Glenn Beck says that Obama is a racist

[YDtoad]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25588.html

Question: Why was it permissible for various people on MSNBC to regularly accuse George Bush and others of being racist, but as soon as Beck drops the charge on Obama, it's :omg: controversy?

Is it :omg: controversy to accuse the president of being a racist?

And finally, do Beck's comments (alleging that Obama is racist and has an antipathy toward 'white culture') have any validity?

[Correction]

wait people care about what glenn beck says

[freeliminator]

we should have a forum for everything glenn beck says

[JohnXDoe]

well...George Bush is white and white people have a long history of oppressive racism in this country. in some quarters

even if a black man is a racist in this country its influence is limited, if considerable at all

and no, Beck has no point or validity. the man is a self serving windbag, twisting half truths and assumptions into less then they already are

and what if there was some validity here? big deal who cares how Obama feels personally? i don't

[Against Miik!]

I care how he feels personally. If I'm am treated unfairly by da police, I want the opportunity to have a drink with the president, and I feel that opportunity is being denied to me because he is a racist.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see why anyone should care if anyone is a racist.

[Jude]

1. Bush hates black people see Katrina and also brown people see Iraq and Afghanistan

2. What evidence is there that Obama is racist

[HNLzero]

lmao glenn beck, he's just an act

[TheDarkHorse]

And finally, do Beck's comments (alleging that Obama is racist and has an antipathy toward 'white culture') have any validity?
No.

[Iskandar]

I don't see why anyone should care if anyone is a racist.When they're the chief executive, we should.

PS. Steve in the question of whether Dubya or Obama is racist, the dynamic is totally different because Dubya is from a position of privilege as a rich white male whereas people of colour aren't.

PPS. Glenn Beck is a moron.

[1338 h4x0r]

Glenn Beck said it?

Well ****

[gregulus]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/73525/thumbs/s-GLENN-BECK-CRYING-large.jpg

[cobert]

PS. Steve in the question of whether Dubya or Obama is racist, the dynamic is totally different because Dubya is from a position of privilege as a rich white male whereas people of colour aren't.


This isn't entirely it. We can't excuse people of color of racism just because it took them more to get to a position where bigotry could matter. What makes this absolutely retarded is that Obama didn't do anything racist.

but yeah pretty much everything you said

I rank Glenn Beck equal to Rush Limbaugh on my "people I hate int he media" scale.

[Haliburton]

lol huffpo

[Haliburton]

also glenn beck is no worse than any other tv news personality

actually hes less bad probably than most of them

[Iskandar]

This isn't entirely it. We can't excuse people of color of racism just because it took them more to get to a position where bigotry could matter. What makes this absolutely retarded is that Obama didn't do anything racist.

but yeah pretty much everything you saidNah I didn't mean to imply brown people can't be racist at all (everyone can), just explaining the different situation when they're accused of it.
I rank Glenn Beck equal to Rush Limbaugh on my "people I hate int he media" scale.He's pretty bad but there are worse.

[cobert]

He's pretty bad but there are worse.

Who do you have in mind?

Michael Savage is the first person that springs to mind as a possibility.

[Haliburton]

i like the whole people who have my worldview dont count as bad thing here

[cobert]

i like the whole people who have my worldview dont count as bad thing here

if it warms your little heart, Keith Olbermann pisses me off too.

[Haliburton]

well yeah hes probably one of the worst but im unsure what you think makes beck notably bad

both 'sides' call the other racist all the time

[Mr. Ron]

When they're the chief executive, we should.

PS. Steve in the question of whether Dubya or Obama is racist, the dynamic is totally different because Dubya is from a position of privilege as a rich white male whereas people of colour aren't.

PPS. Glenn Beck is a moron.
Idk, I just don't see someone who dislikes a certain group as a big deal, albeit stupid. Normally it never boils to the surface and doesn't effect anything they do.

[Iskandar]

Beck's annoyingly smug and doctrinaire.

He'd make a great libertarian (and he's almost enough of a market zealot to make it there).
Idk, I just don't see someone who dislikes a certain group as a big deal, albeit stupid. Normally it never boils to the surface and doesn't effect anything they do.One person, I guess not but endemic racism can become a big problem. Like of genocidal proportions. It's happened enough times to not be hyperbole anymore.

[Haliburton]

every news personality on tv is smug thats not really something that sets him apart as worse

and hes a neo-con i think

[Mr. Ron]

Beck's annoyingly smug and doctrinaire.

He'd make a great libertarian (and he's almost enough of a market zealot to make it there).
One person, I guess not but endemic racism can become a big problem. Like of genocidal proportions. It's happened enough times to not be hyperbole anymore.
Aren't there usually larger political and economic motivation behind all of that, though?

[Haliburton]

at least fox has some range in their guests and hosts

right-authoritarian to right-libertarian

as apposed to the other networks which are left authoritarian

oh wait all leftism is authoritarianism nevermind

[Iskandar]

Neocons are about militarism more than market fundamentalism, and Glenn Beck can go either way but probably leans more towards the capitalista side.

And he's more smug than most.
Aren't there usually larger political and economic motivation behind all of that, though?The racist attitudes have to exist though or it doesn't happen.

Racism in the United States is largely class-based.
as apposed to the other networks which are left authoritarian

oh wait all leftism is authoritarianism nevermindYou're pretty funny.

[Haliburton]

well lets be honest is it so bad to be smug when you know you're right

thats how it feels like to be a libertarian, man

[Iskandar]

Glenn Beck probably does think he's right.

Me, I just think he's right-wing.

[Haliburton]

economic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism

lets not pretend now

[TheDarkHorse]

Who do you have in mind?

Michael Savage is the first person that springs to mind as a possibility.

yep thats him
at least fox has some range in their guests and hosts

right-authoritarian to right-libertarian

as apposed to the other networks which are left authoritarian

oh wait all leftism is authoritarianism nevermind

What good does it make when your "range" is made to fit your objective of a daily good-cop bad-guy agenda? Putting a liberal in the midst of Sean Insanity (and two hot conservative women) does not do anything to boost your credibility.

