the new health care?

Miller101

It was just a joke man. You need to chill out. I mean, you saw how long his posts were....................I was like dang! Who has time to write all that? And do it four times..........................

And Joe, You're still wrong even after writing all that.

__________________
"And the Redskins went down there and manhandled them and they basically undressed them and now everybody's been lining up to get a piece of them." - John Riggins on the last game we played in Texas Stadium

firstdown

Well we on the right might be wrong (thats millers words) but it aint getting passed anytime soon.

CRedskinsRule

Yeah, but Joe's longwinded and writes like that all the time. Heck, he probably even gets paid to write long winded briefs!

firstdown

While his post are long I wish I had 1/2 his writing skills.

Slingin Sammy 33

saden accused him of jabs...and he delivers several connecting major combinations.

DOWN GOES saden! DOWN GOES saden!

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

saden1

I suppose the first meaning of self-interest is irrelevant? Talk about cheery picking Joe. I hope the cherries are at least ripe and juicy. I'll address the issue of selfishness/self-interest in your voraciously verbal Selfishness and Human Nature thread.

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo Joe, cock-a-doodle-doo! You fail to see the conflict of interests that ensues when your interest do not align with that of others and the fact that self-interest is a zero-sum game. What do you intend to do then Joe? Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family and their super-dooper health care? Of course not, you've said as much with your "my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children" nugget bellow. Oh, no, wait, you're not being selfish but less selfless towards others. If you look in the mirror Joe you'll see that "The Prince" has no cloths.

You don't fool me Joe, not one bit. I see right through your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments.

My belief system is not based on hypotheticals asserted as truisms but on reality and deducing the best course of action for a give circumstance, the fact that we disagree on what the best course of action is entirely a different matter. As for your non-argument argument what you fail to notice is that your argument, and it is an argument, is a perfect example of both informal and rhetorical argument.

It most certainly was up until you added "[Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC]." My master and I are still working on the mind reading chapter of the curriculum.

We agree that both "provide for common defense" and "promotes the general welfare" can't be debated and that what constitutes defense and welfare spending can be debated.


saden: We should pay for it just like we pay for defense (implying that funding should be mandatory).
Joe: I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy (taking UHC and equating it to entire domain of defense spending).
saden: Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted (suggestion that defense spending can be debated).
Joe: Defense spending can't be debated because you can't "provide common defense" without defense spending (talk about begging the question).


The meat of this paragraph is the last few sentences and that tells me all I really need to know. I feel exactly the same way too BTW. Oh and I am not dismissive, I am simply prioritizing the ideas of others into buckets of worthy and unworthy.

I repeat, "in action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet." That is to say when you act in the interest of yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet you are one in the same.

Reasonable people they might be under certain circumstances but reasonable position they do not hold on this subject matter. As far as proving it, it is already being proven in the 36 countries ahead of us in healthcare.

LOL...that was pretty good find on the proverb. My statement actually contradicts your take Joe. I fully understand who I am and what I'm capable and those three characters (the good, the bad, and the ugly) speak of my "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and "capacity of self-examination."

If you don't subscribe to my "belief system" I can't put you in club "my folks" can I now Joe? There's room for everyone in club "my folks," membership is open and anyone can apply for entry.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

JoeRedskin

I waited a week for this pile of steaming rhetorical BS?

As you chose the word “selfish” and accused me and all mankind of “selfishness”, I provided the definition of the term and disputed its applicability. On the other hand, self-interest was my term and I was making clear what definition I was using so we wouldn’t be confused as to any possible “colloquialisms”. If you have a definition for “selfish” that does not include the disregard of others, I’ll be happy to concede I was splitting rhetorical hairs.

My point was in response to your accusation that I (not my family) was selfish. You: “You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I.” I responded by saying that, while I consider my own interests (including the happiness I personally receive by providing for my family), I do not do so with disregard to others as your original accusation expressly stated.

If you believe self-interest to be a zero-sum game, fine. I disagree. When multiple people act with an appropriate balance between self-interest and a consideration for the needs of others, the sum does not necessarily equal zero. Rather, I believe action inspired in such a fashion allows for determining whether or not we, as individuals acting within a group, are, in fact, able to promote the general welfare.

And again, you state as unequivocal that upon which I have equivocated. You: “Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family (a luxury) and their super-dooper health care (a necessity)?” I have clearly and concisely stated when and how the needs of those outside my family will come into play. You of course conveniently ignore my statements to accuse me, yet again, of acting selfishly. No matter how you cut it, by its definition, I am not acting “selfishly” as I am expressly considering and prioritizing the needs of others when I consider my personal interests or advantages.

You cling to a word, ignore its definition, and ignore my statements that would remove me from its definition. Can you recognize this point or is arguing for the sake of arguing all you can now do?

This prince is well clothed (and often provides clothing for others - thank you very much).


