>> Le 2012-08-07 21:02, Klaus Schadenfreude a crit :
>>>> 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with
>>>> 10 year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they
>>>> don't know any better?
>>> If your job can be done by a 10 year old kid you're hosed anyway,
>>> stoner.
>> Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children
>> *should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
>> Just asking about you position on child-labour.
>Klod doesn't realize that a ten year old that could replace me could >replace him, too.
Our cat could replace Jamieson. All he does is sleep, eat, and shit
> His masters don't feel any sense of loyalty to him; to >them, he's just a useful idiot.
Poor fat Zepp is still hoping for someone to feel any sense of loyalty
to him. Aint going to happen, Porks.. not ever.
>Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>Le 2012-08-07 21:02, Klaus Schadenfreude a écrit :
>>> 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with 10
>>> year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't
>>> know any better?
>> If your job can be done by a 10 year old kid you're hosed anyway,
>> stoner.
>Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children >*should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
>Just asking about you position on child-labour.
I'm saying iwhat I said I said. I can just see the kind of job Zepp
would have-- if he was employable.
>3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:41:22 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-08-07 21:02, Klaus Schadenfreude a écrit :
>>>> 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with
>>>> 10 year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they
>>>> don't know any better?
>>> If your job can be done by a 10 year old kid you're hosed anyway,
>>> stoner.
>> Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children
>> *should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
>> Just asking about you position on child-labour.
>Klod doesn't realize that a ten year old that could replace me
Ah, so you ADMIT that you could be replaced by a ten year old, just as
I suspected!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Obama's views.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy to believe the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty sad when having the government use its power to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a safety net for everyone to have a decent quality of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life, with jobs, health care, clean air, clean water, a safe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> place to work, protection from discrimination, etc, is seen as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "extreme".
>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?
>>>>>>>>> You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human
>>>>>>>>> necessities and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much more
>>>>>>>>> nuanced than that.
>>>>>>>> The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is
>>>>>>>> life,
>>>>>>>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT of
>>>>>>>> happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading. >>>>>>>> Protection
>>>>>>>> from discrimination under some circumstances does... to a limited
>>>>>>>> extent, workplace safety does... Getting you a job, health care
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> your human necessities is your responsibility unless you are
>>>>>>>> handicapped or a child.
>>>>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as
>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>> "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare".
>>>>>> You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> it.. which infringes on their rights
>>>>> You could say the same thing about the army, or the National Forest
>>>>> Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all, paid for by
>>>>> the contributions of all.
>>>> True, but the government has the specific authority to operate an army.
>>>> I'm not sure there is any clause in the Constitution that addresses a
>>>> National Forest Service though maintaining public property might
>>>> cover it.
>>>> What I don't see is anything that says they have to provide you or
>>>> anyone
>>>> else with free health care.
>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>>> They are looking to
>>> nationalize the health insurance industry, in recognition of the fact
>>> that
>>> the private, for-profit model has made us the laughing stock of the
>>> civilized world.
>> Hmmm... we are regularly consider to have one of the best health care
>> systems in the world.
>> But I can see how that would be a bad thing and how we should drag
>> ourselves down to the level of medical care like you find in many third
>> world countries and/or bankrupt the government trying to provide such
>> social services.
>>> --
>>> MarkA
>>> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
>>> About eight o'clock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Obama's views.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy to believe the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty sad when having the government use its power to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help provide a safety net for everyone to have a decent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality of life, with jobs, health care, clean air, clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water, a safe place to work, protection from discrimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, is seen as "extreme".
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?
>>>>>>>>>> You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human
>>>>>>>>>> necessities and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much
>>>>>>>>>> more nuanced than that.
>>>>>>>>> The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is
>>>>>>>>> life,
>>>>>>>>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT of
>>>>>>>>> happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading.
>>>>>>>>> Protection from discrimination under some circumstances does...
>>>>>>>>> to a limited extent, workplace safety does... Getting you a
>>>>>>>>> job, health care and your human necessities is your
>>>>>>>>> responsibility unless you are handicapped or a child.
>>>>>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as
>>>>>>>> part of "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare".
>>>>>>> You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to
>>>>>>> provide it.. which infringes on their rights
>>>>>> You could say the same thing about the army, or the National Forest
>>>>>> Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all, paid for
>>>>>> by the contributions of all.
>>>>> True, but the government has the specific authority to operate an
>>>>> army.