[Iskandar]

economic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism

lets not pretend nowCollectivization isn't necessarily authoritarian any more than the market is.

[Haliburton]

well you think a free market will result in authoritarianism thats different from having your goal be authoritarianism in the first place

[cobert]

I feel a big dumb long debate coming on that isn't relevant to the thread and was started by trolling.

[Haliburton]

i never troll bro these is cereal posts

[Dave de Sylvia]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25588.html

Question: Why was it permissible for various people on MSNBC to regularly accuse George Bush and others of being racis...
When?

[Iskandar]

well you think a free market will result in authoritarianism thats different from having your goal be authoritarianism in the first placeNo I don't. You're strawmanning me.

Actually both right and left politics have authoritarian and libertarian outlooks.
I feel a big dumb long debate coming on that isn't relevant to the thread and was started by trolling.Welcome to every thread Chad posts in.

[TheDarkHorse]

I feel a big dumb long debate coming on that isn't relevant to the thread and was started by trolling.

:lol:

you are rapidly becoming my favorite poster in PNWI, no joke

[Iskandar]

Also that applies to television punditry. I don't even know why you guys would watch it, except for a cheap laugh.

[Haliburton]

Actually both right and left politics have authoritarian and libertarian outlooks.
no both sides have people who think they are libertarian but leftists think oh hey lets be libertarian apart from issues x, y, and z, because hey i dont think liberty applies to those things

Welcome to every thread Chad posts in.
and that you also post in

[TheDarkHorse]

and that you also post in

QFT

actually for both of you. Its Spin Artist vs. Troll. What can possibly go wrong?

[Iskandar]

no both sides have people who think they are libertarian but leftists think oh hey lets be libertarian apart from issues x, y, and z, because hey i dont think liberty applies to those thingsYour definition of liberty isn't the only one you know.

PS. left-wing anarchism.
and that you also post inYou love trolling me and I like to put you in your place. It's a very sadomasochistic relationship.

PPS. you're the submissive.

[Haliburton]

Your definition of liberty isn't the only one you know.
its not a subjective thing

PS. left-wing anarchism.
is a contradiction

[Iskandar]

its not a subjective thingYa it is.
is a contradictionThey think that about you.

PS. I think both sides are stupid.

[Haliburton]

Ya it is.
no its not this is why we have trusty word-books

liberty is not equality

its especially not equal outcome since that regularly conflicts with liberty

They think that about you.
doesnt matter when im right does it

[Iskandar]

no its not this is why we have trusty word-books

liberty is not equality

its especially not equal outcome since that regularly conflicts with libertyPositive liberty.
doesnt matter when im right does itYou can think that.

[Smokey D]

Make a new thread.

[Iskandar]

I'm done here.

[Mr. Ron]

I do not think Obama is racist. He definitely had some racist friends in the past, however I don't think that automatically condemns somoene as a fellow bigot.

Obama is still a tool, though.

[Smokey D]

Why

[Mr. Ron]

I really don't think him spending all of this money is going to do much good. Healthcare etc etc

[Iskandar]

Having racist friends is irrelevant.

PS. Keynesianism.

[Smokey D]

I really don't think him spending all of this money is going to do much good. Healthcare etc etc

Healthcare is awesome

PS didn't you get the memo the recession has bottomed.

[TheDarkHorse]

I do not think Obama is racist. He definitely had some racist friends in the past, however I don't think that automatically condemns somoene as a fellow bigot.

Obama is still a tool, though.

Everyone has at least one racist friend
I really don't think him spending all of this money is going to do much good. Healthcare etc etc

Sounds like you've been watching too much Glenn Beck

[Iskandar]

I'd hate to say correlation is causation and claim Obama fixed the recession, but I don't any compelling evidence that he didn't either, so it's kind of pointless.

PS. you need healthcare badly you have for like ever.

[Mr. Ron]

Healthcare is awesome

PS didn't you get the memo the recession has bottomed.
healthcare is awesome but his idea of healthcare isn't.


Everyone has at least one racist friend


Sounds like you've been watching too much Glenn Beck
lol what I hate Beck. But I'm talking to you, you love pretty much anything socialist in nature.

[mock_orange revolution]

healthcare is awesome but his idea of healthcare isn't.

It isn't nearly socialist enough.

[Smokey D]

healthcare is awesome but his idea of healthcare isn't.

Well, I don't know the details but ensuring that between 10 and 50 million people don't die/suffer needlessly is pretty good.

[Iskandar]

What's so bad about his idea specifically. Why is it worse than anyone else's.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, I don't know the details but ensuring that between 10 and 50 million people don't die/suffer needlessly is pretty good.

all of those people can get healthcare their either too dumb to get it or do not know that they can get it.


I'd hate to say correlation is causation and claim Obama fixed the recession, but I don't any compelling evidence that he didn't either, so it's kind of pointless.

PS. you need healthcare badly you have for like ever.
the 47-50 million without healthcare is vastly over-exaggerated. Plus if it were that many that wouldn't mean we have to change it.

[Smokey D]

the 47-50 million without healthcare is vastly over-exaggerated. Plus if it were that many that wouldn't mean we have to change it.

Yah it would.

Well, it would so long as it didn't mean more people were going to get bad treatment.

all of those people can get healthcare their either too dumb to get it or do not know that they can get it.

People shouldn't die/suffer painfully for being stupid Ron.

[Iskandar]

all of those people can get healthcare their either too dumb to get it or do not know that they can get it.If we had a universal system they'd have it already.
the 47-50 million without healthcare is vastly over-exaggerated. Plus if it were that many that wouldn't mean we have to change it.What does that have to do with Obama's plan though.

[Mr. Ron]

Yah it would.

Well, it would so long as it didn't mean more people were going to get bad treatment.



People shouldn't die/suffer painfully for being stupid Ron.
I'm being serious. If you're poor you can get free healthcare. You just need to sign up for it and a lot of stuff is completely paid for by Uncle Sam.

[Smokey D]

I'm being serious too. People shouldn't die for being stupid.

[Mr. Ron]

Then there should be better advertisement of the free healthcare they can get.

