Universal care

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Here come the black helicopters. You must be a hoot to jump with.... assuming you are even a skydiver.

Speaking of a real hoot, that's definitely a big one, given that you don't list jump info, yourself. Even I have more shown than you do. I have 208 jumps, they're all logged (a fair number also on my Pro-Track) and I even have posted some queries recently in the *gasp* SKYDIVING FORUM on this site!!

Obviously this does not constitute proof, but given that you don't provide any about yourself, it's really really odd that you would cast that stone.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU are the one who keeps claiming that this is codified in the System. It's not. You keep failing to show that it is.


I don't keep doing it, I intially wrote something like, 'the rich write the laws that benefit them and fuck the poor' <--- paraphrasation.

You interpreted that be 2 sets of laws, statute. I clarified myself and now you're claiming I keep stating this is codified. Of course it is not codified, it's just enforced that way, even your buiddies would agree.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whether it's about paying more or just using fame to his advantage, doesn't matter. Same difference, really. But you still are not showing that the system "has different rules" for these guys. This kind of thing is aberrant, and I cannot explain it as I did not follow the issue. If I knew it to be true, and there was no rational, medical-needs-based explanation for it, I'd be just as tee'd off as you evidently are.


This is becoming boringly circular. It is my opinion that there are several shades of rules that get enforced selectively. Your opinion is that everyone gets the exact same, which is really a doctrine for Communism if true.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Simple solution: DON'T DO THE FUCKIN' CRIME.


And you refuse to address the matter of Procedural Due Process vs Substandtive DP. Isn't that kinda chicken?

Oh, here's a guy that follwed the law, a white guy, mid 30's, had 2 trials where the jury trash convicted both times before the defendant's family got the judge to look past the p[rosecutor's whining and the judge ordered the DNA be tested. Came back and the jude had to throw out the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/raykrone.html

Of course you won't address that.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just proof that the guy made the right choice by stickin' to it at school, going to college, and getting a good job and earning a good living, rather than thinking he's gonna be the next big rapper or B-ball star...

I agree, all the inner-city kids born to crack mothers...you know, fuck em, they're not even human. Look in the mirror.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Here come the black helicopters. You must be a hoot to jump with.... assuming you are even a skydiver.

Speaking of a real hoot, that's definitely a big one, given that you don't list jump info, yourself. Even I have more shown than you do. I have 208 jumps, they're all logged (a fair number also on my Pro-Track) and I even have posted some queries recently in the *gasp* SKYDIVING FORUM on this site!!

Obviously this does not constitute proof, but given that you don't provide any about yourself, it's really really odd that you would cast that stone.

Based on my outspoken nature, I stay as private as one can in this age. I'm a tandem instructor.


No comment on my Bush pictures?

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Based on my outspoken nature, I stay as private as one can in this age. I'm a tandem instructor.

You were the one who said, earlier in this thread, that people shouldn't be so covetous of their privacy when the government that's giving them health care for deadly chronic diseases fucks up and loses computers that contain their private health information.

Now suddenly you are reversing yourself and privacy matters so very much.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[lawrocket 3]

In communism, your Comrade is your brother - unless you killed him. Your fellow Comrades saw what you did to those other Comrades.

That's the problem with communism and compassion - "by any means necessary." And "the ends justify the means.".
When we look at how many Soviets were killed, it makes the 3rd Reich look tame. And Red China. And the Khmer Rouge. And NoKo.

That's why I disagree that communism is based on compassion. History demonstrates that anywhere between 20 and 100 million people were executed, worked to death, or starved in the name of communism. It is compassion directed at those who toe the line and death to those who do not.

p.s. - I note that non-communist system don't have the best history, either

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU are the one who keeps claiming that this is codified in the System. It's not. You keep failing to show that it is.


I don't keep doing it, I intially wrote something like, 'the rich write the laws that benefit them and fuck the poor'

You could easily go back and quote yourself, but you don't -- because you know that to quote yourself would be to trap yourself by what you actually wrote.

Regardless, even if we go with what you paraphrased, you are saying that "the rich write the laws." NO. The legislators write the laws. We elect the legislators. Ostensibly, we are "getting the laws we want," so they say about our "democracy."

Just for shits and giggles, here's the actual text that you had typed the first time around: ***And in US Capitialism the people who design and run the rules of the system aren't subject to many of the nuances of it. For example, the court/penal system, has different rules for the rich who write the system than the poor.

Gee, there it is in black and white, from post #149 in case you're interested.

Quote

You interpreted that be 2 sets of laws, statute. I clarified myself and now you're claiming I keep stating this is codified.