>>>>> I'm not sure there is any clause in the Constitution that addresses a
>>>>> National Forest Service though maintaining public property might
>>>>> cover it.
>>>>> What I don't see is anything that says they have to provide you or
>>>>> anyone else with free health care.
>>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>> How many people does that represent?
> The working poor that scooty so hates amount to about 45 million. (The
> poor who aren't working are generally already covered because they are
> poor enough to qualify for medicare or SSI or some such). And scooty is
> already paying for them because they still need medical care if they get
> sick or injured enough, and so the hospitals just pad everyone else's
> bill to cover that, which is very inefficient. But then, scooty's a
> moron.
> Illegal aliens aren't covered by Obamacare. Scooty just likes to lie
> about that.
Actually they will. While the bill denies coverage for illegal aliens, absolutely no provision is included to insure that the person being treated is a US citizen. So all they will have to do is claim to be covered, and *poof* they will be.
>>>> They are looking to nationalize the health insurance industry, in
>>>> recognition of the fact that the private, for-profit model has made us
>>>> the laughing stock of the civilized world.
>>> Hmmm... we are regularly consider to have one of the best health care
>>> systems in the world.
>>> But I can see how that would be a bad thing and how we should drag
>>> ourselves down to the level of medical care like you find in many third
>>> world countries and/or bankrupt the government trying to provide such
>>> social services.
>>>> --
>>>> MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About
>>>> eight o'clock
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:26:32 -0400, Scout wrote:
> "3109 Dead" <d...@gone.com> wrote in message
> news:jvssvu$9hc$2@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:43:18 -0400, Olrik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Obama's views.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy to believe the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty sad when having the government use its power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to help provide a safety net for everyone to have a decent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality of life, with jobs, health care, clean air, clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water, a safe place to work, protection from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, is seen as "extreme".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?
>>>>>>>>>>> You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human
>>>>>>>>>>> necessities and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much
>>>>>>>>>>> more nuanced than that.
>>>>>>>>>> The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is
>>>>>>>>>> life,
>>>>>>>>>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT
>>>>>>>>>> of happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading.
>>>>>>>>>> Protection from discrimination under some circumstances does...
>>>>>>>>>> to a limited extent, workplace safety does... Getting you a
>>>>>>>>>> job, health care and your human necessities is your
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility unless you are handicapped or a child.
>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as
>>>>>>>>> part of "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare".
>>>>>>>> You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to
>>>>>>>> provide it.. which infringes on their rights
>>>>>>> You could say the same thing about the army, or the National
>>>>>>> Forest Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all,
>>>>>>> paid for by the contributions of all.
>>>>>> True, but the government has the specific authority to operate an
>>>>>> army.
>>>>>> I'm not sure there is any clause in the Constitution that addresses
>>>>>> a National Forest Service though maintaining public property might
>>>>>> cover it.
>>>>>> What I don't see is anything that says they have to provide you or
>>>>>> anyone else with free health care.
>>>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>>>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>>>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>>> How many people does that represent?
>> The working poor that scooty so hates amount to about 45 million. (The
>> poor who aren't working are generally already covered because they are
>> poor enough to qualify for medicare or SSI or some such). And scooty
>> is already paying for them because they still need medical care if they
>> get sick or injured enough, and so the hospitals just pad everyone
>> else's bill to cover that, which is very inefficient. But then,
>> scooty's a moron.
>> Illegal aliens aren't covered by Obamacare. Scooty just likes to lie
>> about that.
> Actually they will. While the bill denies coverage for illegal aliens,
> absolutely no provision is included to insure that the person being
> treated is a US citizen. So all they will have to do is claim to be
> covered, and *poof* they will be.
That one has been circulating in the nutball right circles for quite some time. There's no truth in it.
>>>>> They are looking to nationalize the health insurance industry, in
>>>>> recognition of the fact that the private, for-profit model has made
>>>>> us the laughing stock of the civilized world.
>>>> Hmmm... we are regularly consider to have one of the best health care
>>>> systems in the world.
>>>> But I can see how that would be a bad thing and how we should drag
>>>> ourselves down to the level of medical care like you find in many
>>>> third world countries and/or bankrupt the government trying to
>>>> provide such social services.
>>>>> --
>>>>> MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About
>>>>> eight o'clock
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:42:43 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:26:37 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> scrawled in blood:
>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as part
>>>> of "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare". Protecting
>>>> jobs isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial
>>>> self-interest for the government.
