Kicking the elderly to the curb

1. I don't get people sometimes; that was, in my opinion, just wrong. *sighs*

2. Why did you paint this as a democrat thing? Did she say she was?

3. Regardless of party or politics, you don't kick people to the curb.

be well, ~A

Some folks believe they will be young forever. I'm sure as the years rapidly pass by, her opinion will do an about face.

Mmhm, seems a bit like she was immature.

No, just short sighted.

That too, but it also seems like she made an emotionally charged/based decision,etc. As if she didn't take in everything, and then decide.

Be well, ~Alderic

1. She wants canada's healthcare, republicans oppose it, democrats support it.

2. We were discussing Obama specifically, I said I am concerned about the statements about "prolonging their death" and "someone needs to make a decision for these people about end of life treatment", she expressed agreement with obama about the issue.

Could she be a radical extremist who has no real connection to the core democrat party? Well... then so are the democrats in congress and the white house.

My point was that I gave liberals on the street too much credit, I assumed they were just ignorant of the real intentions and are hoodwinked by the democratic party and I see I am wrong. I KNOW the democrats in congress are callous and evil because I listen to them speak venom such as the need to declare people to death for being old. But I am now seeing it is the average democrat on the street that agrees with them.

I also spoke to a liberal guy the day before and he said congress was wrong to vote against shutting down gitmo, that we need to bring them to the USA, try them in USA courts, and put them in supermax prisons.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're evil. Ignorant? Yes. Stupid? Yes? Opportunistic? Hell yes. Evil? No, that's just going to far; it makes it into some frivilous us vs. them - no thanks.

Those in congress perhaps; heck, even some republicans (yes, republicans)i know think Canada has things going in the right direction.

Or maybe she's just some chick that believes what she believes?

you seem to have poor reading comprehension there.

This is an irrelevant response as I was obviously saying that the democrats in CONGRESS as well as obama beleive in kicking the elderly and terminally ill to the curb.

As for her, she is merely the "last straw" so to speak. It was a string of liberals who showed me that the idiots in congress are not hoodwinking the public, but that a large portion of the population really beleives in communism, entitlement, the sovernty of dictators and the "equality" of evil to good and behaviours that lead to failure.

Her beleifs are completely and utterly ancillery to the actual issue at hand here; which is, that liberals on the street are actually represented by liberals in congress honestly.

Yet the vast majority of the republicans do not, there is a clear party seperation here and you pretend there is none.

"Boohoo, don't be divisive, there is nothing evil in judging people to death for being old, stealing from people to give to others, supporting terrorists and rogue regeimes as they try to subjugate the world, etc"... [/sarcasm]

But I can really feel you with your realization that people are in fact stupid evrywhere and age is not the one thing that seperates intelligent people from idiots. But I wouldn't really limit that to one political party either, it is a fact of life.

This girl sounds like she has her head screwed on right. You might need to lighten up a little.

Most people who laugh after saying something don't actually mean it. It's a subtle social cue to be sure, but it's really just a way of flagging irony.

For example:

"The elderly should be kicked to the curb." {deadly serious expression, mad-eyed stare, set jaw} = nutter

"The elderly should be kicked to the curb." {giggle, hairflip, mimed kick} = person telling a joke who's over the political vibe the convo is taking on, but still wants to talk.

I love how people point to how its working in the EU, the UK, and Canada.

Just take a look first at populations:

Canadian population: 33 million

UK Population: 61 million

France: 62 million (one of the best UHC systems in the EU)

German: 82 million (the most populated European Country)

United States: 303 million

Just by comparing those countries to the U.S. popluation one can see that we destroy all those other countries by popluation.

Next we should look at how much the personal income tax in each of those countries is.  This is a daunting task because each has a sliding scale for taxes.  I would look at the upper-middle class to the upper class here because it would be these two classes that would be forking most of the bill. (On a side note Japan and the U.S have the HIGHEST corporate taxs and this was from 2007. Obama leaning towards the anti-big business side of the spectrum I am sure that we've taken the lead in that category.  This is one of the main reasons corporations choose to set up hqs in another country instead of the U.S.).

Canadian population: $37,178-74,357 (22%) 74358-120,887 (26%) 120,887>(29%)

UK Population: $60000<(Basic rate 22%) $60,000> (the Higher rate 40%)

France:    $36,000 to $ 95999 (30%) $96,000> (40%)

German:  $10,900-72999 (14%), $73,000-349000 (42%) $350000> (45%)

United States: 32,500-78999 (25%) $79000-199999(28%) $200000-357000 (33%) 357000>(35%)

Just looking at those tax rates you can see that our tax system isn't as high as those other countries.

UHC systems aren't going to be successful unless you have a France style tax rate system.  Germany is having some issues with their because not enough of the people are in those upper two tax brackets.  France not only slams the rich with a high tax rate but also the middle class. 

This is what is being pushed for in the states.  There is no way in sheol that just people making 200000 or more will be the only ones who get a tax increase.  As you can see with the taxes you need for most of the middle/upper-middle to fork out the cash as well.

