[Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Primary discussion forum. Also, feel free this use as a hangout for fans of the funny non-story based comics.

Moderator: Mod Squad

[Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:38 am

Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby spazmonkey » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:44 am

Yay, an unfocused topic based on a self-aggrandizing masturbation video!
Last edited by spazmonkey on Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
this sig is my fanboy badge of HONOR!!!1!
Kamisutra wrote:You're watching the anime with blatant lack of effort
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:32 am
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Whatis6times9 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:54 am

Hooboy, look at the strawmen.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Innocence Abandoned » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:07 am

..........................................................................__„-~"¯¯:::,-~~-,_:::"-
.....................................................................„~"¯::::::::::::::"::::::::::::::::::\
..........................................................__„„„-"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,
.................................................__-~"::,-'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~-,
............................_______~"___-~"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,
......................,~"::::::::::::::¯¯::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,: |
....................:/:::::::::::::::::__-~"::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_,-~":'\'-,:\:|:\|::\|\::\:|
...................,'::::::::,-~~"~"_::',::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,~ ':\'-,::',"-\::'':"::::::::\|:|/
..............._,-'"~----":::/,~"¯"-:|::|::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,~"::\'-,:\;;'-';;;;;;;;;;;,-'::\::|/
............,-'::::::::::::::::'-\~"O¯_/::,'::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-',::\'-,:|::";;;;;;;;;;;;,-':\:'-,::\
............|:::::::::::::::::-,_'~'::::,-'::,':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-':\'-,:\'-,';;';;;;;;;;;;;;;,-':\:::'\-,|''
............|::,-~"::::::::::::::"~~":::,-'::::::::::::::::::::::::_,-~':\'-,|:"'";;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'¯::'-,:',\|
.........../::/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_,„-~"¯\:\'-,|;''-';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'--,::\-:\:\|
........./::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-';;'-';;;;',/;\/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-,|:::\-,:|\|..\|
......./:::::::\:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,-';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-~'''("-,\:::|\:|::''Self-
......,':::::::,'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :,-'/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,--'::::::/"~'aggrandizing
.....,'::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,„-~"::|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,-'::"::::::,'::::/ support points
..../:::::::::|:::::::::::::„---~~""¯::',:::::,';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,'::::::::: :: |_,-' poorly disguised as
..,'::::::::::::",:,-~"¯::::::::"-,::::::::::|:::/;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;,'::::::::|::::,' mocking sarcastic jokes
./:::::::::::::::|:::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::::\:::|¯¯¯"""~-,~,_/::::::::,':::/ seems like a rather
:::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_::|::\: : : : : : : |: : \::::::::/:/ childish way for a
:::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::",:::::::::::::"-':::\: : : : : : : |: : :\::::::|:: political critic to express
:::::::::::::::::|::::::::::::::::",:::::::::::::: ::::\: : : : : : \: : : |:::::|::|;;\ his viewpoints. In light
::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::::::::::::",:::::::::::::::/|\ ,: : : : : : : : |::::,'/|::::| of this, any points made
:::::::::::::::::::::"-,:::::::::::::::"-,_::::::::::\|:/|,: : : : : : : |::: |'-,/|:::| in support of his preferred
::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_::::::::::::::"~-,_:::"-,/|/\:::::::::: \::: \"-/|::| party tend to do more
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,__:::::::::::',"-,:::"_|/\:|\: : : : \::\":/|\| harm to my opinion
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~-,_:::::\:::\:::"~/_:|:|\: : : '-,\::"::,'\ of said party than
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"-,_:'-,::\:::::::"-,|:||\,-, : '-,\:::|-'-„ good.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::,-,'"-:"~,:::::"/_/::|-/\--';;\::/: ||\-,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :/...'-,::::::"~„::::"-,/_:|:/\:/|/|/|_/:|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |......"-,::::::::"~-:::::""~~~"¯:::|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |........."-,_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\ ..............."~--„_____„„-~~"
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:13 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:28 pm

So what I gather is you guys don't see the truth in what he's saying? You just focus on how it "feels" to you?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:33 pm

I can personally attest that I have come across people who think it is the government's duty to give them things that they haven't earned at the expense of someone else and they think they deserve it. And if I tell those same people that they don't deserve it and to expect it is nothing short of greed, they lambast me with insults, attacking me instead of my argument, and calling me things like "stupid," "uneducated," and even one time, "evil."