Bait and switch? Bullshit. Stop attempting to move the target to save face. Your original analogy was imperfect: “If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending.” Defense spending is specifically mandated by the express language of the Preamble - funding for UHC is not so mandated. If you can find, “universal health care” in the Constitution please point it out to me.

You can’t, you lose.

You’re belief system is not now and never has been self validating. Rather, it is based on your belief that secular humanism ultimately defines the universe and the appropriate actions of humans within that universe. It is your failure to see the act of faith implicit in this belief that is proof of my statement.

As to the question, it was a hypothetical that was predicate to the statement I asserted as true. The original question and the numbers relied were expressly not posed for the truth of its numerical assertions which you assert invalidated the underlying question. Although a structural part of the entire argument it was not the ultimate fact I asserted as true. The ultimate fact which I assert as true was made in the following paragraph - an argument which you neither acknowledge nor address. Rather, you once again attempt to displace your rhetorical failure by asserting a deeper knowledge of rhetorical argument than you actually display - You know the words, but you can’t speak the language.

Tell your master to read the preamble and tell me where he finds UHC.

So why all the rhetorical bullshit leading up to this concession? Rather than simply say this up front, you are intent on finding ways to accuse me of rhetorical lapses ("your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments"). Petty and wasteful.

All of which is logically disconnected from the argument actually posed and to which your statement responded that being: “reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others ‘promotes the general welfare’.”

Fine, I would not accuse you of being “selfish” in your actions.

Yes - You are being dismissive as your “prioritization” is simply a division based on your refusal to consider the possibility that your preconceived ideas and beliefs are subject to question.

And I repeat, I am not “one” with any group either by action or thought. I am and always will be an individual and will be responsible for my actions accordingly. You may wish to subject your individuality to the some groupthink, I refuse to concede this. My family is a group of individuals of varying capacity for self-awareness and I act within in it and, on occasion, for it but I am not “it” in any sense of the word.

Again, claiming your position alone defines reasonableness on this issue and, thus, demonstrating the truth of my assertion. As for the proof of the 36 countries, it is what “proof” they provide for the US and its system that has been subject of much of this debate. In your opinion, they provide “proof”. In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, they do not.

Blah Blah Blah – Aren’t you the clever little boy. The characters chosen are also a perfect example of your unfounded intellectual arrogance. The day I see you exhibit "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and a "capacity of self-examination” on this forum is the day Hell freezes over.

You have no club. You have labels and arrogance.

But, let’s cut all the rhetorical crap. At the end of the day, you bring two things to the table: 1) The US must provide everyone coverage; 2) The Government should do a study. All your arrogance, dismissiveness, accusations of selfishness in others boils down to this.

You are so concerned with being right, both substantively and rhetorically, that you cannot acknowledge you bring nothing truly creative to the table. Clearly, in choosing to respond to this rather than my second post, your show that your priority is now to simply split rhetorical hairs rather than to actually accept my invitation to see if we can reach consensus.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

saden1

Sorry you had to wait Joe but my job and vacation come first.

The fact that you have a finite limit to your selflessness makes you inherently selfish, even if marginally. That is to say at certain point you will abandon your altruism and therefore disregard the interest of others in favor of your own. Let me paint you a picture that you will comprehend Joe. At one extreme of the selfish spectrum you have Jesus (zero and therefore completely selfless) and at the other you have the devil (completely selfish); with Humans somewhere in between. You can sugar coat your selfishness with self-interest all you want Joe, still you remain selfish. Further more, you've debased this whole topic to "is oral-sex sex" Joe and no further discussion in this matter is warranted.


For someone concerned about the potential decrease in healthcare quality I find it ironic that you're not a zero sum man. You Nash equilibrium eh? Who is the utopian idealist now Joe?

I'm not ignoring you Joe, you simply haven't said anything meaningful besides "I'll help others as much as possible but ultimatly my family comes first." I have said I am the same way and that "we're both selfish creatures." What you want from me isn't quite clear to me and I'm not sure I can give it to you.

Save face? This face doesn't need saving Joe, it's pretty like Ali and rugged like Frazier. Let me show the error of your ways Joe:

Here is my picture:

1. common defense
   1. program x <-- defense spending
   2. program y <-- defense spending
   3. program z <-- defense spending
2. general welfare
   1. program UHC <-- welfare spending
   2. program y <-- welfare spending
   3. program z <-- welfare spending

a) Both a and 1 are not debatable as indicated implicitly (and later explicitly even though this is something that is given and should require affirmation).
b) If programs under 2 can be debated programs under 1 can also be debated.

Here's your desecration of my beautiful picture Joe:

1. common defense <-- defense spending
2. general welfare
   1. program UHC <-- welfare spending
   2. program y <-- welfare spending
   3. program z <-- welfare spending

a) If 2.1 can be debated 1 can also be debated.
b) Given a, 1 is debatable.


