Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

rebelconservative

Regulars
  • Posts

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by rebelconservative

  1. I see, so, the Senate bill is signed into law and then another bill, the fixes amending the new law will be voted on in the senate and then pass to the President. if the senate rejects the House's fix bill, the original senate bill remains law.
  2. the Star-Spangled banner stands for the principles embodied in the US Constitution, it should be celebrated. equally the USSR/Chinese commie flag stands for oppression etc and should not be respected. but what about other national flags? the Canadian maple leaf? the Union Jack? the French Tricolore?
  3. It is now seven months after his release supposedly because he had "three months to live."
  4. I see what you are saying now, yes. I didn't think of it like that, I can't really comprehend that kind of mentality but of course it is logical if you can avoid paying and then just pay regular rates once you are sick. though regular rates are going to shoot up as everyone has to cover the costs of giving people with pre-existing conditions the same healthcare. once premiums continue rising, the govt will blame the market and step in to further regulate prices because those evil corporations are making profits...
  5. it is quite plain to see that the general welfare clause was a restriction on government making policy in favour of special interests. the idea that the general welfare clause refers to handouts is as stupid as the idea that the Constitutional guarantee of "republican government" means perpetual GOP rule.
  6. not really... paying $695 for no insurance is not the logical choice in that scenario. if insurance cost say, $2000, you'd still be better off getting the benefit of insurance for, essentially, $1305 than paying the $695 fine and having no insurance. insurance costs would not necessarily fall to that price - with the ban on exempting pre-existing conditions, costs are going to rise, not fall. what I don't understand is how they can claim that the bill will cover 31million Americans, what are the changes that they believe will ensure that those people have insurance?
  7. from what I am reading, it seems clear to me that it goes to the President's desk to be signed... then, after it has become law... it goes to a reconciliation process to be made into a final version... but I hope I am mistaken, because that makes no sense whatsoever.
  8. my understanding is that the Senate bill passed the Senate, a similar bill with a whole host of changes and fixes passed the House yesterday. now, despite the fact that both passed different bills, Obama will sign the Senate version into law and then they will go through a reconciliation process and the Senate will vote up/down on changes to their original bill, made by the house where no GOP filibuster is possible. but I don't understand how they can change the bill after Obama signs it into law? they should make the Senate and the House vote on the same bill, only then can it be passed to the President. more than likely. didn't Obama ridicule Hillary for proposing this during the primaries?
  9. it looks like the Dems are going to get Obama to sign the Senate bill into law, then the Senate will have to vote to change parts of their bill to th bill passed by the House? surely it would be easier to make the House and the Senate both vote on the same Bill, essentially having a reconciliation process and a straight up-down vote before the bill is signed into law? what happens next year when the Dems are routed in Congress? is there any chance the GOP could retake the House? if so, could the GOP pass a bill to nullify this bill? - would Obama veto it?
  10. I knew the new Health Bill passed the House yesterday, but doesn't it still have to go to the Senate?
  11. your problem is that you do not correctly understand what is meant by the "initiation of force." IoF does not simply refer to the person who threw the first punch or the army that fired the first shot, it applies in a wider context. If someone is up in your face shouting, swearing, acting aggressively, he is initiating force against you and you can legitimately push him away, punch him etc in self-defence. if a nation puts its army on your borders, you don't have to wait for them to attack you in order to act in self-defence. why give them the advantage of the first-strike? I really can not comprehend your position, do you really believe that that you have to wait to be stabbed before you can defend yourself? do we have to wait until DC or London on Tel Aviv is nuked before you will permit us to respond? ludicrous. In 1936 Germany placed their troops on the French border, in the Rhineland. It was their own land and they did not fire a shot - under your definition, they did not initiate force. Yet this was clearly an act of war, as under the terms of the Treaty of Versaille, it was illegal for Germany to militarise the Rhineland - and placing troops on your neighbours border is an aggressive act (especially given the revanchist rhetoric and the fact that Alsace-Lorraine a disputed province claimed by Germany, lay just the other side of the border). The invasion of the Rhineland by French troops would have been a pre-emptive attack, responding to the German initiation of force. no, it doesn't. pre-emptive force is sometimes necessary. Israel in 1967, after months and years of bellicose rhetoric and armies massing near their borders, had absolutely no option but to eliminate the Egyptian airfleet. If it did not act rationally and pre-empt an invasion by striking first, it was at a grave risk of destruction, fighting a war on many fronts. no genuine morality could hold that you have to be murdered before you can respond in self-defence. also, I am not sure many people suggest the use of nuclear weapons to deal with Iran at present, however, it certainly should not be ruled out as a possibility.