If he's self-aggrandizing, he's doing it with the truth.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Whatis6times9 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:01 pm

I can't see the truth of something that is built on attacking strawmen.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Sentios » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:30 pm

RuffDraft wrote:I can personally attest that I have come across people who think it is the government's duty to give them things that they haven't earned at the expense of someone else and they think they deserve it. And if I tell those same people that they don't deserve it and to expect it is nothing short of greed, they lambast me with insults, attacking me instead of my argument, and calling me things like "stupid," "uneducated," and even one time, "evil."

If he's self-aggrandizing, he's doing it with the truth.


All the technology in your entire life is built upon the legacy and work of countless before you, you didn't put in equivalent work to that so you don't deserve any of it. The idea that a ownership expires is as arbitrary as the idea that they never existed at all.

You're right it's not the government's duty to help the poor, as it's preposterous that people are poor in the first place.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:21 pm

Sentios wrote:All the technology in your entire life is built upon the legacy and work of countless before you, you didn't put in equivalent work to that so you don't deserve any of it.
Those people did not make the technology for the sake of making the technology, otherwise they would offer it for nothing. They hoped that others would buy it and help them turn a profit.

I have a job. I work and earn an income; I'm not doing the same thing they are but I'm still working. Then I use the money that I receive for my labor and use it to buy their goods or services. In buying their goods or services, I have entered what is essentially a short-term contract with those people and helped them accomplish what they set out to do--turn a profit. I have done my part and I have earned it.

Sentios wrote:The idea that a ownership expires is as arbitrary as the idea that they never existed at all.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that when you buy something, the outcome is merely that someone else ceases to own it? The alternative is you take it and give nothing in return, which is stealing. If someone gives something away without expecting anything in return, that's charity.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out by saying that.

Sentios wrote:You're right it's not the government's duty to help the poor, as it's preposterous that people are poor in the first place.
Then who would you say is to blame for someone being poor? And are you saying that's the case in every instance where someone is poor, or that some people are poor because of something they did to themselves, and some people are poor because of what others did to them? And how do you know those people exist?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:28 pm

Whatis6times9 wrote:I can't see the truth of something that is built on attacking strawmen.
Could you outline the strawmen in that video? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have heard people call valid arguments strawmen before because they think that the premise of the argument isn't valid (an example of this is when "A" calls the Tea Party racist, "B" says they're only calling the Tea Party racist because they don't agree with a black man's policies (regardless of what those policies may be), and then "C" calls "B"'s argument a strawman without knowing why "A" is actually calling the Tea Party racist. And by the way, this exact scenario has happened to me as well).
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby spazmonkey » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:55 pm

This is a vague shitty topic. We could post 12 pages of the extreme examples of asshole liberals and conservatives, but not one person reading them would change their political leanings. The liberals will ignore the situations where conservative values have merit and the conservatives will ignore the situations in which conservative values have merit. I will have no part in it.

You sound like the conservative counterpart to the dogmatic liberals you hate.
this sig is my fanboy badge of HONOR!!!1!
Kamisutra wrote:You're watching the anime with blatant lack of effort
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:32 am
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Sentios » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:04 pm

RuffDraft wrote:Those people did not make the technology for the sake of making the technology, otherwise they would offer it for nothing. They hoped that others would buy it and help them turn a profit.

