"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[The Fake Shemp]

Damn, Boogie annihilated JayDubya before Prole could even start.

[Human Snorenado]

So if you work at a job that doesn't pay you well enough to afford said care, you should die.  Duly noted.

Where did the "should" come from in your reasoning?

My bad.  I should have said "In the Magical Land of Libertopia, those who work jobs as janitors and other positions where they can't afford what the Almighty Free Market has chosen to charge for care they medically need MUST die, otherwise my beautiful logical construct will no longer have meaning."

[Boogie]

Because they're not, because that's directly at odds to everyone else's rights.

In what way?

I mean, we've certainly done okay here in Canada.  Those with money aren't horribly, horribly oppressed.  We've got a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a Constitution and everything.

Oh, whoops, sorry to intrude upon your political solipsism.

Unfortunately what you have elected to opine is wrong, at least if a just society is any sort of goal, let alone a primary one.

You know, "unfortunately, you're wrong" is never a satisfactory response.  Especially when it just sort of hangs there, without support, and in black and white terms.  Enter Mandark with a copy and paste.

No, and here's where you and Mandark are being deliberate idiots:

I'm so glad that you are able to determine my intent, through the internet.  Tell me, were you born with this ability, or did you have to train your mind to develop it?

 

all I said is that my wanting something to be so or not wanting something to be so does not make it so.  There is not oxygen in the air in this room because I will it to be so, it is simply so.

No, what you said was this:

No, they exist because they do

Okay, yes, that's me being an asshole, let's try again.

 

all I said is that my wanting something to be so or not wanting something to be so does not make it so.  There is not oxygen in the air in this room because I will it to be so, it is simply so.

Okay, then what does "make it so"?  What, beyond "wanting something to be so", "makes it so"?

"Rights" are not a scientific idea that exist independent of human experience, history, and perception.  They are ideas that have developed through time, through classical philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, etc, through to Hobbes and Locke.  And then to the Enlightenment Philosophes such as Voltaire and Kant, and John Stuart Mill , and even to the modern day.

And yet, you never, ever, EVER reference any of those names!  Mandark pokes and prods you, and ALL YOU FUCKING COME UP WITH IS "no, they exist because they do"!

Are you fucking kidding me?!  I don't even have any formal training in political philosophy, beyond the introduction I have been given from my study of history, and I can at least acknowledge the legacy and development of the ideas of political rights throughout history.

BUT ALL YOU EVER OFFER is the dick-sucking of the American founding fathers, a slavish devotion to the original framework of the Constitution, and "no, they exist because they do."

Come-fucking-on, man.

[Boogie]

The really hilarious part here is that, as a still-believing Christian, I am probably the closest person on this board to you in believing in the idea of natural rights (and probably the only person with any sympathy for your position on abortion).  Of course, I have God to fall back on for that belief, while we have seen how hilarious it is for you try to backstop your absolute assertions.

[Barry Egan]

Okay, then what does "make it so"?  What, beyond "wanting something to be so", "makes it so"?

"Rights" are not a scientific idea that exist independent of human experience, history, and perception.  They are ideas that have developed through time, through classical philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, etc, through to Hobbes and Locke.  And then to the Enlightenment Philosophes such as Voltaire and Kant, and John Stuart Mill , and even to the modern day.

And yet, you never, ever, EVER reference any of those names!  Mandark pokes and prods you, and ALL YOU FUCKING COME UP WITH IS "no, they exist because they do"!

Are you fucking kidding me?!  I don't even have any formal training in political philosophy, beyond the introduction I have been given from my study of history, and I can at least acknowledge the legacy and development of the ideas of political rights throughout history.

BUT ALL YOU EVER OFFER is the dick-sucking of the American founding fathers, a slavish devotion to the original framework of the Constitution, and "no, they exist because they do."

Come-fucking-on, man.

awesome

[Boogie]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to name drop to impress you so you'd join in on the reindeer games in a meaningful, non-insulting way.

Oh, my bad.

You're right.  Far be it from me to expect you to ever express some education and reflection upon the history of political philosophy before taking ANY-FUCKING-THING you have to say on the subject seriously.

