain on resources (after Defence and arms spending) of any country. It also forces doctors and medical staff into treating more patients, more quickly. It increases sloppiness and errors. Sure the more serious conditions are treated first, but just because something is not life threatening does not mean it doesn't significantly reduce the quality of life (as is the case with the broken finger argument).
Also someone said they wouldn't want a doctor who is in it to make money to take care of him/her. I really don't understand this point. Doctors are not magical creatures who don't have to eat, drink or pay rent. Medicine is becoming more and more a stanard profession these days and people obviously want to make money so they can have a better life. And if they are working in a public medical facility their life resembles more of a factory worker. They have to keep cranking out patients, doing the same repetitive tests and procedures over and over and over again. Do you really think the doctor who is doing his twentieth colonoscopy of the day is going to try to comfort the patient and help him/her or answer the patients questions as well as someone who is not doing a third of his work and getting more than twice his pay?
This is where I can't find a final answer. Surely completely privatized medical field can't be the answer because it does not allow everybody to have access to the basics they need. It also increases corporate greed and tries to screw people over when they are in dire need. But a completely government sponsored sector (with private facilities as well of course) is not a full answer either, because it brings forth many problems that create a vicious cycle. And once the government gets into medicine it is very hard to untangle all the red tape created. I don't think there is a simple answer and in these days when the average age rapidly rises and young population is going down, the issues will become much more severe in a few years or decades.[/QUOTE]
Whoever said that "someone said they wouldn't want a doctor who is in it to make money to take care of him/her" is a god damned moron.
I will submit that so-called "necessities" in life should be regulated to a point. Demand is forced or coerced because society works because of them, but no market should be in the hands of government. It always leads to bad things.
"Greed" is a word which simply means one looking out for ones best interest. We do it every day. This term just has a negative connotation.
I'd hate to break it to you but by that same logic "socialist" or "progressive" policies are greedy by the same standard. Even though it would benefit the poor rather than the rich, it's still "greedy".
It is a corporation's job to be greedy, to meet market demand. If a corporations actions had any impact on how they operate these days, if consumers were [b]responsible[/b] the practices they hate would come to an end.
"Greed" can also benefit people. It is in a companies best interest to keep their consumers happy or, in a normal world with conscious individuals they would lose money. Greed.
Most people simply don't care and while that is sad it is not the market's fault as a whole, it is the consumer's fault.
The corporations are doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is, gaining as much capital as they can while keeping spending down. It is the peoples duty to prevent them from implementing policies which are offensive, they would just stop buying said product, the company would lose millions and the problem would be corrected or they would go broke.
It is the peoples job also, to keep special relationships between corporations and government from forming.
Most people in this day and age don't believe in the power of their own greed, they don't believe one person can matter or that you can vote with their wallet. They are incorrect.
This logic does not apply of course to the "necessary" markets i described above, at least not by my standards. However such strong regulations shouldn't creep into the other markets, it only hurts.
[editline]e[/editline]
That said I've been boycotting Walmart as long as I've had a job. That is responsibility.
Logic's chiefest end is the prolongment of argument
"In response to opposition by Republican senators, Steinberg said the bill doesn't require companies to do anything to make sure products are not coming from sources involving slavery, only to disclose on their websites what, if anything, they are voluntarily doing."
Republicans have a right to be mad
i think the republicans secretly do the things they do so they can harvest the tears of the poor to power there hive master. i mean its like the only explanation for why they hate so many things that help the poor
[QUOTE=RinVII;25183034]Rage blinded?
I'm not even mad foo.
What are we even arguing about again?
Capitalism > Socialism no matter which way you put it.[/QUOTE]
You're either a troll, or an idiot. You keep acting like there's a universal truth about your bullshit. There isn't.
[editline]06:26PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;25199641]Whoever said that "someone said they wouldn't want a doctor who is in it to make money to take care of him/her" is a god damned moron.
I will submit that so-called "necessities" in life should be regulated to a point. Demand is forced or coerced because society works because of them, but no market should be in the hands of government. It always leads to bad things.
"Greed" is a word which simply means one looking out for ones best interest. We do it every day. This term just has a negative connotation.
I'd hate to break it to you but by that same logic "socialist" or "progressive" policies are greedy by the same standard. Even though it would benefit the poor rather than the rich, it's still "greedy".
It is a corporation's job to be greedy, to meet market demand. If a corporations actions had any impact on how they operate these days, if consumers were [b]responsible[/b] the practices they hate would come to an end.
"Greed" can also benefit people. It is in a companies best interest to keep their consumers happy or, in a normal world with conscious individuals they would lose money. Greed.