[Iskandar]

Is their healthcare even any good and why should the middle class get squeezed as well.

[TheDarkHorse]

lol what I hate Beck. But I'm talking to you, you love pretty much anything socialist in nature.
Yes Im an avid Socialist and you think money is the primary concern when dealing with human life

[iamtherobots]

1. Bush hates black people see Katrina and also brown people see Iraq and Afghanistan

2. What evidence is there that Obama is racist

deep post brah

[mock_orange revolution]

I'm being serious. If you're poor you can get free healthcare. You just need to sign up for it and a lot of stuff is completely paid for by Uncle Sam.

People who work and whose claims are denied by insurance companies or have a pre-existing condition don't exist.

[Mr. Ron]

Yes Im an avid Socialist and you think money is the primary concern when dealing with human life
Nope. I want people to get healthcare but what was being proposed isnt my bag


PS goat magic

[gregulus]

If you're poor you can get free healthcare. You just need to sign up for it and a lot of stuff is completely paid for by Uncle Sam.
I've told you this before, Ron, but that isn't true. Medicaid is actually fairly selective.

[siva_chair]

I'm being serious too. People shouldn't die for being stupid.

People die from being stupid all the time that is why we have the Darwin Awards.

[Smokey D]

No ought from a mere is.

[siva_chair]

No ought from a mere is.

Cause and effect man.

[Smokey D]

Yeah I didn't say stupid people don't die because they're stupid I said that they shouldn't.

[siva_chair]

Yeah I didn't say stupid people don't die because they're stupid I said that they shouldn't.

No they should because death is clearly the natural effect of them being stupid and I don't see why productive people should be robbed so they can go on living and making more stupid decisions.

[Against Miik!]

I mean if a bear was out in a forest and just kept walking face first into a tree and never tried to get food or any cool stuff it would probably die.

For every other species on earth, stupidity gets you killed.

I guess some would say thats why we are different, for better or worse. Honestly though, if you were one of the "stupid", would you be cool with someone telling you that you deserved to die?

[siva_chair]

I mean if a bear was out in a forest and just kept walking face first into a tree and never tried to get food or any cool stuff it would probably die.

For every other species on earth, stupidity gets you killed.

I guess some would say thats why we are different, for better or worse. Honestly though, if you were one of the "stupid", would you be cool with someone telling you that you deserved to die?

They would only deserve to die if they did stupid things that would cause them to die, of course.

I don't see why I should be forced to pay for people's irresponsible choices. Or even their genuine, not the result of stupidity, injuries from accidents tbh.

[TheDarkHorse]

For every other species on earth, stupidity gets you killed.

or a job as a governor.

[siva_chair]

or a job as a governor.

I didn't know animals besides humans could get government jobs.


Nice edit, btw. Did you change it because Obama was a Senator? Be honest pls....:p

[Against Miik!]

Have our standards sunk so low as to consider Obama an intellectual?

They would only deserve to die if they did stupid things that would cause them to die, of course.

I don't see why I should be forced to pay for people's irresponsible choices. Or even their genuine, not the result of stupidity, injuries from accidents tbh.

Thats a fair question, and one that is easy to ponder hypothetically, until of course you are financially ruined by hospital bills n ****.

For real though, some would say that helping the poor is good for the nation as a whole. Were it in the realm of fiscal possibility, I might be one of those people.

[siva_chair]

Thats a fair question, and one that is easy to ponder hypothetically, until of course you are financially ruined by hospital bills n ****.

Well the reason medical insurance is unaffordable for so many is due to the fact that there is essentially a cartel in the medical industry.

For real though, some would say that helping the poor is good for the nation as a whole. Were it in the realm of fiscal possibility, I might be one of those people.

The best way to help the poor is to get Leviathan out of the medical industry, not rob productive citizens and destroy wealth.

[TheDarkHorse]

=siva_chair;17409040Nice edit, btw. Did you change it because Obama was a Senator? Be honest pls....:p
LoL no

Its evident your antipathy towards Obama has taken over your life, as that didn't even cross my mind.

[siva_chair]

LoL no

Its evident your antipathy towards Obama has taken over your life, as that didn't even cross my mind.

Lol what? Not even close.

Why did you change it from senator to governor?

[Against Miik!]

Well the reason medical insurance is unaffordable for so many is due to the fact that there is essentially a cartel in the medical industry.

Yeah, socialized medicine is just replacing one cartel with another. Actually, I don't think things would change all that much if we took a more socialist path. Government and big business are in bed together in pretty much most industries it seems.


The best way to help the poor is to get Leviathan out of the medical industry, not rob productive citizens and destroy wealth.


I wasn't just referring to health care.

Rich people don't pay taxes anyway. Thats why they are rich, or among the reasons. And even if they did, its sad that they can't realize that this country has given them so much, and they should give some in return. To make this whole thing a little less controversial, I think we need to redefine what rich is. I think $250,000 is the mark Obama set. And while that certainly is a nice living, that is hardly rich, especially in metropolitan areas.

So you can't just go to poor people and say get a job, stop being poor. At the rate we are going, with the wealth gap widening, the middle class being destroyed, and basically wealth becoming more consolidated, well, pretty much we'd be on a path to some of those third world nations where about 50 people can actually live a normal life and the rest can't even eat.

Exaggerated a bit, sure, but it's been studied and quantitatively proven that nations with more equality generally experience higher prosperity.

[TheDarkHorse]

Lol what? Not even close.
No buddy don't deny it

Why did you change it from senator to governor?
Cause the name 'Sarah Palin' came to mind. Ever heard of her?

[siva_chair]

Yeah, socialized medicine is just replacing one cartel with another. Actually, I don't think things would change all that much if we took a more socialist path. Government and big business are in bed together in pretty much most industries it seems.

We already pretty much have a socialized path. Idk why people don't really get that.


I wasn't just referring to health care.

Coincidentally, neither was I.

