| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
thellama73 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
 Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:18 |
 JJLehto wrote:
Said it before, at least yall on here are true.
I can't help but laugh when people (OK college kids) get all libertarian about very specific issues.
There's this FB group with people all up in arms because a bunch of state governments...meh just see for yourself.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=153878914657475&index=1
For Freedom?
And location: America!
And a bunch of hardcore partiers/politically uncaring friends of mine are into it.
Gotta love how its about an alcoholic beverage. Wonder how many really care or are just peeved about this damn drink being taken away.
"Drink Hard. Drive Fast. But not at the same time. LOKO FOR MY LIFE" is a wonderful example of it.
"Im
a huge fan of the Four Loco!!!!! not because i drink it...i find it
repulsive, but the ladies love it and it gets the party booomin!!
caffine/alchohol combo is the party mix, redbull/vodca ...etc.... SO
LETS GET FADEY FOUR LOCO STYLEY....oh and who said outlaw beef instead?
I hate you."
Another sterling example....
Sorry, people piss me off 
|
I know it's ridiculous, but personally I'll take what I can get. If a lot of people are libertarian on just one issue, that's better than being libertarian on none. Maybe in their quest to preserve their blackout in a can they will discover that they have libertarian views on other issues as well. YOu have to start somewhere.
|
|
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:30 |
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. I'd love to see if they stick around for other bigger libertarian issues like drugs, freedom of speech, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:33 |
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:33 |
By the way, land of the free, home of the sick.
And the organization doing the study is a private one, by the way...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:35 |
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already...
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:38 |
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already... |
Freedom means you're free to be ridiculous.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:41 |
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already... |
Freedom means you're free to be ridiculous. |
And I'm free to point out how ridiculous they are...
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 10:43 |
|
If we insist that only "principled libertarians" have anything useful to say, then it's going to be awfully hard to recruit new members into the movement. I'll gladly accept the help of the one issue(guns) people when it comes to gun rights and the one issue (drugs) people when it comes to drug rights.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 11:45 |
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already... |
Freedom means you're free to be ridiculous. |
And I'm free to point out how ridiculous they are... |
And we all lived happily ever after.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 11:53 |
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already... |
Freedom means you're free to be ridiculous. |
And I'm free to point out how ridiculous they are... |
And we all lived happily ever after. |
No we don't. Because one of those idiots will crash with me on the highway one day... 
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 12:27 |
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
Padraic wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah right they're principled libertarians....
They're just a bunch of people who want to get drunk and also hyper at the same time. |
If they're not hurting anyone, what's the problem?
Even though the beverage in question seems silly, their point is valid. |
It's just ridiculous that's all... I know it's not right to deprive them of their right to kill themselves, but these are not the hard defenders of liberty that society just found....
Crack and heroin users should start a facebook group too... But probably they've pawned their laptops already... |
Freedom means you're free to be ridiculous. |
And I'm free to point out how ridiculous they are... |
And we all lived happily ever after. |
No we don't. Because one of those idiots will crash with me on the highway one day... |
Maybe we should privatize them then!
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 12:29 |
What is that supposed to show? It's just a bunch of numbers that lack any content.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 12:44 |
|
^That this country is sicker and with worse health care than others and that it should be reformed. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 12:46 |
The T wrote:
^That this country is sicker and with worse health care than others and that it should be reformed. That's all. |
It doesn't show that though.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 13:27 |
^You're actually right. It just shows that people have less access to health care and have to pay much more for it... Good.
One-third (33%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 5 percent of adults in the United Kingdom and 6 percent in the Netherlands. One-fifth (20%) of U.S. adults had major problems paying medical bills, compared with 9 percent or less in all other countries. Thirty-one percent of U.S. adults reported spending a lot of time dealing with insurance paperwork, disputes, having a claim denied by their insurer, or receiving less payment than expected. Only 13 percent of adults in Switzerland, 20 percent in theNetherlands, and 23 percent in Germany—all countries with competitive insurance markets that allow consumers a choice of health plan—reported these concerns. The study found persistent and wide disparities by income within the U.S.—even for those with insurance coverage. Nearly half (46%) of working-age U.S. adults with below-average incomes who were insured all year went without needed care, double the rate reported by above-average-income U.S. adults with insurance. The U.S. lags behind many countries in access to primary care when sick. Only 57 percent of adults in the U.S. saw their doctor the same or next day when they were sick, compared with 70 percent of U.K. adults, 72 percent of Dutch adults, 78 percent of New Zealand adults, and 93 percent of Swiss adults. U.S. , German, and Swiss adults reported the most rapid access to specialists. Eighty percent of U.S. adults, 83 percent of German adults, and 82 percent of Swiss adults waited less than four weeks for a specialist appointment. U.K. (72%) and Dutch (70%) adults also reported prompt specialist access.
