Regarding the argument that we should fall into lockstep with John Stossel and Pem Jillette, isn't that the Appeal to Authority fallacy? Oh wait . . . the only one of those fallacies that Steve can name is the ad hominem, which he incorrectly invokes whenever someone disagrees with him.
He's used the following to varying degrees in this very thread; Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Fear, False Dilemma, Guilt by Association, Misleading Vividness, Special Pleading, and some combinations as well. It's impressive how many he can cram into so few posts with so little content.
My favorite piece of right-wing douche-baggery of the last week or so is the claim that the "health care logo" looks like a swastika. Putting aside the question of why it's relevant what the logo looks like, how can any sane person look at those two things and think that they're similar?
That's the level on which they want to debate, I guess. Who cares whether people can receive medical treatment?
My favorite piece of right-wing douche-baggery of the last week or so is the claim that the "health care logo"looks like a swastika.Putting aside the question of why it's relevant what the logo looks like, how can any sane person look at those two things and think that they're similar?
That's the level on which they want to debate, I guess. Who cares whether people can receive medical treatment?
When we went to see Uncle Yo's show in NYC on Saturday night, we passed people handing out fliers telling you to stop Obama's "Nazi" health plan.
They actually used the phrase "Nazi health plan."
I really think that some of these people have lost touch with reality.
@ TheWhaleShark: Did you engage them in any sort of discussion?
No. Most of the time, I'd be up for hearing somebody throw their crazy batshit ideas at me, but I really wasn't in the mood for it right then. Aside from that, a glance at the pamphlet told me that they'd probably have a lot of crazy through which to wade.
Steve, you must have plagiarized your little speech from somewhere else because you show you don't understand it when you say that linktothepresent's analogy makes no sense.
Nice bit of libel there Joe. I guess it's a step up from your usual discourse?
Why does his analogy make no sense?
Without a doctor you can not exercise a right to Health Care. Without a policeman you can still exercise your right to private property. You only call in the policeman when your property rights are being infringed (he's not a security guard).
Voting?
law enforcement does not exist to go to your home, drive you to the voting booth and help you exercise your right to vote in an election. Law enforcement does get involved if your right to vote is being infringed.
Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights exists as a document that puts limits on government not as a document that grants rights to the governed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you see the granting of rights in the first amendment or do you see a restriction on government?
Alone
If you are alone in the wilderness do you still have your rights? You can speak freely, you can carry a gun, no one is going to steal your possessions, etc. Do you have a right to health care in the wilderness? If you are a medic of some sort you can provide for your own care but aside from that you can not exercise that right because it requires another party to do something for you. It can not be a right.
I attempted to write a response to Steve's post, but I simply cannot re-read the post and keep down my lunch. Have at it, Mr. MacRoss, HJ, or anyone else that has the stomach for it.
If you are a medic of some sort you can provide for your own care but aside from that you can not exercise that right because it requires another party to do something for you. It can not be a right.
You can most certainly provide medical care to yourself without being a medic. Likewise, you can protect yourself from harm without being a police officer. You may not necessarily be effective in either case, and it's often more prudent to allow the professional to handle it, but you most certainly can do those things on your own.
I can bandage a wound on my own. I cannot perform brain surgery on my own. I can defend my home against an intruder. I cannot bring an alleged murderer to "justice" on my own.
Your analogy still fails.
Irrespective, "rights" do not exist. You cannot possibly bring me 25 grams of a "right." Nowhere in the Constitution are any rights actually defined; the Bill of Rights merely refers to certain specific rights that exist as concepts outside of the document. The Constitution exists specifically to define the role of the government and set up its boundaries. In no way does nationalized health care overstep the boundaries set forth by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. I don't see anything about a government not being able to provide additional services to its citizens should they want those additional services. We put into office a man who wanted to introduce nationalized health care, and that is what is happening now. This is the Constitution at work, Steve, and nothing else.
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
Steve, you must have plagiarized your little speech from somewhere else because you show you don't understand it when you say that linktothepresent's analogy makes no sense.
Nice bit of libel there Joe. I guess it's a step up from your usual discourse?
