The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Brownie]

Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care?

Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy.  Just sayin'.

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.

And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.

[Oleg]

Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care?

Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy.  Just sayin'.

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.

And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.

How do you measure how effective a $20 prayer is versus a $40 prayer?

[R-V]

And what I said is science.

This may be my favorite sentence in the entire thread.

[BH]

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not. 

How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?

[Slaky]

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  

How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.

I think.

[Brownie]

Aren't you making the argument for getting the government OUT of health care?

Or perhaps we should keep religion from affecting public policy.  Just sayin'.

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  The more government affects peoples' lives, the more of an interest various groups have in affecting public policy.

And what I said is science. Believing you can expand government and keep a free society and not have special interests trying to carve out their pieces of the pie and not have special interests succeeding in doing this, then you've abandoned reason as well.

How do you measure how effective a $20 prayer is versus a $40 prayer?

I said it's ridiculous. So why should government be involved in it at all? However, the more you want to expand government, the bigger the government industry gets and the more people get in the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mindset.  If you didn't see the Christian Scientists saying "let's get ours," I don't know what to say. If the Christian Scientists want to pay $40 out of their own pockets for prayers, I don't think it would bother you. But since it's their form of medical treatment, and you have offered to generously open the taxpayers' coffers for medical treatment, how is it fair that they fund others' medical treatment and not their own? That's their mindset.

And Slaky was right, with a cavaet. One way to limit special interests is to limit the size and scope of government. People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

[Chuck to Chuck]

The second part of your argument makes no sense. With that reasoning, the Bears should NOT make coaching changes after the season for the simple reason that Virginia McCaskey didn't in 1996, 1997, or 2002.

I think you missed my point.  The argument was simply anti-Medicare Part D yes-voters.  Why did we have to do something in 2005 and nothing is the right answer now when the 2005 legislation seems to have fixed nothing.  Telling me that we have to do "nothing" today is simply politics over policy.  That doesn't do much to win my votes.  Now, if they want to come out and say, "We should do nothing becasue 2005 did nothing, and, while we're at it, we should repeal Medicare D," you've got my attention.

Pretty much the same thing as Vag Mc SHOULD make a coaching change now BECAUSE the extension of Lovie hasn't worked out.

As for the first part of your argument, it really doesn't speak to the problem of more government involvement. If you want to shrink the influence of K street, of lobbyists, of special interest groups, and of religious organizations, reduce the role of government.  They're all involved because government right now is where the money is.

That's not my goal with this.  My goal here is access to healthcare.  Campaign finance / money in politics can be handled directly, not indirectly by shrinking DC.

And shrinking DC will never happen.  The only people in favor of smaller government are politicians in the minority.  They want the party in power to have less accomplishment tallies.  You don't win elections by saying, "Look what services I stopped giving you."  You win elections by providing MORE services.

The GOP takes this theory even farther by not only increasing services, but also cutting taxes at the same time.  "More stuff and it costs less!" is the 21st Century GOP mantra.

Bullshit.

If you think I need more services, don't tell me it's free.  Have the intellectual honesty to tell me how much it costs.  Right now, my three kids' kids and you on-the-way kid's kids will be paying for the "free" stuff we got from 2001 onward for the next 100 years.

[Brownie]

So yes, Chuck, let's take it one step further. I think Congress should repeal Medicare D. Today.

Unfortunately, Barry Goldwater isn't walking through that door!

[Eli]

Just curious, how do the dozens of other countries with government-run health care handle an issue like this?

[Chuck to Chuck]

So yes, Chuck, let's take it one step further. I think Congress should repeal Medicare D. Today.

Unfortunately, Barry Goldwater isn't walking through that door!

There's still time to get you on the ballot.

[Oleg]

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  

How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.

I think.

I ain't far from this.  Eh, yeah, I am.  But the more intolerance that's borne from it, the more I can get behind such things.  No, I can't.

Not a good time for me to be discussing religious tolerance.  I'm about done with another Dawkins book.  Although this one is more about evolution as a whole...but, still.

[Slaky]

For some people, religion is going to be a big part of their lives. Unless you want to go on record as wanting to ban religious freedom, religion will exist whether you like it or not.  

How is saying that separation of church and government is equal to saying we should ban religious freedom?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying special interest groups, including religious groups, will have a say in the government's handling of anything (in this case, health care). The only way to ensure that does not happen is to ban religion, which is obviously not what Oleg was saying, nor what TJ was implying.

I think.

I ain't far from this.  Eh, yeah, I am.  But the more intolerance that's borne from it, the more I can get behind such things.  No, I can't.

Not a good time for me to be discussing religious tolerance.  I'm about done with another Dawkins book.  Although this one is more about evolution as a whole...but, still.

I'm with you Oleg, but with BH's question the discussion was turning into a semantics debate. I was just trying to keep it on track.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

Because banks are sites of deliberative public decision making towards the betterment of the commonweal?

[Brownie]

People lobby the government for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.

Because banks are sites of deliberative public decision making towards the betterment of the commonweal?

Not when Chuck is there holding court about baseball.

[Quality Start Machine]

Don't know if it's been brought up here, but...

Should those who don't believe in evolution be denied flu shots, since the reason there's a new one every year is because the flu virus is constantly evolving?