Be as sacrastic as you want, I just do not buy that type of thinking that plants democrats as evil, republicans as good - or so on so forth. The world is already fucked up too much, why add to it? I'm going to acknowledge differences and work on solutions that are not confined to either/or.

First off, you never mentioned - or i never caught on - that she was the last domino that fell. In my opinion, you implied that those who represent liberals (i.e. dems) are doing so in a fashion that mirrors their constituents beleifs, but that just isn't so.  When I used to be a democat, I disagreed with a lot of what fellow dems/liberals wanted.

It's not that I don't realize there is a difference T, I'm not stupid. I realize that, but you're painting things black and white when it's all much more complex. Many of my beliefs are tainted with extreme pessimism and cynicism. So, if that comes across as something else, then my bad.

~A

I never said republicans are ALL good. Many of the republicans in congress are just as evil as the democrats.

But I find that democrats have more plain old evil (they admit to themselves that they just don't care about others; they always do bad things out of selfishness), while republicans have more ignorant religious fanatics who try to be good but do bad things because their religion tells them to (so they do good things sometimes, and bad things on other times).

But overall most "good" politicians associate with the republican party. Let me remind you that marthin luthar king was a republican for a reason. Republicans always stood for christianity and human rights/freedom, an odd combination (and unappealing for a non christian like myself), but it led to some good. While democrats always stood for slavery segregation and subjugation. They just switched from targetting blacks to targetting whites.

I am not painting things black and white, I realize that the situation is COMPLEX, but 90+% of republicans and 90+% of democrats agree on an issue, than its safe to call it "democrat view vs republican view". The under 10% in each party who see things differently are outliers.

I am well aware, it wasn't THAT kind of laugh. Giggle maybe is not the right word, she was not joking based on her tone, context, her reactions when I disagreed with that statement afterwards, and the way she laughed. She was deadly serious.

It might sound like she was joking from the way I said it, but it was no joke.

That being said, she herself is just one more in a long line of democrats I spoke to. It is giving the average american too much credit to assume they are easily hoodwinked dupes who are being led by the nose by crafty politicians. Speaking to people I find that the average american knows exactly what is going on, and is firmly with the republican or democrat views on the issue. Democracy actually works, the people in congress actually represent the people in the street, its just that the people in the street are the ones who are batshit crazy.

I call bullshit on my belief that good vs. evil does not belong in politics. honestly, it's sad and pathetic to see it. If that's the way the average American views and wants things - then God help us. I'd probably end up moving elsewhere.

You say you get that it's complex, but I am still seeing you paint everything with two colors.

There's also the third parties, and so on.

King was no republican, per se; he was - if anything - conservative. His own words show that he often criticized republican candidates/elected officials as well as had beliefs that were contrary to republican beliefs. For example, socialism.

I am glad we agree! I ALSO called bullshit that particular beleif of yours.

The notion that by becomming a politician one automatically gains immunity from being "good" or "evil" IS bullshit.

By that argument Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc were not evil, it was just "politics"

While certainly there is a time and a place to say that, and just because someone does not agree with you does not make them evil, it must be remembered that people are capable of evil in every position you place them in.

Granted, but if we let good/evil be inserted into our political system, then what? There are those out there who will take such things to the extreme. e.g. Those who claim that all liberals are evil and deserve to go to hell. (Or vice versa) Sound familiar?

That's the type of politics that irks me. We're in the same sinking boat, why slit each other's throats?

Its called applying logic and reason. Justifying evil to avoid a slippery slope of branding people evil for merely disagreeing with you is just as weong as labeling people evil for merely disagreeing with you.

You should strive to be impartial and logical and reasonable.

What you are saying sounds a lot like "zero tolerance", which undermines the very fundamentals of being intelligent. That strive to quantify and qualify things via our advanced minds is a good thing and should be encouraged. Otherwise a simple program could replace you.

So it's logic that implies that we have to admit that the other party is evil and should...go to hell, or whatever place you want them to go? Bullshit Taltamir. I'm not justifying evil, nor am I ridiculing it. Sure, there are those evil acts - like what Dahmer did.

There's a point though when it gets to be too much. Do you honestly believe that it is okay for someone who is "intelligent," to label you as evil and that you deserve to be thrown in jail, murdered, sent to hell? My qualm, is with the people that "apply logic and reason" to label people as different or evil in order to push/promote division, hate, their warped view, etc.Example being, diehard christians who claim that all of the people who have had abortions are going to hell....uh, sorry, but I don't buy that bollocks.

Sorry, but shit like that is fucking stupid.

No, logic is just a tool used to help us process/convey information.  AJ, I get the feeling you feel truth is relative (on a side note I've been meaning to reply to your PM.  I apologize for not doing it in a more timely manner and L-RD willing I will).  Something isn't true just because it works that's called pragmatism; neither is it true just because it feels good which is subjective nor is it true just because its 'my truth.'   Futhermore, truth is something that corresponds to reality therefore it does not yield to size and strength of the latest lobby group or popular demand.  Truth is more than merely just a matter of opinion or preference.  Something is true even if everyone denies it. 

