+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma (/thread-637.html)
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 01-24-2017
(01-24-2017, 04:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
If you reject the non-aggression principle then I can understand why you would say that.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Eric the Green - 01-24-2017
(01-24-2017, 04:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
Yes, what dogmatic libertarians like Galen don't realize is that law is necessary unless people are perfect, which they are not yet and probably will not be for a while. Unless we all become like Jesus, laws will be necessary. When laws are not obeyed, then they must be enforced. There is discretion in this; the law must be enforced fairly and with mercy. If they are decided by consensus, which is the Green ideal, then they have a large majority supporting them who won't need to suffer enforcement.
I understand the libertarian objection to positive rights. They have the right to their opinion. I just disagree, so I am "obtuse." Health care is a right, but it must be paid for, so it's not as positive as Galen claims. He just objects because some poor people might get health care that the rich might have to pay for. But as liberals like me see it, it all averages out. Maybe I'll be poor, or maybe I'll be rich, so I will probably pay for others when I'm richer even if I get free healthcare for myself when I'm poor. It's the concept of social insurance that libertarians just don't seem to get. They tend to have contempt for poor people, and think poverty is all the individual's fault.
Their worldview is that we are each autonomous individuals. But the idea that such individuals can both be idiots (in the original meaning of cut off from others) to a degree, and innately perfectly behaved so that most laws are not needed, is quite contradictory. Only if we see that we are connected to others and the world around us, do we behave as if that were so.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - TnT - 01-24-2017
Warren Dew says,
"To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics."
The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Warren Dew - 01-24-2017
(01-24-2017, 04:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
Which places them well above any precepts progressivism might have.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 01-25-2017
(01-24-2017, 09:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 04:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
Which places them well above any precepts progressivism might have.
I really hope the DNC choose this lunatic to be the chair because she will sink the Democratic Party even faster than Obozo did.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Odin - 01-25-2017
Anyone who lives in the real world where things actually have to work and stuff actually has to get done and there are actual human beings, rather than in the ideal world of abstract principles can easily reject the Non-Aggression Principle out of hand.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Ragnarök_62 - 01-25-2017
(01-25-2017, 03:42 AM)Galen Wrote: I really hope the DNC choose this lunatic to be the chair because she will sink the Democratic Party even faster than Obozo did.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
OMG! This idiot has truly jumped the shark. Fuck this moron. Hey moron, I have no fucking privilege. Too bad Vandal'72 isn't here. This lady is a true "fruit bat".
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 01-25-2017
(01-25-2017, 08:07 AM)Odin Wrote: Anyone who lives in the real world where things actually have to work and stuff actually has to get done and there are actual human beings, rather than in the ideal world of abstract principles can easily reject the Non-Aggression Principle out of hand.
I disagree with you but I have to respect your honesty. You are perfectly willing to hold a gun, or have the government do it by proxy, to get what you want.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Galen - 01-25-2017
(01-25-2017, 10:19 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(01-25-2017, 03:42 AM)Galen Wrote: I really hope the DNC choose this lunatic to be the chair because she will sink the Democratic Party even faster than Obozo did.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
OMG! This idiot has truly jumped the shark. Fuck this moron. Hey moron, I have no fucking privilege. Too bad Vandal'72 isn't here. This lady is a true "fruit bat".
The odds are getting really good that the Democrats are going to self-destruct in a rather spectacular fashion. They are getting to be like an accident on the freeway. Everyone slows down to get a good look but no one wants to get too close to the flames.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Warren Dew - 01-25-2017
(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote: Warren Dew says,
"To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics."
The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue: your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - David Horn - 01-25-2017
(01-24-2017, 01:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-22-2017, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The reason it's stupid to tie health care to employment is because then the incentives are misaligned between the payer - the employer - and the patient, resulting in inefficient allocation of resources. That problem applies in spades when you tie health care to the government.
What's needed is for people to pay for their own health care, whether it's directly or through an insurer. If you really want to subsidize it, give everyone a voucher or a universal basic subsidy.
Healthcare is not a product or even a service in the commercial sense. It has more in common with fire and police protection.
To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
You have an ailment that your fee-for-service doctor indicates is rheumatoid arthritis. He recommends Humera. Are you good with that? If so, start shopping.