Ironically, it's your usual discourse that leads me to accuse you of plagiarizing your definitions of rights post. It's an unusual post for you in that, although it is wrong on many levels, it is written in a clear and concise manner that is wholly unlike your usual writing style. That style, which has been demonstrated in this thread, is much more in line with your "Who are the real astroturfers?" question followed by an incomprehensible block of type that looks like it comes from Craigslist. Your normal style is also at work in your last post, which is written so poorly that other people have remarked upon how confused they are in trying to understand it.
So that definitions of rights post is either a product of one of your rare moments of clarity, or it is plagiarized. Since you have plagiarized before, I find it much more likely that this post was plagiarized from somewhere.
Steve, read linktothepresent's analogy once more. Read it very carefully. His analogy is exactly in line with what you attempted to write. It's clear as can be that, if you don't understand that, you don't understand what you wrote. Try to analyze linktothepresent's analogy in terms of what you wrote.
The rest of your post is written so poorly, I don't know how to respond to it, except to say that you seemed very concerned in your definition of rights post that a right does not need infrastructure. The exercise of our right to vote is not dependent on the cops coming to our homes and ferrying us to the polling place as you say (although why you say this I have no idea), but it does require significant "infrastructure". So, if that's your argument - that health care cannot be a right because it "requires infrastructure", you fail.
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
LOL. What do think of that, Steve? You don't have a right to bear arms using your definitions!
This uninsured conservative makes me wonder what would happen to you, Steve, if you lost your job and tried to get insurance. What would you do if you were denied because Lyme Disease is a pre-existing condition?
Without a doctor you can not exercise a right to Health Care. Without a policeman you can still exercise your right to private property. You only call in the policeman when your property rights are being infringed (he's not a security guard).
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
You can't improvise a weapon?
Really, that is your argument? Okay, I will accept your insane premise and say: In the wild can't you improvise a turnicate or make some birch bark tea? That would be providing oneself with health care.
Y'know, I edited that comment in just to see how far you were willing to take your argument. I actually did not expect you to take it such an idiotic level. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Two people already beat me to it, so I'm going to just add to the pile:
How do you think we figured out health care before we had medical school? It's pretty easy to improvise a splint or a tourniquet. And it'll be just as effective as your improvised weapon.
Please come up with a better argument. This one is pathetically weak. At the very least, please try to phrase your ideas in a way that is not totally inane. Can you honestly not see how what you are arguing is patently absurd?
I'm glad that people are arguing and researching information about health care. Political stuff usually goes under the radar of mainstream America.
Meanwhile, the guy who was injured at one of these town halls and who is now being made into a right-wing martyr because he was supposedly beaten by a "union thug" is uninsured and asking for donations to pay for his health care.
Who is dissing passion? Passion is great! However, manufactured RAGE based on misinformation equates in an ignorant mob, not a passionate, informed populace. As for liberals hating "passion" that is simply bull. Aren't liberals the ones that passionately fought the Idiot King and cried, screamed, and danced in the street when Obama was elected? Passion is beautiful and "liberals" continually display passion just as much as anyone else. Also, aren't liberals the ones having the great, strange, kinky, gay, out of wedlock sex? What is this bull about liberals not f***ng?!
Aren't liberals the ones that passionately fought the Idiot King and cried, screamed, and danced in the street when Obama was elected? Passion is beautiful and "liberals" continually display passion just as much as anyone else.
Yes, but that was bad, bad, hypocritical passion because k doesn't like Obama.
Also, aren't liberals the ones having the great, strange, kinky, gay, out of wedlock sex? What is this bull about liberals not f***ng?!
True. I don't see many liberals advocating that whole "abstinence" thing.
As usual, the author is some guy who's actually conservative, but calls himself moderate because he's too cowardly to admit his conservatism. Hard to blame him really, seeing the current state of conservatism.
Why is passion a virtue? Shouldn't we be thinking with our logic and with rationality? Passion just allows people to make irrational decisions which may or may not be in the best interest of our country. Look at the birthers, they have tons of passion. Look at the Ron Paul supporters, they have tons of passion. Yeah...I'll just sit here contently in my non-emotion fueled decision making.
Why is passion a virtue? Shouldn't we be thinking with our logic and with rationality? Passion just allows people to make irrational decisions which may or may not be in the best interest of our country. Look at the birthers, they have tons of passion. Look at the Ron Paul supporters, they have tons of passion. Yeah...I'll just sit here contently in my non-emotion fueled decision making.
