Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:
I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:
I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Don't you think they all start off as perfect human beings?

---

Quote:

---

chrisisall- Hey- when I was a kid I was a natural born troublemaker- I honestly don't know how he turned out so virtuous so young!
Plus, I know a girl who's pretty near a saint. How'd your original sin miss them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth.

---

Quote:

---

I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

...but I just don't find it consistent with a God that is actually worthy to be worshipped.

---

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth. I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
this is getting off subject...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth.

---

i know huh? if i want to rape and murder, steal or commit adultery, who cares? its all relative. we should be able to do what we want, and if we get caught, well then.. we'll decide what the punishment is, based on.. well, how whoever catches you feels that day. thats a beautiful model for mankind to govern itself by. it makes me wonder why human history is plagued by these evils? but then, its not evil, if you cant define absolute right or wrongs

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

---

clearly you do not understand the premise of the bible; mankind has never 'acquiesced' to Gods laws, hence the predicament we're in

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So am I to take this as you advocation the abolition of public education?

---

Quote:

---

[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how that will make us a better-educated nation...[/sarcasm]

---

Quote:

---

Ration based on eligibility? What the hell are you even talking about?

---

Quote:

---

Do you have health insurance? If you do, aren't you asking your insurance company to ration resources based on eligibility? After all, if you pay your premiums, you're "eligible" - and if you don't, you aren't, and therefore THOSE resources are rationed out to someone who IS eligible (i.e., paying premiums). Get it?

---

Quote:

---

And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So you're one of those who believe there was NO morality extant in the world before the bible was written down, huh? The golden rule is probably another "christian" invention in your mind, I'm sure. Are you so weak-minded that you don't know right from wrong unless some idiot preacher tells you, or unless you read it in some translation of a bad translation of a bad translation, without having any idea what was originally written or intended?

---

Quote:

---

How much of your beloved book do YOU follow? Do you stone your wife to death if she wears clothes of different fibers? Do you kill those who would touch a pig? Will you be the one to kill Governor Sanford for committing adultery?

---

Quote:

---

And when is "murder", murder?

---

Quote:

---

When it's committed in the name of an unjust and illegal war of occupation? When it's committed in the name of vengeance and vendetta? When it's committed by "accidentally" torturing someone to death and calling it "enhanced interrogation"?

---

Quote:

---

Who decides what gets called murder? Such atrocities and more have been committed in the name of your god.

---

Quote:

---

He's the world's greatest serial killer, and rather than condemn him, you celebrate his evil deeds.

---

Quote:

---

There IS no coherent "premise" of the bible. It's a mess, full of contradictions, half-truths, and damned lies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
these are acts committed by sovereign beings, with their own justifications

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

listen, understand.. mankind has a 'fallen nature'

---

Quote:

---

when you take an innocent life with intent

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, murder's not murder depending... okaaaaay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anti, you clearly demonstrate that not only can't you understand Kwick's or my arguments, you WON'T.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Do you even try to understand other people's positions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So am I to take this as you advocating the abolition of public education?

---

i think every tax payer should be given a voucher, so that you can choose among competing public/private schools where you want your money to go. competition benefits everyone.. complete hemogenization doesnt, for obvious reasons. besides, we shouldnt even have a dept. of Education, its unconstitutional.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:


you got me on that one.. i guess youre right

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if we ADD a public option

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So is the Air Force. Shall we do away with the concept of air superiority?

---

Quote:

---

And okay, let's say you give out the vouchers; what "private" schools can you send your kids to that are free of religious indoctrination? And if you can't find any, how will you choose between which kids go to christian schools and which ones go to madrassas?

---

Quote:

---

competition benefits everyone? Then why don't you want the government to compete with the insurance companies for our healthcare dollars? You want public and private education options, according to what you just said - why won't you extend that to healthcare?

---

Quote:

---

Wooooooohhhh - Now I'm a "statist lemming". What "mush" would YOU force on everybody's "childred"? What "right" do you feel that YOU have in that regard?