Rich people don't pay taxes anyway. Thats why they are rich, or among the reasons. And even if they did, its sad that they can't realize that this country has given them so much, and they should give some in return. To make this whole thing a little less controversial, I think we need to redefine what rich is. I think $250,000 is the mark Obama set. And while that certainly is a nice living, that is hardly rich, especially in metropolitan areas.

Lol no rich people pay plenty of taxes.

So you can't just go to poor people and say get a job, stop being poor. At the rate we are going, with the wealth gap widening, the middle class being destroyed, and basically wealth becoming more consolidated, well, pretty much we'd be on a path to some of those third world nations where about 50 people can actually live a normal life and the rest can't even eat.

Subsidizing the poor doesn't help the poor stop being poor. If anything, it gives them a sense of entitlement and hinders their ability and incentives to improve themselves. I have nothing against helping the genuinely needy to get them on their feet, but systematic welfare is ultimately a handicap.

Exaggerated a bit, sure, but it's been studied and quantitatively proven that nations with more equality generally experience higher prosperity.

I don't know about that. Also, it really depends on what you mean by "equality."

[siva_chair]

No buddy don't deny it

Cause the name 'Sarah Palin' came to mind. Ever heard of her?

Its evident your antipathy towards Palin has taken over your life.

Which is even worse than any antipathy towards Obama because at least he is still relevant. Get out of the past.

[Against Miik!]

Subsidizing the poor doesn't help the poor stop being poor. If anything, it gives them a sense of entitlement and hinders their ability and incentives to improve themselves. I have nothing against helping the genuinely needy to get them on their feet, but systematic welfare is ultimately a handicap.

Thats very neat and I'm sure its looks very sensible in an economics book but reality seems to a bit different. Welfare or not, a lot of people don't care if they are poor, or are legitimately to stupid to do anything about it, or are so far in the hole that the opportunities just aren't there.

So basically, if you aren't going to help them out with at least basic necessities, the only options are to in fact let them die (but really the poor aren't going away, nor are the stupid), or just let everybody stay poor and get poorer. Regardless, they will be a burden on society as a whole.

I don't know about that. Also, it really depends on what you mean by "equality."

Rather than finding the study that I had to analyze (I had a hard copy of it, no clue where to find it), a quick search produced this.

I am a Libertarian at heart, but in a way would have no problem with social programs that worked. The problem is that we as a nation are cluttered with so much debt and inefficiency, that we can't have any. So under present conditions, I agree with you.

[siva_chair]

Thats very neat and I'm sure its looks very sensible in an economics book but reality seems to a bit different. Welfare or not, a lot of people don't care if they are poor, or are legitimately to stupid to do anything about it, or are so far in the hole that the opportunities just aren't there.

If they don't care if they are poor themselves, I don't get why I should care.

If they are legitimately too stupid to do anything about it then I still don't see why I should have to subsidize that stupidity by having my wealth plundered.

Nobody is so far in the hole that they can't improve themselves, regardless of what some people will tell you. It is called taking responsibility for your actions and lifestyle.

So basically, if you aren't going to help them out with at least basic necessities, the only options are to in fact let them die (but really the poor aren't going away, nor are the stupid), or just let everybody stay poor and get poorer. Regardless, they will be a burden on society as a whole.

You aren't helping them by making them reliant on others and victimizing them.

It is not necessary for the government to rob people to help these people.

Rather than finding the study that I had to analyze (I had a hard copy of it, no clue where to find it), a quick search produced this.

I am a Libertarian at heart, but in a way would have no problem with social programs that worked. The problem is that we as a nation are cluttered with so much debt and inefficiency, that we can't have any. So under present conditions, I agree with you.

I have no problem with charity because it is voluntarily funded. I do have a problem with theft, which is what funds all government social programs.

Also, inefficiency is inevitable with the state, so it certainly isn't a good solution if you are looking for efficiency.

[TheDarkHorse]

Its evident your antipathy towards Palin has taken over your life.

Which is even worse than any antipathy towards Obama because at least he is still relevant. Get out of the past.

LoL that only took you 10 minutes to come up with

gg Rawn Pawl fanboy

[siva_chair]

LoL that only took you 10 minutes to come up with

gg Rawn Pawl fanboy

Or, alternately and more realistically, I was busy typing up a response to Milk. But good try there.

[Haliburton]

I'm being serious too. People shouldn't die for being stupid.

why

why just dying

why dont we have the government subsidize them so they get equal pay as smart people

[Iskandar]

'Cause if they live they can do stuff, like get better jobs and contribute to society.
Have our standards sunk so low as to consider Obama an intellectual? Er, president of the Harvard Law Review.

[Haliburton]

'Cause if they live they can do stuff, like get better jobs and contribute to society.pretty sure poor people in a socialized system result in a net loss but ok

[Iskandar]

Keeping them alive has potentially more long-term gain than not.

[Haliburton]

well jumping into the air has more potential to launch you into space than not but statistically speaking im gonna go ahead and say its not a very good way to get to the moon

[Iskandar]

Pretty bad analogy.

I thought you libertarian types were all about the bootstrap mentality.

Or do you just hate the poor enough to want them to starve.

[gregulus]

Also, inefficiency is inevitable with the state, so it certainly isn't a good solution if you are looking for efficiency.
Health care models in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Germany are more efficient than the health care model in the United States.

Subsidizing the poor doesn't help the poor stop being poor.
So, you want the poor to work harder in order to stop being poor but you don't want to provide them with health care to ensure that they are healthy enough to actually work their way up the socio-economic ladder?

[Haliburton]

pretty awesome analogy tbh

and i dunno how giving people free **** is in line with pulling yourself out of poverty by the bootstraps

[Haliburton]

Health care models in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Germany are more efficient than the health care model in the United States.

dude

for the 20th time

false dichotomy

the private healthcare system in great britain is more efficient too OH MY GOD THAT MEANS AMERICA SHOULD GO PRIVATE

[gregulus]

dude

for the 20th time

false dichotomy

the private healthcare system in great britain is more efficient too OH MY GOD THAT MEANS AMERICA SHOULD GO PRIVATE
Siva implied that greater government involvement would lead to a more inefficient system and I pointed out that this is not the case.

I'm not really interested in Libertarian pipe dreams of complete deregulation.

