The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If I am attacked I always respond in kind. Do you have a problem with that?

I've always enjoyed the board more when people are pleasant to each other and respect the views of the people with whom they disagree. I can't say I've always lived up to this standard.

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it always seem that the most ignorant and dimwitted are the first to resort to personal attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What did I say?

[Diane_Keaton]

Thottam, running for state office in Cali.

Not that his socking activities on the boad (or in Mexico) shoud pose a problem.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Thottam, running for state office in Cali.

Oh, shit. I don't live in that district, but it's pretty close.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, shit. I don't live in that district, but it's pretty close.

I'll bet you he won't represent that district, and it won't be close.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll bet you he won't represent that district, and it won't be close.

No bet. I'm having a hard time imagining this guy winning over, say, the young and beautiful in Manhattan Beach.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it always seem that the most ignorant and dimwitted are the first to resort to personal attacks. The stupid are always the first to call other people stupid.

I can't believe that I missed this post, I am speechless.

First, I am astounded that you, of all people, could call me ignorant or dimwitted. My gosh, I had best go reexamine my life.

Second, I am at a bit of a loss as to how calling someone "ignorant" about a certain issue is a vile personal attack -- particularly when you have repeatedly acknowledged that you don't really know much about what everyone else was talking about. You also say that you don't NEED to know anything about it -- which is the most remarkable part.

(In fairness, it is now clear that you and Hank were talking about something that no one else was talking about -- "Socialized Medicine.")

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't need to know the intricacies of Medicare to be involved in a discussion of whether socialized medicine is a good thing - or a discussion of how much government involvement we should have in our medical system.

Whoops, there it is!

Why don't you think that some basic knowledge of how our major government health care programs work would be helpful in a discussion of the pros and cons of government-provided health care? And, what IS "socialized medicine" anyway -- do you think that Medicaid and Medicare are "socialized medicine"?

Originally posted by Spanky
I think the fact that I have lived in seven countries and been able to compare and contrast different approaches to medical care gives me a practical view of government involvement in medicine that most people don't have. . . .

* * *

I know plenty of people on Medicare, and I have never heard one good thing about it.

Of course you can have an opinion, Spanky -- but they are like assholes. Everyone has them and most of them stink.

You make the mistake here that you frequently make in your efforts at inductive reasoning. You take a few specific situations and your own personal experiences, and use them as the basis for broad, general pronouncements on policy, philosophy, etc. as applied to vastly dissimilar situations. Doesn't work.

Seriously, you seem like you'd be an interesting guy to hang out with, but come on . . .

Originally posted by Spanky
I have read way too much about fraud waste and abuse in Medicare to not understand that it is really inefficiently run and a huge drain on taxpayers dollars.

Really? I am not "obsessed" with Medicare, and never said it was the answer to anything, but I have two quick questions, Spanky . . .

What is the average percentage of Medicare dollars allocated to overhead expenses?

How does that compare to the industry average overhead costs for the private health insurers?

Wait ... you don't know . . . and you don't need to know, do you?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

eom.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, shit. I don't live in that district, but it's pretty close.

He doesn't seem to live in that district either, if the address included on his resume is accurate. In fact, he seems to be my neighbor. Maybe that's a "work" address?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll bet you he won't represent that district, and it won't be close.

2.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
Why does it always seem that the most ignorant and dimwitted are the first to resort to personal attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What did I say?

? I was talking to SAM....or did you already know that and I just misunderstood what you were asking?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Thottam, running for state office in Cali.

Not that his socking activities on the boad (or in Mexico) shoud pose a problem.

From his website:

• . . . and why I resigned from position as an attorney in January 2003, in order to further focus my anti-war organizing efforts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York.

I thought his ass got downsized.

[Shape Shifter]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

First, I am astounded that you, of all people, could call me ignorant or dimwitted. My gosh, I had best go reexamine my life.

You know what they say about an unexamined life.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Second, I am at a bit of a loss as to how calling someone "ignorant" about a certain issue is a vile personal attack

You left out the part of talking "out my ass". Do you consider that part of civil discourse? Have I ever acused anyone on this board of "talking out their ass"?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man -- particularly when you have repeatedly acknowledged that you don't really know much about what everyone else was talking about. You also say that you don't NEED to know anything about it -- which is the most remarkable part.

(In fairness, it is now clear that you and Hank were talking about something that no one else was talking about -- "Socialized Medicine.")

What I find so funny about this is that I started the conversation. I was talking about government involvement in medicine and then was told you can't have an intelligent conversation about government involvement in medicine unless you know the difference between A,B, and D medicare. Since I was talking about the subject in general, and there are at least twenty difference developed countrys with differenct systems, I do not think that intricate knowledge of a specific program that is just a part (although a large part) of the U.S. Medical system was a prerequisite to having such a conversation. You did not see me saying "unless you know about at least five different systems in different countries intrinsically you are ignorant on the subject." I felt that I had sufficient knowledge of the subject to enter into an intelligent conversation about government intervention in medicine. If you didn't think I had the relevent facts, you should have pointed out the facts that I was missing, and why such facts detracted from my argument. That is what I would have done. But saying I should "read" something, or "review" something is a cop out.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man -- Why don't you think that some basic knowledge of how our major government health care programs work would be helpful in a discussion of the pros and cons of government-provided health care? And, what IS "socialized medicine" anyway -- do you think that Medicaid and Medicare are "socialized medicine"?

It might help, it might not. The best way to find out is if someone with such facts uses them to refute my position. But if no one does, then I didn't need such facts. We all can't know everything about every subject, so following that line of reasoning no one on this board could discuss anything. Saying that you need to know certain facts, or have reviewed certain material, to make an argument is a cop out and a classic "fallacy" like Ad Hominem etc. It is not a valid logical response. You need to point out why such facts are a prerequisite for entering into the conversation, or cite facts that refute my argument, but just saying I cant enter the discussion is not valid.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Of course you can have an opinion, Spanky -- but they are like assholes. Everyone has them and most of them stink.

Couldn't you come up with anything more original than that?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man You make the mistake here that you frequently make in your efforts at inductive reasoning. You take a few specific situations and your own personal experiences, and use them as the basis for broad, general pronouncements on policy, philosophy, etc. as applied to vastly dissimilar situations. Doesn't work.

And you are making the mistake of assuming I don't know anything else about the subject. I have read about many different government medical programs in the Economist and elsewhere. But when I enter into conversations about medical policy, people always say that they have read articles that say these programs are great. Not only have I read that the British, French, Italian and Japanese systems suck, but I have experienced it first hand. I have read that the Canadian system is bad, and I have met people that who have used it who say it is bad (hence all the Canadians coming to the US for medical treatment) but since I have no experience first hand I focus on other systems.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Really? I am not "obsessed" with Medicare, and never said it was the answer to anything, but I have two quick questions, Spanky . . .

What is the average percentage of Medicare dollars allocated to overhead expenses?

How does that compare to the industry average overhead costs for the private health insurers?

Wait ... you don't know . . . and you don't need to know, do you?

S_A_M

If the question is - should the American system be run like, England, Italy or Japan. Then no. If the questions is should the US government completely take over the medical system, then the answer is no. If we are having a more sophisticated coversation about a private public mix then maybe. Depends on the subject matter.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
From his website:

• . . . and why I resigned from position as an attorney in January 2003, in order to further focus my anti-war organizing efforts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York.

I thought his ass got downsized.

Should I know who this guy is?