You're having a heart attack, and need: a hospital, a cardiologist and emergency transport. Start shopping.
Warren Dew Wrote:Police and the associated justice system are different because it involves use of force, and likely devolves to warfare if there are competing "providers" - although I would point out that there are substantial areas that are primarily policed by private police forces, such as many university campuses, so it's really the justice system that's the natural monopoly.
Most university campuses have duly sworn officers (i.e. real, actual police officers), because they have the power of arrest and are self sufficient, unlike the mall cops with the fancy Smoky Bear hats.
Warren Dew Wrote:Fire protection is less clear; the issue there may be that there's too much incentive for private services to engage in criminal activity, though there have also been cases of publicly employed firemen resorting to arson to protect their employment.
The real reason has to do with your local PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), better know to you as 9-1-1. They are the ones who coordinate public service response, and also typically sworn officers. They are not going to dispatch from a menu, and just know how to escalate if your house starts the one next door on fire?
Frankly, you really stretched with this entire response. I know you have to be loyal to the meme, but really?
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Warren Dew - 01-26-2017
(01-25-2017, 05:19 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-22-2017, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The reason it's stupid to tie health care to employment is because then the incentives are misaligned between the payer - the employer - and the patient, resulting in inefficient allocation of resources. That problem applies in spades when you tie health care to the government.
What's needed is for people to pay for their own health care, whether it's directly or through an insurer. If you really want to subsidize it, give everyone a voucher or a universal basic subsidy.
Healthcare is not a product or even a service in the commercial sense. It has more in common with fire and police protection.
To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
You have an ailment that your fee-for-service doctor indicates is rheumatoid arthritis. He recommends Humera. Are you good with that? If so, start shopping.
You're having a heart attack, and need: a hospital, a cardiologist and emergency transport. Start shopping.
I actually had symptoms of arthritis a few years ago. Based on advice from a diet discussion group I participate in, I made a simple dietary change and it went away. Occasionally I cheat on the diet change and it comes back temporarily, reminding me why I made the change.
This was of course free so tell me again why I'm paying for a doctor who can't spell "Humira"? That said, if I loved my nightshades so much I was willing to pay lots of money to keep eating them, and I didn't mind the side effect of taking a medicine that made me more vulnerable to infectious diseases, I could spring for the Humira or ask the doctor if there was a cheaper generic immunosuppressant. In my experience, doctors are really good about suggesting inexpensive substitutes when they know their patient is paying for his own drugs; from a market perspective, it isn't really any different from asking the help in the grocery store which antioxidant to take. The drug situation is more expensive due to regulation that supports prices for big pharma and the associated lack of competition, of course, but once price competition was introduced to the drug market, the prices of even brand name drugs would come down tremendously.
None of which means that people who are willing to make the simple, free, and effective dietary change should be forced to subsidize the people who insist on eating quasipoisonous foods, especially if the latter insist on using expensive brand name drugs instead of inexpensive generics.
For the heart attack, I would probably have purchased emergency medical insurance, the same way I have a AAA membership in case my car stops working. On the other hand, fee for service also works; my father had his heart attack in Beijing; payment was negotiated in time for surgery, and he is still alive 12 years later. Or, with price competition, my medical insurance company might do studies into Pauling's theory of heart disease, and I might have an inexpensive preventative that's even more effective than aspirin, which by itself can prevent many heart attacks and treat some others.
Quote:Warren Dew Wrote:Police and the associated justice system are different because it involves use of force, and likely devolves to warfare if there are competing "providers" - although I would point out that there are substantial areas that are primarily policed by private police forces, such as many university campuses, so it's really the justice system that's the natural monopoly.
Most university campuses have duly sworn officers (i.e. real, actual police officers), because they have the power of arrest and are self sufficient, unlike the mall cops with the fancy Smoky Bear hats.
Warren Dew Wrote:Fire protection is less clear; the issue there may be that there's too much incentive for private services to engage in criminal activity, though there have also been cases of publicly employed firemen resorting to arson to protect their employment.
The real reason has to do with your local PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), better know to you as 9-1-1. They are the ones who coordinate public service response, and also typically sworn officers. They are not going to dispatch from a menu, and just know how to escalate if your house starts the one next door on fire?
Frankly, you really stretched with this entire response. I know you have to be loyal to the meme, but really?