[Haliburton]

im afraid if you think the us government isnt involved in healthcare in a big way you're not really educated enough on the subject enough to be discussing it

[gregulus]

I never said it wasn't involved. The extent of involvement probably isn't as great as it is in those other countries that I previously listed, though.

[Haliburton]

okay i mean with words like probably it would seem like you arent so sure about it but hey whats arguing on the internet about if not making stuff up and running with it

[Iskandar]

and i dunno how giving people free **** is in line with pulling yourself out of poverty by the bootstrapsFirst we need to keep them alive so they can do this.
the private healthcare system in great britain is more efficient too OH MY GOD THAT MEANS AMERICA SHOULD GO PRIVATECorrelation ≠ causation bro js.

I don't see what the private healthcare system in Britain has to do with their public system being better.

[gregulus]

Ha. Given the nature of the system in those places compared to the United States and how many people they cover (and actually owning things like hospitals, in cases like Great Britain) it seems rather obvious that government involvement in health care is greater than it is in the United States.

[Haliburton]

First we need to keep them alive so they can do this.
they can keep themselves alive i dont think you're understanding the premise of pulling yourself up

Correlation ≠ causation bro js.
um i know i was pointing out why it was dumb

the public health system in the uk is better than america, ergo america should have socialized care

the private health system in the uk is better than america, ergo america should have private care

hurr

[Haliburton]

Ha. Given the nature of the system in those places compared to the United States and how many people they cover (and actually owning things like hospitals, in cases like Great Britain) it seems rather obvious that government involvement in health care is greater than it is in the United States.
saying something seems obvious isnt really proof

everyone knows thats true

[gregulus]

I wasn't making any sort of implication like that. I was simply pointing out the fact that greater government involvement doesn't necessarily require greater inefficiency.

[Haliburton]

I wasn't making any sort of implication like that. I was simply pointing out the fact that greater government involvement doesn't necessarily require greater inefficiency.
without showing that there is greater government involvement

or that its actually more efficient

[gregulus]

If you have a reason to believe otherwise, please tell me why. I know how you hate inductive reasoning for some reason, but that's all we really have to go on in this instance.

[Iskandar]

I mean, National Health Service.

The USA doesn't have anything comparable to the NHS.

[Haliburton]

just because government involvement is different doesnt mean its less

ps a lot of hospitals are privately operated in the uk

[gregulus]

without showing that there is greater government involvement
See above post.

or that its actually more efficient

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

From the summary:
Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the six countries, with the U.K. and New Zealand ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of the use of information technology and multidisciplinary teams. Also, of sicker respondents who visited the emergency room, those in Germany and New Zealand are less likely to have done so for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

[Haliburton]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_img/MirrorMirror_FigureES1.gif

canada kinda sucks, so much for socialist utopia

but ok now to prove less government involvement

[Iskandar]

You appear to have missed the lowest on the list is America.

[Haliburton]

no way man canada rocks, we're second last

[gregulus]

just because government involvement is different doesnt mean its less

ps a lot of hospitals are privately operated in the uk

Yeah, but there are also a lot that aren't.

The vast majority of citizens rely on NHS for health care and NHS requirements are less exclusive than programs in the United States like Medicare and Medicaid. The UK also has very similar regulations on things like pharmaceuticals to the ones in the United States. I don't know how you can say that government involvement is less than or equal to that in the United States.

[Mr. Ron]

so whats this thing about a civilian national security (?) force that obama wants kids to serve in?

[gregulus]

The term "socialized medicine" is also a misnomer. Just saying.

[Iskandar]

no way man canada rocks, we're second lastOf the sample of like five countries dude.

It's cute that you're attacking Canada as a means of trolling me by proxy but you still don't have an intellectual leg to stand on as long as your butt-buddy America is doing worse than we are.

PS. other socialized systems are doing better than Canada so in conclusion, you suck.

[Haliburton]

The vast majority of citizens rely on NHS for health care and NHS requirements are less exclusive than programs in the United States like Medicare and Medicaid.
more people being reliant on it doesnt mean theres more government involvement

the path you're going down is a sort of they spend more on it so they are more involved

but we know they dont spend more on it so that doesnt really work

[Haliburton]

Of the sample of like five countries dude.
it ranks below the us in quite a few of the areas in case you didnt notice, it -just- beat the US in this study, by 1 point

also you know i dont support the current healthcare system in the us so this isnt really a bad thing for me

but you do support the healthcare system in canada and regularly say its better than the us

but mr table says no

[gregulus]

more people being reliant on it doesnt mean theres more government involvement

the path you're going down is a sort of they spend more on it so they are more involved

but we know they dont spend more on it so that doesnt really work

Of course they don't spend more on it, and I wasn't going down that road. Spending more, in this instance, is a result of cost.

More people being reliant on it means the government has a larger role in the health care of the citizens of that country. That is what this conversation is about and that is what Siva (I believe) was objecting to. This, combined with the fact that NHS owns many hospitals and directly employees much of the staff of those hospitals, indicates that government involvement is also greater in that regard.

[gregulus]

but mr table says no
Yes it does. Not by much, but it does rank higher than the U.S.

[Haliburton]

More people being reliant on it means the government has a larger role in the health care of the citizens of that country.

This, combined with the fact that NHS owns many hospitals and directly employees much of the staff of those hospitals, indicates that government involvement is also greater in that regard.
i dont think so, the government could fund it and then remove itself entirely from the operation

efficiency isnt reliant on source of funding

Yes it does. Not by much, but it does rank higher than the U.S.within the arbitrary weighting system of this study

where it pulls itself up based on one single category after scoring lower than the us on about half of the others

[gregulus]

i dont think so, the government could fund it and then remove itself entirely from the operation

efficiency isnt reliant on source of funding
It could, but it doesn't in either system so that point is irrelevant.

within the arbitrary weighting system of this study

where it pulls itself up based on one single category after scoring lower than the us on about half of the others

You referenced the table from that study.