I should just accept your arrogant, pathetic declarations from on high like a porn star accepts a cum shot from the meatheads that they get to shoot their loads off and respond with "ohh, I love it, baby"

But hey, we can give you another shot.  Here ya go:

Please answer the following question:

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

And WITHOUT embarrassing yourself with the following responses:

"For my part, I hold to Jefferson's statement about natural rights from the Declaration of Independence, that they are "self-evident truths," and I simply say I support the notion.  Which I said, and have said before."

and

"No, they exist because they do."

[Boogie]

a  deity did it" is never going to work as the final word in a society where not everyone agrees upon the nature, capabilities, or the very existence of that entity.

Quite true.  So where does your unflappable self-assurance come from?

Jefferson asserted in the DoI a belief that rights were endowed by our creator.  I do not share his belief in a creator.  I still think rights are an innate and descriptive part of our existence, the framework for human civilization and a goalpost for its progression.

Re: the bolded, why?  See Mandark's question.

[Boogie]

I am completely incapable of satisfactorily answering Mandark's question

Fixed.

You're welcome.

It really doesn't prevent discussion, btw.  If anything, it would provide an opening for a more interesting, if overly broad, discussion than your dogma would allow for.


edit:  Just going back for random gems.

Where was "intent" mentioned?  You did what you did, and I'm labeling an action.

Please look up the definition of "deliberate".

kthx bye

(seriously, you can't make up this shit, folks)

[Van Cruncheon]

No, and here's where you and Mandark are being deliberate idiots: all I said is that my wanting something to be so or not wanting something to be so does not make it so.  There is not oxygen in the air in this room because I will it to be so, it is simply so.

there is oxygen in this room because of a complex series of chemical reactions and properties that enable it to exist there.

the trouble is, stupid fucking americans like to pretend they don't need it. this is true not just among 20-something prats but even among folks my parents' age, who will find any reason to justify not spending money on healthcare in this day of subpar employer coverage and/or denial of said coverage, largely because they can't afford even cheap premiums.

the truth shitheel americans need to face is that they NEED single-payer. NEED. obviously, they are welcome to follow the optional  republican plan and die early and painfully, but the rest of us would like to see a real, tenable solution.

lose your useless pride, flag waving figgurts, and submit to proper collectivism

One problem with you making statements like this is that they make you either a liar or a fucktard (or a lying fucktard) because you know you don't need such a thing, and you know plenty of others that don't need such a thing.

I don't need such a thing.


There may be some that want such a thing, but they're by no means entitled to it.

of course no one's entitled to anything. no-one's even entitled to their lives. but if enough of us want it, for ourselves and everyone else, you get it. we call this democratic society. actually, we just plain call it society, despite the best efforts of kings and individualists alike.

[Van Cruncheon]

only lazily berating anyone who disagrees with you.

[Van Cruncheon]

apparently in jaydubya's world, if people don't want the right to live, they can refuse it, even though it is immutable and inalienable WHAT

[Boogie]

lazily berating anyone who disagrees with you.

Hey, my berating is anything BUT lazy.  These porn star metaphors don't write themselves.

SERIOS EDIT:  If anything, my posts up to the point of comparing your written words to jizz were an honest attempt to get you to debate in earnest.  Unfortunately, you chose to continue to pretend that you are some sort of superior moral being who knows The Moral Truth about Rights.  It was in that moment that I decided it would be more productive to treat you like a plaything rather than a rational human being.

(fun sidequest:  If Mandark can, through his uber-searching skillz, find more than three references by you on this forum to any of the philosophers I mentioned on this page, I will magically be transformed into a "JayDubya cheerleader" who will do your every bidding for a year)

[Van Cruncheon]

of course no one's entitled to anything. no-one's even entitled to their lives. but if enough of us want it, for ourselves and everyone else, you get it. we call this democratic society. actually, we just plain call it society, despite the best efforts of kings and individualists alike.