There were police and fire departments before 911, as I believe you are old enough to know. And there's no reason why 911 couldn't dispatch to the appropriate provider; there are things called "databases" these days that could be kept updated by the providers. However, as I said, I don't have a problem with the present system for police and even fire departments.
As for stretching, you may think I'm too libertarian, but I also regularly argue with anarchocapitalists that have the opposite view and consider me a tool of the state. In reality, I just happen to be the one that thinks not everything needs to be provided by the state, and not everything needs to be provided by the market, and there's a systematic economic method for distinguishing how things should be provided based on whether and how economic natural monopolies apply.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - David Horn - 01-26-2017
(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote:Warren Dew Wrote:To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue: your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.
I think Tim's point is simple enough. It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - David Horn - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 06:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-25-2017, 05:19 PM)David Horn Wrote: You have an ailment that your fee-for-service doctor indicates is rheumatoid arthritis. He recommends Humera. Are you good with that? If so, start shopping.
You're having a heart attack, and need: a hospital, a cardiologist and emergency transport. Start shopping.
I actually had symptoms of arthritis a few years ago. Based on advice from a diet discussion group I participate in, I made a simple dietary change and it went away. Occasionally I cheat on the diet change and it comes back temporarily, reminding me why I made the change.
This was of course free so tell me again why I'm paying for a doctor who can't spell "Humira"? That said, if I loved my nightshades so much I was willing to pay lots of money to keep eating them, and I didn't mind the side effect of taking a medicine that made me more vulnerable to infectious diseases, I could spring for the Humira or ask the doctor if there was a cheaper generic immunosuppressant. In my experience, doctors are really good about suggesting inexpensive substitutes when they know their patient is paying for his own drugs; from a market perspective, it isn't really any different from asking the help in the grocery store which antioxidant to take. The drug situation is more expensive due to regulation that supports prices for big pharma and the associated lack of competition, of course, but once price competition was introduced to the drug market, the prices of even brand name drugs would come down tremendously.
Let me save you the look: all immuno-suppressants are still on-patent or so expensive to replicate for so few customers that they have no competition. Worse, none of them can be given without strict oversight, since they are essentially invitations to secondary diseases. Even more to the point, they have efficacy limitations, so one needs to be replaced with another after its effectiveness declines.
And fwiw, I'm not a doctor.
Warren Dew\ Wrote:None of which means that people who are willing to make the simple, free, and effective dietary change should be forced to subsidize the people who insist on eating quasipoisonous foods, especially if the latter insist on using expensive brand name drugs instead of inexpensive generics.
My wife is alive today due to Remicade, another of those immuno-suppressant drugs. She's had Crohns Disease for almost 40 years, and has avoided the need for surgery -- the other option for these patients after the run-of-the-mill drugs no longer do any good. She hates Remicade, but will use it until it fails. The next tier is more expensive and the one after that is experimental.
Warren Dew Wrote:For the heart attack, I would probably have purchased emergency medical insurance, the same way I have a AAA membership in case my car stops working. On the other hand, fee for service also works; my father had his heart attack in Beijing; payment was negotiated in time for surgery, and he is still alive 12 years later. Or, with price competition, my medical insurance company might do studies into Pauling's theory of heart disease, and I might have an inexpensive preventative that's even more effective than aspirin, which by itself can prevent many heart attacks and treat some others.
Which begs the point. Most heart attacks are unexpected events -- typically affecting those totally unaware that they are susceptible. The same applies to strokes. Cancer is even worse. You can't "prevent" them all by being alert and having check-ups. I have a close friend who was diagnosed with colon cancer 4 months after getting a clean bill of health on his colonoscopy. Shit happens.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - David Horn - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 06:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: There were police and fire departments before 911, as I believe you are old enough to know. And there's no reason why 911 couldn't dispatch to the appropriate provider; there are things called "databases" these days that could be kept updated by the providers. However, as I said, I don't have a problem with the present system for police and even fire departments.
As for stretching, you may think I'm too libertarian, but I also regularly argue with anarchocapitalists that have the opposite view and consider me a tool of the state. In reality, I just happen to be the one that thinks not everything needs to be provided by the state, and not everything needs to be provided by the market, and there's a systematic economic method for distinguishing how things should be provided based on whether and how economic natural monopolies apply.