[Haliburton]

It could, but it doesn't in either system so that point is irrelevant.
the degree in which it does is the point

You referenced the table from that study.
the overall conclusion is opinion since you have to make a decision on which factors are most important in determining 'goodness', hence arbitrary weighting

but saying that canada performs worse in specific categories isnt opinion

[gregulus]

the degree in which it does is the point
Unless the United States government is significantly more involved in regulation than the UK government is, then there is no reason to say that the United States government is more involved in health care than the UK government. I'm unaware of such a significant difference in regulation.

[Iskandar]

it ranks below the us in quite a few of the areas in case you didnt notice, it -just- beat the US in this study, by 1 point

also you know i dont support the current healthcare system in the us so this isnt really a bad thing for me

but you do support the healthcare system in canada and regularly say its better than the us

but mr table says noThe least it suggests is that Canada's healthcare is roughly on par with America's despite being sawshulized, yet it's available to everyone.

Now you just need to prove private healthcare would be better than both (by empirical data, not generalized inferences like "private competition is always more efficient so I win!") and then I will accede.

[Haliburton]

Unless the United States government is significantly more involved in regulation than the UK government is, then there is no reason to say that the United States government is more involved in health care than the UK government. I'm unaware of such a significant difference in regulation.
i dont know, the us government sets prices and restrictions quite heavily

as far as im aware the latest reform of the nhs was to make it more market based

The least it suggests is that Canada's healthcare is roughly on par with America's despite being sawshulized, yet it's available to everyone.

did you read the chart

Canada - Access: 5
USA - Access: 6

protip: that means no

[Iskandar]

I don't think you understand what socialized healthcare is.

It means anyone can have it without paying upfront.

In America, everyone has access to healthcare too.

If they can pay.

[Haliburton]

having a legal right to care means nothing if you have to wait too long to get it did you misunderstand the study or something

Access: In other countries, like the U.K and Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience long wait times for such specialized services. The U.S. and Canada rank lowest on the prompt accessibility of appointments with physicians, with patients more likely to report waiting six or more days for an appointment when needing care.

[Iskandar]

For specialized services.

[Haliburton]

oh yeah i forgot

people always die from general illness

[Iskandar]

More of them do or it wouldn't be general.

[Haliburton]

theres no such thing as general illness

people die from specific things

which require specialist treatment

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's hard to judge when they don't define what a "specialized service" is.

[TheDarkHorse]

It's hard to judge when they don't define what a "specialized service" is.

um specialized procedures are always defined as such.

[siva_chair]

Health care models in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Germany are more efficient than the health care model in the United States.

The health care model in the United States is not a free market system but a heavily government regulated one. Seriously you are smarter than this man.

So, you want the poor to work harder in order to stop being poor but you don't want to provide them with health care to ensure that they are healthy enough to actually work their way up the socio-economic ladder?

No, if the poor want to stop being perpetually poor they will change their lifestyles (by that I mean the huge tendency to engage high time preference behavior) to adapt.

You are committing a false dichotomy by assuming that government provided healthcare is the only option for the poor in this case. This is not true.

Siva implied that greater government involvement would lead to a more inefficient system and I pointed out that this is not the case.

I'm not really interested in Libertarian pipe dreams of complete deregulation.

No, because the government is already heavily involved in the healthcare system in the US. Think about what you are getting into here. If the government gets its hoped-for end result of one big government monopoly on health care, it will operate with all the efficiency of our marvelous post office and all the charm and compassion of the IRS.

It is silly that you think that the government isn't already *** deep to a tall Comanche in the health care industry in the US. Something like 85%+ of hospitals in this country are non-profit, government subsidized entities (that are terribly wasteful and inefficient compared to their for-profit counterparts, btw). Not to mention all the government regulating of the for-profit sectors like the drug and insurance industries.

[guitarded_chuck]

Barack Obama doesn't care about White people.

[Smokey D]

No they should because death is clearly the natural effect of them being stupid


Yes just because things happen doesn't mean they should happen.

and I don't see why productive people should be robbed so they can go on living and making more stupid decisions

This is a reason.

Again, I would say most people don't make stupid decisions, they make rational decisions but those rational decisions produce sub-optimal results. I don't know if people should be condemned to die for that.


why just dying

why dont we have the government subsidize them so they get equal pay as smart people

Well yeah it should except to the extent that inequality raises the position of the least well off member of society.

[siva_chair]

Yes just because things happen doesn't mean they should happen.

Oh so it is a lot like how "just because we CAN (and do) rob people so others can get health care, it doesn't mean we SHOULD." Right?

No one has the right to force others to pay for the natural consequences of their own stupidity (or sub-optimal results, if you will).

This is a reason.

Again, I would say most people don't make stupid decisions, they make rational decisions but those rational decisions produce sub-optimal results. I don't know if people should be condemned to die for that.

They aren't being "condemned" to die really.

And I still don't see how everyone else should be forced to pay for the sub-optimal results that are the result of their decisions.

[Mr. Ron]

If you need to go into the ER or have something seriously wrong with you, the hospital cannot turn you away.

[gregulus]

If you need to go into the ER or have something seriously wrong with you, the hospital cannot turn you away.

They are also only required to give you minimum care. I'm not saying this should change, I'm saying that that is not equivalent to good health care. In many instances you still get stuck with a large bill.

[DENEpants]

If you need to go into the ER or have something seriously wrong with you, the hospital cannot turn you away.

doesn't mean they wont try. homeless people with ER braclets still attached get dumped on the street on a regular basis because as soon as some higher up gets wind they're treating a peon out they go.

[Smokey D]

You can't turn up to an emergency room with cancer and expect them to cure you.

[siva_chair]

Well why not Smokey?

IT IS MY RIGHT!!!!

[Smokey D]

Well, healthcare is probably an example of a civil right rather than a natural right.

[siva_chair]

I DEMAND that others pay to treat my cancer. Immediately!

[Smokey D]

No, you can probably on demand that you be offered a reasonable opportunity of treatment.

[siva_chair]

Yes I want others to have to pay for it. I demand it. It is my right to force them to do this.

[Smokey D]

Well, you have a right to live yes.

But you don't have a right to demand treatment without a reasonable chance of success.