Odd to see you likening liberty to monarchy, when living under the mob rule you laud is little better than being a feudal subject.

apparently in jaydubya's world, if people don't want the right to live, they can refuse it, even though it is immutable and inalienable WHAT

What the fuck are you on about now?

hey, welcome to life. we're allowed to live thanks to the goodwill of others and the fact that we confirm to certain cultural parameters. thankfully, it's a fairly loose set of parameters right now here in fucktard murrica, but there's nothing stopping them from constricting, either, despite any magical thinking about "rights" you might muster.

as for the latter, lemme spell it out:

if someone can't afford medical care and finds themselves wanting to live, should they be forced to die? what if they aren't being rational about it -- i.e. short-term capital gain over longterm life planning? do they still have an unabrogatable "right to life"?

[Boogie]

For the record Boogie, whereas previously I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that you were deliberately acting obtuse for yuks, I now acknowledge the possibility that you are, unknowingly, just plain stupid.


I hope that satisfies your earlier query.

Well, it satisfies your ability to type in "dictionary.com" and then "deliberate", and then being able to read the resulting words that show up on the screen at least.  Beyond that, I'm not willing to say.

[Brehvolution]

It's only a dictatorship when the people you vote for have been kicked out on the street.

[Van Cruncheon]

well, i am canceling all my health insurance since my "right to life" will magically proc when i get injured! no need for the coercion of cash and capital from clearly rational individuals to ensure i can live! TAKE THAT, SOCIAL CONTRACTS

[The Fake Shemp]

The best part about JayDubya is that he frames his assertions in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to challenge them. It's like arguing with an infant who insists the sky is purple, despite evidence to the contrary, and then states he will not listen to any argument unless you acknowledge the sky is purple.

[Brehvolution]

It's also weird how an unborn baby has more rights than a grown human being in his mind.

"I'll protect ya til you're here then you are on your fucking own, leech."

[The Fake Shemp]

 

[Van Cruncheon]

so wotcha gonna do when many of us don't conceptualize natural rights like you do, and find nothing immoral about certain constrictions, eh? take away our right to life? you're making my case for me!

aaaand if you aren't gonna protect someone's right to live, who is? i mean, apparently anyone who isn't a cute lil unborn baby, of course, since you like to arbitrarily parameterize things like the rest of us.

[Human Snorenado]

So if you work at a job that doesn't pay you well enough to afford said care, you should die.  Duly noted.

Where did the "should" come from in your reasoning?

Unmitigated stupidity.

Again, where does the "should" come from in your reasoning?

Cancer is a disease.  Potentially lethal, depending on the type, its progression upon discovery, and what interventions are undertaken.  Some interventions are fruitful.  Others are not.  Most of those interventions are going to come from others that probably also want things for their time and effort.

You seem to imply things well beyond this on the basis of nothing.

So if you don't have access to the money that others want for the treatment that only they can provide what then?  I know you're a big fan of the era of the founding fathers, perhaps indentured servitude should be an option.  Someone could enter into a contract (something else you love!) with their doctor promising X years of labor for chemotherapy and other treatments... of course, I guess this would also provide the doctors further incentive to keep their patients alive, as you can't possibly collect on someone's indentured servitude contract if they die of cancer! 

Yes yes, it's all becoming so much clearer to me now.  It certainly makes more sense than operating under the basic idea that all humans have an intrinsic worth no matter how much money they endeavor to accumulate and should have access to a certain basic floor of social services.  After all, the Declaration of Independence DID say that we are all entitled to certain basic inalienable rights- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- but only if you can fucking AFFORD THEM, you cheapskate jackass.

Tell me more of this magical land of sunshine, puppies and ice cream you speak of.

[Van Cruncheon]

really? that kinda prohibits your revolution, dude. guess you got your own set of parameters like the rest of us!

[Boogie]

  It is not involved in your personal decisions that may lengthen or shorten that lifespan.  It is not, well, most of the silly things you have implied.

wait, what?  How does does cancer apply to one's "personal decisions that may lengthen or shorten that lifespan", such things as smoking ---> lung cancer notwithstanding?

[Van Cruncheon]

hey, don't be so butthurt. i'm just pointing out that you put a lot of personal restrictions on when someone has a "right to life" and when they don't, and you seem to be pretty intolerant of other folks' definitions. don't let social relativism wear you down, duder; embrace it!

[Human Snorenado]

SRS QUESTION- how does libertarianism not basically boil down to "fuck you, i've got mine?" as it's operating philosophy?