I have a job. I work and earn an income; I'm not doing the same thing they are but I'm still working. Then I use the money that I receive for my labor and use it to buy their goods or services. In buying their goods or services, I have entered what is essentially a short-term contract with those people and helped them accomplish what they set out to do--turn a profit. I have done my part and I have earned it.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that when you buy something, the outcome is merely that someone else ceases to own it? The alternative is you take it and give nothing in return, which is stealing. If someone gives something away without expecting anything in return, that's charity.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out by saying that.

Then who would you say is to blame for someone being poor? And are you saying that's the case in every instance where someone is poor, or that some people are poor because of something they did to themselves, and some people are poor because of what others did to them? And how do you know those people exist?


Newton for example did not discover the laws of motion in hopes that he could make money he discovered them to answer a curiosity; yet you benefit from that work everyday without contributing an equal value. You should owe compensation to all those inventors and discovers yet you don't because an idea that their ownership expires is accepted. However that idea is arbitrary. You say people are entitled to something when it's convenient for you and they aren't when it's inconvenient for you.

Shifting away from philosophy for a moment; in a nation where people pay taxes the government has a responsibility to ensure their well being to protect their life and liberty. Medical care is a logical extension of that. It's ironic that American politicians are so against paying for preventative medical care with tax dollars when they're so eager to take 'preventive' military action.

As for poor people, wealth is largely relative. Even using market mechanics it's understandable that the rich create the poor; because the rich exist and have higher purchasing power the prices are more resistant to falling to a level affordable by people with lower purchasing power. Prices only fall when the rich are no longer willing to buy a product, typically because something newer or better comes out.

The liberals will ignore the situations where conservative values have merit


Like when?
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:11 pm

Sentios wrote:Newton for example did not discover the laws of motion in hopes that he could make money he discovered them to answer a curiosity; yet you benefit from that work everyday without contributing an equal value.
I question this. How exactly do I benefit from the fact that Newton discovered these laws? They existed before he discovered them. Discovering them did not change them. Granted, it was important that he wrote his thesis on it and it's great and everything, but I'm not sure that I exactly "benefit" from that.

Now that said, Newton's work, as a whole, benefited all of mankind. If what you're saying is true, how much money equivalent to the work he put in does everyone in the world owe him? Should they have kept paying his relatives after his death? Or were the accolades, awards and high-paying jobs he had as a result of his work enough to satisfy that benefit? How far does this go in your eyes?

Sentios wrote: You should owe compensation to all those inventors and discovers yet you don't because an idea that their ownership expires is accepted. However that idea is arbitrary. You say people are entitled to something when it's convenient for you and they aren't when it's inconvenient for you.
No one's saying that. As I said, how far does it go? Does it go until that person dies? Does it go until he transfers his intellectual property to another holder or recipient? Does it go until they sell their blueprints, formula, plans, schematics or whatever to another company for mass-production? Or do we have to keep on paying their decedents indefinitely, like a tithe enabling us to benefit from their machinations until the end of time?

I bought this computer that I'm using with my own money. That I worked for. I put in an effort--different than what they did, perhaps, but an effort nonetheless. If I buy something, someone has put a price on it, and that's how much I owe. Are you saying I owe more than just that amount, and if so how much? Am I to feel guilty because I wasn't alive in the 1700s when Newton or whoever did all the work that enabled the world as a whole to become so technologically advanced?

Regardless of what you seem to think about this, I'm not going to feel guilty about not participating in the discovery that the world was round, or how an airplane works, or fiber optic technology or anything. The fact of the matter is that somewhere along the line, people were compensated for the effort involved in whatever work they did, I can't be forced to buy it, and I don't need to pay any more than what is necessary to obtain it.