[siva_chair]

Well, you have a right to live yes.

But you don't have a right to demand treatment without a reasonable chance of success.

Yes, I have the right to live (meaning no one has to right to take my life away from me), but that doesn't mean I have the right to force others to provide me with a service so I can continue to live.

[Smokey D]

Well, this isn't going to get us anywhere because I hold to the right to life as axiomatically as you do to property.

[siva_chair]

Well, this isn't going to get us anywhere because I hold to the right to life as axiomatically as you do to property.

I'm saying the right to life and the right to property are the same things.

You seem to hold that the right to life implies the right to demand other people give you a service to keep you from dying. I am saying that isn't what the right to life is.

[Smokey D]

Yeah well I guess I disagree. I don't really want this thread to dissolve into another libertarian mess.

[siva_chair]

Pretty much any political issue is going to come down to a libertarian/non-libertarian viewpoint.

[Smokey D]

Not really.

If I want to discuss a libertarian approach to healthcare, I'll go to libertarian thread.

[TerranYouApart]

life isn't property you ****ing scumbag

[siva_chair]

Not really.

If I want to discuss a libertarian approach to healthcare, I'll go to libertarian thread.

But if we want to discuss a socialized approach to healthcare, we can do it anytime healthcare comes up, right?

[siva_chair]

life isn't property you ****ing scumbag

It requires the exclusive use of one's own body, so yes it is.

Calling me a ****ing scumbag won't change that fact.

[Smokey D]

But if we want to discuss a socialized approach to healthcare, we can do it anytime healthcare comes up, right?

I can start an official socialised healthcare thread too if you want.

[siva_chair]

I can start an official socialised healthcare thread too if you want.

I don't really care what you do.

I just thought it was kinda odd that no one is allowed to discuss a libertarian perspective on an issue outside of the libertarian thread.

[Smokey D]

Well, the topic is like cancer when Chad's around so it's been rather over exposed. Making an official thread allows for alternative views to be explored without the reflexive nah uh property rights.

[siva_chair]

Well, the topic is like cancer when Chad's around so it's been rather over exposed. Making an official thread allows for alternative views to be explored without the reflexive nah uh property rights.

I don't see what the big deal is as long as it is in fact an issue of rights. This is a political forum after all.

[Smokey D]

Coz it's killing other discussion and is adequately serviced by an official thread.

[TerranYouApart]

"life requires the exclusive use of one's own body. therefore it is property."

in that gibberish i think you're missing a vital link between gibber 1 and 2. try making a parallel statement that makes any sense bet you can't.



aside. how do you put a price on life, where value is completely subjective to every individual? in response to your "how much they earn" argument:

"not all things that can be counted count, and not all things that count can be counted"

[Smokey D]

Libertarian thread

[TerranYouApart]

glenn beck is a ****ing shock dj. why there's even a thread in here about him puts zero credibility in your ability to consistently moderate this forum.

*writing my new paris hilton thread*

[Smokey D]

Report problems thread

[TerranYouApart]

so guys, glenn beck.

[Det_Nosnip]

Is a douchebag. Calling Obama racist is probably the most tame thing he's done.

Agreeing that it would be good if America was hit by another terrorist attack because we're "not concerned enough about security"...much worse!

[1338 h4x0r]

he's as dumb as he looks

[TerranYouApart]

i like how republicans are all like god bless america and as soon as there's a president they didn't vote for they damn the country with every breath

[Angmar]

Or whenever people would criticize Bush they'd be like "YOU SHOULD SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT NO MATTER WHAT HIS VIEWS ARGGGHGHHHHH" now look at em!

[Wickerton]

i like how democrats think they're any better than republicans

[Mr. Ron]

i like how republicans are all like god bless america and as soon as there's a president they didn't vote for they damn the country with every breath
huh? No they don't. They're just attacking Obama, not the country.

[Det_Nosnip]

i like how republicans are all like god bless america and as soon as there's a president they didn't vote for they damn the country with every breath

Because Democrats don't do that. :rolleyes:

[TerranYouApart]

democrats don't really pride themselves on being blindly patriotic generally

[derivicus]

Glen Beck is a good man. He's got a good head on his shoulders too.

[Det_Nosnip]

:lol: Glen Beck is abso-****ing-lutely insane.

[gregulus]

Guys, guys. Glen Beck is obviously a modern day Thomas Paine. He even wrote a book called Common Sense.

[Seafroggys]

Because Democrats don't do that. :rolleyes:

I think for awhile Democrats were kinda that way toward Obama, but I think the critique's are starting to become mainstream now.

[Neur0heiler]

I really have no idea how the OP can take Glenn Beck seriously

steve try to jerk off at least once in a while maybe every other week?

[cobert]

Guys, guys. Glen Beck is obviously a modern day Thomas Paine. He even wrote a book called Common Sense.

It pains me that he actually thinks this. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone on his side of the fence called him crazy, he would die thinking his words sparked the next American Revolution.

[fafafafa]

i dont mind glenn beck he gets the old conservatives on the obama hatin' train

[DENEpants]

he gives me a good chuckle with his lunacy. which is then followed by rage. it's funny how 30 sec of him can change my mood so quickly.

[Mr. Ron]

When he cries I die a little inside. It looks so forced and fake.

[gregulus]

When he cries I die a little inside. It looks so forced and fake.

idk there's probably a reason for that. maybe he's just a baby, though.

[nator]

he gets dumber every year

[Mr. Ron]

But he wears JEANS and SNEAKERS with a sports coat, guys! He's obv hip and with it while being a serious news caster!

[iamtherobots]

I love Glenn Beck.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

When he cries I die a little inside. It looks so forced and fake.

He must be a beta male.

[Mr. Ron]

nah he's a zeta

[nator]

hey guys i was an alcoholic! im just a regular joe you know! i don't even know what i'm talking about! you know? just like you!

he says that every five minutes


and he did a "comedy" tour lol

[Neur0heiler]

nah he's a zeta

he's an omicron

if u know wut I mean

(I sure don't)

[cobert]

and he did a "comedy" tour lol

the cracked article on this was funny.