[Oblivion]

I forget, did Jaydub ever present his opinion on fire/police departments? Are they unconstitutional too?

[Van Cruncheon]

i believe the current dogma reads "i'm a libertarian, not an anarchist" although that suggests a level of nuance their argumentational skills are clearly unready for

[Human Snorenado]

i believe the current dogma reads "i'm a libertarian, not an anarchist" although that suggests a level of nuance their argumentational skills are clearly unready for

libertarians do nuance?

[Oblivion]

I forget, did Jaydub ever present his opinion on fire/police departments? Are they unconstitutional too?

I'm pretty sure the federal Constitution doesn't say anything about your city's fire department.

So...we should get rid of them, right?

[Oblivion]

i thought such things were covered under 'general welfare' clause

[Human Snorenado]

Well, it beats "they exist because they do."

[Oblivion]

i thought such things were covered under 'general welfare' clause

Really?  You thought your city's fire department and police department were "covered" somewhere in the United States Constitution?  You thought that, somehow, if you traced things far enough back, they were the creation of Congress?   

Uh..no, I'm not saying that. Unless I'm mistaken, you've stated the government shouldn't be involved in health care, right? Didn't you cite the reason for that being that it's unconstitutional? (having something to do with taking money for the poor rich folk or something)

If you didn't imply this, then I apologize. It might have been FoC, but you guys are normally interchangeable, so...

[Mandark]

Oh hey!  Skimming the last couple pages, looks like JD's talking about that system of natural rights which he believes in.  This is a great opportunity, cause I find the idea intriguing and want to learn more about it.  In fact, I've got some specific questions about it for him:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[close]

[Dickie Dee]

I don't blame anyone for arguing with JayDubya, cause he's always the low hanging fruit to engage that reminds you you know you're right, but forgive me if I don''t feel like picking clingies off my anus.

...So, how about that healthcare bill?

[AdmiralViscen]

Boogie

[Mandark]

Smack, it was laid down.

When it turns out there are no death panels, when there is no bureaucrat between you and your doctor, when the ways your health care changes seem like a good deal to you, and a pretty smart idea, when the American public sees the discrepancy between what really is, and what they were told by the Republicans, there will be a reckoning. There will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth.

I'm glad they are calling them out on their bullshit.

It's a hell of a speech.

The bad behavior you see on the Senate floor is the last, thrashing throes of the health insurance industry as it watches its business model die. You who are watching and listening know this business model if you or a loved one have been sick -- the business model that won't insure you if they think you'll get sick, or you have a pre-existing condition. The business model that if they insure you and you do get sick, Job One is to find loopholes to throw you off your coverage and abandon you alone to your illness. The business model, when they can't find that loophole, that they'll try to interfere with or deny you the care your doctor has ordered. And the business model that, when all else fails and they can't avoid you or abandon you or deny you, they just stiff the doctor and the hospital, and deny and delay their payments for as long as possible -- or perhaps tell the hospital to collect from you first -- and maybe they'll reimburse you. Good riddance to that business model. We know it all too well. It deserves a stake through its cold and greedy heart, but some of our colleagues here are fighting to the death to keep it alive.

I don't think he's right about the day of reckoning, though.

Cause I was really expecting something similar after Obama took office.  I figured that once people saw him get to work they'd realize that he wasn't a radical Muslamonazi whose first order of business was the Kill Whitey Subsidy Act of 2009.  Instead it just got crazier.

The tea partiers will just move on to the next bugaboo (cap'n'trade as a Trojan horse for one world government is the early favorite in a crowded field).  "Gee, this isn't a fascist takeover of the government," they won't say.  "I need to calm down and seriously rethink my entire political epistemology!"  These people are epiphany-proof.

[Dickie Dee]

The right does have certain advantages, there really isn't a leftward pseudo-mainstream equivalent of their lack of self-awareness or lack of shame. This also lets them say whatever the fuck they want, which while batshit crazy, also lets them move the goalposts to their side.