You didn't clarify shit. You tried to step away from what you knew you'd written. "The court/penal system, has different rules for the rich."

That's pretty much "there's a different set of laws to govern the rich." Now go look again at your "paraphrasation" and behold how much of a bullshit backpedal it appears as to the rest of us.

Quote

Of course it is not codified, it's just enforced that way, even your buiddies would agree.

I'd ask them, if I knew WTF a "buiddie" was.

Quote

This is becoming boringly circular.

That's essentially due to the fact that every time you get pinned down, you shed your argument like a snake's skin and claim you were never wearing it.

Quote

It is my opinion that there are several shades of rules that get enforced selectively. Your opinion is that everyone gets the exact same, which is really a doctrine for Communism if true.

No, you stated that the COURTS had a DIFFERENT SET OF RULES for the rich. And now you're telling me what my opinion is, and again you are wrong. Not everyone gets the same, particularly because we have these asinine federal court districts where a precedent can be set in one and dictate to it, but not so in another. That's but one way that people get different justice. I never said that certain jurisdictions will not treat different people differently, but I certainly did disprove your claim that the rich can basically just walk away from justice, by naming two VERY high-profile people who were convicted despite being rich.

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just proof that the guy made the right choice by stickin' to it at school, going to college, and getting a good job and earning a good living, rather than thinking he's gonna be the next big rapper or B-ball star...

I agree, all the inner-city kids born to crack mothers...you know, fuck em, they're not even human. Look in the mirror.

You can be an inner-city kid with shitty parents and still see that crime is wrong, and that education is a good thing that when it's offered to you, you should take it.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

In communism, your Comrade is your brother - unless you killed him. Your fellow Comrades saw what you did to those other Comrades.

That's the problem with communism and compassion - "by any means necessary." And "the ends justify the means.".
When we look at how many Soviets were killed, it makes the 3rd Reich look tame. And Red China. And the Khmer Rouge. And NoKo.

That's why I disagree that communism is based on compassion. History demonstrates that anywhere between 20 and 100 million people were executed, worked to death, or starved in the name of communism. It is compassion directed at those who toe the line and death to those who do not.

That's leftist "compassion." It's the same kind of humanity they display when they threaten the lives of gun owners either directly or by insinuation, and even imply that they will shoot gun owners to death for causing crime by owning guns!

The compassion of communism, Lucky will tell you, is in its theory, and as he will also tell you, that's all that matters -- and the Soviets and Chinese and Cambodians and so on... have all just been doing it wrong.

I ask you, of what worth is a system that NO HUMANS ON EARTH have been able to put into practice correctly?!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,085]

>Wait wait wait wait wait. Does communism afford him any better housing, or
>any better job, than capitalism does?

In general, no. Both systems have cruddy housing and cruddy jobs available.

>I don't live under rulers who just kill people wantonly.

I didn't say you did; if you want to talk about that, please start another thread. I said that you "live under rulers who won't live as they insist we live." (Your words, not mine.) Senators, representatives and presidents don't deal with airport security, medicare or adherence to annoying laws. (Indeed, presidents get explicit immunity.)

>It's benevolence, not socialism.

No. If it were all private money, then it would be benevolence. But instead, the government takes your tax money - under threat of prison - and sends it to foreign countries. That's socialism, and is no different than taking your money under threat of prison and helping US citizens pay their medical bills. Indeed, one could argue that such money should pay the bills of US citizens BEFORE being shipped overseas.

>You believe that wanting more than you "need" is GREED?

Yes.

>Unmitigated GREED?

No, that's a phrase you just added.

>Yes, but that is not tantamount to GREED, Billvon.

Greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

>You are attempting to equate a desire for material comfort, security,
>and affluence with "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"

Nope. If you want food, housing and transportation, that's not greed. If, for selfish reasons (i.e. you like big cars or big houses or fast parachutes or filet mignon) you buy more than you need, that is greed.

And, as Gecko said, there's nothing wrong with that. That's how capitalism operates. Greed drives our economy. If people didn't buy stuff they didn't need, Wal-Mart would be out of business.

>Then that's Wal-Mart's greed, not capitalism's greed.

You are exactly correct! Wal-Mart's greed makes it a more competitive retailer in a capitalist market. Greed is rewarded by increasing market share. Strictly speaking, capitalism doesn't care about greed - it is the players within capitalism who use greed to their advantage.

>You failed to address the fact that the store owner was a capitalist but
>not specifically greedy.

Not at all. It's great that he's a capitalist and is not greedy. It also means that he is likely to fail when confronted with a company (like Wal-Mart) whose greed enables them to out-compete him. In capitalist terms, Wal-Mart is the more successful company.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>Wait wait wait wait wait. Does communism afford him any better housing, or
>any better job, than capitalism does?

