Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

It seems that particular programme is set up specifically to target families not in poverty. The line from Spectator org is telling; "..We'll bet you didn't know that poverty reached so far up the income ladder, did you?"

I think that's called a strawman.

No, it was actually set up to catch those caught in the gap.
The socialists want to broaden it's scope under the guise of helping needy children.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Mustapha Mond wrote:

Did that seriously happen?

Snopes says no.

Heh. That was nifty.
Sad when you can't even trust mainstream news to be honest.

OOoooo, you mean like when Gore invented the internet?

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Snopes says no.

Heh. That was nifty.
Sad when you can't even trust mainstream news to be honest.

OOoooo, you mean like when Gore invented the internet?

He actually said he did.
Well, he said he created it.

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

I'm sorry - but that was his blunder.

You have only highlighted a portion. The rest of the qoute explains in detail what he meant to say. Just like the point about Bush Sr. it is not accurate to say that he was unfamiliar with grocery scanners. It is true that he found the technology interesting. With Gore it is not accurate to say that he invented the internet, it is true though.

Do we have a problem with true and accurate?

sturner wrote:

You have only highlighted a portion. The rest of the qoute explains in detail what he meant to say.

Nope - that's how it is spun, but - here is a more complete quote

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

First he notes his initiative in creating the Internet.
Then he goes on not to explain that piece of self promoting BS, he goes on to other self promoting in other initiatives, leaving the internet statement to stand on its own - economic growth, environmental protection, education.

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

You have only highlighted a portion. The rest of the qoute explains in detail what he meant to say.

Nope - that's how it is spun, but - here is a more complete quote

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

First he notes his initiative in creating the Internet.
Then he goes on not to explain that piece of self promoting BS, he goes on to other self promoting in other initiatives, leaving the internet statement to stand on its own - economic growth, environmental protection, education.

He still doesn't say he INVENTED the Internet.

sturner wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The socialists?

Oh man.

When did the Candaians get into U.S. politics? 

I just don't understand why it's preferable to have a murderous, grotesquely corrupt health care system than to run the risk of a "socialist" system. It just seems like a completely twisted set of priorities.

I mean, God knows it's worth killing people in order to have a choice of insurance providers.

I recently saw "Sicko" ... methinks it's worthwhile starting a thread about it.

user wrote:

He still doesn't say he INVENTED the Internet.

No - but he does claim a major role in creating it, which is still bull smurf.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

He still doesn't say he INVENTED the Internet.

No - but he does claim a major role in creating it, which is still bull smurf.

I hope you can figure out he probably wasn't on DARPA contract, and doesn't make that claim.

OTOH, I'd bet he had influence on what shape the non-DARPAnet looks like today.

Ribtorus wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

sturner wrote:

When did the Candaians get into U.S. politics? 

I just don't understand why it's preferable to have a murderous, grotesquely corrupt health care system than to run the risk of a "socialist" system. It just seems like a completely twisted set of priorities.

I mean, God knows it's worth killing people in order to have a choice of insurance providers.

I think "murderous, grotesquely corrupt" is overstating things quite a bit.

As I see it, the present employer driven system isn't intended to cover everyone under all circumstances. It can only be intended to cover the employed and possibly their families. So if there's no intent that such a system covers everyone, it's a strawman to criticise the fact that it doesn't cover everyone.

For the unemployed or uninsured, there's a publicly funded system.

Gaps that form between the two systems because they don't coincide efficiently could be closed; one attempt being the sytem mentioned already in this thread. And I don't think it would require a sea-change in thinking for most people.  No need for "socialism" beyond a refinement to the existing public system.

Thirty million people without coverage, dude. Thirty million.

And by the way I'm no advocate for "socialism" in the United States. I don't care what system is used. Whatever works works, you know?

I just think that such a huge number of people without coverage says some pretty ugly things about their priorities.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I just don't understand why it's preferable to have a murderous, grotesquely corrupt health care system than to run the risk of a "socialist" system. It just seems like a completely twisted set of priorities.

I mean, God knows it's worth killing people in order to have a choice of insurance providers.

I think "murderous, grotesquely corrupt" is overstating things quite a bit.

As I see it, the present employer driven system isn't intended to cover everyone under all circumstances. It can only be intended to cover the employed and possibly their families. So if there's no intent that such a system covers everyone, it's a strawman to criticise the fact that it doesn't cover everyone.

For the unemployed or uninsured, there's a publicly funded system.

Gaps that form between the two systems because they don't coincide efficiently could be closed; one attempt being the sytem mentioned already in this thread. And I don't think it would require a sea-change in thinking for most people.  No need for "socialism" beyond a refinement to the existing public system.

Thirty million people without coverage, dude. Thirty million.

And by the way I'm no advocate for "socialism" in the United States. I don't care what system is used. Whatever works works, you know?

I just think that such a huge number of people without coverage says some pretty ugly things about their priorities.

I don't think that means thirty million people are at immediate risk of not getting health care when they need it.

I think it means they enter a different system when the need arises. Granted, there are gaps. These gaps (with some political will) may be filled.

A lot of people w/o health insurance are self employed and choosing not to buy insurance because they would rather use the money to build their business and so they take a gamble, a risk. Sometimes they lose.