Truth is essential for a realistic world.  This is kind of what Tal is getting at.  There are universal truths whether people want to admit it or not. A logical example is that every right angle will be the same size.  There is even universal truths in nature, for example humans need oxygen in order to live.  If you remove the oxygen the human will eventually die.  I can stop believing in oxygen and right angles yet there'll still exist.

Most diehard christians won't say that the act of an abortion will send someone to hell.  Its the sinful person refusing to conform to the image of G-D.

I can't speak for all 'diehard christians' (not sure what you feel makes an individual a diehard christian) I think the problem with abortion is that the methods employed to kill a preborn child involve burning, smothering, dismembering, and crushing which are very painful ways to die.  Futhermore, abortion involves killing.  The zygote which fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of life (metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell production) is indeed terminated.  Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger said in Woman and the New Race 'The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.'

Most die hard christians will say that a person can be forgive of doing this. Its not necessarily our actions that dictate who we are but the reason behind them yet our actions give us a glimps of who an individual might be.

I'm not getting into a debate on abortion.

That's the thing though, the truth, while some may claim it to be universal...is actually based on perception. It's all relative to a person's perception.Granted, there may be a general view/perception of the world that is common with people, but when I look around and observe and see that what WE as a culture and/or country view as truth and right and so on....is viewed as wrong. It comes down to which theory on truth do you believe; do you believe the consensus, pragmatic, correspondance, coherence, constructivist, or pluralistic.

Interesting....there is no universal truth.  First, your statement that you just wrote out essentially saying there is no universal truth well there's at least on thing true here: the statement that you just wrote that there is no truth.  Let's look at that for a moment.  If your essential statement 'there is no universal truth' is true, it's false, and if it's false, it's false.  So if your statement 'there is no truth' is false, then it's false.  But even if it's true that there is no truth (only perception which I'll get to) then it's alos false, because that becomes a true statement, which nullifies it.

This is what we call a self-refuting statement.  Here's an example, “I can't type a word of English.” or “All generalizations are false.” Since I wrote that I can't write in English yet here I am writting in English which of course would be self-refuting. Your statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct. My statement that I can't type a word of English and your statement that 'there is no truth' defeat themeselves.

Let's look at that phrase "there is no truth" Descartes said, "I can doubt everything, but the one thing I can't doubt is the fact that I am doubting." He came up with a dictum: Cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am." I must exist if I'm pondering my existence. Someone who states that there is no truth must exist, and so it's true that at least one individual, the one uttering the statement, must exist.

Time must also exist, by the way. Time must exist to express a sequence of words, the sequence being "There is no truth." The word "is" must come after the word "there," and the word "no" after both of them, and one can only come after the other if there's time, with present, past and future. So time must exist as an objectively true thing, because this statement was written with words in temporal sequence.

The statement itself is a proposition, so propositions must exist. That's a truth. It contains tokens, words that are tokens of ideas. The concept of truth, the concept of negation expressed in the word "no," must exist as ideas and be true as existants, things that exist.

There has to be the concept of unity, the idea that the four words work together in a sentence, and plurality, the distinction of the four different words. Space must exist to differentiate one word from another, separating the units.

If the statement itself that there is no truth is true, then its opposite must be false. If there is no truth, then it is not the case that there is truth. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction must exist and be true. That statement is also distinguished from all of its contradictions, so the law of identity must be true.

There's at least one sentence that exists, because you just wrote it. That must be true. There are English words, and grammatical relationships between the words-- subject and predicate. That must be true.

The numbers one through four must exist because there are four different words. So addition must be true, because you add those units up and get the number four. The alphabet exists. Parts of speech exist, like nouns and verbs.

As you can see even before you write your statement out there is several things that are true.  There is no way that these can be false either considering the given statement, 'there is no (universal) truth'.

There's no universal, absolute truth in my belief, because it all comes down to perception. There maybe a commonly shared perception of truth, but then you get to areas of the world where that "universal truth" is not considered truth.

One could say that time only exists because we exist. Essentially, time is a term that we apply to change because we need a way to understand or perceive it. I think there's an entire article about this in Discover magazine (May or June issue i think). Look it up, it's interesting.

If its based on perception and there is no universal truth then right angles are all different sizes. That is if it is based on perception.  Buildings every where around the world should be collasping. Ok wait a minute........Ok..........No buildings are falling down yet.  I have some friends who live in Turkey, I'll skype them and ask them if any buildings are falling down over there......Nope.  Let me go make a bet with my co-workers that my right angle will be the same size as there...........Ok, none of them took the bet, because all right angles are the same.

Now on to perception.  There is no way we can sense with our 5 senses oxygen.  I can't see oxygen.  I can't feel oxygen.  Before I go any further oxygen is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.  So there is no way for us to perceive oxygen oxygen with our 5 senses without any aid that is.

Again, you can believe that its only based on perception.  With that in mind, why don't you get a .5m by .5 m black plastic bag that has only one opening, put it over your head, and tie it around your neck so your your whole head is inside the bag for about 5 hours.  You should be fine.