Sentios wrote:Shifting away from philosophy for a moment; in a nation where people pay taxes the government has a responsibility to ensure their well being to protect their life and liberty. Medical care is a logical extension of that. It's ironic that American politicians are so against paying for preventative medical care with tax dollars when they're so eager to take 'preventive' military action.
Well, if you go to school and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to become a doctor, that's your prerogative, but it's not a right, and you have to pay for it yourself. If you can apply your skills and save lives or cure the sickly or injured, you deserves to be compensated for your services, which is why you go to school to learn a skill in the first place. There are certain costs involved in being a doctor; supplies, drugs, equipment, etc. Those prices are built into how much it costs for someone to be treated for a certain disease. Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls. Insurance is a solution to rising medical costs. You and thousands if not millions of others pool your money so that if one of you is deathly sick there is enough money to help you. The reason Conservatives in America don't want to have the Government subsidizing health care is two-fold: First, because it's not a guarantee by the Constitution; Second, if health care becomes subsidized, everyone will want to take advantage of this new government program, even those who could realistically afford it themselves, and the costs will skyrocket and be passed on to the government. At that point, government will try to cut costs, and the fear is that they would do that by denying health care to people. Democrats say that won't happen, but we've seen it happen in the past, and that's what we want to avoid.

As for "preventive" military action, perhaps you can explain what our response should be when intelligence suggests that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon and could intend to use it on us or one of our allies, such as Israel? Should we just wait until a couple thousand people die and then act, or should we strike first if we believe it is necessary to prevent that?

Sentios wrote:As for poor people, wealth is largely relative. Even using market mechanics it's understandable that the rich create the poor; because the rich exist and have higher purchasing power the prices are more resistant to falling to a level affordable by people with lower purchasing power. Prices only fall when the rich are no longer willing to buy a product, typically because something newer or better comes out.
How "rich" are we talking here? Are you talking about people that make upwards of $60K per year? Would you please define that a little better?

The rich do not create the poor. If anything the poor create the rich. If a poor person has an idea and he gets a group of people together to help him actualize it, they pool their resources and eventually create a product that is mass-producible, and everyone likes it and buys it, that group of people is now richer than the people that bought from them. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple, as well as Wal-Mart, Johnson and Johnson, and practically every company in existence today.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Whatis6times9 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:58 pm

But the rising cost of medical treatment could be tied to the increase in the cost of drugs, the increase in the number of people who can't afford to pay passing the costs along to the people who can or they couldn't get health insurance because of the pre-existing condition exclusion, the number of people who can't afford to get preventive care for a instead wait until they need to be hospitalized for it, the amount of money exchanging in malpractice cases.

As far as Iran goes maybe we should wait long enough to actually get an invasion force large enough to control shit. We had a hard enough time with the Second Gulf war and pretty much going it alone.
Image
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8976
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Innocence Abandoned » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:36 pm

Ruff, as much as the rest of this thread leaves me feeling neutral, and regardless of the validity of the points made on both sides of the argument, as a physics student I am appalled by your lack of knowledge pertaining to Sir Isaac Newton's work and the applications of his findings. And no, his work is not something only physics students need to be familiar with. If you had any idea how much his discoveries influenced the development of the technology that you use every day, you would be sure if you personally exactly "benefit" or not from it.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:13 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:50 pm

Innocence Abandoned wrote:Ruff, as much as the rest of this thread leaves me feeling neutral, and regardless of the validity of the points made on both sides of the argument, as a physics student I am appalled by your lack of knowledge pertaining to Sir Isaac Newton's work and the applications of his findings. And no, his work is not something only physics students need to be familiar with. If you had any idea how much his discoveries influenced the development of the technology that you use every day, you would be sure if you personally exactly "benefit" or not from it.
I was referring to his Laws of Motion. I went on to say
RuffDraft wrote:Now that said, Newton's work, as a whole, benefited all of mankind.
I am not saying that nothing he did was beneficial. I was only referring to the fact that "discovering" motion and writing the thesis on the Laws of Motion did not "change" the laws themselves, and that doesn't directly benefit anything I do. Does that make more sense?
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Innocence Abandoned » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:02 pm

