Jump to content

Who would you like to see win the Republican and Democratic nominations?


gatorclaws

Recommended Posts

He's not right, he's a fucking clown. Slavery? For upholding the Hippocratic oath that you agreed to when you decided to become a Doctor?
 
Maybe you should read the Hippocratic oath, because there is nothing in it saying "but only if they can afford it"
 


Are you saying doctor's shouldn't be paid for what they do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying doctor's shouldn't be paid for what they do?


Im saying they took an oath to treat people regardless of ability to pay and that our system needs to figure out the most efficient way for thay to happen while having the docs still be compensated.

Are you suggesting that I person if they cannot afford medical treatment should not get it? Would you have a person die if it came down to that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying doctor's shouldn't be paid for what they do?


Yes, basically that's the gist of it.

A soldier fighting for your rights shouldn't be paid either by the same reasoning or police or anybody that provides a service to the citizens of this wonderful nation... 1/4 :ninja:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We pay taxes for our services


Can we honestly pay for all these " services " with the current tax rate ?

Do we continue to pay for the services of those who don't pay taxes ?

Where's the incentive to get out and maintain a job ? Somewhere along the lines someone seemed to think these programs were something more than a temporary fix for those in real need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No which is why Exxon shouldn't be getting subsidies, why tax havens shouldnt exist. Why in order to actually create jobs Reganomics should be abandoned in favor of a higher minimum wage so people arent on these programs when they are working. This myth of the welfare mom needs to die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Isnt this essentially what the Occupy Wall Street wanted to do?

I believe that some of the people involved with Occupy wanted to build a movement, at least at first. But Occupy has failed as a movement, hasn't it? So the question is why?

 

I have not looked closely into Occupy as a movement, but I have a few suspicions as to why it failed to become a significant player in policy shaping. When Occupy first blossomed I did check out the local iteration here in Lexington. And while there were a few "regular" citizens concerned enough to also have some (at least initial) interest, it was mostly composed of the "usual suspects." And by that I mean it was another "event" for the activist lefties (including the drum-banging assholes) to gather. And the key problem with the hard-core lefties is this, imo: They hold a protest and call it a movement. Another inhibiting factor is the manner in which policy/activities get determined. The hard core folks refuse to compromise on any of their beliefs even if they are sometimes empty shibboleths. And the lack of willingness to compromise not only means that it takes forever to get anything in motion, but it also usually means that it pushes to more moderate folks out.

 

Get a copy of Goodwyn's book and compare his description of how the populist agricultural orgs went about doing things to a more serious look at Occupy. I would be interested in your findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul's statement isn't the wildest bit of exposition ever spoken by a Senator in a committee hearing, but it is a pretty nice bit of bombast. Parse out what is going on here. Sanders wants to claim that health care is a human right. That's his context and is worthy of discussion in it's own right. Put that to the side for a moment. Paul responds obliquely to that context and then veers off into a rant about slavery.

 

Slavery? Aside from the fact that this is an amazingly tone deaf thing to say--it's incredibly insulting to those among our ancestors who actually were slaves--just what does he mean? Does he mean chattel slavery? Is he suggesting that being a doctor is the equivalent of being a personal and movable piece of property? A thing that is not even granted the legal status of a human being but is instead just an alienable bit of stuff? And make no mistake, that is precisely what the legal status of actual slavery was in this nation at one time. Just ask Dred Scott. But, okay, let's give Paul the benefit of doubt here and stipulate that is not what he means by slavery.

 

Let's allow that his statement is a bit of rhetorical hardball trying to make a point. Perhaps he is claiming that being a doctor is the equivalent of being what some folks describe as a wage-slave. Certainly the janitor he mentions fits into that kind of category. It is pretty much a certainty that that janitor's wage has not kept up with inflation these past 40 years, nor is he guarenteed to even have collective bargaining rights and if that is so, then it's the poor solitary janitor working in an at-will job which means he can be let go at any time, for any reason, by virtue of the law as it now stands. Some people describe those conditions as crucial elements of wage slavery.