---

Quote:

---

And you're suggesting that some disconnected insurance executive decide whether you're eligible. Same delays, same denials, different bureaucrats. I'll take my chances with the "not-for-profit" option, thank you.

---

Quote:

---

So if we ADD a public option, private, for-profit insurance companies won't be able to compete with it? They're so much more efficient, and government is so much LESS efficient, that they'll be driven out of business, eh?

---

Quote:

---

lets look at some places where we've had private and public options; let's look at the mail. The US Post Office can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $4.80 these days. Private, for-profit companies can do it just as quickly, but charge you more like $12-15 for the same letter. Curiously, both still exist. The US Post Office exists, and inefficient as it is, it still manages to do the job for less than either UPS or FedEx. And DHL was so efficient it went out of business! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anti, you clearly demonstrate that not only can't you understand Kwick's or my arguments, you WON'T.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

not to mention, are we going to give the 30+ million illegals "free" healthcare too? whos gonna pay for that? should i share my portion of rationed resources with them? talk about incentive to enter illegally

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if we ADD a public option

---

Mike, you can't simply add that option, Anti has said that the privates would be shut down, and he knows, just like he knows you and I carry around original sin.
BTW, Walmart has a new more ergonomic carrying case for original sin, make it a lot less cumbersome and it's inexpensive to boot!


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

---

you got me on that one.. i guess youre right, there is no murder. what a relief huh? so i can break into your house and kill you, and thats no different from sentencing a multiple rapist to death. id love to see that societal computer model

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're starting to sound an awful lot like PirateNews now, what with the ever-increasing number of illegals. One minute it's 12 million, the next it's 30 million.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and isn't that the biggest gripe y'all have anyway? The idea that health care is only expensive because illegals are driving up the costs to the rest of us? So, are we covering "the illegals" now or aren't we?

---

Quote:

---

Hey, maybe we should all have a national ID card to be eligible...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would respond to that, but I don't answer cowards & pisspots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So is the Air Force. Shall we do away with the concept of air superiority?

---

thats apples and oranges. the founders would be sickened by a uniform curriculm. the air force is to provide for the common defense

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

competition benefits everyone? Then why don't you want the government to compete with the insurance companies for our healthcare dollars? You want public and private education options, according to what you just said - why won't you extend that to healthcare?

---

because government prints its own money?? hello.. how does a private company compete against the public option, when the govt doesnt have to balance its budget?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And you're suggesting that some disconnected insurance executive decide whether you're eligible. Same delays, same denials, different bureaucrats. I'll take my chances with the "not-for-profit" option, thank you.

---

clearly the medical insurance system needs reformed, but the more competition between companies the better off the consumer is

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So if we ADD a public option, private, for-profit insurance companies won't be able to compete with it? They're so much more efficient, and government is so much LESS efficient, that they'll be driven out of business, eh?

---

yes, because they cant print money out of thin air to fund bloated out of control wastefull spending

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

lets look at some places where we've had private and public options; let's look at the mail. The US Post Office can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $4.80 these days. Private, for-profit companies can do it just as quickly, but charge you more like $12-15 for the same letter. Curiously, both still exist. The US Post Office exists, and inefficient as it is, it still manages to do the job for less than either UPS or FedEx. And DHL was so efficient it went out of business! :)

---

you do know the US post office is 2.8 BILLION in the red right? well no wonder they can undercut a private company. thank you for proving my point for me

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Hey, YOU'RE the one who wanted everyone to follow that stupid book. I'm just playing the game by your rules.

---

Quote:

---

Wanna break into my house and try your luck? Go for it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Whereas private companies have to rely on things like credit-default swaps and derivatives to print their money out of thin air...

---

Quote:

---

You do know that the private insurance companies are far more than that much in the red, right? Tell me again, what business is AIG in? Didn't we just give them $180 billion to cover their "balanced" budget sheets? Thank you for proving my point for me

---

Quote:

---

private companies are, if anything, LESS competitive than government programs, and far more wasteful. How much money have we thrown at Blackwater for their operations in Iraq? How much of that money has just VANISHED?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would respond to that, but I don't answer cowards & pisspots.

