And jeez, way to run-on-sentence, Palin. Sure you don't wanna stick any o' your folksy apostrophes n' mashed up words in there so y'seem more American? Too much work?
And jeez, way to run-on-sentence, Palin. Sure you don't wanna stick any o' your folksy apostrophes n' mashed up words in there so y'seem more American? Too much work?
The inability to form a clear and concise sentence is an indicator of an incompetent mind.
I saw it too. And to clarify, it came from John Oliver: (link is here, the quote in question is at 6:25) "There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you? Should you do that, Jon? [...] Or am I alone in thinking, 'It's a little too soon for that!'"
(stolen from Fark) This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
And jeez, way to run-on-sentence, Palin. Sure you don't wanna stick any o' your folksy apostrophes n' mashed up words in there so y'seem more American? Too much work?
Check out disgutsing bit of racereligion baiting by Fox. Pay careful attention to the details that are in the article, and more importantly the ones that are suspiciously absent. Also, look at what the Republican representative says to the president.
Since most of the Mosque talk happened in here, I'm going to put it here despite being the complete opposite of what the thread is usually about. I guess a breath of fresh air with actually intelligent statements about current political topics will be welcome. So without further ado: What Obama should have said about the Mosque.
(stolen from Fark) This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I find that essay to be so riddled with logical fallacies, that it's an embarassment to post.
I am sure that the government can do some things. I am sure that government can do some things well. That does not mean that government is the best option. Who has ever suggested that government can't do anything right unless they were engaging in hyperbole? Talk about a straw man!
The true question is whether government is the best option. For some things it is. OSHA is a good example. It is not realistic to expect business interests to effectively regulate occupational safety. It is not appropriate to have a military that is led by a commander in chief that has not been elected by the people.
But what about other typical government functions? Let's consider air traffic control. Your essay would say something juvenile and silly like: "The airplane I flew in didn't collide with any others." So what. In Canada, the air traffic control system is private. Do planes collide in Canada? Not any more than they do in the United States. And did you know that about 640 air traffic control towers in the United States are privately operated? They are generally Class D airports, but they seem to do just fine.
So, yes. Your plane did not collide. What does that prove as to whether or not air traffic control should be privatized? Absolutely nothing. Believe it or not, the fact that you did not crash thanks to a federal employee does not establish sufficient proof that we should model our national system accordingly. Try a less arrogant argument next time. Rather than your drivel, let me state a fact. The DOT has stated that the average cost of a tower that was privatized would drop from around 1.3 million dollars per year to $425,000 per year. In a country racking up a deficit, that sounds like a nice idea. Oh, but I forgot. You had a good flight. Surely that is worth a few hundred thousand seemingly wasted dollars.
Thanks for pointing out that government does some things, and many of those things work sufficiently well. Groundbreaking stuff, for sure. That degree is being put to good use. But were you aware that private companies can also launch satellites, provide weather forecasts, and repair the roads? Yup, they can. You must now be very confused! (In all seriousness, my relative (I'll be vague as to how close) was the founder of this company. Good thing he didn't have your attitude. And, no... I was not close enough to inherit.)
By the way, last weekend I went boating in a boat made by a private company and didn't drown. Today I shaved using a dangerous instrument built by a private company. I walked in shoes that did not hurt my feet. My zipper did not pinch me. Therefore, private companies are better than government agencies because... uh.... those things all worked. Forget economics entirely! I didn't nick myself shaving! See how smart I am?
Kilarney, my friend, I believe you have missed the point, and built your own straw-o sapien to boot.
The point wasn't that government is always the best option, but that the same people complaining about socialism and bloated government take for granted the things the government does, and the productiveness those government programs have facilitated. I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks the government is an angelic, benevolent, omni-capable presence.
But you can't deny that food is safer, the air is cleaner, and cars are more efficient than they were back in the day when private industry was in its hayday, when regulation was non-existent, when monopolies ruled, when business were printing their own currency and using it to keep "willing" slave labor, when businesses favored discrimination as long as the dollars flowed, and when backroom cabals controlled industry. Hell, the Cuyahoga River doesn't even catch on fire anymore!
The "essay" merely says government does things other than raping your women and quartering its soldiers in your shack, which seems to be the prevailing Tea Bagger opinion.
Kilarney, my friend, I believe you have missed the point, and built your own straw-o sapien to boot.
I'm known for that. ;-)
But you can't deny that food is safer, the air is cleaner, and cars are more efficient
I thought I pointed out that those types of things ought to always be a core government function.