>>> It's not government's duty to provide for it's citizens
>>???
> What part of that did you not understand?
It makes me wonder what he thinks the duty of government is, if not to
provide for it's citizens. Provide for other country's citizens? Provide
for the politicians?
>>>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>>>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>>>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>>> How many people does that represent?
>> The working poor that scooty so hates amount to about 45 million. (The
>> poor who aren't working are generally already covered because they are
>> poor enough to qualify for medicare or SSI or some such). And scooty is
>> already paying for them because they still need medical care if they get
>> sick or injured enough, and so the hospitals just pad everyone else's
>> bill to cover that, which is very inefficient. But then, scooty's a
>> moron.
>> Illegal aliens aren't covered by Obamacare. Scooty just likes to lie
>> about that.
> Actually they will. While the bill denies coverage for illegal aliens,
> absolutely no provision is included to insure that the person being
> treated is a US citizen. So all they will have to do is claim to be
> covered, and *poof* they will be.
As has been pointed out, hospitals are already required, by law, to
provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of the
immigration status or ability to pay. All Obamacare is going to do is to
provide a more equitable way to distribute the costs.
>>>>> They are looking to nationalize the health insurance industry, in
>>>>> recognition of the fact that the private, for-profit model has made
>>>>> us the laughing stock of the civilized world.
>>>> Hmmm... we are regularly consider to have one of the best health care
>>>> systems in the world.
That depends entirely on your definition of "best". If you can afford it,
and you want to buy treatment regardless of how appropriate it may or may
not be, then yes, we have one of the "best" systems in the world. If you
care about things like providing care to everyone who needs it, and being
cost efficient, we have one of the worst. We spend way more per capita
than any other country, and are no where near the top of any list of any
quality or outcome metric.
>>>> But I can see how that would be a bad thing and how we should drag
>>>> ourselves down to the level of medical care like you find in many
>>>> third world countries and/or bankrupt the government trying to
>>>> provide such social services.
Governments can always save money by abandoning the poor and needy. We're
better than that.
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:40:38 +0000, 3109 Dead wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:40:05 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:37:06 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:20:29 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> Protecting jobs
>>>>>>>isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest
>>>>>>>for the government.
>>>>>> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means
>>>>>> that you infringe upon an employer's rights.
>>>>>Employees should also have rights, and they will often conflict with
>>>>>those of the employer.
>>>> Simple solution here.. Let the relationship between employer and
>>>> employee be the result of an un interfered-with agreement between the
>>>> two of them.
>>>Ah, but there is an inherent imbalance of power.
>> Only in the minds of economic ignoramuses.
>> btw, do you know why there are child labor laws and minimum
>> wage laws? So that unions have less competition!
> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with 10
> year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't know
> any better?
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:20:29 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> Protecting jobs
>>>>>>isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest
>>>>>>for the government.
>>>>> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means
>>>>> that you infringe upon an employer's rights.
>>>>Employees should also have rights, and they will often conflict with
>>>>those of the employer.
>>> Simple solution here.. Let the relationship between employer and
>>> employee be the result of an un interfered-with agreement between the
>>> two of them.
>> Ah, but there is an inherent imbalance of power. As long as there are
>> more people looking for work than there are jobs to be had, the employer
>> can force whatever terms he wishes on his employees. It wasn't all that
>> long ago when children worked 16 hour days in factories, and work place
>> death and injuries were the norm.
> Do you honestly think that is what he wishes to return to? If so, produce
> where he said that.
>> If you are a 1%er, I can see how you might take a dim view of
>> "meddlesome government regulations" that require you to respect the
>> safety of your employees. However, if you are, like me, one of the
>> lesser 99%, advocating for elimination of government regulations on
>> business is just appallingly stupid.
> IOW, most of these differences of opinion are based on just regulations we
> are talking about. Simply because he suggested less regulations you
> immediately jumped to safety regulations. I would be those aren't what he
> had in mind.
He suggested that the employer-employee relationship should be "un
intefered with" by government. My thesis is that industry will inherently
exploit whatever resources it can: labor, environment, etc, unless
constrained by government regulation. Most of the regulations we have
today are a response to exploitation in the past. Eliminating them would
invite a return to the exploitative conditions of the past. That would
be, as I said before, appalling stupid, unless you are the owner of the
industry in question.