There is no act of faith involved Joe, because faith does not require deduction or reasoning. That is not how I operate as explicitly indicated...it's all about pluses vs. minuses backed fair and solid rational.

I have addressed your question though I suspect not in a manner you would like. As indicated you're merely presenting a hyperbolic claim and asserting it's validity, and I don't believe this claim to be worthy of debate. It's that simple.

My master tells me to tell you're in need of training and that you're not ready for the tournament.

I have actually given you deference in this matter Joe in hopes of just moving on yet you still stagger around in the ring all bloodied. The truth is Joe UHC is not debatable under the "promote the general welfare statue" at all. If it was enacted today and you challenged it in the highest court of the land you would lose. Better men have tried and failed. Similarly I cannot go into court and challenge certain defense appropriations (i.e. rendition and torture expenditure) and expect to win. Certainly you can go into court and argue on the basis of your hyperbole but the truth is there is also a hyperbole that can also be used to argue against common defense so the question becomes what is the point of using a hyperbole in first place to argue against UHC?

My beliefs and ideas are open to valid questions, when I see some I'll be sure to answer them.


There you go again...rambling on about something completely tangent. It's quite pathetic really. When you go to work, you got to work for yourself and your family, when you do community service you're serving yourself and your community, when you join the military you're joining for yourself and your country, etc etc.


In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, Obama is not a naturally born citizen. You go right ahead and keep lowering the bar Joe.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. I'm a little concerned you can't tell your ideal-self from your true-self Joe.

For someone that abhors labels you sure do use a lot of adjectives Joe. Don't wield a brush you don't know how to use properly Joe.

If you would be so patient with this idiot he will address your valid questions and take on your challenge of coming up with suggestions for healtcare reform.
__________________

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

GTripp0012

I agree that the selfishness vs. self-lessness debate has no relevance to healthcare reform, but that just makes me question why you brought it up in the first place. Seems to me that Joe was merely defending himself against a loaded term...which you've here defined in a clear, but ultimately in a manner that is academically and grammatically unsubstantiated. In other words: fascinating opinion, man! The human mind can do craaazy things!

Fun simile though.

Doesn't this imply that:

1) All forms of UHC promote general welfare,
2) A healthcare program that does not promote the general welfare is not UHC,

therefore

3) UHC, as you use it, is a loaded term aimed at suggesting what healthcare reform should accomplish, and not an actual descriptive term of any particular individual healthcare bill or act.

I think we can agree that by your logic, the Obama bill is not to be considered UHC, and also that we've yet to hear a realistic idea aimed at implementing UHC in the United States. For all you or I know, your definition of UHC in the US may very well be impossible.

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

Dirtbag59

The thing that scares the hell out of me is a scene like this.


The most relevant part starts around 1:25 on the timecode. If you want to know what they're saying click on the video to go to YouTube and turn on Close Captioning. That will give you the subtitles in english.

*Spoilers*
A little context for this scene. A group of performers has put on a play at a local church in Montreal detailing the passion. Unfortunately church officials don't like how the story is depicted by the actors despite the level of success that play has been able to achieve. Eventually security officers show up to stop the performance, which in the scene is at the crucifixion station with the actor portraying Jesus technically tied to the cross.

The effort to break up the play causes a melee which ends in the cross being knocked over with the main character David falling face first on the ground while being attached to the cross. The actors go to the hospital only to be told to wait in an extremely long line. David ends up thinking he's well enough to leave only to die a few hours later.

__________________
Flacco is 1337 Fanclub President

saden1

The topic of the selfish nature of man was brought up to highlight that without government mandate some among us would not be interested in paying for UHC. Joe doesn't need to defend himself, and he isn't. He is merely expressing his view on the nature of man.



Academically and grammatically unsubstantiated? Do you speak from experience?

Opinion? You give me far too much credit.

What an abominable argument. No it does not imply "all forms of UHC promote general welfare." Did you not read my hyperbole reference (i.e a UHC program that promotes eugenics)? UHC is a well defined, information on what it's suppose to be and do is readily available.

No, we don't agree at all. By my logic, "Obama's bill" is UHC and would pass a constitutional challenge. Note that certain provisions of the bill can be challenged but since we don't have a final bill we can not asses which provisions can be successfully challenged. I suspect the final bill will be solid.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

CRedskinsRule

Funny thing Saden, is that while your rhetorical returns are fast and furious and reflect a man extremely capable parsing rhetorical arguments; these healthcare discussions fail to receive any of your promised ideas or dialogue. No need for parsing here. Feel free to discuss Healthcare Reform IDEAS though.

saden1

I'm sorry that it takes time to formulate my own thoughts on a subject so broad as healthcare reform. Unlike congress and Obama I intend to take my sweet time and think things through. How is that for some rhetoric? And the amazing thing is I didn't put any time in into it.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!