Classic Trump

[cuckie]

1 hour ago, NEDenver said:

Enjoy your time in the camps!

I'm armed. I don't make the mistakes of ancestral humans. 

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, cuckie said:

I'm armed. I don't make the mistakes of ancestral humans. 

The Branch Davidians were armed. I doubt your arms are sufficient to stand up to, say, an M1 Abrams. Or a Predator drone. Or any number of other things the US still (thankfully) doesn't let citizens have. 

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, cuckie said:

I don't care about your insults, you clearly live on the internet and are ignorant of reality

Back atcha.  Have a good life.

Consummatum.  

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, cuckie said:

Um... That's conjecture. 

What's the problem with restrictions on medical insurance? Nobody should be paying for obese diabetics to get drugs and pacemakers, they should be allowed to eat themselves to death without burdening other's with the pitfalls of their poor choices and existence. 

Aside from being downright ghoulish (no surprise, since it's coming from a Republican), diabetes is not always the result of dietary issues. For someone who thinks government shouldn't be regulating morals, you sure seem content with letting insurers (who aren't accountable to anyone) effectively regulate morals - or what YOU seem to think are moral issues, at any rate.

By this logic insurers should never cover STI treatment, since slutty people (to paint them all with the broad type of brush you seem to prefer) should be allowed to fuck "themselves to death without burdening other's [sic] with the pitfalls of their poor choices and existence." Should we not cover injuries from sports, since those people are clearly choosing to put themselves at risk playing an optional activity for fun - do we just let them "play themselves to death"? How many hamburgers can a person eat before you decide they're eating themselves to death?

How about drivers who get injured in a car accident? Clearly if they'd been riding mass transit they'd have been safer, so no injury treatment for them, right? 

There are almost ALWAYS choices that lead us to needing health care. If you're going to pretend to have principles, at least make them consistent. 

[nanana]

The Branch Dravidians were like the Unitarians, total evil government abuse of power, and no credit to any mindless NPC who just accepted FBI propaganda /Janet Reno apologetics about slaughtering innocent children among others. Shameful. 
 

for full disclosure I’m diabetic but I was Not in the least offended by cuckie, though honestly cuckie it seems a bit mean-spirited, all good though, diabetes is MY problem.  This is a perfect teaching moment for the concept of “voluntarism.” If certain populations take risks, what’s wrong with them finding a voluntary risk pool to distribute that risk? Usually these controversies become national psychodramas because the risk takers think everyone else owes them the obligation to pay for the risks they take. It may be NICE to pay for someone else’s choice to climb a mountain without the proper equipment, but when too much cost of those risks are shifted to people who don’t even think the risk taking should be legal, or when it becomes cost-prohibitive to pay for the mitigation, the system crashes. Even more divisive if the risks relate to morality (drug use, smoking, guns, abortion, barebacking, overeating, etc.). I’m a big fan of collectivism as long as it’s voluntary and the data is transparent. 

[viking8x6]

The latest... just in case anyone had any doubts about Trump's positions, his attitude toward various groups of Americans, or his intentions:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-madison-square-garden-new-york-election-fcfe75be7f8281fde7bffa3adb3bba5d?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

[BootmanLA]

On 10/27/2024 at 3:57 PM, nanana said:

The Branch Dravidians were like the Unitarians, total evil government abuse of power, and no credit to any mindless NPC who just accepted FBI propaganda /Janet Reno apologetics about slaughtering innocent children among others. Shameful. 

Oh, I'm not saying the Branch Davidian thing wasn't an abuse of power. But my point is that they were armed, and it did them absolutely no good. People who think the second amendment is really about being able to face down a hostile government military are clueless twits: the military could obliterate every one of them without any loss of life on the government's side, if it so chose. The second amendment today is really about small-dicked insecure boy-men wanting a substitute penis that shoots bullets in rapid fire rather than semen, to prop up their fragile egos.  

On 10/27/2024 at 3:57 PM, nanana said:

This is a perfect teaching moment for the concept of “voluntarism.” If certain populations take risks, what’s wrong with them finding a voluntary risk pool to distribute that risk? Usually these controversies become national psychodramas because the risk takers think everyone else owes them the obligation to pay for the risks they take.

That sounds great until you start to implement it. Which activities call for voluntarism, and which ones get covered by the general public/pool? 12,000  people die every year falling down stairs, with many, many thousands more injured, many requiring hospitalization for broken limbs, etc. Do we require "voluntarism" pools for everyone who needs to go to the second story of a building without an elevator? Why, or why not? At what level do we deem risk great enough to exclude it from coverage under general policies, and require those who take that risk to seek separate coverage or risk sharing?

Edited October 29 by BootmanLA

[nanana]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

But my point is that they were armed, and it did them absolutely no good.

This is hardly the best advertisement I’ve heard for the government. You’re in effect writing, “Self-defense failed to work against the government, which abused them anyway.” 
 

not that any of us are slaves to the American Declaration of Independence it’s still worth quoting: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.“

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

12,000  people die every year falling down stairs, with many, many thousands more injured, many requiring hospitalization for broken limbs, etc.

In your example I think most people would voluntarily sign up to avoid the confusion. However, many use “unworkability” as a premise to usurp the freedoms of others, which is an error.  