[Det_Nosnip]

I just love when people are hypocritical on recorded television. It makes life so much easier for the people who work at the Daily Show. :lol:

[HNLzero]

im beginning to suspect more and more that beck is just a liberal plant

[crunkaholic]

I hear glenn beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. It's kinda odd to think that glenn has been **** **** insane almost as long as I've been alive.

[Mr. Ron]

Uh yeah, thats not true.

[crunkaholic]

but in all seriousness, glenn beck scares me. I go to sleep with the beck late night rerun. My dreams are terrifying.

[Iskandar]

Are they about socialism coming to America.

[Mr. Ron]

why would glenn beck scare you when there are Micheal Moores out in the world who are much worse?

[Iskandar]

Micheal Moore isn't that bad seriously there are far worse people out there.

[Mr. Ron]

lol what have you ever seen a Moore film? Its complete tin foil hattery in it's prime.

[Iskandar]

Yeah I have and no he's not nearly as crazy as Zeitgeist or some crap like that.

[Mr. Ron]

Not Zeitgeist crazy, but he clearly is an ultra bleeding heart that has nothing good to say about America-crazy

[Iskandar]

That's not really crazy there are lots of people like that they're called liberals.

[Mr. Ron]

Only lame college libs that like to sit in the quad and play bongos can seriously think Moore's film are good.

[The Stig]

The thing about Moore that scares me more than Zeitgeist is the fact that his media reach a lot farther than Zeitgeist.

[Iskandar]

The thing about Moore that scares me more than Zeitgeist is the fact that his media reach a lot farther than Zeitgeist.Not really because Zeitgeist is more wrong and lots of stupid people believed it.

[Mr. Ron]

If you believe in what Moore says you're just as much of an idiot.

[Iskandar]

Moore believes pretty typical liberal Democrat stuff as far as I can tell. He's better compared to Glenn Beck than Zeitgeist which is just fringe crap.

[Mr. Ron]

I never compared him to Zeitgeist in the first place.


However, Moore's movies are just crap, really. Its funny how after his movies come out all of the mistakes in the numbers and figures he used in them are shown to be totally wrong.

[The Stig]

I don't particularly like Beck, but Moore is worse.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, Beck is just really over-dramatic. I lol each time he fake cries, too.

[Iskandar]

The first time I saw Glenn Beck's program I wasn't entire sure if he was serious because he was so blatantly right wing. I think he compared stuff to Communism at one point.

[fafafafa]

well america is half way to complete socialism so its ok for him to make those comparisons

[Iskandar]

Lol.

[fafafafa]

well unless im mistaken 50% if half way but feel free to correct me on that

[McP3000]

neither Bush or Obama is racist

stop arguing about it

[crunkaholic]

Are they about socialism coming to America.

You don't get it, they are already here.

why would glenn beck scare you when there are Micheal Moores out in the world who are much worse?

From the few Michael Moore movies I've seen, I can't really remember one. The problem I have with Beck is the manner in which he is publicized and how many people get to watch and nod along with. Beck is on a station every night which mixes commentators with the "news" and I can't tell the difference sometimes.

[McP3000]

michael moore is so famous alongside with his documentaries how can you even say that

[crunkaholic]

You are probably right about the Michael Moore being a bit more famous than Beck. It's just from my perspective I've seen Beck more often, at least in the recent past. Acquaintances of mine watch fox news and take it pretty seriously and I do know the people who eat up Moore's documentaries. Idk. Both push their own political driven agenda in a poor way but I just see Beck more often. When did beck start getting more popular?

[fafafafa]

since a socialist got elected and started ****ing things up

[Iskandar]

Lol.

[crunkaholic]

and thanks for making it d0cumentaries. forgot about that.

[Det_Nosnip]

Michael Moore's kinda gone into hiding.

Thankfully.

[TerranYouApart]

no he hasn't iskandar was touting a trailer for his upcoming propaganda film just last week. michael moore puts way too much emotion into his movies for me to take them seriously, anecdote after anecdote which frankly i don't give 2 poops about. i'm referring mainly to sicko god that was abysmal

[DENEpants]

i don't take movies about health care hosted by obese men seriously.

[fafafafa]

its because he's wants other people to pay for his irresponsible behaviour

or idk thats what socialism is in general really

[robertsona]

everything ever is obama's fault

[fafafafa]

people who think like obama ya pretty much bro

[Det_Nosnip]

i don't take movies about health care hosted by obese men seriously.

lol...good point.

[robertsona]

good thread guys that's a wrap

[Det_Nosnip]

Yep. Glen Beck is a giant douchebag...case closed.

[Blanka Flip]

America would be in a lot better shape right now if Obama wasn't a socialist.



As well as a communist, Marxist, Third Reich officer, Satanist, Scientologist, sandbox bully, meth addict, and a bad cook. *AHM* and of course, racist!

[DENEpants]

America would be in a lot better shape right now if Obama wasn't a socialist.



As well as a communist, Marxist, Third Reich officer, Satanist, Scientologist, sandbox bully, meth addict, and a bad cook. *AHM* and of course, racist!

he's not a ****ing socialist.

[Mr. Ron]

are you sure

[DENEpants]

yes. he's actually pretty conservative. which is some bullshit if you ask me.

[Blanka Flip]

he's not a ****ing socialist.

I don't think someone got the idea of my post.

[YDtoad]

As opposed to who, Karl Marx?

[TerranYouApart]

there's no such thing as a black conservative. they just hire those people as part of affirmative action

[The Stig]

yes. he's actually pretty conservative. which is some bullpoop if you ask me.

Sorry, but you're pretty far off here. At least in American politics.

[Angmar]

Fox news says he is so it must be true.

[DENEpants]

I don't think someone got the idea of my post.

you didn't get the point of mine either.

[gregulus]

Sorry, but you're pretty far off here. At least in American politics.

The American definition of center is rather skewed compared to at least the other Western nations.

[Angmar]

The fact that people in our country might consider him a socialist doesn't change the fact that in most western countries some of which are socialist he wouldn't be considered one.