Thanks, Amy! I'm glad to be back here. I always loved this board. I'm not offended--and of course the beauty of these boards is the diversity of the people here and the many strong opinions. Healthy debate and even argument is par for the course here, especially in a 4T. So go ahead and "pile on." I don't mind.

That was a wordy disclaimer, wasn't it. LOL!

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

Thanks, Amy! I'm glad to be back here. I always loved this board. I'm not offended--and of course the beauty of these boards is the diversity of the people here and the many strong opinions. Healthy debate and even argument is par for the course here. So go ahead and "pile on." I happen to enjoy it.

I also enjoy the exchange of ideas, but I do prefer healthy debate. There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion as long the tone has kept civil. So I do try and be respectful of others and their viewpoints on the board. Although, I admit at times I do lose my cool.

To me this forum is probably a fairly good snapshot of the mood of the people in this country and which direction the wind is blowing. So I also like to just read and observe others people's thoughts and opinions as much as I like discussing and exchanging ideas. So yep, I concur. It's a great board!

I don't like it when arguments turn ugly and people start calling each other names. I see that happening here a lot, far more so than 8 years ago when I was posting here a lot. I am not going to mention names-- we know who they are. But I agree with you that in a 4T, people are more stressed than usual and tempers are likely to flare. Unlike in 3T, the problems the nation is facing affect us where we live. During the 3T, these problems seemed far more abstract and less relevant to our actual lives. Now everything just seems so personal.

Hopefully my new signature shows up now.

.......
.......
.......
.......

Too bad you couldn't find a rap by someone living in the inner city. You know, like by the people who actually invented rap.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I posted this before, but here it is again:
First World Problems

Touché....

Originally Posted by The Rani

Here's another:
Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

Originally Posted by The Rani

Here's another:
Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

OMG, that is too funny! I'm going to make my 13 year old watch that. He is constantly complaining and saying, "Mom! Our internet sucks. It's too slow." This is the kid who never experienced a dial up modem...Or a world without a computer as far that goes.

There was some discussion here which I can't find about Ron Paul's health care statements and the audience reaction, in which some one--don't remember who--tried to argue that the MSM was misrepresenting what happened. Today Krugman takes up the matter and I decided to check it out myself.

When Wolf Blitzer asks Paul whether a healthy young man you does not have insurance by choice should receive intensive care, Paul responds, "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks!"--and the audience applauds wildly.

When Blitzer then says, "You mean we should just let him die?" or words to that effect, several loud male voices are heard yelling, "Yeah!!!"

You can watch yourself here.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You can watch yourself here.

Don't normally bother with grammar or typos, but I think what you mean is "You can watch for yourself here."

As far as I know, none of the 4T forum members were present (or maybe some were in spirit?)

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Treating people decently is not a uniquely Christian value. As far as I know, all of the major religions, and even most secularists, want to live in a society that values compassion over reckless indifference. I'd wager that even the extreme individualists, deep down, would rather be in a community where people cared and that there is at least a semblance of a safety net. If you consider that an "infliction," I feel sorry for you...

Wrt abortion, I think abortions should be safe and rare, but ultimately the individual should determine the details. I think you'll agree that anyone who thinks that a viable life is somehow being "destroyed" should worry about that themselves. You'd be right. (I do have your viewpoint, right?) But from wjhat I can tell, the other sides POV is that we're just selfish individualists who are happy to accept the deaths of innocents for our personal convenience. That's a strawman based on their premise of what constitutes a "person", but that's what you just did above.

I agree with you that "extreme individualists" value compassion, too, because they don't value "reckless indifference" either. Your claim that we don't is an unfair strawman. We care, and we provide a safety net. The difference is who decides to do what, with what, when, for whom, and under what circumstances. The individualists seem to do as good a job at the things you worry about as progressives, without the down sides of lack of initiative, corruption, and misapplied resources and lack of choice.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Wrt abortion, I think abortions should be safe and rare, but ultimately the individual should determine the details. I think you'll agree that anyone who thinks that a viable life is somehow being "destroyed" should worry about that themselves. You'd be right. (I do have your viewpoint, right?)

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. If people used birth control more effectively, we'd have fewer abortions in the first place. I'd really like to see fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But then I end up stepping on certain religious conservatives who don't want women to have sex without the intention of becoming pregnant.

But from wjhat I can tell, the other sides POV is that we're just selfish individualists who are happy to accept the deaths of innocents for our personal convenience. That's a strawman based on their premise of what constitutes a "person", but that's what you just did above.