In general, no. Both systems have cruddy housing and cruddy jobs available.

Where is there a communist country where people get to skydive for a living? (Yeah, yeah, I know they get cruddy housing... )

Quote

>I don't live under rulers who just kill people wantonly.

I didn't say you did; if you want to talk about that, please start another thread. I said that you "live under rulers who won't live as they insist we live."

But they insist that we don't kill people wantonly, and they don't do it, themselves.

Quote

(Your words, not mine.) Senators, representatives and presidents don't deal with airport security, medicare or adherence to annoying laws. (Indeed, presidents get explicit immunity.)

That's a bit different and I think you know it. They are kinda "pre-vetted" when they travel, you know?

Quote

>It's benevolence, not socialism.

No. If it were all private money, then it would be benevolence. But instead, the government takes your tax money - under threat of prison - and sends it to foreign countries. That's socialism, and is no different than taking your money under threat of prison and helping US citizens pay their medical bills.

Well, are you saying that they're both wrong? Or both right? Or one wrong and one right??

Quote

Indeed, one could argue that such money should pay the bills of US citizens BEFORE being shipped overseas.

And I do!

Quote

>You believe that wanting more than you "need" is GREED?

Yes.

Then the only way to not earn the epithet "greedy" is to live at a subsistence level?! Otherwise you are "greedy"?!

Quote

>Unmitigated GREED?

No, that's a phrase you just added.

Well, Webster defines "greed" as "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness." If a person is unwilling to live at a subsistence level, you're ready to call him "greedy," meaning that he is reprehensible (i.e. loathesome!) in his acquisitiveness.

Billvon, do you drive a jalopy? Do you own at least one skydive rig (and I would suspect, several)? Is that subsistence? You must be greedy, then! And your greed is, by definition, reprehensible!

Quote

>Yes, but that is not tantamount to GREED, Billvon.

Greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

So, in order to avoid being tarred as "greedy," you must break even at the end of every month, and have nothing to spare -- no food, no money -- beyond what was "needed" for that month.

Quote

>You are attempting to equate a desire for material comfort, security,
>and affluence with "excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"

Nope. If you want food, housing and transportation, that's not greed. If, for selfish reasons (i.e. you like big cars or big houses or fast parachutes or filet mignon) you buy more than you need, that is greed.

So, if I'm hungry and must eat, if I buy Ramen noodles, I'm honorable, but if I buy filet mignon, I'm "greedy"?! (And thus, "reprehensible"?!)

Everyone who buys a fast parachute is "greedy"? They don't need it to be that fast? Or they don't need to skydive, period?

We are back to you defining "greedy" as any person wanting more than what is necessary for subsistence living. I cannot see how you can rationalize or reconcile that definition with either reality, or with your own life, Billvon...

Quote

And, as Gecko said, there's nothing wrong with that. That's how capitalism operates. Greed drives our economy. If people didn't buy stuff they didn't need, Wal-Mart would be out of business.

But what establishes that our economy is even something that warrants or merits survival in the first place? Maybe because of its nature it would be better off dead, leaving room for something better to spring up in its place. Right?

But you are now saying that greed IS good. I thought you were joining those here decrying our greedy capitalism as unfair!

Quote

>You failed to address the fact that the store owner was a capitalist but
>not specifically greedy.

Not at all. It's great that he's a capitalist and is not greedy. It also means that he is likely to fail when confronted with a company (like Wal-Mart) whose greed enables them to out-compete him. In capitalist terms, Wal-Mart is the more successful company.

But regardless, Wal-mart did not really become this behemoth mom-and-pop swallower until 10, 15 years ago. Prior to that, mom-and-pop enjoyed a run of decades, centuries even. Goes against your claim that greed is the driving force--the Prime Mover--of capitalism.


I'll leave you with a quote, and some classic '80s entertainment:

"Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a might voice
Big money make no sound

Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a might web
Big money draw the flies!

Sometimes pushing people around
Sometimes pulling out the rug
Sometimes pushing all the buttons
Sometimes pulling out the plug

It's the power and the glory
It's a war in paradise
A Cinderella story
On a tumble of the dice

Big money goes around the world
Big money take a cruise
Big money leave a mighty wake
Big money leave a bruise!

Big money make a million dreams
Big money spin big deals
Big money make a mighty head
Big money spin big wheels!

Sometimes building ivory towers
Sometimes knocking castles down
Sometimes building you a stairway
Lock you underground

It's that old-time religion
It's the kingdom they would rule
It's that fool on television
Getting paid to play the fool

Big money goes around the world
Big money give and take
Big money done a power of good
Big money make mistakes!