  12. exactly!!! this is why listening to the news is so frustrating. it is bad enough hearing statist politicians sneer at the "failure" of the free-market, but to hear supposed economic "experts" make such a rudimentary and blatantly obvious error is annoying in the extreme. this assumption that increased government spending is helping to end the recession is nonsense. you are entirely correct, this money is not adding a penny to the economy as it has to come from somewhere. to spend an addition £1 billion, the government must borrow £1 billion from the banks or private individuals. this much is accepted by all commentators. however, they refuse to understand that this money was already in the economy, the money held by the bank would not just sit in a vault if it wasn't for the govt, the money would be used to invest in businesses, or else would be loaned out to individuals and small businesses. a private individual buying government bonds may have bought a speedboat instead, increasing demand for speedboats, giving jobs to speedboat manufacturers. the only difference with government spending is that speedboat makers are out of business but road builders have a job - oh and the £1 billion of debt the govt has stuck the next generation of taxpayers with. there is no benefit to the economy at all, except the added burden of increased public debt. this is so simple it is even worse in the UK, because our sanctimonious govt is telling us that this spending and borrowing is necessary because it is following standard Keynesian economics... yet this is the same government that ran deficit spending in the boom years - something Keynes never advocated. Keynesianism would be bad enough, but they are not even running the country on the basis of flawed economics, they were simply spending taxpayers money like a bunch of drunken sailors and want to continue spending and will latch onto any excuse they can. even if we were to get rid of this lot in May, the "opposition" is no better, they will continue borrowing and spending, only they will spend slightly less and reduce the deficit marginally quicker. ok, rant over, I'm fine now...
  13. I was referring to your statement in the first paragraph only. In the second paragraph, I was arguing that that should be the case - sorry that I was not clear. Back to the first amendment; even as things stand, I fail to see how it applies. How is the government preventing them from exercising their religion here? It is not. It is saying if you want to fly, you have to undergo a full-body scan. If you don't want a body-scan, don't fly - simple. You can be a Muslim and go to friday prayers, the imam can teach whatever he wants. This does not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims in any way, there are many people who are uncomfortable with this and would not want their naked (albeit metalicised) image viewed by anyone, this applies to atheists, Christians etc. Perhaps I have a very narrow interpretation of it, but I really don't see how it relates.
  14. I wouldn't worry about dirty nukes, EMP devices should scare the beejesus out of you though.
  15. How does the first amendment apply here? Congress is not establishing a national church, nor is it stopping Muslims from practicing their faith - unless their faith involves hijacking planes and er... yeah... moving swiftly on... this does not abridge free speech, or the press in any way, it does not stop people assembling peacefully or petitioning the government. there is no "right" to travel by plane, just as there is no "right" to a drive on public roads without a licence. it is nothing to do with govt though, if the airline wants to use body-scanners, fine, if they don't, also fine, I can make my decision accordingly - airline A for safety, airline B for privacy. if Muslims (or Christians and anyone else for that matter) do not want to undergo a full-body scan, they should simply find another way to travel - I certainly won't be flying from Manchester airport (UK) due to this.
  16. I thought it was pretty clear that I was being flippant, not serious.
  17. I can't comment on the situation in the USA, though exempting Muslims seems to make the whole exercise redundant! However, two Muslim women were turned away from a flight from Manchester Airport in the UK because they refused to go through the body scanners. They did not have their tickets refunded, which is an utter disgrace, considering the scanning technology was not used when they booked their flight.
