Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Matt]

I don't see how it's hypocritical to want people to work for what they get just because [you] did.



Well at least you aren't suggesting mandatory buy ins, but as it stands now, if you look at the detaisl of the bill it is nothing but a huge win for big beaurocracy and big insurance/pharma. Not exactly the "major reform" that is needed.

What is "full coverage" varies depending on whom you ask, and my point is that many small businesses won't be able to provide the level of health care that is being discussed even for full time employees, not even mentioning part time.

A fall out from that would be either switching everyone to parttime or going out of business entirely.




While I am no Republican fan, if this guy merely votes "no" to pretty much every bill I have read about in Congress (other than the "Audit the Fed" bill) he will be doing a good job.

Edit: If you can explain what about the climate legislation bill actually is going to improve the environment then I am all ears. The US military/industrial complex has done more to hurt the environment in the last 2 decades than the entire population of the US combined since 1776. Taxing the average guy to hand money to who knows what isn't going to fix a damn thing.




Well only the first part of the statement was aimed at you but ok. It's self righteous when it is backed up by nothing (and misdirected).

Anyway, regarding your plans: Kudos, but a couple of things:

1:A plan is something that hasn't happened yet.
2:I am assuming what you mean by "paying for college yourself" means getting student loans, and then using the Army College Loan Repayment Program. Then you actually have to get the commission as a Green Beret. It's an admirable plan, but let me know how it is going in 4 years. Plans have this funny way of changing.

http://climatebill.org/

The democrats are just screwed in the ass, and it's their fault for letting the Republicans just say whatever they want without firing back. They will lose 25 seats in the senate unless they come out swinging. And fuck Ben Nelson. What a dirtbag politician whore.

And yeah, I'll probably use my GI bill to pay all of it off but we don't need to discuss that The road for a Green Beret is incredibly long and arduous. Hopefully I make it through.

 

[Dak]

http://climatebill.org/

At a glance all this did is talking about taxing carbon emissions with the main aim of curbing "global warming", which is still in debate (and imo complete "hogwash")

Pollution is a completely different issue, and I would love to see the FDA and the EPA go after pesticide, chemical, and weapons companies but that won't happen because their lobbies are too big. Not to mention the FDA is working hand in hand with Monsanto, which should be tarred and feathered for crimes against humanity.

Depleted uranium and pesticides are doing countless times more damage to the planet than carbon emissions, but no one says jack shit about curbing those.

And yeah, I'll probably use my GI bill to pay all of it off but we don't need to discuss that The road for a Green Beret is incredibly long and arduous. Hopefully I make it through.

I think the Tuition Repayment thing is something entirely different (not sure though). The GI Bill could be used later for post-grad studies.

 

[Matt]

Whatever, it'll work itself out. Republicans have been adamantly apposed to that bill, and I guess it's because big business has them in their pocket.

Oh, and don't get me started on Monsanto. What an evil company.

 

[Dak]

Whatever, it'll work itself out. Republicans have been adamantly apposed to that bill, and I guess it's because big business has them in their pocket.

They have Obama and the Dems in their pocket too.

Oh, and don't get me started on Monsanto. What an evil company.

Well at least you know a little something

 

[Mort Divine]

They're the company who "patented a gene" for pesticide resistant soybeans right? Yeah, I think we can all agree that they're nothing but a bunch of evil fucks up there with the World Bank in terms of their level of detriment to the human race.

 

[Matt]

They're the company who "patented a gene" for pesticide resistant soybeans right? Yeah, I think we can all agree that they're nothing but a bunch of evil fucks up there with the World Bank in terms of their level of detriment to the human race.

They are responsible for creating the ghetto that is East Saint Louis. In addition, there is an area called Dead Creak in said ghetto that is so contaminated with their hazmat waste that people living miles from it have developed cancer. The area sometimes spontaneously combusts and kids fuckin ride their bikes on it. Luckily, Illinois and East St. Louis is so corrupt that they could probably get away with mass murder. They've done a lot more horrible things but I can't think of any right now.

Other evil corporations: Tyson and the meat packing industry in general.

They have Obama and the Dems in their pocket too.

Oh, I know. The system is so flawed that no one can win without the support of corporate America though.

 

[Dak]

They are responsible for creating the ghetto that is East Saint Louis. In addition, there is an area called Dead Creak in said ghetto that is so contaminated with their hazmat waste that people living miles from it have developed cancer. The area sometimes spontaneously combusts and kids fuckin ride their bikes on it. Luckily, Illinois and East St. Louis is so corrupt that they could probably get away with mass murder. They've done a lot more horrible things but I can't think of any right now.

Other evil corporations: Tyson and the meat packing industry in general.



Oh, I know. The system is so flawed that no one can win without the support of corporate America though.