No.
He didn't discover motion, and he didn't change the laws. He discovered the laws, which set the foundations for classical mechanics as we know them. It directly benefits you by allowing you the benefit of owning just about every piece of modern day technology you possess without it being nonexistent. But please carry on with your political debates, they're much more important than belittling the discoveries of the most influential scientist of the 17th century.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:13 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:08 pm

Innocence Abandoned wrote:No.
He didn't discover motion, and he didn't change the laws. He discovered the laws, which set the foundations for classical mechanics as we know them. It directly benefits you by allowing you the benefit of owning just about every piece of modern day technology you possess without it being nonexistent. But please carry on with your political debates, they're much more important than belittling the discoveries of the most influential scientist of the 17th century.
I see I've struck a nerve. I wasn't trying to belittle anyone or anything. But my question is, how exactly did the Laws of Motion allow the production of modern day technology?

Whatis6times9 wrote:But the rising cost of medical treatment could be tied to the increase in the cost of drugs, the increase in the number of people who can't afford to pay passing the costs along to the people who can or they couldn't get health insurance because of the pre-existing condition exclusion, the number of people who can't afford to get preventive care for a instead wait until they need to be hospitalized for it, the amount of money exchanging in malpractice cases.
All of that does play a part in it. Do you have an idea to make preventative care more affordable? How about for those with preexisting conditions? Is there perhaps something other than insurance they could opt into? Maybe a charity that tries to get support from the general public for people that can't afford it? There are more solutions than just demanding the government step in.

Whatis6times9 wrote:As far as Iran goes maybe we should wait long enough to actually get an invasion force large enough to control shit. We had a hard enough time with the Second Gulf war and pretty much going it alone.
Except that when we invaded Iraq, we were expecting to have to push the surge for months, and we did it in about a week.

My solution is to just let Israel launch their own preemptive strike. So far, Israel has asked permission from the United States (which is sort of like asking your big brother if he has your back), and we've said "No," which is kind of a dick move on our part, considering that if Iran gets a nuke, Israel will probably be the first to be attacked.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Mir@k » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:09 am

You know, i'm not big on the whole political status of your countries, but this thread looks and feels like ruffdraft explicitly came looking for a verbal fistfight. Like an atheist going to a forum for posting a thread with the title being "Why Christians Suck", no team will win because the opposite team will always have an excruciatingly long counterpost to any display of logic from the opposite team, and the whole heat of the battle will never end.

So, why?
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1310
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:56 am

Verbal fistfight? I just like civil debate. I often learn a lot more when presented with other people's opinions than I would if I didn't have them.

I might present facts that the other person hasn't considered, and vice versa. I'm not trying to talk down to anyone here.

If someone says something I disagree with, it's good to analyze it and see if I'm actually wrong. It's not like I think I'm always right.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Sentios » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:40 pm

Can't really on improve on what the others have already said but...

Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls.


This is just the same old, incorrect rhetoric. High prices exist because businesses think if they are entitled to how ever much compensation they want for their goods/services. The cost of schooling for example went up when the government started investing money so people could get an education, ya know investing in the future of the nation. Schools decided they wanted to get more money per student rather than have more students and thus the prices have gone up astronomically.

As for healthcare we spend more money on it than any other country and get poorer results. It's because the system is fragmented, outdated, and too bound in your rhetoric to realize that current industry standards don't have the voice of the consumer in them anywhere.

As for "preventive" military action, perhaps you can explain what our response should be when intelligence suggests that Iran may be developing a nuclear weapon and could intend to use it on us or one of our allies, such as Israel? Should we just wait until a couple thousand people die and then act, or should we strike first if we believe it is necessary to prevent that?


A nuclear weapon has yet to be found in the middle east, with the exception of the ones Israel owns. Your response when a figment of your imagination is about to be used on your most worthless ally should be to do nothing. Also the choice your actually talking about is wait for a couple thousand people to die or kill a hundred thousand people first. You aren't preventing deaths, you're going 'me first, me first'.