Discussion subject changed to "There's no good reason to bother believing (Re: #37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama)" by Painius
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> MarkA Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About
> >>>>> eight o'clock
Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the
absence of good reasons for doing so. The above are decent reasons for
not believing and for questioning — and eventually leaving — whatever
theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past. Once
a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they may
realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those
claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. Believers fail to
meet this burden, though, and thus fail to provide good reasons to
accept their claims.
>> Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> Le 2012-08-07 21:02, Klaus Schadenfreude a écrit :
>>>> 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with 10
>>>> year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't
>>>> know any better?
>>> If your job can be done by a 10 year old kid you're hosed anyway,
>>> stoner.
>> Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children
>> *should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
>> Just asking about you position on child-labour.
> I'm saying iwhat I said I said. I can just see the kind of job Zepp
> would have-- if he was employable.
Discussion subject changed to "Still no evidence for Jehovah, think about it! (Re: #37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s)" by Samuel Harrigon
MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> btw, do you know why there are child labor laws and minimum
> >> wage laws? So that unions have less competition!
> > So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with 10
> > year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't know
> > any better?Or don't have any choice? Yes, I'm sure he does.-- > MarkAIf you can read this, you can stop reading now.
There is simply no more evidence for Jehovah than there is for Zeus.
Christians find no reason to believe that Zeus exists, so they do not
believe in him. For the same reason, I do not believe in Jehova. God
himself is more than welcome to share an honest conversation with me.
Until he does, I have no reason to trust that anyone is a reliable
spokesman for any god.
MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> btw, do you know why there are child labor laws and minimum
> >> wage laws? So that unions have less competition!
> > So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with 10
> > year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't know
> > any better?Or don't have any choice? Yes, I'm sure he does.-- > MarkAIf you can read this, you can stop reading now.
Things do not exist merely because they have been defined
to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--
what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his
reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean
that Santa exists.
Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children
> >> *should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
> >> Just asking about you position on child-labour.
> > I'm saying iwhat I said I said. I can just see the kind of job Zepp
> > would have-- if he was employable.I'll take that as «Favourable».
Every religion, from earliest times, has hated and condemned those who
could not believe whatever it was that those old religions happened to
believe. Throughout the ages there have been the 'intellectual outlaws'
who have questioned the "unquestionable," and doubted even the very
existence of the gods. And those individual thinkers have been hated,
hunted, persecuted, and murdered by the religious believers. Yet the
Atheists and doubters are very much with us today, but those old
religions, and the gods they created, have long since ceased to trouble
the thoughts of mankind.
If Atheism is considered to be a religion, then it is easily the oldest
living religion in the world. Properly stated, Atheism is truly "that
old time religion" that the Baptists keep singing about.
Atheism is a difficult subject only because of the slander and
misrepresentations preached and published against it. Even the
information that is available in our most trusted and respected
reference books is the distorted and prejudiced view presented by
religion. Just as in Communist countries, where the articles on
Capitalism, democracy, politics, etc., are always written by Communists
and from the Communist point of view, so in Christian dominated
societies, such as the United States, all articles on Atheism,
Rationalism, Freethought, etc., that are to be found in encyclopedias
and other reference books, are written by theologians, and from the
Christian point of view.
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:52:37 -0400, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2012-08-08 07:28, Klaus Schadenfreude a écrit :
>>> Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>> Le 2012-08-07 21:02, Klaus Schadenfreude a écrit :
>>>>> 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>> So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs
>>>>> with 10 year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because
>>>>> they don't know any better?
>>>> If your job can be done by a 10 year old kid you're hosed anyway,
>>>> stoner.
>>> Are you saying that jobs that could be done by 10 years old children
>>> *should* be done by 10 years old children instead of adults?
>>> Just asking about you position on child-labour.
>> I'm saying iwhat I said I said. I can just see the kind of job Zepp
>> would have-- if he was employable.
> I'll take that as «Favourable».
It's just Klod, trying personal attack to camouflage the moral and mental bankruptcy of his ideas.
If he isn't Steve, he's one of Steve's hemarrhoids.
> MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >> btw, do you know why there are child labor laws and minimum
>> >> wage laws? So that unions have less competition!
>> > So you think heads of households should have to compete for jobs with >> > 10
>> > year old kids willing to work for a dollar an hour because they don't >> > know
>> > any better?Or don't have any choice? Yes, I'm sure he does.-- >> MarkAIf you can read this, you can stop reading now.
> Things do not exist merely because they have been defined
> to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--
> what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his
> reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean
> that Santa exists.