---

And yet Antimason does, go figure.

And please explain to Kwicko how to properly format his responses with quotes. I find it very amusing that the 'grammer-nazi' can not respond in a clear and legible manner.

---

Quote:

---

see where agnostic/athiestic idealogies leave you. there is no private property or gun rights in socialized/communist countries for a reason- its the logical extend of their beliefs

---

Quote:

---

The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country.[1] All key positions in the institutions of the state were occupied by members of the Communist Party. The state proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism ideology that restricts rights of citizens to private property. The entire population was mobilized in support of the state ideology and policies. Independent political activities were not tolerated, including the involvement of people with free labour unions, private corporations, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties. The regime maintained itself in political power in part by means of the secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics, such as political purges and persecution of specific groups of people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I find it amusing that you can't spell "grammar", so I guess we're both laughing.

---

Quote:

---

Columbia Encyclopedia entry: Marxism

Marxism, economic and political philosophy named for Karl Marx. It is also known as scientific (as opposed to utopian) socialism. Marxism has had a profound impact on contemporary culture; modern communism is based on it, and most modern socialist theories derive from it (see socialism). It has also had tremendous effect on academia, influencing disciplines from economics to philosophy and literary history.

---

Quote:

---

The American Declaration maintains that from man's place in the natural order arises the principle of human equality: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But at the end of the Declaration, the Revolution's leaders proclaim their willingness to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" for the cause, implying a certain inequality among men. A special set of risk-takers, the signers of the Declaration, were willing to lead the Revolution and take upon themselves the important responsibility of saying that King George III was now a tyrant.

So is man equal or unequal in the American scheme? He is both. In his fundamental rights, he is equal, but not every human being has the same talents and capacities. The very equality that exists by nature and forms the baseline of our politics also makes it possible for certain inequalities—like abilities for statesmanship and political leadership—to come to the fore and play their natural role in life.

The French view of natural rights, in contrast, is a Rousseauian view. In the Rousseauian model for the social contract, when individuals form a society—when unaffiliated individuals in a state of nature decide to affiliate—they give up or alienate everything to society, including their powers, possessions, and natural rights. Under the American doctrine, however, individuals never give up their nature: The natural rights of individuals are inalienable. In some sense, they are always behind one's civil rights—behind the positive rights.

Furthermore, if government becomes oppressive or tyrannical, the people have the right to alter or abolish that government—a right of revolutionary action against the government. Strangely enough, there is no right of revolution in Rousseau's republic or the French Republic. Once individuals have joined society, nothing personal remains to them. Citizens receive only what society decides to return to them on an equal basis. Individuals give up all of their natural advantages in exchange for the artificial or conventional advantages that society, through government, grants to them. As Rousseau teaches, individuals are to be subverted to the authority of the state. "If it is good to use men as they are," he wrote in his Discours sur l'economie Politique, "it is much better to transform them into what one intends them to be."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I find it amusing that you can't spell "grammar", so I guess we're both laughing.

---

Oh, I'm laughing alright. Just pull the strings and make him dance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're starting to sound an awful lot like PirateNews now, what with the ever-increasing number of illegals. One minute it's 12 million, the next it's 30 million.

---

theyve been claiming 20 million for a decade now.. its realistically much higher. its a legitimate question, and you treat it mockingly, as if even 12 million illegals drawing from a taxpayer funded healthcare system is negligable

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hey, maybe we should all have a national ID card to be eligible...

---

you say that mockingly, itll be a pro- Obamacare advocate to propose it when its appropriate, God forbid it passes

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
heritage.org has a great article on the differences between the French and American(along with British)revolutions. this further emphasizes my point between the collectivist/statist view of 'rights', and the classical AMerican libertarian view:

Quote:

---

The American Declaration maintains that from man's place in the natural order arises the principle of human equality: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But at the end of the Declaration, the Revolution's leaders proclaim their willingness to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" for the cause, implying a certain inequality among men. A special set of risk-takers, the signers of the Declaration, were willing to lead the Revolution and take upon themselves the important responsibility of saying that King George III was now a tyrant.