The rich do not create the poor. If anything the poor create the rich. If a poor person has an idea and he gets a group of people together to help him actualize it, they pool their resources and eventually create a product that is mass-producible, and everyone likes it and buys it, that group of people is now richer than the people that bought from them. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple, as well as Wal-Mart, Johnson and Johnson, and practically every company in existence today.


That would be an example of how one could get out of being poor (though very text book, oversimplified, and wishful) that does not create the distinction between the poor and the rich. If I define the poor as those who have to wait decades before being able to afford the newest technologies then it's exactly as I explained. The rich will buy a good while the price is high and thus the price won't drop until it's lost the novelty it had, in essence feeding the poor cold table scraps. Today almost everyone has a refrigerator, rich or poor, but there was a significant delay in that occurring from their inception and that is what causes the ill effects associated with being poor.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Jay » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:43 pm

Iran isn't really an issue. Rather, not an issue to the rest of the world, anyways.

It's just an old sore spot that the old Pro-West monarch got overthrown and now it's anti-West, which is bad for US National interest because its only counterpart in the balance of power in that region is Iraq.

And, well, we saw what trying to back Iraq with funding and military aid led to. Fortunately, the US was able to manufacture a subtext to attack Iraq and dispose of all that built up military and financial power that Saddam was hording from the US aid he skimmed.

But now you're back to the original issue which is a Middle East in which there's no reliable ally to balance to power of Iran, which would mean US would no longer be able to influence policy in the region (without getting its own hands dirty).

Except Israel, of course. But the problem with Israel is that they're... well, awful for PR. And half the time they're crazy. And they're an awful as a conduit for diplomacy in the Middle East. Plus, if you write them a blank check in support, Israel would quickly just lead to a totally unnecessary quagmire in the region that'll solve nothing other than disrupt trade, especially in regards to the Suez Canal which is STILL pretty important.

For the time being, I think the hopes are out of the Arab Spring the US can find a democracy that will adopt a pro-Western rhetoric, which is what they're throwing their weight about to try and encourage (but you can't be too obvious about trying to influence democracy to install a friendly government, so US's moves on this end have been pretty limited).

Honestly speaking, the current leader of Iran's not even as crazy as Kim Jong-Il. But that's kind of irrelevant, because the power under throne is very stable. He could be crazier and a nuke will never get fired because all of his handlers will just laugh at him and he'd probably get put under house arrest or even outright taken out from the inside, lol.

But that's all moot because he's honestly not that crazy. At this point, it'd just be a deterrent, like everyone else's nuke.

But, hey, you know, anyone with a 3 hour primer on Middle Eastern history since 1945 could tell you this.
Internet Celebrity ToastCrust
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | FFXIV: Lenini Leni (Hyperion)
RP Mod of the 3rd Astral Era
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 30945
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:44 am
Location: Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby EagleMan » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:21 pm

RuffDraft, the more you say the less people listen. And I don't mean this against you, but just in how you post. Plus I'm not sure you've ever admitted being wrong in regards to any conservative rhetoric. Obviously I have not read all your posts, but such a thing would stick out in memory for me.

And it's straw man because he claims to say what liberals are saying and then attacks that. Liberals are not saying anything is free. To honestly think they literally mean free at every point in the providing of health care for instance is to be delusional and creating a straw man argument. No one says hospitals cost nothing to run.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13872
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:50 am

@Eagleman: Well, I often find points that I agree with in people's rhetoric, but I do understand what you're saying. However, Liberals have been trying to make health care a right. This would mean that some people would get it for "free," at the expense of someone else, who would have to pay for those people to get it "free," as well as for themselves. Bill Whittle isn't saying "free," as in "doesn't cost anything;" of course it costs money, but for one person to get "free" anything, someone has to pay for it, and that's his point.

That isn't a strawman because of the fact that Liberals do say things like "we should have free health care" (I have personally heard this kind of thing in person and on TV) and don't bother wondering or even caring who ends up paying for it. And if you ask them, they suggest that the government pays for it (instead of them paying for it themselves), which means they think it should be guaranteed, which it isn't and can't be. Otherwise it ends up being free for some and not for others, which isn't free, and it's not fair.