Big money got a heavy hand
Big money take control
Big money got a meeean streak
Big money got... no... SOUL!!

(Yes, I lovingly typed that all for you--no copy and pasting!)

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,085]

>Where is there a communist country where people get to skydive for a living?

China and the former USSR to name just two. Heck, in 1991 they fielded some pretty good (state sponsored) teams.

>That's a bit different and I think you know it.

Of course it is. It is the US, and thus it's OK for our leaders to live different lives than us. It's only evil when other countries do it.

EVERY nation has leaders that live substantially different lives than the 'commoners.' It's the way of politics, and is not limited to communism, socialism or democracy.

>Well, are you saying that they're both wrong? Or both right?

They are both aspects of socialism. Parts of socialism are good; parts are bad. You could create a socialistic healthcare (or foreign aid) program that sucked donkey balls, and you could create one that was pretty good.

Our foreign aid program, which is explicitly socialistic, is pretty good right now (IMO) although I would tend to scale back the aid we send out and concentrate here at home first. Our implicitly socialistic healthcare system (i.e. just show up in the ER and someone else will pay for it) sucks right now. I'd be all for fixing it.

>Billvon, do you drive a jalopy?

My first two cars were indeed cruddy "jalopies" (holes in the floor, ignition switch broken, leaked like a sieve etc.) They were all I could afford. They got me to work and to school.

Then I started making more money and started buying nicer cars. The first one was to replace the Datsun that had disintegrated; I needed another car, and the one I got was as small and as efficient as I could find (a Honda CRX.) Drove that one until it fell apart too.

Then I started to get greedy. I bought a Toyota MR3 because it looked cool. That got nearly totalled in an accident, but it was repaired and I sold it because I didn't like the squeaks and rattles. Then I bought a Toyota minivan to tour the US with; spent six months living in it. Then I sold that and bought a Honda hybrid because I thought the technology was cool.

I got the first three cars because they fulfilled a basic need (to get to work) - and when I had the choice I got the smallest and most efficient car I could. Then, later, greed started coming into play, and I started to get cars that I wanted rather than needed.

>Do you own at least one skydive rig (and I would suspect, several)? Is that
>subsistence?

At first it was. From day one I wanted to be a skydiving instructor - and you need a parachute to do that. So I bought the cheapest cruddiest parachute I could find. (The wisdom of that is, of course, questionable, but I was poor.) I jumped it until I broke my foot trying to land it, then bought a slightly better one. I jumped that for years. By the time I got my jumpmaster rating I had a Sabre 150, a Racer and a PD160R. It was basically the minimum I needed to skydive safely, and I jumped them all until they were unsafe to jump any more. (Except for the PD160, which is still around.)

Then, once I had more money, I again got greedy. I wanted a faster canopy and a more comfortable rig - and once I could afford it, I bought them.

>You must be greedy, then! And your greed is, by definition, reprehensible!

Who said greed was reprehensible?

You keep changing your definitions of things. It is difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who is constantly changing their definition of previous discussions.

>But regardless, Wal-mart did not really become this behemoth mom-and-pop
>swallower until 10, 15 years ago.

Right. Before that it was Korvettes, and before that it was Sears.

>Prior to that, mom-and-pop enjoyed a run of decades, centuries even.

Prior to the 1950's, mom-and-pops won out because people couldn't drive 10 miles to get to a superstore. Superstores are creations of the automobile age.

But even back then, the same principles were in play. If a new mom-and-pop opened up and could undercut the older store, then the older store would fail - even if they were the nicest people in the world. And don't forget Standard Oil, which engaged in: "Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent."

And that was 1911.

Goes against your claim that greed is the driving force--the Prime Mover--of capitalism.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>Well, are you saying that they're both wrong? Or both right?

They are both aspects of socialism. Parts of socialism are good; parts are bad. You could create a socialistic healthcare (or foreign aid) program that sucked donkey balls, and you could create one that was pretty good.

Good answer; it's just too bad it's to a question I didn't ask.

I wanted to know if it was RIGHT or WRONG, in principle, and I believe you knew that, given that I did not use the terms "good" and "bad" in the question.

Would you care to try again?

By the way, do people get to work as skydivers if they don't do it in the service of the government in Russia and China? Do those countries have DZs wherever some entrepreneur wants to establish one, like the U.S.?
(I'm honestly just asking, not trying to "score a point.")

Quote

Our foreign aid program, which is explicitly socialistic, is pretty good right now (IMO) although I would tend to scale back the aid we send out and concentrate here at home first.