No, that's an extreme way of putting it. I'm not saying that they're "happy" about it, just that they reserve the right, at any time, not to be "coerced" into helping other people out -- not to have "their" money taken from them through "theft." If enough people made that FREE choice to turn their backs -- others would suffer (I'd argue that others already suffer under the current system). It's not enough to make all of this work on a voluntary basis.

I agree with you that "extreme individualists" value compassion, too, because they don't value "reckless indifference" either. Your claim that we don't is an unfair strawman. We care, and we provide a safety net. The difference is who decides to do what, with what, when, for whom, and under what circumstances. The individualists seem to do as good a job at the things you worry about as progressives, without the down sides of lack of initiative, corruption, and misapplied resources and lack of choice.

That's far too rosy a picture of private initiatives. They are most certainly not immune to corruption. Here's a prime example.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

But from wjhat I can tell, the other sides POV is that we're just selfish individualists who are happy to accept the deaths of innocents for our personal convenience. That's a strawman based on their premise of what constitutes a "person", but that's what you just did above.

No, that's an extreme way of putting it. I'm not saying that they're "happy" about it, just that they reserve the right, at any time, not to be "coerced" into helping other people out -- not to have "their" money taken from them through "theft." If enough people made that FREE choice to turn their backs -- others would suffer (I'd argue that others already suffer under the current system). It's not enough to make all of this work on a voluntary basis.

Please don't use abortion in this debate. Abortion has nothing to do with selfish individuals accepting the death of innocents because a woman's body is not the equivalent of a collective society. What's in a woman's body is fundamentally an extension of her and has no bearing on the function of society. Sick, starving people in the middle of the street DO have a bearing on the function of society.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Please don't use abortion in this debate. Abortion has nothing to do with selfish individuals accepting the death of innocents because a woman's body is not the equivalent of a collective society. What's in a woman's body is fundamentally an extension of her and has no bearing on the function of society. Sick, starving people in the middle of the street DO have a bearing on the function of society.

From our point of view. But if someone thinks that a fetus is a person, then it is not simply an extension of her body, but needs individual protection, right? That's their POV, which is consistent with their religious views. The problem comes in with using the government to enforce religious views.

You are setting up the straw man of "sick starving people in the middle of the street." Were there cases like that before the progressives? Yes. Are there cases like that after the progressives. YES. We can still take care of them. We did it long before government got into the businesss (inefficiently). And yopu and Sock are overlooking the fact the the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed since the creation of the modern welfare system.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

And yopu and Sock are overlooking the fact the the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed since the creation of the modern welfare system.

Sock??!!! Sheesh.

My name is Kiff.

And I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sock??!!! Sheesh.

My name is Kiff.

And I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

Sock will work as a nickname, Kiff!

Any comparison of out of wedlock births over the last 100 years would probably do...

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

From our point of view. But if someone thinks that a fetus is a person, then it is not simply an extension of her body, but needs individual protection, right? That's their POV, which is consistent with their religious views. The problem comes in with using the government to enforce religious views.

You are setting up the straw man of "sick starving people in the middle of the street." Were there cases like that before the progressives? Yes. Are there cases like that after the progressives. YES. We can still take care of them. We did it long before government got into the businesss (inefficiently). And yopu and Sock are overlooking the fact the the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed since the creation of the modern welfare system.

Anyone who thinks that charity alone can end poverty is either a naive person with no understanding of the utter scale of the problem or is a selfish liar who really doesn't care about the poor. And besides, a lot of people who give to charities are less likely to do so during economic downturns, which simply exacerbates the problem, there is less charity money exactly when more is needed.

A social safety net is just and rational public policy, relying on charity is unjust and irrational.

The rest of your post (such as "the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed since the creation of the modern welfare system") is simply Right-Wing boilerplate nonsense that has no basis in fact and does not deserve a refutation.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Any comparison of out of wedlock births over the last 100 years would probably do...

That has to do with the social changes resulting from the Awakening. it has NOTHING to do with the social safety net. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

From our point of view. But if someone thinks that a fetus is a person, then it is not simply an extension of her body, but needs individual protection, right? That's their POV, which is consistent with their religious views. The problem comes in with using the government to enforce religious views.