There are very logical items that should only be provided by private enterprise. My rules are simple:
- Is it possible to shop? For example, my heat pump dies and I need a new one. Even in the cold of winter, shopping is possible.
- Is there are market? Here's a dicey situation, because, for example, my electric utility is a monopoly. Still, I'm OK with a private provider if that provider is fully regulated.
- Do commercial standards apply? Here's where I have problems with healthcare under a free-market mechanism. Healthcare requires a huge infrastructure base, including the medical professionals who provide the direct services, but is not in demand until it's needed. How is this arranged? There is a market, but it is involuntary. It applies to the insured and the uninsured, since a broken leg is a broken leg. The same is true of fire and police services. I don't need the fire department until I have a fire, or an ambulance until I need emergency transport. Police are even less tied to direct demands, since they are needed when the public safety is imperiled, but not otherwise.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Warren Dew - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote:Warren Dew Wrote:To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue: your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.
I think Tim's point is simple enough. It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.
It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Eric the Green - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote:Warren Dew Wrote:To the contrary, health care is comprised mostly of services and some products. There's no fundamental difference between prescription drugs and, say, vitamin D pills other than distortions imposed through regulation. There's no fundamental difference between the market for doctors and the market for mechanics.
The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue: your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.
I think Tim's point is simple enough. It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.
It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.
It's both.
Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?
And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Classic-Xer - 01-26-2017
(01-24-2017, 04:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:Libertarianism eliminated the divine rights of kings, the divine rights of the Pope, the divine rights of Adolf Hitler, the divine rights of Osama bin Laden and so forth. It's more legitimate. I recognize the powers vested in me and understand what I'm able do/accomplished with those powers.(01-24-2017, 04:11 PM)Galen Wrote:(01-24-2017, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Health care is a right. The trickle-downer libertarians want to continue to deny this; it's just reactionary ideology dominating the minds of half the American people.
No its not. You do not have the right to the product of another person labor which is why libertarians generally reject the notion of positive rights because they are a violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand individuals and groups of people may chose to set up charities to provide health care and no libertarian would have a problem with it, indeed they would probably help. It is the use of force by government that is objected to.
This quote by Murray Rothbard describes the mentality of the left perfectly: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.
These libertarian precepts are no more legitimate than the divine right of kings.
The Pope doesn't even have the balls to point his finger at evil and call it what is because it might mad and kill him and kill all of those associated his religion. Who does he have to protect him and his religious people? American (free) Catholics, who are free to make moral decisions themselves and join army's and agency's focused on killing the evil people that he's unable to point out himself. You should thank your lucky stars that you were born in America.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - flbones too - 01-26-2017
Single payer system would actually be cheaper than the current system. Right now it's all about profits. Health care should be a right, we're all entitled to be healthy. It shouldn't be about making the most money. The current system keeps people chained down. People default over health insurance.
RE: ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma - Classic-Xer - 01-26-2017
(01-26-2017, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:It's not as much about less government or the elimination of government, it's about lessening governments power of influence and control. I believe in a constitutionally limited government. Who wants their government to have power and influence over themselves? Who wants their government to have the power to make their decisions and in determining their beliefs for them and power to control them with money, threats, intimidation and so on? I'd say, no one other than clueless people. Have you ever had a foreign money merchant call you on the phone disguising themselves as IRS agents? I have. They remind me of you. I don't believe in the governments you'd prefer and seem to favor.(01-26-2017, 01:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-26-2017, 10:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-25-2017, 05:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-24-2017, 09:20 PM)TnT Wrote: The sheer ignorance of the above statement is staggering.
It is clear to me that the chasm between the belief systems is too large to be spanned.
At least now you know why you can't have a civil conversation with the other side on the issue: your side can't stay civil when you see a statement you disagree with.
I think Tim's point is simple enough. It's impossible to argue a point when the basic underlying facts are in dispute.
It's not the underlying facts that are in dispute; it's the underlying philosophy.
It's both.
Your side has an incorrect philosophy that nevertheless has strong appeal. The slogans of freedom and less government have the effect of clouding out the truth. After all, who likes "the government"?
And your side is adept at ignoring the facts about which philosophy actually works, and endlessly trying to spin them in your direction. Your alternative-facts universe is enough to convince poorly-educated voters, and that's what the bosses that you support depend on.