Well Obama could try to do be different by not selecting a former Monsanto executive to the "Food Czar" position:

http://naturalnews.com/026809_food_Monsanto_the_FDA.html

Monsanto is trying to genetically modify all crops to not only be able to own the sole rights to them, but to make them so that their seeds are no good, so you have to buy more seeds every year. This will be sure to create a famine in the world eventually.

These genetically modified plants can also cross polinate with real plants, and Monsanto has gone after farmers whose plants were polinated buy a neighboring farm by saying they were basically "stealing" Monsanto's product. This is just a tip of the iceberg of the evil mammoth of Monsanto. Also, if you dig into the history of the company, before they started messing in the seed business, they made stuff like DDT, PCB's, Agent Orange, NutraSweet (aspartame), bovine growth hormone, toxic pesticides and weed killers (Round Up).

Monsanto seeks to destroy all seeds but their own

 

[Dak]

Why was this Jets fan arrested?

Interesting. San Diego thug cops.

Edit:

State Budget Gaps: Fiscal Year 2010

I know the new Governor of Arizona inherited a budget disaster and sent out a letter a little before Christmas saying as much regarding budget cuts etc., after taking over for the idiot now in charge Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano).

 

[Matt]

Supreme Court lifts campaign finance regulations

Unbelievable. This is why having republicans in the supreme court is bad.

 

[Dak]

It has nothing to do with party lines. Both major parties are corrupt across the board.

The corporations will back whoever is going to give back the most, whether it be Republican or Democrat. Of course they don't back Ron Paul though, and he is a Republican, but of course the Republican party doesn't care for him much either. He calls them out for what they are, as evidenced by the primary debates during the 08 elections.

 

[Matt]

All of the liberals voted against the measure.

 

[Dak]

Nice. Another Big Government Republican.

 

[Matt]

Well hopefully he actually works with the Dems on this one

 

[Dak]

Chavez blames US for Haiti quake

Pretty neat MSM trick. Take a conspiracy theory that has been around for a while and act like a state enemy just came up with the idea.

HAARP and HAARP-like structures in other countries have been widely discussed (in conspiracy circles) regarding weather control and earthquakes (among other things) for a couple of decades.

 

[Dak]

Well hopefully he actually works with the Dems on this one

What would be awesome is if politicians stopped "working with each other" and worked for hard working Americans.

 

[Matt]

That would be pretty fuckin cool if we had the power to control the weather.

^And yeah, that would be ideal

 

[Cythraul]

As far as the seatbelt law goes, it of course exists to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities, and as far as public safety based laws it's easily one of the more sensible ones. It is of negligible inconvenience to the driver to wear a seatbelt, and the estimates are that it saves at least 10,000 lives a year in the U.S, so it seems pretty stupid to oppose the law on the basis of "my God-given right to drive with freedom of motion in my torso".

I think these sorts of discussions often degenerate into a clash of intuitions. On the one side there is the intuition that it is more valuable to promote people's well-being (whatever that means) even if it means forcing them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. On the other side there is the intuition that it is more important to respect people's autonomy and treat them as ends in themselves and not as mere means to their own good (whatever the hell that means). You won't be surprised to find that I have the second intuition, rather than the first. It is sort of a non-starter to point out to a person with the second intuition that some interference is of negligible inconvenience, because that view does not even take such considerations to be relevant. Such considerations do not even fall under the purview of such a position.

Well, how exactly do you argue for one intuition over the other? I suppose all you can do is to tell the opposition to just think about it harder.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I like that you allegedly have no idea what either intuition means.

 

[Dak]

I think he meant that the definitions of "people's well being" and "people being a means to their own good" are arguable.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think these sorts of discussions often degenerate into a clash of intuitions. On the one side there is the intuition that it is more valuable to promote people's well-being (whatever that means) even if it means forcing them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. On the other side there is the intuition that it is more important to respect people's autonomy and treat them as ends in themselves and not as mere means to their own good (whatever the hell that means). You won't be surprised to find that I have the second intuition, rather than the first. It is sort of a non-starter to point out to a person with the second intuition that some interference is of negligible inconvenience, because that view does not even take such considerations to be relevant. Such considerations do not even fall under the purview of such a position.

Well, how exactly do you argue for one intuition over the other? I suppose all you can do is to tell the opposition to just think about it harder.

I'm not sure it's very wise of you to look at this debate in terms of two discrete "intuitions". Either of these "intuitions" could be taken to a point of absurdity, i.e. having laws governing people's eating and exercise habits "for their own good" vs. having no government at all in order to "respect people's autonomy". I think "autonomy vs. welfare" (or whatever you want to label it) is more of a spectrum on which a person's views can fall at any point, so unless you really are all the way at the end of the "autonomy" side (which I seriously doubt you are), then I would say the considerations you consider irrelevant actually are relevant, because the whole issue works in degrees.

Oh, and why are you bullshitting around here instead of posting in the Libertarianism thread?