If anyone wants to see some more graceful losing from Dio, check out the NFL conference championships thread
Dio’s not having a good week
Well, when you are the incarnation of everything that is dark and evil, you gotta expect people are gonna pick on you.
Why, what happened to me?
It’s hard to draw the line, but I think it’s fair to say that neither Bush nor Obama get a clean slate on this.
Apparently, Republicans think Obama is worse than [del]Hitler[/del] Clinton:
*This is an innocent typo
Wait, so in a worst-case-scenario horror story, you’d rather have a nation where LGBT people are incarcerated, women have no access to birth control of any kind, and the Ten Commandments are firmly ensconced in our Constitution, versus having a significant part of your income involuntarily diverted to social programs, some of which may benefit you? :dubious:
Wait, so your effort to invent a worst-case-scenario horror story for the Republican is an impressive: “LGBT people are incarcerated, women have no access to birth control of any kind, and the Ten Commandments are firmly ensconced in our Constitution,” but your worst-case scenario for the Democrats is “a significant part of your income involuntarily diverted to social programs, some of which may benefit you?”
:dubious:
That’s the BEST case for the Dems.
Democrats are social libertarians. The worst case social scenario for Democrats is that you’ll be able to smoke as much pot as you want while you’re shopping for baby clothes with your same-sex spouse.
Well, what are fiscally conservative people scared that Democrats are going to do, that there’s actually any chance in hell they’d actually try to do? Tax the hell out of them and make a bunch of public programs. The worst horror stories (e.g., death panels) are completely made up, so I’m discounting them. Whereas there actually are socially conservative people who want to make being gay illegal, remove women’s access to birth control, and legislate their religion.
Feel free to substitute your own horror story worst case, though.
Sure. So the rule is, as long as there actually are people espousing the view, it’s fair game?
Well, here’s an article from the UK that mentions a woman who’s suffering from terminal lung cancer and is told by the state-run medical facility that her treatment is too expensive given her poor prognosis, but she can get free lethal medication to end her own life. Shall I start there?
Anecdotal evidence does seem entirely appropriate, given the nature of your argument.
I’m wondering why people insist on thinking that Republicans are the fiscally conservative ones.
Anecdotal evidence isn’t automatically invalid. If one person claims that something doesn’t exist, but another person provides (verified) anecdotal evidence that it does, they’ve made a valid point. As far as the point he was making - part of the big government nightmare scenario certainly does involve them making those sorts of decisions.
Which isn’t even necesarily to say they’re bad - it’s a bit of a contradiction as I see it that conservatives are utterly offended if we don’t spend as much money as possible trying to save every life, no matter how much cost to improve how little lifespan, but the concept of basic and cheap care that would have significant impact for those that currently don’t have it is so taboo. I mean - right now, where that care comes from is part of the debate - but debating it purely in the hypothetical, they say they don’t want government involved because part of their nightmare scenario is that a most cost-conscious medical system might say “sorry, it’s not worth $10m to extend your (miserable) life for 6 month” but it’s par for the course for the current system to say “sorry, you can’t work for the rest of your life unless you can afford that $30,000 back surgery”
An insurance company would do the same, only it wouldn’t offer her the courtesy of the the lethal medication.
This was a woman who had six months to live. The treatment she wanted would not have saved her life (in fact, it DID not save her life, since she still got the treatment and died anyway). Do you think an HMO would have coughed up the money for expensive and futile end-of-life treatment?
The editorial you linked to is also very one-sided and self-serving, by the way. It does not give any side of the story other than the woman’s family, and as a lawyer, you know good and well that you can’t just trust one side of the story.
That’s because it’s in the Daily Mail, the Fox News of British newspapers.
I would like to say that this anecdote is beneath you, Bricker. I’d like to say that, but lately…
Anyway, do you seriously think that this anecdote is seriously a “horror story worst case scenario?”
If so, I would assume that you believe that under your current system, it would be very common for a privately insured individual who is suffering from a terminal cancer to receive an expensive treatment that may or may not prolong her life as a cancer patient by an unknown amount of time. Is this what commonly happens in your system? How about for uninsured cancer patients that show up at a hospital? Are they given this particular treatment if their condition is terminal and their prognosis poor? Do you think?
Otherwise, your “horror story”, is very, very weak indeed, and this line of argument is beneath you.
No, you don’t. Those shriveled up and dropped off the first time you voted for a liberal.
If this is true, then why are people who are actually on the left in America so disenchanted with Obama?
Yeah, my warts all cleared up too.