It's My Life ... !

[NoDrama]

so what are you trying to prove with this list. The money in every case was either inherited, beolgs to their spouse or is the result of legitimate business ventures.
that's fucking scandal!

Well since it wasn't a response to you, it must refer to something else, have you been following the thread or do you just slam your head right up your ass at random moments?

 

[CrackerJax]

if all the doctors in the US move to africa, i'll eat a bug.
what a ridiculous assertion.

You don't really think I meant they would all go to Africa...

Doctors are against the govt. handling health care.... and as many as 45% have said they will consider retiring or going into a different field. Two separate polls have repeated that figure at 45%.



So, 31 million more patients....and a lot less doctors....sounds like rationing is on its way....just like it is already in Medicare right now.

 

[passthedutchfo19]

You don't really think I meant they would all go to Africa...

Doctors are against the govt. handling health care.... and as many as 45% have said they will consider retiring or going into a different field. Two separate polls have repeated that figure at 45%.



So, 31 million more patients....and a lot less doctors....sounds like rationing is on its way....just like it is already in Medicare right now.

But, but Cracker the government is just trying to help the people don't you get it. Who cares if their good intentioned policy makes medical care worse. Then the government will just do something else to "help" us. Don't you get it Cracker, the government is your friend. You should bow down to the almighty government because they know whats best for you

 

[CrackerJax]

Bow down?

It's more about bending over..... Obama is a massive Proctologist.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

Well since it wasn't a response to you, it must refer to something else, have you been following the thread or do you just slam your head right up your ass at random moments?

yeah, i followed the thread. you said D has the most richest congresmen, he came back with a list of rich politicians that included some R.
you reminded him you were talking about congress only and included the list.
i'm like, so what?

 

[Rob Roy]

People have no right to control another persons life if that control initiates force. When an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves government forces somebody to make a purchase (healthcare insurance) they have violated a natural right. Taking away a persons natural right to choose is initiating force, therfore it is wrong, despite any "legality" it may have.

Laws are made by people, they often are "legal" in that they were passed by a majority vote but, sometimes remain "illegal" in that they violate the Constitution and/or "immoral" because they violate natural rights.

Some other examples of statutory laws that violate natural laws...Marijuana laws, slavery, forced redistribution of the fruit of a persons labor (taxation)
Natural laws indicate self ownership. Quite often statutory laws indicate somebdy else "owns" you.

If a statutory law violates somebodies natural rights and we willingly go along with it, we BECOME part of the problem.

All of us have rights, however they end when they encroach upon ANOTHER PERSONS RIGHT to act freely or make their own decisions.

When we insist a doctor will provide care for a person in a certain way whether they like it or not , it would be the same as insisting a farmer provide food or a carpenter provide shelter on terms they must accept. Rationalizing the use of force because the desired outcome might be beneficial to somebody doesn't change the fact force was used.

Picking and choosing which natural right violations are acceptable is a rationalization.

If people want to help others they should stop hiding behind government to forcefully redistribute and simply go and out and help others. Or is that illegal now too?

 

[tinyTURTLE]

If people want to help others they should stop hiding behind government to forcefully redistribute and simply go and out and help others. Or is that illegal now too?

no, but it is unrealistic.
people are selfish assholes.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, but it is unrealistic.
people are selfish assholes.

Thank you for not trying to deny the simple truth of the bulk of my previous post.

If people are selfish assholes isn't it time individuals started BEING what THEY believe is right and stopped being "selfish assholes" by insisting others comply with their wishes to join them or they will use force against them?

Selfish people do not honor the nonaggression principle. Our highest obligation to others is to leave them alone, if that is their wish. If you feel strongly about doing something "good", do it. Just don't take something from one person and "give" it to another. You have every right to reallocate YOUR resources, but NO right to reallocate anothers without their consent.

To declare willful charity unrealistic is to deny personal responsibility and leads to shifting YOUR wishes into DEMANDS upon others.