 

So, is Paul saying that somehow doctors are to be treated differently, legally, than a janitor? That it's okay for a janitor to be subject to a set of legal conditions that the doctor ought not be be subject to? I mean, hell, if the janitor doesn't like the legal conditions under which he or she is required to sell their labor, then they can take a hike. Right? Where did those legal conditions arise from? Would it be the relevant governing bodies of any of a set of jurisdictions? It would, wouldn't it? In other words, employment in this country operates within a set of parameters which are established by our representatives of one kind or another.

 

So, if our representatives changed some of the legal conditions of related to the employment of doctors, then is it slavery? Supposing that those conditions were changed to make them similar to what the janitor and pretty much every working stiff in the country is now currently subject to, then would it be fair to claim that this is slavery? I mean, couldn't the doctor just walk if he didn't like the conditions? It's not like a slave could have done that 160 years ago. There was a whole set of legal strictures that applied to runaway slaves and their return to their "rightful owners" back then.

 

Paul is calling it slavery because it may be that doctors will be subject to a different set of laws and working conditions than they are currently working under. His view of liberty is such that he sees such potential changes as coercion. Where he sees force and threats to his liberty, others see a more level playing field established by their lawfully elected representatives. But the bottom line is this: if it isn't actual slavery and merely a form of wage-slavery, then he or any other doctor could walk--and that would remove the element of extreme coercion from the equation. Let him adopt another profession if he chooses. He could become a janitor, for instance.

 

Are you saying doctor's shouldn't be paid for what they do?

 

Of course. How and what they get paid is part of the process. Medicaid/Medicare do this already. So, in fact does the market, if by market one includes the payment schedules established by insurance companies--including what they will and will not cover.

 

Yes, basically that's the gist of it.

A soldier fighting for your rights shouldn't be paid either by the same reasoning or police or anybody that provides a service to the citizens of this wonderful nation... 1/4 :ninja:

 

See the above...

 

Can we honestly pay for all these " services " with the current tax rate ?

Do we continue to pay for the services of those who don't pay taxes ?

Where's the incentive to get out and maintain a job ? Somewhere along the lines someone seemed to think these programs were something more than a temporary fix for those in real need.

Yes, our society can pay for this. It is a matter or arranging priorities. There would have to be some tax reform, too, but simply changing some of our current budgetary allocations will help move the ball down the field.

 

If health care is a human right, then your second question is moot? Furthermore, every one in this nations pays taxes in one fashion or another--even if it is only a regressive sales tax.

 

Did you become a lazy squid and do your job half-ass because your health care was paid for? Of course not. One thing we need to do in this country is to stop thinking of poor people as morally deficient or laden with character flaws. It serves no purpose and only muddies the water. Especially now because so many people under financial pressure are working class and middle class through no fault of their own. The system has simply been skewed against them for the past number of decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im saying they took an oath to treat people regardless of ability to pay and that our system needs to figure out the most efficient way for thay to happen while having the docs still be compensated.

Are you suggesting that I person if they cannot afford medical treatment should not get it? Would you have a person die if it came down to that?


That's not what happens. Doctors treat patients regardless of their ability to pay every day. Hospitals provide millions in uncompensated care every year. Many doctors, nurses, therapists etc., volunteer their time at free medical clinics daily. No one is going to let someone die due to inability to pay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Warren running:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/06/02/racing-teddy-helps-a-man-propose-and-plans-to-stick-around-for-the-wedding/
 

Today we announce the suspension of our campaign to draft Elizabeth Warren into the presidential race. There’s no sugar-coating it: We didn’t achieve our central goal. But there’s a bigger story that gives us tremendous hope: as one headline put it, “Elizabeth Warren may not be running, but she’s in the 2016 race anyway.”

 

In the six months since we launched the Run Warren Run effort, Senator Warren’s agenda and message have transformed the American political landscape. Echoing Warren’s famous adage that “the game is rigged,” Hillary Clinton declared in her campaign announcement that “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” Bernie Sanders emerged out of the gate as a far stronger contender than political bookmakers could have imagined just a few months ago. And Martin O’Malley launched his campaign on Saturday calling for the breaking up of big banks and jailing of Wall Street crooks. Even some Republicans are positioning themselves to run against inequality (although their proposals would exacerbate it).

