Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?

Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

 

Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.

 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.

 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?

 

Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?

 

 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.

I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

 

yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.

i said major majority, so it would have to be more than 51% to rule without error, but in principle yes I do.  Who else is supposed to decide matters like that?  The American people are smart enough to know what laws are fair and correct, why not let them decide.

The idea that somehow, if 51% say "x" is okay or a good idea or what have you really makes me uneasy.  I tend to agree with Fisher on this:  just because 51% say something is okay, that does not make it right in my opinion.

Say you have 100 people who are asked "should slavery be legal in the United States?"  If 51 of those people say that slavery should be legalized in this country, does that then make it right to enslave others?  What if the 51 vote to enslave the 49?  Does the fact that the (barely) larger half of the people voting on the matter mean that, because 51 of 100 said they thought it was a good idea, the other 49 can be enslaved because they "lost" the vote?

Slavery, incidentally, is a good analogy here and one that I chose to "steal" to make the points:

1 - Just because 51% of people believe something is a good idea doesn't mean it is;

2 - When 51 people can force 49 people into subservience to them and their wishes, something is very wrong with the system.

It is my opinion that the matter should be put to a national referendum and that referendum ought to require a minimum 60% vote to pass - as should have the stimulus package and as should be the 2nd stimulus package that our country's elected leaders tell us is "on the table."  If the Senate must get 60% of the votes in order to pass a bill to save the fluffy bunnies, then the people deserve no less of a majority in such a major and divisive issue.  Much of the world actually requires a vote percentage spread that makes it clear that the vote is truly the will of the majority (or that the vote has at least been altered sufficiently to make it appear that way), yet here in the US, we say that 51% is a "majority" and clearly "the will of the people" when such an idea has more flaws than are mentionable in a forum.

EDIT: because typing before coffee is bad...

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

 

Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.

 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.

 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?

 

Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?

 

 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

 

In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.

I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

WTF?

He didn't say that.

Why do you hate America?

For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.

Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.

The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.

Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.

It's worked so well so far......

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

 

In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.

OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.

Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.

I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.

And all you have done, is repeat yourself.

There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

 

Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.

 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.

 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?

 

Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?

 

 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

 

In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.

I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

 

WTF?

 

He didn't say that.

Why do you hate America?

For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.

Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.

The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.

Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.

It's worked so well so far......

 

 

It's just funny that so many people think 'our' government can actually handle this seeing as they botched up so many things before.  Social Security might have actually worked until the government dipped their hands into that honey pot.  Whether or not they should is up for debate,  I just dont think they can handle it.  There are so many other things they need to fix for a government plan to have a chance.  But healthcare is first before system reform.....

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

 

In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.

 

OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.

 

Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.

I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.

And all you have done, is repeat yourself.

 

There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.

 

 

Where exactly are you getting these 'basic human rights'?  Or are you making these up?

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."

All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.

 

In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.

 

OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.

 

Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.

I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.

And all you have done, is repeat yourself.

 

There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.

 

 

That's what Fisher does.  He goes into a post already knowing what he wants to post, finds someone who kinda touches on his point, and then does the "In other words" bullshit to innacurately summarize someone's post so he can insert his crazed "point" he wants to make.

That's how he has always functioned.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
 
 In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.

---

 
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
 

What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
 

You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
 
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
 
 

I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.

---

 
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?

---

In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.

Why do you vote?

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Sargoth

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Laws are meant to be adjusted and changed.

 

Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed.  Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless. 

 

Concrete and timeless?

 

Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property?  Or the one that made alcohol illegal?  Those timeless and concrete laws?

Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack? 

That's why laws should be able to change.   Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment. 

 

Do I think things through?  You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with.  But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?

How the hell does that work?  Should be changeable, but also concrete?  That's an oxymoron. 

 

Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?

I guess you don't.  

Laws 'should' be evident and clear.  They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning.  Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed.  There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be. 

 

I agree, but who decides fair?  Who decides what is correct?

That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete.  Always evolving.

And that's the same with what I'm getting at.  Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point. 

Take the 10 commandments.  Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut.  How do they need changing?  .  How do you need to change, Don't steal.  Don't murder?  That's concrete. That's timeless.  Those are perfect laws. 

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.

 

 

Why do you vote?

Voting is not a duty.  It's a right but nothing more. 

"A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else?

It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?"

Source

---

Originally posted by Sargoth

 
Voting is not a duty.  It's a right but nothing more. 
"A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else?
It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?"
Source

---

If you have any say as to how the country is going, it IS your duty to not sit and complain but to get out and vote.

Thanks. That pic came from your source and explains it better than you could.

EDIT: Forgot this, from your source as well.

---

A duty to our country?

“Voting is a civic duty”2

Whereas it would probably be true that most citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.

---

I vote for the highlighted reason because I feel that's my duty.