That would be the first indication that you feel that what we are doing with our foreign aid, socialistically, is wrong--at least at this point in time.


>Billvon, do you drive a jalopy?

My first two cars were indeed cruddy "jalopies" (holes in the floor, ignition switch broken, leaked like a sieve etc.) They were all I could afford. They got me to work and to school.

Then I started making more money and started buying nicer cars. The first one was to replace the Datsun that had disintegrated; I needed another car, and the one I got was as small and as efficient as I could find (a Honda CRX.) Drove that one until it fell apart too.

Then I started to get greedy. I bought a Toyota MR3 because it looked cool. That got nearly totalled in an accident, but it was repaired and I sold it because I didn't like the squeaks and rattles. Then I bought a Toyota minivan to tour the US with; spent six months living in it. Then I sold that and bought a Honda hybrid because I thought the technology was cool.

I got the first three cars because they fulfilled a basic need (to get to work) - and when I had the choice I got the smallest and most efficient car I could. Then, later, greed started coming into play, and I started to get cars that I wanted rather than needed.

Well, at least you're admitting that YOU yourself fall into the category you'd call "greedy" -- even though I[/] would not call you greedy just for wanting a good, reliable, comfortable car.

But at the time you had the CRX, you could have gone with a Yugo, so perhaps you were greedy even then!


>You must be greedy, then! And your greed is, by definition, reprehensible!

Who said greed was reprehensible?

Um, the guys who write that thar book whut's fulla words an stuff.

Quote

You keep changing your definitions of things. It is difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who is constantly changing their definition of previous discussions.

I have twice quoted the exact same four-words that Webster uses in its definition of "greedy," Billvon.

Quote

>But regardless, Wal-mart did not really become this behemoth mom-and-pop
>swallower until 10, 15 years ago.

Right. Before that it was Korvettes, and before that it was Sears.

Holy shit, Korvettes! We had one near me. It went out of business, as I recall. So much for their greed swallowing up more and more stores until they're a behemoth with all the market share!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[billvon 3,085]

>I wanted to know if it was RIGHT or WRONG, in principle, and I believe you
>knew that, given that I did not use the terms "good" and "bad" in the question.

As I said, it (socialism) is neither right or wrong. It depends on how it is applied. Air traffic control - good. Current pseudo-socialist medical system - bad.

> Do those countries have DZs wherever some entrepreneur wants to
> establish one, like the U.S.?

Yes, China has at least one such DZ. And they are chock full of companies started by entrepreneurs.

>But at the time you had the CRX, you could have gone with a Yugo, so perhaps
>you were greedy even then!

Perhaps. But there was a Honda dealership near me and they gave me a good deal, so I went with what was cheap, easy and reliable.

>I have twice quoted the exact same four-words that Webster uses in its
>definition of "greedy," Billvon.

I am referring to your change of the term "greed" to "Unmitigated GREED."

>Holy shit, Korvettes! Laugh We had one near me. It went out of business, as I
>recall. So much for their greed swallowing up more and more stores until they're
>a behemoth with all the market share!

Do you honestly think that they went out of business because their investors and owners decided "gee, we better not make any more money, and let the mom and pops win out?" Nope. Someone (Target, Wal-Mart) was greedier than they were, and outcompeted them. That's how capitalism works.

[jumpwally 0]

Universal Care = DMV

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[lawrocket 3]

I have written this repetedly over the years here and I will re-write here.

Medical care policy is controlled by three separate factors. Of these you can have two:

1) Inexpensive healthcare;
2) High-quality healthcare; and
3) Available on demand healthcare.

Healthcare has an irrencilable tension between these factors.

You can have inexpensive healthcare than is high-quality. Because of this, it must be rationed, so is not available on demand.

You can have inexpensive healthcare available on demand. It cannot therefore be high quality.

Or, you can have high quality care avaiable on demand, which will be very expensive.

Thus, policymakers are forced to make a decision - how does the care fit within those factors? You cannot have 100% of all three. Nobody wants low-quality care. So we must have high quality. Nobody wants expensive health care. So it must be cheap. This means that it must be rationed, but nobody wants that.

Hence - the reason why government healthcare is a difficult thing.

p.s. - also note that healthcare is no different from any other economic model. As Milton Friedman put it, there are four ways to spend money:
1) You spend your own money on yourself (you'll get what you want at the best price)
2) You spend your own money on someone else (you'll get what you want them to get, at the best price)
3) You spend someone else's money on you (you'll get what you want and not care about the price)
4) You spend someone else's money on someone else (they get what you give them, and who cares about the price)

Government healthcare will be No. 4.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

you left out the options where the government tries to force lower costs by forcing better fitness. See related thread on Alabama.