Let's just agree that the numbers reflect something that is not that great... ok?
Edited by The T - November 19 2010 at 13:28
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 19 2010 at 13:55 |
The T wrote:
^You're actually right. It just shows that people have less access to health care and have to pay much more for it... Good.
One-third (33%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 5 percent of adults in the United Kingdom and 6 percent in the Netherlands. One-fifth (20%) of U.S. adults had major problems paying medical bills, compared with 9 percent or less in all other countries. Thirty-one percent of U.S. adults reported spending a lot of time dealing with insurance paperwork, disputes, having a claim denied by their insurer, or receiving less payment than expected. Only 13 percent of adults in Switzerland, 20 percent in theNetherlands, and 23 percent in Germany—all countries with competitive insurance markets that allow consumers a choice of health plan—reported these concerns. The study found persistent and wide disparities by income within the U.S.—even for those with insurance coverage. Nearly half (46%) of working-age U.S. adults with below-average incomes who were insured all year went without needed care, double the rate reported by above-average-income U.S. adults with insurance. The U.S. lags behind many countries in access to primary care when sick. Only 57 percent of adults in the U.S. saw their doctor the same or next day when they were sick, compared with 70 percent of U.K. adults, 72 percent of Dutch adults, 78 percent of New Zealand adults, and 93 percent of Swiss adults. U.S. , German, and Swiss adults reported the most rapid access to specialists. Eighty percent of U.S. adults, 83 percent of German adults, and 82 percent of Swiss adults waited less than four weeks for a specialist appointment. U.K. (72%) and Dutch (70%) adults also reported prompt specialist access.
Let's just agree that the numbers reflect something that is not that great... ok?
|
No, let's not. - Well duh. We pay for our healthcare here. Much less is subsidized by the government. Why would we expect anything contrary with these numbers. Further, why are we assuming these are a good thing? Part of the problem we have is that people see doctors far too often. Anything, including seeking healthcare, must deal with the problem of scarcity and prices that arise due to it. I broke my toe a few years ago and wrapped it myself instead of going to a doctor. Whenever I get sick, I take care of myself rather than see a doctor for some antibiotics. Why? Because of costs. Not because I can't afford it, but rather because I value my money more than the service I would be trading it for. That blurb doesn't say anything besides that services cost money.
- Again, yes because we pay for our own health-care this should be expected. Other countries are struggling to pay for their healthcare also, but this is reflected by the massive government debt they're sustaining rather than individual expense. The article is making the tacit assumption that health spending is free when government pays for it.
- Seems a little strange I agree. Hardly something to strike the system down with though.
- People with more money get better healthcare. Just like people with more money get better cars and eat at better restaurants. What's the point.
- Yet again, when you pay for your own medical costs you have to deal with the issue of scarcity. You must weigh the benefits between seeing a doctor and paying the price. This is no different than deciding to go on vacation. You determine if it is worth your money. You shouldn't be seeing a doctor every time you're sick. This doesn't represent a flaw in the system. It just shows people making decisions with their money.
- Doesn't this stat show our healthcare system is comparatively performing well?
For the record, as i've stated many times before: Our system in this country is incredibly broken and needs to be fixed. You and I disagree completely on what those means should be to fix this problem, but we don't disagree on its existence or severity. I have a problem with this article not because I care to defend our health system. I don't defend it. I have a problem with the article because it doesn't say anything. It's just a moronic statement of statistics with no content. Journalists, politicians, anyone on a soap box mutter out some numbers that "support" their point. People are too stupid and innumerate to realize that most statistics say absolutely nothing.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: November 20 2010 at 08:30 |
|
OK my friends. The public is going nuts. You say you don't want pat-downs. We don't want scanners. We don't want profiling. We don't like the Israeli approach.