I think that those of you who are saying this is a strawman have probably just never heard Liberals use the word "free" in that context. And realize that I'm not calling you or anyone else stupid. I'm just saying you're misinterpreting what he's saying, which leads you to think he's making a strawman argument.

Sentios wrote:
Part of the problem with rising medical costs is government intervention. The more government controls there are, the more costly it becomes to conform to those controls.

This is just the same old, incorrect rhetoric. High prices exist because businesses think if they are entitled to how ever much compensation they want for their goods/services.
I'm sorry, but that's not true. Do you think gasoline prices are high because oil companies are just maximizing their profits? Exxon Mobil made approximately $45 billion in 2009, but their profit margin was only about 9%. If what you were saying was true, their profits would have been above what they paid in taxes, which was about $116 billion in that year.

And let me ask you this: Even if what you are saying is true, so what? It's the prerogative of a merchant to charge what he thinks people will pay for their services; I don't see why you would have a problem with that. They don't force people to buy them. People buy them of their own free will. If the merchant can get rich doing that, he deserves every penny he makes.

And to take it a step further, if he was paying 15% in taxes before he became rich, and the government tells him, "Now that you're rich, we're going to start charging you 35% in taxes instead of 15%," how exactly is that fair?

Now, back to your original point. Let's say that one day the price of corn skyrockets (for whatever reason), and you see a can of corn go from $0.75 to $3.00. Are you going to then say that the business is jacking their prices and demand that can of corn at $0.75 because that's what you were paying before? Is the business at fault, or is something else true?

You tried to justify this in the next half of your paragraph, but your example is kind of unrelated. I'll explain why.
Sentios wrote:The cost of schooling for example went up when the government started investing money so people could get an education, ya know investing in the future of the nation. Schools decided they wanted to get more money per student rather than have more students and thus the prices have gone up astronomically.
I recommend you do a search for how much money spent on education has increased, versus how test scores have fared. To summarize, education spending has skyrocketed since the 1960s, and test scores have remained flat. There is no correlation between the two.

The cost of schooling increased because of two main things: government programs and teachers unions. Government programs are a major source of expenditure, so the more government programs, the more the overall cost. As for teacher's unions, they demanded higher pay, more benefits, and among other things, tenure. Tenure means that, short of committing a crime, the school cannot fire them. They can reprimand them, put them on suspension (with full pay and benefits I might add), send them to training, do anything up to and including transfer, but they cannot be fired, at least not traditionally. There's a term for this in every state: the Turkey Dance, Lemon Dance, and so on, where an under-performing teacher is passed along from district to district, and each district has problems with him or her, but because the system is essentially designed to reward mediocrity, those teachers stay in the employ of the state, and conditions do not improve. There are other factors involved in how much education costs, but that's one of the main ones.

And if you don't believe that this is a problem, you might want to watch Waiting For Superman, a documentary of the American education system.

Sentios wrote:As for healthcare we spend more money on it than any other country and get poorer results. It's because the system is fragmented, outdated, and too bound in your rhetoric to realize that current industry standards don't have the voice of the consumer in them anywhere.
If that's the case, do you have a solution to cut costs?

Sentios wrote:Your response when a figment of your imagination is about to be used on your most worthless ally should be to do nothing.
Our most worthless ally? Do you understand how outraged that single comment makes me? Israel is not any manner of worthless. If anything they're the best, freest, and most Democratic nation in the entire Middle East. They've been trying to make peace with their neighbors Since 1948 (the year Israel was created by the UN). They've been attacked over and over by countries that have sworn to erase their existence if it's the last thing they do. Despite this, Israel has kicked butt and even offered to give back the land they acquired through completely legal pre-emptive strikes.

I don't feel you really know anything about Israel apart from the anti-Semitism that the Left-wing media has been pushing. Maybe you should read this article.