So is man equal or unequal in the American scheme? He is both. In his fundamental rights, he is equal, but not every human being has the same talents and capacities. The very equality that exists by nature and forms the baseline of our politics also makes it possible for certain inequalities—like abilities for statesmanship and political leadership—to come to the fore and play their natural role in life.

The French view of natural rights, in contrast, is a Rousseauian view. In the Rousseauian model for the social contract, when individuals form a society—when unaffiliated individuals in a state of nature decide to affiliate—they give up or alienate everything to society, including their powers, possessions, and natural rights. Under the American doctrine, however, individuals never give up their nature: The natural rights of individuals are inalienable. In some sense, they are always behind one's civil rights—behind the positive rights.

Furthermore, if government becomes oppressive or tyrannical, the people have the right to alter or abolish that government—a right of revolutionary action against the government. Strangely enough, there is no right of revolution in Rousseau's republic or the French Republic. Once individuals have joined society, nothing personal remains to them. Citizens receive only what society decides to return to them on an equal basis. Individuals give up all of their natural advantages in exchange for the artificial or conventional advantages that society, through government, grants to them. As Rousseau teaches, individuals are to be subverted to the authority of the state. "If it is good to use men as they are," he wrote in his Discours sur l'economie Politique, "it is much better to transform them into what one intends them to be."

---

for entire article, click here
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp18.cfm

---

Quote:

---

Not to dispute what it says - I don't have the background to do it, sadly - but how biased or unbiased a source is the website heritage.org?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

---

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

---

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Don't you think they all start off as perfect human beings?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPWash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

---

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

---

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

But isn't that, in essence, what most liberals believe anyway? Not being snarky here, but it's my understanding that liberals think most of the worlds problems are caused by rich people taking advantage of the little guy. Thus the idea that the rich are obligated to "spread the wealth." I'm just saying that under ANY system, government OR private, is subject to the people running it. Sure, it can have all the halo's and wings you wanna put on it and call it the perfect system, but when you put a HUMAN in charge the landscape changes drastically. Greed steps in. And a rich person (or people, for that matter) can come in and demand better care, offer more money and therefore cause the "little guy" to be neglected. Are they being offered the care? Yes. But will they get it when they need it? Who knows? They still may "go without" because the system is dealing with the people willing to pay to be treated first. You can dance around that all you like, but you can not deny that it's a distinct possibility.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

---

Quote:

---

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they haven't actually committed any sin when they're first born, but once the brain starts to develop, that selfishness, greed and whatnot starts to kick in. They have to be taught, more or less, the RIGHT thing to do.

---

Quote:

---

Gosh, when you put it like that, it changes... nothing. It makes it sound like we need to put it in the hands of the machines, eh? ;)

And I guess since humans are fallible, we should scrap any ideas at letting humans be in control of ANYTHING, lest it get corrupted. Investments? Nope - humans are greedy (since birth, apparently); can't trust them to invest wisely. Better leave that to machines. Work? Nope - too lazy. Better let the machines do it!

I mean, honestly, Ripper, it sounds like your best argument against healthcare is that a few will try to exploit it. I hate to break it to you, but there are ALWAYS going to be a few who try to exploit ANYTHING you do. You're essentially arguing that we should scrap all the corporations because Enron was a scam, and we should scrap all investment brokers because Madoff was a fraud.

Is that really the way you want to go?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they haven't actually committed any sin when they're first born, but once the brain starts to develop, that selfishness, greed and whatnot starts to kick in. They have to be taught, more or less, the RIGHT thing to do.

---

Sounds like a pretty good argument for abortion, really. Kill 'em while they're perfect, and they're guaranteed to go straight up to heaven to be with their dear and fluffy lord! Let 'em be born, and they're "fallen" and full of sin.

Is that what you're saying?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.

---

Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

---