[Tristam]

Oh hey!  Skimming the last couple pages, looks like JD's talking about that system of natural rights which he believes in.  This is a great opportunity, cause I find the idea intriguing and want to learn more about it.  In fact, I've got some specific questions about it for him:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[close]

Don't you get it, Mandark? A is A. The rest just follows!

[Human Snorenado]

Mandark, I think Obama's biggest mistake was in not giving a sort of "philosophy of Democratic party governing" speech somewhere and making it a big deal that yes, the federal govt. needs to do more than slash regulations and cut rich people's taxes.  He really is too conciliatory, tho- this is not the Harvard Law Review where he can make people on the other side of the aisle feel included by reaching out to them or whatever.  They literally don't believe the govt. should be doing anything and it's a shame that the power structures in Washington continue to fail in calling them out on this sort of nihilism.

[AdmiralViscen]

Oxygen exists, so why not natural rights

I think the oxygen quote was even more damning than the "it is because it is" quote everyone keeps slamming him with.

[Phoenix Dark]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/tea-partier-calls-c-span-worried-his-prayers-for-byrd-to-die-got-inhofe-instead.php?ref=fpblg

[Brehvolution]

Oxygen exists, so why not natural rights

I think the oxygen quote was even more damning than the "it is because it is" quote everyone keeps slamming him with.

 You are a dumbfuck because you are.

At least the feeling is mutual.

[The Fake Shemp]

JayDubya is falling apart. I would call an ambulance, but I'm not sure health care is a natural right.

[AdmiralViscen]

Stem cells and socialized medicine create a vision-restoring tag team of evilness

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/23/stem-cell-therapy-restores-british-mans-eyesight/

Oxygen exists, so why not natural rights

I think the oxygen quote was even more damning than the "it is because it is" quote everyone keeps slamming him with.

You can think that, but that would make you a dumbfuck.

Note, you are not a dumbfuck because I say you are a dumbfuck.  You are a dumbfuck because you are.

[Dickie Dee]

JD's reading like a supercomputer coming unhinged after Captain Kirk gives him some REAL TALK.

[AdmiralViscen]

That sure was a lot of words to still not answer the fucking question

[Human Snorenado]

SUNSHINE

PUPPIES

ICE CREAM

NATURAL RIGHTS

[The Fake Shemp]

It's a law because it just is... like dinosaurs or water!

[Mandark]

No, and here's where you and Mandark are being deliberate idiots: all I said is that my wanting something to be so or not wanting something to be so does not make it so.  There is not oxygen in the air in this room because I will it to be so, it is simply so.

So rights are like oxygen, something imperceptible to the unaided human senses but a physical fact nonetheless?

We know about oxygen because of empirical evidence and theory which have been built up for more than two centuries through controlled experimentation.  Scientists were able to make predictions about the nature of oxygen (and later about the rules of chemistry and quantum physics more generally) which could later be tested and possibly disproved.

That you haven't mentioned a similar body of evidence for natural rights suggests that they aren't like oxygen, but rather phlogiston and aether.

[AdmiralViscen]

Yea, that quote is definitely more damning.

But I guess that makes MOI a dipshit. Or something

[The Fake Shemp]

Is it odd that I read that reply in Edward Furlong's voice?

[AdmiralViscen]

nope LOL

[Brehvolution]

[Ichirou]

Someone censor Lieberman to Droopy Dog.  All I can think of when I see that douchebag's picture is Jon Stewart's impersonation of him.

[Van Cruncheon]

Someone censor Lieberman to Droopy Dog.  All I can think of when I see that douchebag's picture is Jon Stewart's impersonation of him.

cosign

[Human Snorenado]

BOWSY BOWSY BOWSY



As awesome as having Al Gore be President would have been for the past 8 years compared to what we had live through, just think how awful life would be if Lieberman had run as sitting VP and won.

[Ichirou]

At least he would've been out of the Senate and probably out of the loop out of the important decision-making, much like Biden seems to be now.

[Phoenix Dark]

Biden's out the loop?

[Ichirou]

He's absolutely powerless. Huahuahua

[recursivelyenumerable]

I remember back in the late 90s when all we (people who waste their lives on nerd message boards) knew about Lieberman was his association with moral panic about video games.  And now look how far he's come.  He's sort of like Pokey from Earthbound.