[PozBearWI]

@nananan you're concluding the government already abused them.  Which is an interesting comment in the current public discourse.

Mr T of course has already stated he wants to use the military to take care of anyone HE (not the rest of us necessarily) deems undesirable.  Our control of course comes in WHO we select to govern.  And thankfully it is because we elect, hopefully, a diverse set of legislators that we get the beneficial effects of averaging.  It is more difficult for extreme positions to prevail in this situation.  

The part of the public discourse that is underplayed I believe is this whole "freedom" thing.  It was never meant that we can do whatever we want.  That opens up extremists to do whatever they want (cue MTG).  The freedom the "freedom" party (if Republicans are, actually, that) advocates is that fifty percent of the population is incapable about making decisions about their own body.  The domain that is us, as individuals, should remain able to believe, think and do with our bodies whatever we want.  The domain that is what we DO to others, to maintain a healthy society, needs guardrails.  

The other part of the public discourse which troubles me is what we SAY.  Thankfully it isn't laws so much as public pressure that tends to control this.  Of course, this is first amendment stuff...

[NEDenver]

15 hours ago, nanana said:

This is hardly the best advertisement I’ve heard for the government. You’re in effect writing, “Self-defense failed to work against the government, which abused them anyway.” 
 

not that any of us are slaves to the American Declaration of Independence it’s still worth quoting: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creatorwith certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.“

In your example I think most people would voluntarily sign up to avoid the confusion. However, many use “unworkability” as a premise to usurp the freedoms of others, which is an error.  

Hey, nanana, how’s your little Safe Space thread going?  Just want to point out how weak you must be to need a thread where you ask the liberals to stay out while the weak minded conservatives are protected from reality.

I bet you think you’re one of the evil conservatives, but pretty sure you’re not.

[nanana]

27 minutes ago, NEDenver said:

Hey, nanana, how’s your little Safe Space thread going?

There is a lot of self-flavor in the style of your question NEDenver. It’s open to interpretation. I apprecIate the leftie boys for honoring the request 🙂.  

[nanana]

11 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

@nananan you're concluding the government already abused them. 

I do conclude that the FBI, in an effort to overcome its racist past, mounted the PATCON campaign that purposefully demonized peaceful mostly white (Branch Davidians were integrated) groups that were out of the mainstream, also to justify additional budget. I think they abused their power, with the infiltrators often being more active and numerous than the believing membership. 

11 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

And thankfully it is because we elect, hopefully, a diverse set of legislators that we get the beneficial effects of averaging. 

Ideally for me it’s not so much average as leaders who do not mistreat or steal from others. I’m very uninterested in random mediocrity from leaders. I do fear that our species may be unable to kick its tribal mafia habit, or at least kick it permanently. 

11 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

The part of the public discourse that is underplayed I believe is this whole "freedom" thing.  It was never meant that we can do whatever we want.

I agree that with freedom come consequences. But I’ll give the greatest rewards to leaders who can create the most space for each individual and group to pursue maximum freedom with the lowest number of involuntary restrictions possible. 
It’s very complex and tough. 
Peace

[BootmanLA]

19 hours ago, nanana said:

This is hardly the best advertisement I’ve heard for the government. You’re in effect writing, “Self-defense failed to work against the government, which abused them anyway.” 

Who said I was advertising for the government? I said that the member who brashly asserted that he was armed (in case the government came after him) was deluding himself if he thought whatever arms he had would stand up against the US government, if it were determined to take him out. That's not endorsing or condemning the government: it's stating a fact.

19 hours ago, nanana said:

In your example I think most people would voluntarily sign up to avoid the confusion. However, many use “unworkability” as a premise to usurp the freedoms of others, which is an error.  

For starters, I believe in practical decisions. I don't think it's practical to uproot an entire system (bad as it may be) in favor of some untried "voluntarism" project in the name of some purist approach to "don't tread on me". 

In any event, you're free to skip insurance in this country. Thanks to Orange Julius, there's no penalty for not having health insurance (at least, not a penalty on the skipper; the entire community is penalized when the skipper shows up at the ER and public resources are needed to treat him). So I don't get what kind of "freedom" you seem to think is being "usurped".

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, nanana said:

There is a lot of self-flavor in the style of your question NEDenver. It’s open to interpretation. I apprecIate the leftie boys for honoring the request 🙂.  

He's got a point. You don't see leftie boys demanding that Reich Whingers stay out of our discussions; we're able to take the back and forth. It's only some self-styled conservatives, who no doubt think of themselves as "alphas", who are such delicate little snowflakes that they need a safe space to compliment each other on their bona fides as sociopaths.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, nanana said:

I agree that with freedom come consequences. But I’ll give the greatest rewards to leaders who can create the most space for each individual and group to pursue maximum freedom with the lowest number of involuntary restrictions possible. 
It’s very complex and tough. 

In other words: you want all of the benefits of societal living - the things we can accomplish when we all have to live and work together - with the freedom to reject all the ones you don't like, even if you're still drawing on the benefits of the society. In other words, you're like the libertarian cat: totally convinced of its own superiority and its complete exemption from all rules it doesn't want to obey but completely incapable of opening the can of food for itself, so it stands at the food bowl and screams for attention.