Charity is ALWAYS willful or it ceases to be charity. Mass extortion by government and relabeling it "charity" is wordsmithing and THAT is unrealistic.

I endorse charity, I do not endorse extortion.

This "selfish asshole" is heading out now, to help an elder friend get some work done, probably going to buy him a meal too...guess what nobody is making me do it either. See? Simple? Just do it or don't, it's YOUR choice. Who is stopping you?

 

[CrackerJax]

TT wants a stranger to do the shakedown for him.

What ever happened to personal pride?

I have failed many times in my life.... and it only made me stronger.

We are living in the pussy generations..... put on ur party dress.....Obama is the perfect date.

 

[TheDemocrat]

It's funny how Vi is all about me, me, me. Do you ever stop and ask yourself, how does this benefit society?

 

[CrackerJax]

As you post from the strongest nation on earth.... take ur meds please.

 

[undertheice]

Do you ever stop and ask yourself, how does this benefit society?

society is not one entity, independent from the individuals of which is is comprised. liberal policies treat it as a single organism, not as the loosely knit community it is. benefiting the whole at the expense of the few is a tyranny akin to slavery, forcefully denying one group the rights that are guaranteed to us all. whether the loss can be afforded is of no consequence, the crime resides in the use of force.

society once considered slavery to be perfectly all right. does that mean that it was? it was a positive force in society that allowed civilization to thrive and the community to gain advantages. in hindsight we see the crime of it, the use of force to limit the freedom of some for the benefit of others. that many slaves were highly valued and treated well doesn't matter. we know that the fact that they did not own themselves and the fruits of their labor is just wrong. can someone please tell me how the redistribution of products and services for the benefit of any group is any different, without resorting to the rationalization that those who are being stolen from can afford it?

 

[CrackerJax]

Want to see PURE GREED. One need only look to the current administration.

Hypocrites..... your all hypocrites. You LIKE this GREED....

 

[tinyTURTLE]

Want to see PURE GREED. One need only look to the current administration.

Hypocrites..... your all hypocrites. You LIKE this GREED....

you have the ability to either lie or bend the truth with such ruthless ease. I am very happy I don't know you in real life.

 

[CrackerJax]

Having a central authority take from one person and give to another .... for votes... isn't greed?

Maybe I can send you an education .... not.

Besides, the country agrees WITH ME, not YOU.

So once again, I'm sure this is a recurring theme for you....you are out of step with Americans.

 

[doc111]

It's funny how Vi is all about me, me, me. Do you ever stop and ask yourself, how does this benefit society?

Perhaps if people worried about themselves more and less about what everybody else does we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe there would be more personal responsibility and redistribution wouldn't be necessary. Have you met Vi in real life? How do you know he doesn't volunteer his time and donate his money to charity? You don't. It's a difference of opinions. In general, we all want the same things. We just don't agree how to accomplish it. On the surface conservatives seem selfish. Perhaps you just haven't opened your mind and realized that there is a bigger picture here. By socializing medicine we are getting a step closer to total govt. control. We won't always have the benevolent people in office that we have now. By growing govt. too big we are potentially setting the stage for a very bad person like Saddam or Hitler to take the reigns. I like the fact that we limit govt. powers via the constitution. I'm sorry you haven't taken much history and don't understand that this was done specifically to prevent our govt. from ever becoming too oppressive. Slowly, this is what is happening. I don't feel as free as I did 20 years ago. What will the next 20 bring?

 

[undertheice]

Perhaps if people worried about themselves more and less about what everybody else does we wouldn't be having this discussion.

this is the politics of envy, convincing the electorate that they have been victimized in order to garner their support. it is one of the pitfalls of the popular vote and we fall into the trap so readily.

 

[TheDemocrat]

Only white, upper middle class, educated people should be able to vote.

 

[doc111]

Only white, upper middle class, educated people should be able to vote.

Since I know you are not being serious I won't jump on you about this post. I will agree with the educated part though. If we had more educated voters we may have been able to avoid the current abomination, er, administration.

 

[CrackerJax]

Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.... I'll go with that one.