Passion is a virtue, but like most things has its place and its purpose. Passion and reason can certainly work together to spur great thinkers to create great works, humanitarians toward bettering the world, artists to create meaningful purpose driven work, and to push humanity to towards its greater self. Dispassionate reason has its place and passion without reason also has its place, but both can work in tandem. I simply reject the premise that one cannot be both passionate and reasonable.
Comments
That's the level on which they want to debate, I guess. Who cares whether people can receive medical treatment?
They actually used the phrase "Nazi health plan."
I really think that some of these people have lost touch with reality.
Why does his analogy make no sense?
Without a doctor you can not exercise a right to Health Care. Without a policeman you can still exercise your right to private property. You only call in the policeman when your property rights are being infringed (he's not a security guard).
Voting?
law enforcement does not exist to go to your home, drive you to the voting booth and help you exercise your right to vote in an election. Law enforcement does get involved if your right to vote is being infringed.
Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights exists as a document that puts limits on government not as a document that grants rights to the governed. Do you see the granting of rights in the first amendment or do you see a restriction on government?
Alone
If you are alone in the wilderness do you still have your rights? You can speak freely, you can carry a gun, no one is going to steal your possessions, etc. Do you have a right to health care in the wilderness? If you are a medic of some sort you can provide for your own care but aside from that you can not exercise that right because it requires another party to do something for you. It can not be a right.
I can bandage a wound on my own. I cannot perform brain surgery on my own. I can defend my home against an intruder. I cannot bring an alleged murderer to "justice" on my own.
Your analogy still fails.
Irrespective, "rights" do not exist. You cannot possibly bring me 25 grams of a "right." Nowhere in the Constitution are any rights actually defined; the Bill of Rights merely refers to certain specific rights that exist as concepts outside of the document. The Constitution exists specifically to define the role of the government and set up its boundaries. In no way does nationalized health care overstep the boundaries set forth by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. I don't see anything about a government not being able to provide additional services to its citizens should they want those additional services. We put into office a man who wanted to introduce nationalized health care, and that is what is happening now. This is the Constitution at work, Steve, and nothing else.
EDIT: You can't exercise your second amendment rights because you can't make a firearm. You need an outside figure in order to exercise that right. Therefore, it cannot be a right.
So that definitions of rights post is either a product of one of your rare moments of clarity, or it is plagiarized. Since you have plagiarized before, I find it much more likely that this post was plagiarized from somewhere.
Steve, read linktothepresent's analogy once more. Read it very carefully. His analogy is exactly in line with what you attempted to write. It's clear as can be that, if you don't understand that, you don't understand what you wrote. Try to analyze linktothepresent's analogy in terms of what you wrote.
The rest of your post is written so poorly, I don't know how to respond to it, except to say that you seemed very concerned in your definition of rights post that a right does not need infrastructure. The exercise of our right to vote is not dependent on the cops coming to our homes and ferrying us to the polling place as you say (although why you say this I have no idea), but it does require significant "infrastructure". So, if that's your argument - that health care cannot be a right because it "requires infrastructure", you fail. LOL. What do think of that, Steve? You don't have a right to bear arms using your definitions!
This uninsured conservative makes me wonder what would happen to you, Steve, if you lost your job and tried to get insurance. What would you do if you were denied because Lyme Disease is a pre-existing condition?
Saying that "Socialism is Socialism", Limbaugh maintains that Hitler was left of center.
Also, he cites a Washington Post article that says that end-of-life counseling isn't mandatory to prove that end-of-life counseling isn't mandatory and claims that euthanasia is in the House bill.
Two people already beat me to it, so I'm going to just add to the pile:
How do you think we figured out health care before we had medical school? It's pretty easy to improvise a splint or a tourniquet. And it'll be just as effective as your improvised weapon.
Please come up with a better argument. This one is pathetically weak. At the very least, please try to phrase your ideas in a way that is not totally inane. Can you honestly not see how what you are arguing is patently absurd?
Also, aren't liberals the ones having the great, strange, kinky, gay, out of wedlock sex? What is this bull about liberals not f***ng?!
As usual, the author is some guy who's actually conservative, but calls himself moderate because he's too cowardly to admit his conservatism. Hard to blame him really, seeing the current state of conservatism.
Remember this protest full of republican operatives....