You are setting up the straw man of "sick starving people in the middle of the street." Were there cases like that before the progressives? Yes. Are there cases like that after the progressives. YES. We can still take care of them. We did it long before government got into the businesss (inefficiently). And yopu and Sock are overlooking the fact the the number of unwanted children has skyrocketed since the creation of the modern welfare system.

Wallace, I am rather depressed to hear some one ranting about a "modern welfare system" that went out of existence when you were 8 years old. Apparently conservatives need that system more than liberals do, to complain about it.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Please don't use abortion in this debate. Abortion has nothing to do with selfish individuals accepting the death of innocents because a woman's body is not the equivalent of a collective society. What's in a woman's body is fundamentally an extension of her and has no bearing on the function of society. Sick, starving people in the middle of the street DO have a bearing on the function of society.

From our point of view. But if someone thinks that a fetus is a person, then it is not simply an extension of her body, but needs individual protection, right? That's their POV, which is consistent with their religious views. The problem comes in with using the government to enforce religious views.

Look, you're just gonna have to find some other way to support your thesis other than twisting liberal, religious logic against them. Because protecting an extension of a person's body against the will of the brain attached to it is an inversion of the law. And it is not the same as people who benefit from the society they live in getting together to figure out how to solve the problems therein.

You are setting up the straw man of "sick starving people in the middle of the street." Were there cases like that before the progressives?

I was not arguing for or against anything. I was telling you to take abortion out of it. Because a woman's body does not equate to a collective society of autonomous people. Having "sick starving people" does effect the functioning of society (especially if those sick people spread disease in the population); what a woman does with her own body does not. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Sock will work as a nickname, Kiff!

Any comparison of out of wedlock births over the last 100 years would probably do...

Out of wedlock doesn't necessarily mean unwanted.

Originally Posted by Odin

That has to do with the social changes resulting from the Awakening. it has NOTHING to do with the social safety net. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Basically I agree. It's a worldwide phenomenon, in case you haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Sock will work as a nickname, Kiff!

I don't like it, and please don't use it.

Any comparison of out of wedlock births over the last 100 years would probably do...

Correlation does not necessarily mean causality.

Originally Posted by James50

Don't normally bother with grammar or typos, but I think what you mean is "You can watch for yourself here."

As far as I know, none of the 4T forum members were present (or maybe some were in spirit?)

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm one of the people who said be careful of the spin, and I had already watched the clip when I made that comment.
It was a couple of guys screaming "yeah" and laughing, when Blitzer interrupted Ron Paul's answer to ask the dreaded question, then more people applauding when he talked about how he took care of people who couldn't afford to pay when he was practicing himself.

There were actually three parts to the exchange. When Blitzer asked the original question--should the guy have to live with the consequences of his choice--and Paul said, "Yes, that's what freedom is all about," he got a big hand. When Blitzer then said, should we just let him die, I would say several guys said yes, and I also heard some favorable buzz in the audience. Then when Paul tried to reassure everyone, he got at least as big a hand as he did the first time.

When I went to a town hall on health care in 2009 a young doctor brought up a patient like that, who was going to cost the hospital a fortune. Because he didn't have insurance they had to keep him in the hospital for the whole course of treatment. When you think about it, Paul's last remark was the most pathetic of all--"Don't buy insurance, people, heroic doctors like myself will treat you anyway!" Jesus H. Christ, talk about believing in Santa Claus. . ..

James, I can quibble with the best of them. I could have said, "You yourself can watch the clip here." That would have the same meaning and I don't think changing the order makes it ungrammatical. . .

Originally Posted by The Rani

Huh. That must have been a different video than the one you posted.
In the one I saw he said he would advise the guy to buy health insurance.

Kind of hard to do that when he's in a coma.

Direct quote from the clip, said by Ron Paul:
What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would [be to] have a major medical policy but not ... (interrupted by Blitzer)
Kaiser's distortion:
Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
Paul's last remark was the most pathetic of all--"Don't buy insurance, people, heroic doctors like myself will treat you anyway!" Jesus H. Christ, talk about believing in Santa Claus. . ..


He then said, "I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid"--which of course he would abolish "and the churches took care of them, we never turned anyone away." I could have done a better job paraphrasing but I got the gist correctly. Yes, he would advise people to buy insurance, but people who don't won't have to worry. And having the government provide and finance insurance, that's obviously the worst possibility of all.

You know, you employ political propaganda techniques (selective quotation in this case), but it always seems to be out of personal pique or dislike, not for a cause. Hmmm. . .