The "essay" merely says government does things other than raping your women and quartering its soldiers in your shack, which seems to be the prevailing Tea Bagger opinion.
That's not at all the focus of the essay. Read it again.
It concludes by saying: And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
The essay is intended to address an argument that government should not take over health care because the government can't do anything right. (Strike one for being entirely reactionary rather than proactive.) I stand by my statement that it is complete drivel. The argument offered by the vast majority of opponents to socialized health care was that government would not be better than private industry. Instead of intelligently responding to this prevailing claim, the essay creates a straw man ("government can't do anything right") and sidesteps a seemingly rational argument against socialized health care.
I have no desire to discuss the health care aspect of this. Just thinking about the futility of my efforts to convince the forum that the bill would contain no public option gives me a headache. (How smug the forum members were waiting for their chance to prove their superior intelligence... confidently and repeatedly attacking me in their belief that any opinion other than the majority's was by definition uninformed... And let's not even talk about how well the law against torture has proven to work...) I merely point out that the essay itself is perhaps the least effective persuasive writing I have seen in a great while. It is either responding to a made up (straw man) argument or it is responding to a claim that, if indeed made, did not merit a response for lack credibility. Either way, the essay is a waste of space. Call me crazy, but comparing privately run systems to socialized systems might have more effective.
Ugh. Why am I posting again? I am much more cheerful when I am doing other things! In all seriousness, the VAST majority of this forum has flawed perception due to allegiance to a particular political party and/or an ideology. I stick to the facts. If the Democrats get the facts right, I'll agree with them. If the Republicans get the facts right, I'll agree with the Republicans. I respect facts - not what a party tells me the facts (or my position) should be.
I have a general rule. For most matters that are subject to reasonable differences between intelligent people, if you are on either extreme you are most likely wrong. A lesser rule is that it is important to accept that certain matters of morality and/or social interpretation are subjective. (Yes, murder is wrong. Read what I wrote again.) For these matters, there is no such thing as a single "correct" belief. There is your belief, which may or may not be shared by others. But your belief, is just that. It's right for you, but it is entirely arrogant and narcissistic to assume that it is right for others. (An aside: If you've ever wanted to see a powerful illustration of apparently virtuous moral beliefs having a harmful effect, read Paul Theroux's "Dark Star Safari". He relays some amazing examples of how foreign "aid" to Africa has ruined aspects of African society. No doubt, people running these charities had only the best of intentions. But these people never stopped to think about what was best for Africans, nor did they realize that their western perspective would make it impossible for them to fully understand what is best for African society and culture. Theroux's social commentary is compelling literature.)
While I am often cranky here, I'm actually about the most open minded person one could know. I don't portray that on the forum, but that's just because I don't take myself seriously here. Nothing that matters is going to be changed by this forum. With this in mind, I just enjoy the banter and adjust my statements to that end.
Kilarney, this isn't a straw man. I have debated in other forums a multitude of far-right conservatives and libertarians who are in fact advocating a completely non-involved government. These same people stated outright that the government shouldn't be involved at all and many share the opinion that "the government can't do anything right." That's what "small government conservatism" as they call it themselves is all about: Get the government out of all possible aspects of society as soon as possible.
However, another point in there that both of you missed is that these people label public healthcare as socialism, a scare-word tactic that very, very many of these people engaged in, in spite of taking these other government services for granted.
This can easily be verified if you look at any gallery of signs held up on Tea Party rallies. The signs with the word "socialism" on them are a dead giveaway, but what do you think all these "no taxation", "zero tax" and other signs of this sort are about? They are calling for the complete withdraw of funding to the government and with that the absolute and complete shutdown of all government programs. What rationale do you think could possibly be behind this, except "the government can't do anything right"?
How many of those people changed their position on health care after that post?
None.
In any event, the people who say that government can't do anything right are referring to the inefficiency of government. These people believe in a free market over government intervention. Frankly, I think you are oversimplifying things. Your essay does so too.
Again, the essay should have demonstrated why government is better at these things than the private sector. At its very core, isn't that what the health care debate was entirely about? How could you have missed that?
How many of those people changed their position on health care after that post?
None.
Maybe because the point of his post wasn't to change people's position on health care but to inform you? I don't see what point you're trying to make here, because you're implying that every post should cause people to change their position on health care and nothing less than that is unworthy. You know, sometimes the reason we talk about things isn't to change minds. Haven't you noticed this whole thread is more of a point-n-laugh ordeal?
At its very core, isn't that what the health care debate was entirely about? How could you have missed that?