Nor does a lack of evidence show that neither of them do.
If one is honest with themselves they can realize that they can chose a hypothesis based on personal belief, but shouldn't assume doesn't mean the other hypothesis is just as correct given a lack of evidence either way.
Which is why I am an agnostic. I have my beliefs, realize they are only beliefs and am ready to ditch those beliefs should evidence indicate they are incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Obama's views.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GOP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's easy to believe the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty sad when having the government use its power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to help provide a safety net for everyone to have a decent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality of life, with jobs, health care, clean air, clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> water, a safe place to work, protection from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discrimination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc, is seen as "extreme".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessities and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much
>>>>>>>>>>>> more nuanced than that.
>>>>>>>>>>> The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is
>>>>>>>>>>> life,
>>>>>>>>>>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT
>>>>>>>>>>> of happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading.
>>>>>>>>>>> Protection from discrimination under some circumstances does...
>>>>>>>>>>> to a limited extent, workplace safety does... Getting you a
>>>>>>>>>>> job, health care and your human necessities is your
>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility unless you are handicapped or a child.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as
>>>>>>>>>> part of "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare".
>>>>>>>>> You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to
>>>>>>>>> provide it.. which infringes on their rights
>>>>>>>> You could say the same thing about the army, or the National
>>>>>>>> Forest Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all,
>>>>>>>> paid for by the contributions of all.
>>>>>>> True, but the government has the specific authority to operate an
>>>>>>> army.
>>>>>>> I'm not sure there is any clause in the Constitution that addresses
>>>>>>> a National Forest Service though maintaining public property might
>>>>>>> cover it.
>>>>>>> What I don't see is anything that says they have to provide you or
>>>>>>> anyone else with free health care.
>>>>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>>>>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>>>>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>>>> How many people does that represent?
>>> The working poor that scooty so hates amount to about 45 million. (The
>>> poor who aren't working are generally already covered because they are
>>> poor enough to qualify for medicare or SSI or some such). And scooty
>>> is already paying for them because they still need medical care if they
>>> get sick or injured enough, and so the hospitals just pad everyone
>>> else's bill to cover that, which is very inefficient. But then,
>>> scooty's a moron.
>>> Illegal aliens aren't covered by Obamacare. Scooty just likes to lie
>>> about that.
>> Actually they will. While the bill denies coverage for illegal aliens,
>> absolutely no provision is included to insure that the person being
>> treated is a US citizen. So all they will have to do is claim to be
>> covered, and *poof* they will be.
> That one has been circulating in the nutball right circles for quite some
> time. There's no truth in it.
Ok... point out the provision that will require them to show they are citizens and thus able to obtain that healthcare.
Discussion subject changed to "Do theists still believe in Santa Claus? (Re: #37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's)" by Mike Lovell
On 2012-08-08, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Things do not exist merely because they have been defined
>> to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--
>> what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his
>> reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean
>> that Santa exists.
> Nor does a lack of evidence show that neither of them do.
> If one is honest with themselves they can realize that they can chose a > hypothesis based on personal belief, but shouldn't assume doesn't mean the > other hypothesis is just as correct given a lack of evidence either way.
> Which is why I am an agnostic. I have my beliefs, realize they are only > beliefs and am ready to ditch those beliefs should evidence indicate they > are incorrect.
That's not what agnosticism is.
Unless you believe in God(s) you are an atheist, you may be an
agnostic-atheism just like you may be an agnostic-theist.
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:26:32 -0400, Scout wrote:
>>>>>> They aren't claiming to provide "free health care".
>>>>> They certainly are. Illegals and the poor will be covered for free on
>>>>> the dime of the American taxpayer.
>>>> How many people does that represent?
>>> The working poor that scooty so hates amount to about 45 million. (The
>>> poor who aren't working are generally already covered because they are
>>> poor enough to qualify for medicare or SSI or some such). And scooty is
>>> already paying for them because they still need medical care if they get
>>> sick or injured enough, and so the hospitals just pad everyone else's
>>> bill to cover that, which is very inefficient. But then, scooty's a
>>> moron.
>>> Illegal aliens aren't covered by Obamacare. Scooty just likes to lie
>>> about that.
>> Actually they will. While the bill denies coverage for illegal aliens,
>> absolutely no provision is included to insure that the person being
>> treated is a US citizen. So all they will have to do is claim to be
>> covered, and *poof* they will be.
