Total Posts:167|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republicans want people dead.

studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
My Spanish teacher is a heavy liberal Democrat who enjoys discussing politics. She is both ignorant, stubborn, and does not listen to other political parties or ideologies. One day in class, she stated that a large amount of people in West Palm Beach are unemployed, and that all Republicans want them dead. She said this with dead seriousness. Is this how liberals and Democrats on this site feel about Republicans? When I mentioned to her that TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment. I am telling you, I can't even staying in her class with her b.s. much longer. Although I'm a Moderate, I keep leaning to the Right hearing these stupid comments from liberals like her. Any thoughts?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:41:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your teacher does not speak for all "liberal" individuals. She has her opinion, and as stupid as it is, it doesn't represent the views of any others, just hers.

I'm a Liberal, both big-L and small-l. In terms of American politics, I'm not necessarily a Democrat or Republican. But in Canada, I'm a Liberal, and I despise Conservatives; but when I see Liberals or Conservatives say such stupid things about each other, things that actually have no basis in reality, I know it doesn't necessarily represent the views of all of us. Certainly not mine, and certainly not some Conservative supporters I know.

So when you hear someone say something like the Republicans want people dead, just remember that they don't represent a majority, or probably not even a good portion, of views that Democrats or liberals have.

As well; you shouldn't base how you feel towards either ideology or party based on what some extremists and ignorant people say. They don't have the same beliefs as you, so even if what they say seems reasonable, it might not match up for your belief.

Plus, lets remember; left or right, Democrat or Republican, they all say stupid things.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am a liberal but don't agree. I don't think Republicans want most people dead, I think they just don't care and put profits first.

If by TR you mean Theodore Roosevelt, I think you have him confused with "New Deal" Roosevelt, FDR -- FRANKLIN Roosevelt -- as the initiator of programs including Social Security and he tried to get universal health care through, but it took decades still just to get evil Medicare and Medicaid and make no mistake, Republicans were on the anti-Medicare and anti-Medicaid side.

A recent Harvard study found 45,000 people died in the United States in 2008 as a result of lack of preventive health care. That's more lives lost than the death tolls from 9-11, Katrina and fatalities among our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and it is going on year after year! The ONLY way to expand coverage so poor people, who can't afford premiums that are profitable for HMOs, is a "public option" of some sort. Don't bother with b.s. hogwash trying to delude yoursef into believing the Republicans in Congress (both House and Senate) support a Public Option, they are pretty unanimous that they want it completely off the table because its evil goverment takeover of medicine.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

And the fearmongering continues. Do I think the Republicans -want- 45,000 people to die each year as a result of their severe political neglect? No, they just don't care. Poor people don't count and don't matter ... health care is a "privilege" they keep repeating over and over. Those who, for whatever reason, can't afford it, don't deserve it. They repeat this over and over. The result of this bull$#!t is appalling!

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

If you were upset with the 1,000 lives lost due to ineptitude between local, state and federal officials at Katrina, shouldn't you be 45 times as upset at anyone who obstructs universal health care to put an end to 45,000 deaths per year???
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:46:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How many times does PervRat need to be rebutted about the 45,000 deaths per year? The argument failed numerous times the last time you were on this website, saying it over and over again does not help.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:48:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:46:08 PM, Nags wrote:
How many times does PervRat need to be rebutted about the 45,000 deaths per year? The argument failed numerous times the last time you were on this website, saying it over and over again does not help.

Why, is it wrong?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:43:41 PM, PervRat wrote:
I am a liberal but don't agree. I don't think Republicans want most people dead, I think they just don't care and put profits first.

If by TR you mean Theodore Roosevelt, I think you have him confused with "New Deal" Roosevelt, FDR -- FRANKLIN Roosevelt -- as the initiator of programs including Social Security and he tried to get universal health care through, but it took decades still just to get evil Medicare and Medicaid and make no mistake, Republicans were on the anti-Medicare and anti-Medicaid side.

A recent Harvard study found 45,000 people died in the United States in 2008 as a result of lack of preventive health care. That's more lives lost than the death tolls from 9-11, Katrina and fatalities among our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and it is going on year after year! The ONLY way to expand coverage so poor people, who can't afford premiums that are profitable for HMOs, is a "public option" of some sort.
Option #2: abolish the AMA and the FDA, and watch health-care costs plummet.
Don't bother with b.s. hogwash trying to delude yoursef into believing the Republicans in Congress (both House and Senate) support a Public Option, they are pretty unanimous that they want it completely off the table because its evil goverment takeover of medicine.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

And the fearmongering continues. Do I think the Republicans -want- 45,000 people to die each year as a result of their severe political neglect? No, they just don't care. Poor people don't count and don't matter ... health care is a "privilege" they keep repeating over and over. Those who, for whatever reason, can't afford it, don't deserve it. They repeat this over and over. The result of this bull$#!t is appalling!

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

If you were upset with the 1,000 lives lost due to ineptitude between local, state and federal officials at Katrina, shouldn't you be 45 times as upset at anyone who obstructs universal health care to put an end to 45,000 deaths per year???

Proof by repitition?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:48:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:46:08 PM, Nags wrote:
How many times does PervRat need to be rebutted about the 45,000 deaths per year? The argument failed numerous times the last time you were on this website, saying it over and over again does not help.

Why, is it wrong?

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:11:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:52:14 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:48:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:46:08 PM, Nags wrote:
How many times does PervRat need to be rebutted about the 45,000 deaths per year? The argument failed numerous times the last time you were on this website, saying it over and over again does not help.

Why, is it wrong?

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

It most certainly was not.

You claimed 18,000 was insignificant, even though that amount places it among the leading causes of death.

I found a revised number from 2006: 22,000 died that year.

And the 45,000 number is new one I did not present last time that comes from a Harvard Medical School study. That puts it pretty close to the number of traffic deaths in the U.S. per year, which is very significant.

45,000 is the number of people who died in 2008 and lacked medical insurance, according to the Harvard School of Medicine, from causes that statistically speaking would not have occurred among those who had medical coverage because those with medical coverage have regular access to medicine that can catch problems early.

To dismiss such a large number of deaths so readily proves my point: Republicans do not care how many innocent people are killed by their policies. 1 MILLION Americans could die every year and it would not be statistically significant, it would be less than one-third of one-percent of the population!

How many deaths from political neglect are acceptable to you? When does it transition to "Gee, maybe the country should act to stop the needless deaths of innocent people?"

If a small city in the U.S. was nuked by a foreign country and 45,000 people died, by your logic it would not be worth retaliating for since 45,000 is a statistically insigificant number of people

This is absolutely atrocious and immoral. You are reckless with lives and might as well go out and kill 45,000 people yourself. Its not statistically significant, so who even has a right to care about it if you did?

Listen to your effing self once in awhile and how callous you are to mass manslaughter!
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:19:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:43:41 PM, PervRat wrote:
I am a liberal but don't agree. I don't think Republicans want most people dead, I think they just don't care and put profits first.

If by TR you mean Theodore Roosevelt, I think you have him confused with "New Deal" Roosevelt, FDR -- FRANKLIN Roosevelt -- as the initiator of programs including Social Security and he tried to get universal health care through, but it took decades still just to get evil Medicare and Medicaid and make no mistake, Republicans were on the anti-Medicare and anti-Medicaid side.

A recent Harvard study found 45,000 people died in the United States in 2008 as a result of lack of preventive health care. That's more lives lost than the death tolls from 9-11, Katrina and fatalities among our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and it is going on year after year! The ONLY way to expand coverage so poor people, who can't afford premiums that are profitable for HMOs, is a "public option" of some sort. Don't bother with b.s. hogwash trying to delude yoursef into believing the Republicans in Congress (both House and Senate) support a Public Option, they are pretty unanimous that they want it completely off the table because its evil goverment takeover of medicine.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

And the fearmongering continues. Do I think the Republicans -want- 45,000 people to die each year as a result of their severe political neglect? No, they just don't care. Poor people don't count and don't matter ... health care is a "privilege" they keep repeating over and over. Those who, for whatever reason, can't afford it, don't deserve it. They repeat this over and over. The result of this bull$#!t is appalling!

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

45,000 dead per year.

If you were upset with the 1,000 lives lost due to ineptitude between local, state and federal officials at Katrina, shouldn't you be 45 times as upset at anyone who obstructs universal health care to put an end to 45,000 deaths per year???

Dude, I mean Teddy, not FDR. FDR's New Deal was based off TR's Square Deal. Although I do not agree with all the reforms and systems of social progressivism, it still essentially began with a Republican. I'm just getting really pissed off because I really want to stay Moderate, but my teacher is so obnoxious it's hard to ignore her bias. But, I continue to try. wjm, are you learning about rates of change?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:11:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
You claimed 18,000 was insignificant, even though that amount places it among the leading causes of death.

I found a revised number from 2006: 22,000 died that year.

And the 45,000 number is new one I did not present last time that comes from a Harvard Medical School study. That puts it pretty close to the number of traffic deaths in the U.S. per year, which is very significant.

So, using your logic, no cars should be allowed on the road. Less deaths.

45,000 is the number of people who died in 2008 and lacked medical insurance, according to the Harvard School of Medicine, from causes that statistically speaking would not have occurred among those who had medical coverage because those with medical coverage have regular access to medicine that can catch problems early.

To dismiss such a large number of deaths so readily proves my point: Republicans do not care how many innocent people are killed by their policies. 1 MILLION Americans could die every year and it would not be statistically significant, it would be less than one-third of one-percent of the population!

How many deaths from political neglect are acceptable to you? When does it transition to "Gee, maybe the country should act to stop the needless deaths of innocent people?"

Nothing so far...

If a small city in the U.S. was nuked by a foreign country and 45,000 people died, by your logic it would not be worth retaliating for since 45,000 is a statistically insigificant number of people

Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

This is absolutely atrocious and immoral. You are reckless with lives and might as well go out and kill 45,000 people yourself. Its not statistically significant, so who even has a right to care about it if you did?

Listen to your effing self once in awhile and how callous you are to mass manslaughter!

Right, so what I got out of that gibberish was numerous ad hominems and straw men. Basically, though, you think several million people should subsidize several million people at the cost of $1 trillion/year. Ok, if that's your argument, I have nothing else to say.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
My Spanish teacher is a heavy liberal Democrat who enjoys discussing politics. She is both ignorant, stubborn, and does not listen to other political parties or ideologies. One day in class, she stated that a large amount of people in West Palm Beach are unemployed, and that all Republicans want them dead. She said this with dead seriousness. Is this how liberals and Democrats on this site feel about Republicans?

Yes. And how republicans feel about democrats.

People are morons and treat politics like it's a strange mix of religion and football. Perfectly normal.

When I mentioned to her that TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment.

Yup.

I am telling you, I can't even staying in her class with her b.s. much longer. Although I'm a Moderate, I keep leaning to the Right hearing these stupid comments from liberals like her. Any thoughts?

No. Get used to it. Don't do it yourself, and struggle hard not to become more right just because people on the left are stupid. Because people on the right are stupid to.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 11:24:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
My Spanish teacher is a heavy liberal Democrat who enjoys discussing politics. She is both ignorant, stubborn, and does not listen to other political parties or ideologies. One day in class, she stated that a large amount of people in West Palm Beach are unemployed, and that all Republicans want them dead. She said this with dead seriousness. Is this how liberals and Democrats on this site feel about Republicans? When I mentioned to her that TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment. I am telling you, I can't even staying in her class with her b.s. much longer. Although I'm a Moderate, I keep leaning to the Right hearing these stupid comments from liberals like her. Any thoughts?

I think you hold the proper stance for what you believe in.

Moderate!

I know it is hard to stick around with someone you completely disagree with. You do not want to be indoctrinated, but you are too smart for that.
It will only bring you stronger to questioning what you really believe in. In normal circumstances i would advise that you transfer, but i think you have a good head on your shoulders, and these are the instances that shape you as a person.

You have the innate quality that makes you a real American, Questioning what people say, and not allowing yourself to be influenced with out logical questioning is what I see you do in this structured website.

I consider myself a true conservative, but I am always open to listening to anyone, b/c I know where I am grounded… that's how I get through it.

Good luck!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 2:05:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
My Spanish teacher is a heavy liberal Democrat who enjoys discussing politics. She is both ignorant, stubborn, and does not listen to other political parties or ideologies. One day in class, she stated that a large amount of people in West Palm Beach are unemployed, and that all Republicans want them dead. She said this with dead seriousness. Is this how liberals and Democrats on this site feel about Republicans? When I mentioned to her that TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment. I am telling you, I can't even staying in her class with her b.s. much longer. Although I'm a Moderate, I keep leaning to the Right hearing these stupid comments from liberals like her. Any thoughts?

"I'll show you politics in America right here. 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" - Bill Hicks

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 3:12:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 2:05:49 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
My Spanish teacher is a heavy liberal Democrat who enjoys discussing politics. She is both ignorant, stubborn, and does not listen to other political parties or ideologies. One day in class, she stated that a large amount of people in West Palm Beach are unemployed, and that all Republicans want them dead. She said this with dead seriousness. Is this how liberals and Democrats on this site feel about Republicans? When I mentioned to her that TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment. I am telling you, I can't even staying in her class with her b.s. much longer. Although I'm a Moderate, I keep leaning to the Right hearing these stupid comments from liberals like her. Any thoughts?

"I'll show you politics in America right here. 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" - Bill Hicks

.

Ooh! Lovely! More conspiracy theories! Bring it Oohn!!
So prove me wrong, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.

First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy. Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world. If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:32:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.

First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy. Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world. If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

The U.S. have sufficient warheads. If they used the majority of the money they spend on Nuclear weapons on a Public option and only built nuclear weapons to flex muscles\ upgrade defence, then the U.S. is protected AND has proper healthcare
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:39:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy.

Irrelevant. He was making a point that nearly 45,000 people die a year from the lack of health care coverage, which he claims you say is insignificant. He then stated that if a nuclear weapon was dropped on a small town of comparable size, you should also not care, due to it being an insignificant number. It is an easy question, and it doesn't matter if they deal in two different areas of thought - he is addressing the concerns of the number, not the action.

Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world.

Also irrelevant. It is a hypothetical situation based on the number, not the finer details of the action.

If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

You're clearly trying to deflect it, Nags. All he has proposed that if 45,000 people dying is an insignificant number in relation to deaths from lack of health care coverage, would you feel different if the same number died in a different manner? It doesn't matter what the manner is; the point is that it is the same number of people, and to care more about people dying in one situation as compared to another, is blatantly hypocritical.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:42:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:32:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.

First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy. Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world. If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

The U.S. have sufficient warheads. If they used the majority of the money they spend on Nuclear weapons on a Public option and only built nuclear weapons to flex muscles\ upgrade defence, then the U.S. is protected AND has proper healthcare

Straw man. I support a drastic spending decrease, which also includes a drastic decrease in the budget. Also, the US doesn't spend enough money on nuclear weapons to transfer the spending to public option, not even close. Also, public options have led to massive fails - notably in Canada and Europe and everywhere else. Worse medical treatment + Higher Taxes + Higher Spending = Fail.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:44:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:42:15 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:32:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.

First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy. Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world. If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

The U.S. have sufficient warheads. If they used the majority of the money they spend on Nuclear weapons on a Public option and only built nuclear weapons to flex muscles\ upgrade defence, then the U.S. is protected AND has proper healthcare

Straw man. I support a drastic spending decrease, which also includes a drastic decrease in the budget. Also, the US doesn't spend enough money on nuclear weapons to transfer the spending to public option, not even close. Also, public options have led to massive fails - notably in Canada and Europe and everywhere else. Worse medical treatment + Higher Taxes + Higher Spending = Fail.

Sweden.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:48:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 7:34:39 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
TR, a Republican, inititated many of the social healthcare and reform systems that she advocates today, she completely ignored my comment.

Probably because it's a bad one.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:48:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:39:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy.

Irrelevant. He was making a point that nearly 45,000 people die a year from the lack of health care coverage, which he claims you say is insignificant. He then stated that if a nuclear weapon was dropped on a small town of comparable size, you should also not care, due to it being an insignificant number. It is an easy question, and it doesn't matter if they deal in two different areas of thought - he is addressing the concerns of the number, not the action.

Ok? What's your point? I was just pointing out the obvious.

Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world.

Also irrelevant. It is a hypothetical situation based on the number, not the finer details of the action.

If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

You're clearly trying to deflect it, Nags. All he has proposed that if 45,000 people dying is an insignificant number in relation to deaths from lack of health care coverage, would you feel different if the same number died in a different manner? It doesn't matter what the manner is; the point is that it is the same number of people, and to care more about people dying in one situation as compared to another, is blatantly hypocritical.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm not deflecting anything. I'm not answering a question to an unrealistic theoretical.

But, let me try to answer your more concise question:
"All he has proposed that if 45,000 people dying is an insignificant number in relation to deaths from lack of health care coverage, would you feel different if the same number died in a different manner?"

Yes, I would feel different. If 45,000 people are killed at the same second versus 45,000 dieing throughout 31,556,926 seconds (1 year) it is pretty anyone would feel differently. But, no I wouldn't support spending at ~$1 trillion per year with drastically higher taxes just because 45,000 people died -- no matter which way they died.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:49:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:42:15 PM, Nags wrote:
Also, public options have led to massive fails - notably in Canada and Europe and everywhere else. Worse medical treatment + Higher Taxes + Higher Spending = Fail.

??

So that is the reason why Canada has a higher life expectancy, better satisfaction with medical care, and a stronger, more stable economy that is actually starting to get out of recession, while the US is still puttering away like a leaky motorboat?

Ah, yes, Canada, with our "worst" medical treatment, higher taxes (I forgot to mention that Canadians make more money on average than Americans, despite our higher taxes), and our stable social spending that has huge support and no political party can expect to openly say they'll cut upon risk of disembowlment is "fail."

Something doesn't connect here.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:50:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:48:42 PM, Nags wrote:
Yes, I would feel different. If 45,000 people are killed at the same second versus 45,000 dieing throughout 31,556,926 seconds (1 year) it is pretty anyone would feel differently. But, no I wouldn't support spending at ~$1 trillion per year with drastically higher taxes just because 45,000 people died -- no matter which way they died.

Well, that is very irresponsible of you, in my opinion. Clearly, human life isn't important.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:50:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The bill for some of the above things, such as Future Combat Systems and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle could be cut and funded towards something better. America would save roughly 5 billion. Enough to save the lives of 45000?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:52:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:44:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:42:15 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:32:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:38:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/28/2009 8:25:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Theoretical. If a country were to nuke us, it wouldn't nuke a small city. Also, a nuke would kill more than 45,000 people.

I have to say, that was a complete an very obvious deflection Nags. I'd be interested in seeing you actually answer the question.

First off, this theoretical has nothing to do with health care - but is about foreign policy. Also, I'll say it again - Theoretical. Nukes kill more than 45,000 people. Countries don't nuke small cities of the most powerful country in the world. If you gave me a realistic theoretical, I can give an answer; until then, I shall withhold my judgement. Give me an actual city or area with an actual population with the name of the country who is doing the nuking -- so the theoretical is legitimate.

The U.S. have sufficient warheads. If they used the majority of the money they spend on Nuclear weapons on a Public option and only built nuclear weapons to flex muscles\ upgrade defence, then the U.S. is protected AND has proper healthcare

Straw man. I support a drastic spending decrease, which also includes a drastic decrease in the budget. Also, the US doesn't spend enough money on nuclear weapons to transfer the spending to public option, not even close. Also, public options have led to massive fails - notably in Canada and Europe and everywhere else. Worse medical treatment + Higher Taxes + Higher Spending = Fail.

Sweden.

Sweden = fail. See: http://www.nationalcenter.org....

Single-payer has been demonstrated to be fail numerous times. Also, way to point out only 1 country who you thought had successful health care! NHC sure is successful!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:55:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:49:10 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/29/2009 1:42:15 PM, Nags wrote:
Also, public options have led to massive fails - notably in Canada and Europe and everywhere else. Worse medical treatment + Higher Taxes + Higher Spending = Fail.

??

So that is the reason why Canada has a higher life expectancy, better satisfaction with medical care, and a stronger, more stable economy that is actually starting to get out of recession, while the US is still puttering away like a leaky motorboat?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Ah, yes, Canada, with our "worst" medical treatment, higher taxes (I forgot to mention that Canadians make more money on average than Americans, despite our higher taxes), and our stable social spending that has huge support and no political party can expect to openly say they'll cut upon risk of disembowlment is "fail."

Something doesn't connect here.

. . .
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:52:33 PM, Nags wrote:
Single-payer has been demonstrated to be fail numerous times. Also, way to point out only 1 country who you thought had successful health care! NHC sure is successful!

Is the American system really that successful? I mean, you really don't find anything wrong with the US health care system? Nothing?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:59:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 1:50:31 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The bill for some of the above things, such as Future Combat Systems and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle could be cut and funded towards something better. America would save roughly 5 billion. Enough to save the lives of 45000?

No. Because the gov't obviously doesn't know which people will die, so they would have to cover everyone. Leads to public option.....

Also: More than 17,000 people receiving treatment in the UK have died unnecessarily because of the inadequacies of the NHS...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

The population of the UK is ~60 million. 17,000 people die from NHS.
The population of the USA is ~305 million. 45,000 people die from no public option.
^^^Do the math.^^^