  18. I don't think so, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something just strikes me as off about it. it seems reasonable at first, but it does not make sense to me. I am tired and going to bed soon, I will sleep on it. my objection rests on the idea of "comparable significance." It seems to be a meaningless concept - who defines what is comparable and significant to whom? it is there (intentionally or otherwise) to obfuscate the issue, to lead to a predetermined, altruistic outcome. the altruistic intent is implicit in the statement, essentially it is saying: "If we can prevent something bad from happening TO OTHER PEOPLE without losing something of comparable significance, we should do it." but it does not seek to prove this, just takes it as a premise. Clearly, if I can prevent something bad happening to me without losing something of higher value, I should do it (obviously). But I don't see why, except from a utilitarian position, I should necessarily consider myself morally obligated to give up anything to prevent something bad happening to someone else. This calls for endless minor sacrifices, death by a thousand cuts. Someone on the street is hungry, their hunger is bad and is comparably more significant than my own desire for a cup of coffee - am I morally obligated to give up my coffee to buy the hungry beggar some food? Asked that question, most people would say no, yet they still accept the altruistic premise and would often seek to justify their refusal to sacrifice their coffee. Where would this kind of morality lead? edit: just saw the previous posts, I guess I said (badly) in 300 words what those guys said well in about 50.
  19. That is the way I understood it too, at least I think that is the case in England - however this interpretation only applies in "common-law" legal systems (principally anglo-saxon nations). Under common-law, GS laws and precedent prevent someone being sued for wrongdoing if they were helping someone in distress, i.e. you don't get sued for trespass for getting someone out of a burning building, or sued for causing injury if your attempt to revive them broke a rib. however, a judge would determine what was reasonable and proportionate - if you smashed through the window when the door was open, you'd still have to pay for the damage. This is contrasted against civil law countries (europe) where there is an actual "duty to rescue" whereby you can be criminally prosecuted if you don't help someone in need. Scary and evil. The only limit on this duty, is that you are not supposed to put your own life in danger, so there is no requirement that you go into a burning building (aren't they reasonable?!).
  20. I guess it is a matter of opportunity cost and marginal utility. If your hobby is making pots, you can eek out a living selling them, how much time you should devote to this activity depends on the opportunity cost - what would you have to give up in order to live that life? If you are only capable of a min. wage job, then you can probably spend a lot of time making pots and it will make you happier and you will be more productive than cleaning puke day after day. If, however, you are capable of running a huge corporation and making millions, you will probably be happier and much more productive if you are just making pots in your spare time.
  21. apparently the average attendence was fewer than 20 people, some events having less than five people. yet the official website proclaims it a "huge success"... I guess that depends on your standards of success. I dislike these people quite intensely... as I Brit, I find it rather frustrating arguing online with Americans who lack even a rudimentary knowledge of their own political system.
  22. I don't see why that is necessary. why not just target a couple of nukes on Mecca? issue a warning that if there is any further terrorist attack against the west or its interests, the kaaba et al will be obliterated by a nuke dipped in pork fat.
  23. Just because A->B does not preclude C->B. Religion may well have stopped him, but that does not mean that reason wouldn't have been an equally or more powerful deterrent, his own rational self-interest would equally have stopped him from committing suicide. Also, by offering such a utilitarian defence of religion, your friend is essentially conceding the argument. he is admitting that Christianity is a sham, but simply asserting that it is a helpful falsehood. All you have to do is prove that "ignorance is bliss" is not conducive to long-term survival and denying the reality will never help you deal with it. Religion and tribalism may have contributed to survival of the species in the past, when times were tougher, but we do not need this anymore. Reason gave us everything we use for our day to day survival. Religion did not generate the industrial revolution, it did not give us more productive agriculture etc. We did not develop airplanes on the basis of a belief that they would fly.
  24. The govt wants to eat its cake and have it too. This is a bug-bear of mine. It is possible to have your cake and then eat it. It is impossible to eat your cake and to still have it.
  25. there are some nuts out there, but I don't think you can say that everyone with questions about this is a conspiracy theorist, it is simple matter of Constitutional eligibility. There were doubts about McCain, these were easily settled upon production of his birth certificate. Obama could settle the issue once and for all by releasing his original birth certificate, one must question why he refuses to do this and spends millions on lawyers to prevent its release.
×
×
  • Create New...