This would make more sense to debate about, but we're talking about the type of people that are willing to compare Obama to Hitler.
The essay makes a single point: "When people say the government is incapable of running any public service, they don't understand how much the government already does provide."
That's it. Nothing more.
My point: free markets and private companies can provide many things better than the government. That's obviously true. Meanwhile, US health care still sucks for anyone who isn't employed or rich.
No, the point of the essay was to demonstrate the silliness and stupidity behind people who argue that the government can't do anything right and/or those who label public health care as socialism as a scare-tactic. The person who didn't understand the intent of the essay is you, Kilarney.
No, the point of the essay was to demonstrate the silliness and stupidity behind people who argue that the government can't do anything right and/or those who label public health care as socialism as a scare-tactic. The person who didn't understand the intent of the essay is you, Kilarney.
The essay makes a single point: "When people say the government is incapable of running any public service, they don't understand how much the government already does provide."
Yea, that's what I got out of it and why I posted it.
Going back to my "Fox news is religion baiting" point, here are pictures of the 'hallowed ground' where the new mosque is supposed to go.
Guwahaha! So true. I used to live a few blocks away from the World Trade Center site (Fulton Street was my subway stop) and believe me when I say it's not exactly the "hallowed ground" these people seem to think. They weren't even there! The City of New York was wounded on that day, but it's healing up, and that community center is part of that healing. Plus, say someone of a different race breaks into your house, and breaks your stuff. You are free to hate the person who did that, but hating all the other people of that specific racial group is stupid, stupid, stupid. That's what the conservatives are doing now.
Why do people not bitch about the YMCA or the Jewish Center or anything else? These people seem to have some serious beef with kids having fun in the pool and people learning cooking and stuff.
As I am wont to do for lols, I was listening yesterday to Rush Limbaugh while driving to an appointment. He was ranting incoherently about the WTC site. Not only did he commit no fewer than four logical fallacies in as many minutes during one particularly idiotic rant, but he also implicitly said that all mosques are by definition training centers for radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Comments
"There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church next to a playground. Should you? Should you do that, Jon? [...] Or am I alone in thinking, 'It's a little too soon for that!'"
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pay careful attention to the details that are in the article, and more importantly the ones that are suspiciously absent. Also, look at what the Republican representative says to the president.
I am sure that the government can do some things. I am sure that government can do some things well. That does not mean that government is the best option. Who has ever suggested that government can't do anything right unless they were engaging in hyperbole? Talk about a straw man!
The true question is whether government is the best option. For some things it is. OSHA is a good example. It is not realistic to expect business interests to effectively regulate occupational safety. It is not appropriate to have a military that is led by a commander in chief that has not been elected by the people.
But what about other typical government functions? Let's consider air traffic control. Your essay would say something juvenile and silly like: "The airplane I flew in didn't collide with any others." So what. In Canada, the air traffic control system is private. Do planes collide in Canada? Not any more than they do in the United States. And did you know that about 640 air traffic control towers in the United States are privately operated? They are generally Class D airports, but they seem to do just fine.
So, yes. Your plane did not collide. What does that prove as to whether or not air traffic control should be privatized? Absolutely nothing. Believe it or not, the fact that you did not crash thanks to a federal employee does not establish sufficient proof that we should model our national system accordingly. Try a less arrogant argument next time. Rather than your drivel, let me state a fact. The DOT has stated that the average cost of a tower that was privatized would drop from around 1.3 million dollars per year to $425,000 per year. In a country racking up a deficit, that sounds like a nice idea. Oh, but I forgot. You had a good flight. Surely that is worth a few hundred thousand seemingly wasted dollars.
Thanks for pointing out that government does some things, and many of those things work sufficiently well. Groundbreaking stuff, for sure. That degree is being put to good use. But were you aware that private companies can also launch satellites, provide weather forecasts, and repair the roads? Yup, they can. You must now be very confused! (In all seriousness, my relative (I'll be vague as to how close) was the founder of this company. Good thing he didn't have your attitude. And, no... I was not close enough to inherit.)
By the way, last weekend I went boating in a boat made by a private company and didn't drown. Today I shaved using a dangerous instrument built by a private company. I walked in shoes that did not hurt my feet. My zipper did not pinch me. Therefore, private companies are better than government agencies because... uh.... those things all worked. Forget economics entirely! I didn't nick myself shaving! See how smart I am?
The point wasn't that government is always the best option, but that the same people complaining about socialism and bloated government take for granted the things the government does, and the productiveness those government programs have facilitated. I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks the government is an angelic, benevolent, omni-capable presence.