 

To be sure, Warren—and grassroots economic populism more broadly—was already a rising force well before our efforts began. But look closely at the way the Run Warren Run effort unfolded, and you’ll see why, for us and for the 365,000 people who signed up, this campaign has already succeeded. Although Run Warren Run may not have sparked a candidacy, it ignited a movement.


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul's statement isn't the wildest bit of exposition ever spoken by a Senator in a committee hearing, but it is a pretty nice bit of bombast. Parse out what is going on here. Sanders wants to claim that health care is a human right. That's his context and is worthy of discussion in it's own right. Put that to the side for a moment. Paul responds obliquely to that context and then veers off into a rant about slavery.
 
Slavery? Aside from the fact that this is an amazingly tone deaf thing to say--it's incredibly insulting to those among our ancestors who actually were slaves--just what does he mean? Does he mean chattel slavery? Is he suggesting that being a doctor is the equivalent of being a personal and movable piece of property? A thing that is not even granted the legal status of a human being but is instead just an alienable bit of stuff? And make no mistake, that is precisely what the legal status of actual slavery was in this nation at one time. Just ask Dred Scott. But, okay, let's give Paul the benefit of doubt here and stipulate that is not what he means by slavery.
 
Let's allow that his statement is a bit of rhetorical hardball trying to make a point. Perhaps he is claiming that being a doctor is the equivalent of being what some folks describe as a wage-slave. Certainly the janitor he mentions fits into that kind of category. It is pretty much a certainty that that janitor's wage has not kept up with inflation these past 40 years, nor is he guarenteed to even have collective bargaining rights and if that is so, then it's the poor solitary janitor working in an at-will job which means he can be let go at any time, for any reason, by virtue of the law as it now stands. Some people describe those conditions as crucial elements of wage slavery.
 
So, is Paul saying that somehow doctors are to be treated differently, legally, than a janitor? That it's okay for a janitor to be subject to a set of legal conditions that the doctor ought not be be subject to? I mean, hell, if the janitor doesn't like the legal conditions under which he or she is required to sell their labor, then they can take a hike. Right? Where did those legal conditions arise from? Would it be the relevant governing bodies of any of a set of jurisdictions? It would, wouldn't it? In other words, employment in this country operates within a set of parameters which are established by our representatives of one kind or another.
 
So, if our representatives changed some of the legal conditions of related to the employment of doctors, then is it slavery? Supposing that those conditions were changed to make them similar to what the janitor and pretty much every working stiff in the country is now currently subject to, then would it be fair to claim that this is slavery? I mean, couldn't the doctor just walk if he didn't like the conditions? It's not like a slave could have done that 160 years ago. There was a whole set of legal strictures that applied to runaway slaves and their return to their "rightful owners" back then.
 
Paul is calling it slavery because it may be that doctors will be subject to a different set of laws and working conditions than they are currently working under. His view of liberty is such that he sees such potential changes as coercion. Where he sees force and threats to his liberty, others see a more level playing field established by their lawfully elected representatives. But the bottom line is this: if it isn't actual slavery and merely a form of wage-slavery, then he or any other doctor could walk--and that would remove the element of extreme coercion from the equation. Let him adopt another profession if he chooses. He could become a janitor, for instance.
 
 
Of course. How and what they get paid is part of the process. Medicaid/Medicare do this already. So, in fact does the market, if by market one includes the payment schedules established by insurance companies--including what they will and will not cover.
 
 
See the above...
 
Yes, our society can pay for this. It is a matter or arranging priorities. There would have to be some tax reform, too, but simply changing some of our current budgetary allocations will help move the ball down the field.
 
If health care is a human right, then your second question is moot? Furthermore, every one in this nations pays taxes in one fashion or another--even if it is only a regressive sales tax.
 
Did you become a lazy squid and do your job half-ass because your health care was paid for? Of course not. One thing we need to do in this country is to stop thinking of poor people as morally deficient or laden with character flaws. It serves no purpose and only muddies the water. Especially now because so many people under financial pressure are working class and middle class through no fault of their own. The system has simply been skewed against them for the past number of decades.


The expansion upon this subject by you is to be commended.