Most people simply don't care and while that is sad it is not the market's fault as a whole, it is the consumer's fault.
The corporations are doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is, gaining as much capital as they can while keeping spending down. It is the peoples duty to prevent them from implementing policies which are offensive, they would just stop buying said product, the company would lose millions and the problem would be corrected or they would go broke.
It is the peoples job also, to keep special relationships between corporations and government from forming.
Most people in this day and age don't believe in the power of their own greed, they don't believe one person can matter or that you can vote with their wallet. They are incorrect.
This logic does not apply of course to the "necessary" markets i described above, at least not by my standards. However such strong regulations shouldn't creep into the other markets, it only hurts.
[editline]e[/editline]
That said I've been boycotting Walmart as long as I've had a job. That is responsibility.[/QUOTE]
Saying "but no market should be in the hands of government. It always leads to bad things." is fucking stupid. Are you saying that the free hand of the market doesn't fuck things up? It does. CONSTANTLY. You can't have things in either end without them getting fucked up. Government fucks it up, market fucks it up. However, when you go somewhere in the middle, guess what? It doesn't fuck up as much.
Seriously. Some of the posters... "GOVMENT ALWAYS BAAAAAD! TROOF!" Fuck sakes.
[QUOTE=RinVII;25183034]Rage blinded?
I'm not even mad foo.
What are we even arguing about again?
Capitalism > Socialism no matter which way you put it.[/QUOTE]
My opinion > Your opinion no matter which way you put it
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25212067]
Saying "but no market should be in the hands of government. It always leads to bad things." is fucking stupid. Are you saying that the free hand of the market doesn't fuck things up? It does. CONSTANTLY. You can't have things in either end without them getting fucked up. Government fucks it up, market fucks it up. However, when you go somewhere in the middle, guess what? It doesn't fuck up as much.
Seriously. Some of the posters... "GOVMENT ALWAYS BAAAAAD! TROOF!" Fuck sakes.[/QUOTE]
"FREE MARKET ALWAYS BAAAAAD! TROOF!" ????
And you're right, with the right amount of regulations stuff does fuck up less. The government's job was never to do that, though, and i never said the government was always bad. What i said was no government should have control over a market, and they do all the time.
Those are the facets of American culture which are often failures.
You must also come to an understanding that government intervention doesn't always work the way it's planned and almost unequivocally hurts market conditions. We haven't yet created a system with the balance you speak of.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25214131]"FREE MARKET ALWAYS BAAAAAD! TROOF!" ????
And you're right, with the right amount of regulations stuff does fuck up less. The government's job was never to do that, though, and i never said the government was always bad. What i said was no government should have control over a market, and they do all the time.
Those are the facets of American culture which are often failures.
You must also come to an understanding that government intervention doesn't always work the way it's planned and almost unequivocally hurts market conditions. We haven't yet created a system with the balance you speak of.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying it's better to just have a totally free market? Are you saying that soceity and life would thrive if we just totally deregulated business as a whole? That's what you'd like?
Well, if that's the case, there's no fucking helping you.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25214131]"FREE MARKET ALWAYS BAAAAAD! TROOF!" ????
And you're right, with the right amount of regulations stuff does fuck up less. [b]The government's job was never to do that,[/b] though, and i never said the government was always bad. What i said was no government should have control over a market, and they do all the time.
Those are the facets of American culture which are often failures.
You must also come to an understanding that government intervention doesn't always work the way it's planned and almost unequivocally hurts market conditions. We haven't yet created a system with the balance you speak of.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is, It's unequivocally the government's job to make sure that the actions of one group of people don't infringe on the rights of others, through regulation or otherwise. Else we would be an anarchy, not a democratic Republic.
Well, that rids california of alot of outsourcing.
Hopefully...
Also I really don't know how republicans can be outraged about this. I thought they were "patriots", pertaining to no-slavery, and I thought they hated outsourcing. So I think it's a win-win for them.
They're bonkers.
Has it occurred to everyone who looks at the posts he makes than Rin literally has [b]no argument?[/b]
Does the American media say Scwarzenigger like half the ones in the UK do quite bizarrely.
Anyone who says Ahnold is great doesn't live in California. He's not a republican, he's a RINO, and a goddamn blatant one too. He did not help the worsening economy, and enacted retarded bills such as the dangerous weapons act of 2008.
[QUOTE=Lithe;25218903]Has it occurred to everyone who looks at the posts he makes than Rin literally has [b]no argument?[/b][/QUOTE]
yes we all know rin doesnt have a good argument, thats why he left the thread a while ago
Wish S0beit had followed his example.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