Sentios wrote:Also the choice your actually talking about is wait for a couple thousand people to die or kill a hundred thousand people first. You aren't preventing deaths, you're going 'me first, me first'.
This too fills me with outrage, but for a different reason. What you're telling me is literally that you would favor the rights a murderer over that of a victim. If A has B at gunpoint and a reasonable person (C) would conclude that A is going to kill B, C has an obligation to do what he feels is necessary to prevent A from killing B, even if it means killing A first.

Damn right I'm saying "me first." I don't want to die, and I would rather kill someone than stand by and watch them kill someone else. And I would defend anyone who made that same decision.

Before I continue, I want to make sure you're not just seeing me as talking down to you. There's a difference between being outraged by what someone says and just being belligerent. Being outraged is the natural response to what you see as injustice; that's why I didn't respond to Innocence Abandoned with some kind of "get out of my face" remark. Because I understood that what I said outraged him, even if I didn't mean what he took to be an outrage. Being belligerent just means I don't like what you say and I'm going to attack you instead of your argument.

There's nothing wrong with attacking an argument as long as you do it respectfully, which I am still trying to do. I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful so far.

Sentos wrote:That would be an example of how one could get out of being poor (though very text book, oversimplified, and wishful) that does not create the distinction between the poor and the rich.
Of course it does. If they are no longer poor, then by the definition you just posed, they are now rich. They have become rich. How is that not exactly what you're saying?

Sentios wrote:If I define the poor as those who have to wait decades before being able to afford the newest technologies then it's exactly as I explained. The rich will buy a good while the price is high and thus the price won't drop until it's lost the novelty it had, in essence feeding the poor cold table scraps. Today almost everyone has a refrigerator, rich or poor, but there was a significant delay in that occurring from their inception and that is what causes the ill effects associated with being poor.
But, didn't you just get through telling me that I owe more to people who helped make the technology that I utilize today? Now you seem to be saying that it's bad if rich people do just that?

Prices drop because of supply and demand; the less of something there is the more it costs to own it. What you're saying is prices don't drop until someone rich has bought it and gotten tired of it, which isn't true at all. Things like computers dropped in price because the technology became more available. Ages ago (20-25 years) when computers were scarce and difficult to mass-produce, they cost more. Likewise with refrigerators---which have been available since about 1834, the first one undoubtedly cost very much to make and probably sold for much more---the technology has improved to the point where a small refrigerator is affordable by most "poor" people. The fact that rich people are able to afford new, expensive conveniences first doesn't mean that the rich are somehow oppressing the poor by doing that, nor are they influencing prices by buying them.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: [Politics] Why Conservatives Suck

Postby Sentios » Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:21 pm

This would mean that some people would get it for "free," at the expense of someone else, who would have to pay for those people to get it "free," as well as for themselves.


That's an 'us against them' perspective for you. Everyone would get health care at the expense of everyone including themselves, the only free riders would be those who are unemployed and even they usually aren't unemployed their whole lives.

And if you ask them, they suggest that the government pays for it (instead of them paying for it themselves), which means they think it should be guaranteed, which it isn't and can't be.


Umm... the money the government has comes from 'them', the government's money is our money so anything the government pays for we are paying for. I'd much rather it pay for a hobo to treat his gangrene then an upstart 20 year old to go shoot up brown people and that's what sets conservatives apart from the rest of the country.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. Do you think gasoline prices are high because oil companies are just maximizing their profits? Exxon Mobil made approximately $45 billion in 2009, but their profit margin was only about 9%. If what you were saying was true, their profits would have been above what they paid in taxes, which was about $116 billion in that year.


Different markets behave differently. We're aware enough of the cost of gas prices versus what they should be that people throw a fit when the prices go up.

They don't force people to buy them.


No, no I'm done it's not worth the time to explain to you that the illusion of choice is not a choice.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Next

Return to Snafu General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests