Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 440 (611265)
04-06-2011 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 8:28 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
society's interest in protecting children.
Society has no interest in 'protecting children'; the interest is in creating good citizens, whether that means protecting the kiddies or not.
I don't see any particular problem of ambiguity for the term "harm"; if there were, both criminal and civil justice would be completely impossible.
The meanings used in criminal cases seem to have no applicability to the rights of parents to teach their children what they want to teach them.
Perhaps you can show how it is harmful for a parent to tell his kids that 'niggers are the devil' in the same way it is harmful to beat someone with a baseball bat.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:44 PM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 440 (611266)
04-06-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Rahvin
04-06-2011 7:48 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Canada is a completely different country, crash
I'm aware, but we're speaking of general legal principles, not specific US law. And as I've shown US law is hardly unique in this regard.
I was.
You never said that you were.
The mother was granted custody because the judge determined that arrangement to be "in the best interest of the child."
Right. And the sense in which the father's custody was viewed as not being in the "best interest of the child" was that he was a vulgar racist.
It's not a matter of freedom of religion, it's not a matter of free speech
It's never been a matter of freedom of religion or free speech, that's been my point throughout. It's a matter of children not being chattel property, and therefore having human rights.
The parents were both seriously physically and mentally disabled.
No, that was not the finding of the court. The finding of the court was that the parents recklessly disregarded the best interests of the children by, among other things, naming them after Nazi leaders.
The parents did not lose custody on the basis of mental defect; they lost custody on the basis of exposing their children to harm as a result of their racist ideology. That's made absolutely plain in the material you yourself quoted.
It was interesting. Maybe you should have read it first? I mean, here's the part you quoted that proves me right:
quote:
He teaches my son how to kill someone at the age of 3," the letter read in part.
Ideology - teaching, in other words - was the basis for the loss of custodial rights.
Which defeats your own point, crash.
No, it doesn't. As I said, the court did not reject the argument that inculcation into racist ideology was demonstratively harmful to the children; they merely determined that it was not as harmful as physical abuse and alcoholism.
let's just say you haven't made me change my mind.
It hardly speaks well of you to announce that you're rejecting evidence you've not even considered or read, yet. Is there somebody I can speak to over there who isn't an ideologue, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Rahvin, posted 04-06-2011 7:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Rahvin, posted 04-07-2011 11:50 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 228 of 440 (611268)
04-06-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Jon
04-06-2011 8:38 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Society has no interest in 'protecting children'; the interest is in creating good citizens, whether that means protecting the kiddies or not.
Obviously, protecting children - who, after all, are citizens - is a part of that program. Regardless, it was in Goss vs. Lopez where the courts explicitly affirmed a controlling legal interest in the protection and welfare of children. In re Gault was the case where courts explicitly rejected the argument that children are chattel custodial property of their parents and thus entitled to no rights of their own. In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that children are persons under the Constitution and therefore entitled to Constitutional rights.
Perhaps you can show how it is harmful for a parent to tell his kids that 'niggers are the devil' in the same way it is harmful to beat someone with a baseball bat.
It's a function of mental and emotional abuse, since the harm is mental and emotional. How you choose to equate mental and physical harm is up to you.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 8:38 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 231 by arachnophilia, posted 04-06-2011 9:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 440 (611273)
04-06-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 8:44 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
It's a function of mental and emotional abuse, since the harm is mental and emotional. How you choose to equate mental and physical harm is up to you.
How is it mentally harmful? How is it emotionally abusive?

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 9:06 PM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 230 of 440 (611275)
04-06-2011 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Jon
04-06-2011 9:02 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
How is it mentally harmful? How is it emotionally abusive?
By being harmful and abusive.
I guess I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate? Can you explain how naming a child "Adolph Hitler" would be conducive to mental and emotional wellness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 9:02 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 10:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 231 of 440 (611281)
04-06-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 8:44 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
crashfrog writes:
In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that children are persons under the Constitution and therefore entitled to Constitutional rights.
presumably, not entirely. for instance, children generally lack the right to vote. and probably the right to bear arms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 8:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by xongsmith, posted 04-08-2011 2:25 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 440 (611285)
04-06-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by crashfrog
04-06-2011 9:06 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
By being harmful and abusive.
In what way? What is harmful about telling a child that they are to hate certain people?
Can you explain how naming a child "Adolph Hitler" would be conducive to mental and emotional wellness?
I really don't need to; if you think it's a problem, then it's for you to show why such a thing is bad.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by crashfrog, posted 04-06-2011 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2011 11:27 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-07-2011 12:07 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 233 of 440 (611288)
04-06-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly.
Because obviously this reduces bureaucracy, making health care cheaper. As you'd know if you'd ever bothered to find out the first damn thing about the subject under discussion. By, for example, reading this thread.
Yet they’ve proven over the first 200 years of U.S. existence that health care IS something that free people can and should be able to provide for themselves.
When the US was founded, life expectancy was under 40 and there was nothing the government could do about it since pretty much all "health care" in those days was in fact best avoided.
Once the government starts providing people with what they can provide for themselves, where does it stop? Should we have food insurance? A single payer food system? If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles? Single payer housing?
Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. While we're at it, we'd better abolish the Army in case it starts giving people ideas.
Either that or we could seriously examine any such particular question on its own merits instead of by the jerk of an ideological knee. This would, of course, require actual thought, which some may find fatiguing.
Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?
Yes, and in every case the figures are obviously better for me than a system in which I don't get any government health care at all however long I wait for it.
That was the dumbest argument in the whole health care debate. The conservatives cried (I paraphrase): "Oh, but since the government doesn't have an infinite amount of money, government health care will be rationed! We will avert this iniquity by making sure that you don't get any. We will save you from having half a loaf by ensuring that you have no bread."
Please don't do me any more favors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 440 (611289)
04-07-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


One thing we always hear from environmentalists; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the EPA was founded in 1970, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 4 decades? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, we now have everything all cleaned up! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector?
One thing we always hear from the police; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the first police force was established over two hundred years ago, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 2 centuries? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, no-one will commit a crime ever again! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector?
So you see, the police have either failed or been successful, and either way they should be abolished. That's logic ... or something.
So anyone who expects reality to change the political activity of the EPA has a far bigger trust in the rich, than anyone who trusts free markets to control the rich in the private sector.
Back in the real world, someone who works for a well-funded agency is not necessarily rich. You see, that money is not all paid to the same person. If it was, he would be rich.
I have noticed that economics is not your strong point. I wonder what is.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 235 of 440 (611292)
04-07-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Can't resist
In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic. In reality, there is nothing automatic about the current way of life achieved in the U.S. A lot of people, with a lot of (often uncomfortable) effort made it possible for you to take it all for granted, to be impressed with those in other countries that belittle it. Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations aren’t guaranteed to add to add to what’s been achieved in the U.S., but they do have an excellent chance of adding to dismantling much of what’s been achieved. Many countries that have national health care are generally worse off than the U.S. History shows that nations and entire civilizations have fallen from success to complete disintegration. Ever hear of the Roman Empire, ancient Chinese dynasties, or the Ottoman Empire? It’s been estimated that it was 1000 years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. In reality, many Romans took their society for granted 1700 years ago, just like you take the U.S. for granted today.
If that was intended to be an answer to my post, then your ambition has exceeded your ability.
If, on the other hand, it was intended to be a rambling incoherent series of bizarre non sequiturs, then you are to be congratulated on achieving your goal.
The most foolish and footling part, by a short head, is probably the first two sentences:
In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic.
I was born in the UK, marc. What I am used to is a healthcare system that works. So far from thinking the American system "natural" I find it freakish and aberrant; and so far from thinking it "automatic" I know that there is nothing at all inevitable about the unique failure of America. It is not I, the liberal, but you, the conservative, who regards the status quo as "somehow natural".
It is not. There is no good reason why Americans should put up with this shit except that liars have duped fools into being frightened of aspiring to anything better.
Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations ...
"Ideological experimentations"? My dear marc, if you crawl everywhere on your hands and knees, and if you observe that everyone else in the world gets about more easily and efficiently on their hind legs, in what sense would it be an "ideological experimentation" for you to get off your knees and stand up like a man?
Of course, if you never take your eyes out of the gutter in which you are crawling, you will make no such observation ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:01 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 236 of 440 (611316)
04-07-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


It eases their burden of having to pay for those socialist policies. Despite all the political rhetoric, it’s not all that complicated. Government spending has to be paid for by the productive citizenry of that government.
You left out what the middle class would not be paying if these social programs were put in place, namely private health insurance. Single payer healthcare coupled with a progressive tax code would result in a net reduction in the money spent for healthcare by the middle class. The middle class in other first world nations with single payer healthcare (i.e. socialism) spend way less on healthcare than we do.
The Republican stance against socialized medicine is actually a stance that makes the middle class pay more for healthcare.
So healthcare wasn’t near the political issue 50 years ago than it is today, we can agree on that. The question is, why?
50 years ago money spent on healthcare was about 5% of GDP and everyone had access. Today, healthcare is 15% of GDP and many people can not get access to healthcare and/or are being bankrupted by medical bills.
Not many, because they didn’t have near the appetite for alcohol and illegal drugs at their fraternity parties as college kids do today.
What? What does this have to do with tuition outpacing cost of living and wages?
Because it doesn’t have much detail about the details? The detail is out there, but it’s not going to be found at NPR, or ABC. Here is a link you won't find in the mainstream U.S. media.
Because it is wrong. I would never tell a Tea Partier that if they don't like taxes in the US to move to country with fewer taxes. We want to fix our country, not move to another one. For some strange reason, we feel patriotic and want to live in America, warts and all.
Why has it been necessary? Because there are more people — because civilization is more complex? Even so, is the question of affordability not an important one?
Affordability of healthcare is not an important issue for the middle class? Do you really think that?
Choked with cyanide — evidence?
Without the EPA and laws punishing polluters why would companies spend money to prevent pollution that would otherwise go towards profit? In my area of the country, mining gold involves leeching with cyanide. Leakage of the cyanide is a HUGE issue around here because if it gets into the watershed in the mountainous regions it will destroy local and very senstive ecosystems. Without EPA protections there is nothing stopping these mining operations from spilling cyanide into the local watershed.
What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly.
Let's compare what we spend to our neighbors up north:
"In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%."
Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia
That 6.7k we spend doesn't even cover everyone. There are still millions of americans without health coverage. With a socialist program and 3.6k per capita Canada is able to cover EVERYONE. If this competition is driving down prices, and government systems are less effecient than a free market, then why are Americans spending twice as much as every other first world socialist country on healthcare? Why are the Republicans supporting a system that doubles the cost of healthcare for the middle class?
What you are ignoring is that private health insurance companies are competing for customers they can make a profit on. They are competing for healthy individuals with good incomes. They are NOT competing for the business of sick people. On top of that, health insurance supplies ZERO HEALTHCARE. Hospitals supply healthcare, not insurance companies. Private health insurance is nothing more than a middle man that takes a profit without supplying any healthcare.
Also, a single payer system does not prevent people from buying supplemental insurance for the gaps they perceive in the social program. This is true in every first world western socialist system I know of. This insurance is often very cheap because it has to cover very little.
The big difference in what government should and should not pay for is the question; Are a free people able to supply this want or need for themselves, or does it absolutely require some type of municipal organization?
Given the millions of Americans that have to choose between death and bankruptcy, I would say that it is time for the government to step in. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem more concerned about the financial reports from insurance companies, not the middle class.
If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles?
Or public transportation? Oh yeah, we already have that.
What next, public schools systems? Oh yeah, we already have that.
Or socialist road building programs? Yep, we have that too.
Need I go on?
The same type of government agency that will soon determine who qualifies for what medical procedure?
How is this different than an HMO that decides who is qualified for a medical procedure? At least with a government agency we have a medical board that answers to the people instead of stockholders.
Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?
Yes, I have. I have even spoken to a handful of doctors from the UK at some of the conferences I have attended. In 99.9% of cases it is the doctor who decides which patients get what care. Health Services in the UK do a great job of researching which procedures are most effective, and these are the recommendations they give to doctors. This is quite different from the American system where it is insurance companies who decide which people get what care based on profit instead of the health of the individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:20 AM Taq has replied
 Message 287 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:28 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 237 of 440 (611317)
04-07-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Taq
04-07-2011 11:17 AM


Actually, fifty years ago universal healthcare certainly was a major issue, and in fact it was something that Richard Nixon tried to get enacted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 04-07-2011 11:17 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Taq, posted 04-07-2011 11:29 AM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 238 of 440 (611321)
04-07-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Jon
04-06-2011 10:49 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
Jon -
Hit me back when you're actually ready to have a discussion.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 10:49 PM Jon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 239 of 440 (611322)
04-07-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by jar
04-07-2011 11:20 AM


Actually, fifty years ago universal healthcare certainly was a major issue, and in fact it was something that Richard Nixon tried to get enacted.
True enough. LBJ also pushed Medicare through around the same time. Nothing is funnier than a Tea Partier decrying the evils of socialism while holding a sign that tells the government to keep their hands off Medicare. Kills me every time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 04-07-2011 11:44 AM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 240 of 440 (611324)
04-07-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Taq
04-07-2011 11:29 AM


Today's Republican Party is simply ignorant
Today's Republican Party is quite simply, ignorant; ignorant of reality, of history, of the meaning of words and their historic usage, of the very basis even of the Republican Party.
As a long time Republican I find that sad and pitiful; the Grand Old Party has been reduced to a mob with but one battle cry... "What's in it for me?"
Even there they are far too ignorant to even understand that their very actions simply assure their failure over the long term. It is little more than hero worship and demagoguery. It has become a party bereft of ethics or morality dedicated to perpetrating ignorance and fascism.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Taq, posted 04-07-2011 11:29 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Taq, posted 04-07-2011 4:10 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024