I don't hate poor people. I want legitimate citizens to receive care until they can get back on their feet. I do talk and see these unfortunate people every single day. What I would be calling for is, a re-evaluation of those citizens currently receiving benefits and also of those not on benefits. Taking away those who would milk the system would allow for a broader support of those in need. I'm for health care system, ...benefits system, etc... but not at the expense of excluding those who do need help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell libertarian/tea party is all about the belief that laws are for other people & not allowing me to do whatever I want is tyranny.

 

It's the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, at least from what I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell libertarian/tea party is all about the belief that laws are for other people & not allowing me to do whatever I want is tyranny.

 

It's the political equivalent of a temper tantrum, at least from what I've seen.

 

 

Best as I can tell it's mostly a desire to not pay taxes and blame the issues in our economy on the poor segment while ignoring the rich part, whether thats because they dont understand how the rich rip them off or whether its they believe the nonsense about trickledown varies from user to user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They tell me @SenSanders can't win b/c America won't vote for a Socialist Jew. I tell them America celebrates a Socialist Jew every Dec 25.

 

 

 

PS - I don't actually think Jesus was a Socialist - I think if he came back today his loudest fans would start calling him Socialist.

52 retweets 98 favorites
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You muttered matter when you meant mater. Also, fuck GMU. :D

 

 

This guy argues against some of what I said the other day. He's a loser, Baby.

 

These are fine positions to take, but what Bernie isn’t about to tell you is that in order to radically alter the system in favor of workers, the Democrats must be abandoned altogether — for it’s their neoliberal policies, from Bill Clinton on down, that exacerbated the sell-out of the American workforce... .

...Progressives would be better off working to reinvigorate the antiwar movement and Occupy than spending time and money on Bernie’s hollow campaign.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

PS - I don't actually think Jesus was a Socialist - I think if he came back today his loudest fans would start calling him Socialist.

52 retweets 98 favorites
 

 

 

 

 

Glad he cleared that up - heaven forbid anyone be called a *gasp* socialist!

 

 

Why is socialism so terrible exactly?  I must have missed that part.  Seems we're ok with it when a huge corporation is faced with bankruptcy, but somehow less so if it means a choice between that same corporation's CEO's 3rd Lambo or free lunches for elementary school kids.

 

New rule:  Not allowed to call someone a socialist unless you can explain what socialism is without saying "Russia".

 

 

It's just a new scary label for conservatives because "liberal" started sounding pretty good compared to their bible-dumb constituency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You muttered matter when you meant mater. Also, fuck GMU. :D

 

 

This guy argues against some of what I said the other day. He's a loser, Baby.

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

Sadly Mason hasn't been able to turn that final 4 appearance into much of anything, new coach this year though and the Patriot Center (our arena) sold out and gave naming rights to Eagle Bank. Maybe that will help with recruiting. I hate they sold out though. Ironically loosely tied to Neoliberalism. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Glad he cleared that up - heaven forbid anyone be called a *gasp* socialist!

 

 

Why is socialism so terrible exactly?  I must have missed that part.  Seems we're ok with it when a huge corporation is faced with bankruptcy, but somehow less so if it means a choice between that same corporation's CEO's 3rd Lambo or free lunches for elementary school kids.

 

New rule:  Not allowed to call someone a socialist unless you can explain what socialism is without saying "Russia".

 

 

It's just a new scary label for conservatives because "liberal" started sounding pretty good compared to their bible-dumb constituency.

 

 

Backer you seem to want to try to tie me down to socialism, so I'm interested in your opinion on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Glad he cleared that up - heaven forbid anyone be called a *gasp* socialist!

 

 

Why is socialism so terrible exactly?  I must have missed that part.  Seems we're ok with it when a huge corporation is faced with bankruptcy, but somehow less so if it means a choice between that same corporation's CEO's 3rd Lambo or free lunches for elementary school kids.

 

New rule:  Not allowed to call someone a socialist unless you can explain what socialism is without saying "Russia".

 

 

It's just a new scary label for conservatives because "liberal" started sounding pretty good compared to their bible-dumb constituency.

 

Those who bleat the loudest about Socialism actually fear Communism, have nary a clue what either word really means, and are oblivious to fact that they are living in a soft fascist state.

 

"Socialism" has replaced "Liberal" as the word that = "Anything with which I disagree"...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...