If we're against all of these things, then what would you propose? Be specific. Focus like a laser beam. What is YOUR idea for protecting the flying public from people carrying on bombs or weapons?
Or do you simply feel we should do nothing, and let everyone board a plane with no deterrent?
So today, Pat, Teo, MoM, anyone else who opposes what we're doing, you guys are have just taken your new job which is to protect the flying public, or you are working privately for the airline as their security liason.
What do we do?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 20 2010 at 08:41 |
Finnforest wrote:
OK my friends. The public is going nuts. You say you don't want pat-downs. We don't want scanners. We don't want profiling. We don't like the Israeli approach.
If we're against all of these things, then what would you propose? Be specific. Focus like a laser beam. What is YOUR idea for protecting the flying public from people carrying on bombs or weapons?
Or do you simply feel we should do nothing, and let everyone board a plane with no deterrent?
So today, Pat, Teo, MoM, anyone else who opposes what we're doing, you guys are have just taken your new job which is to protect the flying public, or you are working privately for the airline as their security liason.
What do we do?
|
First off you're asking an entrepreneurial question. I can't answer that. It is something whose details will be worked out on the market. To steal an argument from Block, suppose shoes were made solely (PUN GET IT) by the government. If I were proposing that shoes be made and sold on the free-market instead, for much the same reason I've mentioned in these TSA cases, you could start to ask questions like : What colors would shoes come in? Would shoe manufacturers also make socks? Would they have shoe laces or be slip-ons?
These are questions for the market to decide.
If you ask me personally, I think very little needs to be done. A metal detector if airports chose, though I support people carry guns onto planes. Other than a metal detector I don't see a need for anything. There's no reason to take your shoes off. No reason to have 8oz of toothpaste in a clear ziplock bag, no reason to get your genitals grabbed.
Access to the undercarriage of a plane is completely unguarded and people are worried about shoe bombers. It's ridiculous. The TSA doesn't keep you safe, nor it is intended to do so.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: November 20 2010 at 08:55 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
OK my friends. The public is going nuts. You say you don't want pat-downs. We don't want scanners. We don't want profiling. We don't like the Israeli approach.
If we're against all of these things, then what would you propose? Be specific. Focus like a laser beam. What is YOUR idea for protecting the flying public from people carrying on bombs or weapons?
Or do you simply feel we should do nothing, and let everyone board a plane with no deterrent?
So today, Pat, Teo, MoM, anyone else who opposes what we're doing, you guys are have just taken your new job which is to protect the flying public, or you are working privately for the airline as their security liason.
What do we do?
|
First off you're asking an entrepreneurial question. I can't answer that. It is something whose details will be worked out on the market. To steal an argument from Block, suppose shoes were made solely (PUN GET IT) by the government. If I were proposing that shoes be made and sold on the free-market instead, for much the same reason I've mentioned in these TSA cases, you could start to ask questions like : What colors would shoes come in? Would shoe manufacturers also make socks? Would they have shoe laces or be slip-ons?
These are questions for the market to decide.
If you ask me personally, I think very little needs to be done. A metal detector if airports chose, though I support people carry guns onto planes. Other than a metal detector I don't see a need for anything. There's no reason to take your shoes off. No reason to have 8oz of toothpaste in a clear ziplock bag, no reason to get your genitals grabbed.
Access to the undercarriage of a plane is completely unguarded and people are worried about shoe bombers. It's ridiculous. The TSA doesn't keep you safe, nor it is intended to do so. |
Being able to carry a gun on a plane is surely mental? If someone tried to take over the plane then they would have guns and all the other nutters would have guns. So when they all started firing - well you might be lucky - but you might not. Or you might just have nutters shooting up planes like they occasionally do in schools colleges etc. And just how big a gun would you allow? Machine guns ok?
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 20 2010 at 08:57 |
JJLehto wrote:
Sorry, people piss me off
|
Reminds me of a good line from Clerks: "I'd like this job if it only weren't for the customers."
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends