Political discussion thread

smartpatrol wrote: A debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stien tonight.

Will be streamed live here at 8:00 central time.

Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't think the government has any place telling us what is or isn't a marriage. How is the government supposed to grant all those marriage benefits without defining what is or isn't a marriage? They should not be granting benefits for marriage at all.

Correct. Marriage is a contract between two individuals (and God if they-and He-are agreeable.) The government has no business interfering with private contracts.

Finnforest wrote: thellama73 wrote: Correct. Marriage is a contract between two individuals (and God if they-and He-are agreeable.) The government has no business interfering with private contracts. Just curious.  Do you think people should be able to sell a kidney to the highest bidder, outside the realm of any government organ wait list?

Absolutely. I think we'd see a lot fewer people die waiting for organ transplants that way.


Edited by thellama73 - November 05 2012 at 19:58

Last pitch from our big guy........kids on abortion.

Moderation on this one is much better

smartpatrol wrote: Moderation on this one is much better

Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Last pitch from our big guy........kids on abortion. What a deplorable (and incredibly ironic) ad.

I think I posted this pages ago but it got lost in the shuffle so I'm resurrecting it to get everyone in the mood for tomorrow:

Finnforest wrote: Let's say it is effective in that regard.  How do you counter the ethical dilemma that people with money would get the transplant more quickly than the poor who may die while waiting for a donor?   And I guess this is off topic, probably  more for the Libert thread.  Still think Obama, Logan?

Yeah, I still expect him to win.

I would respond to your question in two ways. First, there's nothing to stop anyone from donating a kidney with the stipulation that it be given to a poor person.

Second, I would ask, if we can save the lives of five rich guys by charging for kidneys, and save the lives of only two poor guys by imposing the price ceiling, which is preferable? I would personally prefer to save more lives, regardless of income.

I'm mystified by this idea so many people seem to have that money should not confer advantages. "Oh sure," they say "it's fine for rich people to get nicer cars and bigger televisions, but if they get anything meaningful out of their wealth it's unfair."

Money is nothing more than a measure of how much someone has produced that other people value. Those that produce things that benefit the most people, have the most money. Why is it unfair that they also get the best medical care, since they have done the most for others? Wal-Mart has made life better for many times more people than Mother Theresa ever did. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did more to make the world a better place than Gandhi (whom I hate, but that's another topic for later.)

The fact that money has value and can be used for things like good medical care gives people a stronger reason to make more money, and you can only make more money by doing something useful that people want to pay you for.

smartpatrol wrote: King of Loss wrote: smartpatrol wrote: I'm talking about the Stien-Johnson debate Oh sorry, my mistake! I think that it's great that they're going to the extremes, even though Stein is slightly left of center in ideology. I find Stien to be pretty left whereas I find Johnson (my favorite candidate) to be more of Center-Right