But you can't deny that food is safer, the air is cleaner, and cars are more efficient than they were back in the day when private industry was in its hayday, when regulation was non-existent, when monopolies ruled, when business were printing their own currency and using it to keep "willing" slave labor, when businesses favored discrimination as long as the dollars flowed, and when backroom cabals controlled industry. Hell, the Cuyahoga River doesn't even catch on fire anymore!
The "essay" merely says government does things other than raping your women and quartering its soldiers in your shack, which seems to be the prevailing Tea Bagger opinion.
It concludes by saying:
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
The essay is intended to address an argument that government should not take over health care because the government can't do anything right. (Strike one for being entirely reactionary rather than proactive.) I stand by my statement that it is complete drivel. The argument offered by the vast majority of opponents to socialized health care was that government would not be better than private industry. Instead of intelligently responding to this prevailing claim, the essay creates a straw man ("government can't do anything right") and sidesteps a seemingly rational argument against socialized health care.
I have no desire to discuss the health care aspect of this. Just thinking about the futility of my efforts to convince the forum that the bill would contain no public option gives me a headache. (How smug the forum members were waiting for their chance to prove their superior intelligence... confidently and repeatedly attacking me in their belief that any opinion other than the majority's was by definition uninformed... And let's not even talk about how well the law against torture has proven to work...) I merely point out that the essay itself is perhaps the least effective persuasive writing I have seen in a great while. It is either responding to a made up (straw man) argument or it is responding to a claim that, if indeed made, did not merit a response for lack credibility. Either way, the essay is a waste of space. Call me crazy, but comparing privately run systems to socialized systems might have more effective.
Ugh. Why am I posting again? I am much more cheerful when I am doing other things! In all seriousness, the VAST majority of this forum has flawed perception due to allegiance to a particular political party and/or an ideology. I stick to the facts. If the Democrats get the facts right, I'll agree with them. If the Republicans get the facts right, I'll agree with the Republicans. I respect facts - not what a party tells me the facts (or my position) should be.
I have a general rule. For most matters that are subject to reasonable differences between intelligent people, if you are on either extreme you are most likely wrong. A lesser rule is that it is important to accept that certain matters of morality and/or social interpretation are subjective. (Yes, murder is wrong. Read what I wrote again.) For these matters, there is no such thing as a single "correct" belief. There is your belief, which may or may not be shared by others. But your belief, is just that. It's right for you, but it is entirely arrogant and narcissistic to assume that it is right for others. (An aside: If you've ever wanted to see a powerful illustration of apparently virtuous moral beliefs having a harmful effect, read Paul Theroux's "Dark Star Safari". He relays some amazing examples of how foreign "aid" to Africa has ruined aspects of African society. No doubt, people running these charities had only the best of intentions. But these people never stopped to think about what was best for Africans, nor did they realize that their western perspective would make it impossible for them to fully understand what is best for African society and culture. Theroux's social commentary is compelling literature.)
While I am often cranky here, I'm actually about the most open minded person one could know. I don't portray that on the forum, but that's just because I don't take myself seriously here. Nothing that matters is going to be changed by this forum. With this in mind, I just enjoy the banter and adjust my statements to that end.
However, another point in there that both of you missed is that these people label public healthcare as socialism, a scare-word tactic that very, very many of these people engaged in, in spite of taking these other government services for granted.
This can easily be verified if you look at any gallery of signs held up on Tea Party rallies. The signs with the word "socialism" on them are a dead giveaway, but what do you think all these "no taxation", "zero tax" and other signs of this sort are about? They are calling for the complete withdraw of funding to the government and with that the absolute and complete shutdown of all government programs. What rationale do you think could possibly be behind this, except "the government can't do anything right"?
None.
In any event, the people who say that government can't do anything right are referring to the inefficiency of government. These people believe in a free market over government intervention. Frankly, I think you are oversimplifying things. Your essay does so too.
Again, the essay should have demonstrated why government is better at these things than the private sector. At its very core, isn't that what the health care debate was entirely about? How could you have missed that?
I was merely pointing out that, for its intended purpose, the essay is entirely unpersuasive. It was a simple logical analysis.
That's it. Nothing more.
My point: free markets and private companies can provide many things better than the government. That's obviously true. Meanwhile, US health care still sucks for anyone who isn't employed or rich.
Linkage.
/checks his wallet for a stack of singles
Why do people not bitch about the YMCA or the Jewish Center or anything else? These people seem to have some serious beef with kids having fun in the pool and people learning cooking and stuff.