> As has been pointed out, hospitals are already required, by law, to
> provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of the
> immigration status or ability to pay. All Obamacare is going to do is to
> provide a more equitable way to distribute the costs.
More equitable?
<snort>
What is equitable about making me pay for the health care of another?
I mean isn't that one of the key aspects that proponents of this legislation use to justify it?
That we will all need heath care and they don't want to buy for another's because they chose to forego insurance?
I will just note that the is a difference between limited emergency care.....and being able to access health without limit because you can.
In closing just let me note that the problem you're attempting to solve....was created by government. Seems to me a more intelligent response would be to revisit that legislation and clearly define exactly what "emergency care" is and to what limits such care extends, and how exactly the federal government is to pay for it.
They created the problem....then we are suppose to be forced into this farce to 'fix' the problem they created.
BS....fix the problem....don't just paint over it.
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:42:43 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:26:37 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as part
>>>>> of "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare". Protecting
>>>>> jobs isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial
>>>>> self-interest for the government.
>>>> It's not government's duty to provide for it's citizens
>>>???
>> What part of that did you not understand?
> It makes me wonder what he thinks the duty of government is, if not to
> provide for it's citizens. Provide for other country's citizens? Provide
> for the politicians?
Discussion subject changed to "Do theists still believe in Santa Claus? (Re: #37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's)" by RD Sandman
> On 2012-08-08, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote: >>> Things do not exist merely because they have been defined
>>> to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--
>>> what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his
>>> reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean
>>> that Santa exists.
>> Nor does a lack of evidence show that neither of them do.
>> If one is honest with themselves they can realize that they can chose
>> a hypothesis based on personal belief, but shouldn't assume doesn't
>> mean the other hypothesis is just as correct given a lack of evidence
>> either way.
>> Which is why I am an agnostic. I have my beliefs, realize they are
>> only beliefs and am ready to ditch those beliefs should evidence
>> indicate they are incorrect.
> That's not what agnosticism is.
> Unless you believe in God(s) you are an atheist, you may be an
> agnostic-atheism just like you may be an agnostic-theist.
I am agnostic and when I die I will go the Great Perhaps. Is there a God? I don't know. I do not fully believe in one nor do I fully disbelieve in one. That is the definition of agnosticism.
--
The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"
>> Unless you believe in God(s) you are an atheist, you may be an
>> agnostic-atheism just like you may be an agnostic-theist.
> I am agnostic and when I die I will go the Great Perhaps. Is there a > God? I don't know. I do not fully believe in one nor do I fully > disbelieve in one. That is the definition of agnosticism.
No actually that's the definition of atheism.
You can have agnostic-theists and agnostic-atheists. Agnosticism isn't
a position on belief in God. It's about if knowledge of God is
knowable.
You either believe in God (theist)
Or you don't believe (atheist)
However atheism isn't disbelief. So "I do not fully believe nor do I
fully disbelief" is compatible with atheism.
Apart from "I don't fully believe" suggests you believe slightly.
> On 2012-08-08, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Things do not exist merely because they have been defined
>>> to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--
>>> what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his
>>> reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean
>>> that Santa exists.
>> Nor does a lack of evidence show that neither of them do.
>> If one is honest with themselves they can realize that they can chose a
>> hypothesis based on personal belief, but shouldn't assume doesn't mean >> the
>> other hypothesis is just as correct given a lack of evidence either way.
>> Which is why I am an agnostic. I have my beliefs, realize they are only
>> beliefs and am ready to ditch those beliefs should evidence indicate they
>> are incorrect.
> That's not what agnosticism is.
"In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively"
>>> Nor does a lack of evidence show that neither of them do.
>>> If one is honest with themselves they can realize that they can chose a
>>> hypothesis based on personal belief, but shouldn't assume doesn't mean >>> the
>>> other hypothesis is just as correct given a lack of evidence either way.
>>> Which is why I am an agnostic. I have my beliefs, realize they are only
>>> beliefs and am ready to ditch those beliefs should evidence indicate they
>>> are incorrect.
>> That's not what agnosticism is.
> "In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief > and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the > popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves > in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist > believe and disbelieve, respectively"
That use is invalid against the most inclusive definition of atheism.
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain
claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any
deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and
(so far as can be judged) unknowable.["
>> Unless you believe in God(s) you are an atheist, you may be an
>> agnostic-atheism just like you may be an agnostic-theist.
> I neither believe nor disbelieve based on knowledge.
