RE: What the future holds for America

RE: What the future holds for America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 6:40:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Sorry, and this is going to piss off some friends, with the plan b pill available over the counter to all ages, why the hell do will we need abortion clinics on every other corner? This has been overlooked in the increasingly heated bitching about abortion (and god help us Welfare Queens), but are the morning after pills as freely available as all that in practice? There's plenty of chemists who refuse to do their job if it involves filling a prescription for the pill, and the sort of wanker who thinks that their (or their pastor's) line on the Bible trumps their job description presumably won't even stock plan b, never mind hand it over without a scrip.

jlf1961 -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 6:44:14 AM)
Under a judge's ruling a scrip is not needed to get the morning after pill, it is now available over the counter in the states.

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 9:16:45 AM)
You miss my point: it's only available if a chemist deigns to sell it. Do you really think some wanker who refuses to fill scrips for birth control pills or sell condoms because Gawd told him that's evil is very likely to do that?

kdsub -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 9:54:07 AM)
Now moon...just imagine you were a liberal pharmacist and there was a pill that if taken would turn you from an equally irritating liberal to an equally irritating conservative...do you think you should have the right not to sell it? Butch

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 10:21:08 AM)
There wouldn't be any question for a liberal pharmacist about that, particularly if there's another pill for sale that has the same effect backwards. A neocon chemist, on the other hand, would want to make the first compulsory and ban the second. [:D] Without dragging this even further off topic, though, I was just trying to point out that the "why are abortionists still necessary now that abortifacients are available" is specious due to human nature (and pressure groups not all of whose members I'm convinced qualify as being human) causing potential sticking points. You might just as well say: "why do there need to be abortionists now that the godless commies are teaching children sex education lessons in the public school system?" and we all know the answer to that one...

tazzygirl -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 11:03:17 AM)
quote: Let's dissect this. Real health care reform would have been a single payer (govt.) health insurance for all. Everybody pays a premium to the govt....everybody gets health care. No, that doesn't sit well with the profiteers because we all know, there couldn't be the profits we have now. Stick with me here. Which is what was wanted and fought bitterly over... that was the original intent. quote: That's true capitalist fascism and removed forever the idea that America was a free market. I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one.

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 11:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying.

vincentML -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 3:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying. I thought the utopian definition of a free market is where supply and demand set a "fair" price. Even things not worth buying (junk) can be sold in a free market. Value is set by the mythical market. No?

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:18:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Let's dissect this. Real health care reform would have been a single payer (govt.) health insurance for all. Everybody pays a premium to the govt....everybody gets health care. No, that doesn't sit well with the profiteers because we all know, there couldn't be the profits we have now. Stick with me here. Which is what was wanted and fought bitterly over... that was the original intent. quote: That's true capitalist fascism and removed forever the idea that America was a free market. I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. That Obama et al caved in, on a single federal option in about 15 minutes should tell us something. What it tells us once again is that even when it is obvious the vast majority of the people want something, tuff..they don't represent us and we don't get it. If there was a true free market, prices would be a fraction of what they are and lending would not be subject to the desires of a federal banking system, i.e., local and cheaper. I also hasten to add that FDR made everybody sell their gold to the govt....by force of govt. Plus this country started out with no income tax and a protective tariff regime that we operated under for almost 200 years. Since Reagan we've been thrown to the wolves and have to compete with the world's oppressed slaves for our jobs. Look how that's worked out.

dcnovice -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:21:01 PM)
quote: Plus this country started out with no income tax and a protective tariff regime that we operated under for almost 200 years. Fwiw, a tariff is a more regressive way to raise revenue than a graduated income tax.

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying. Apples and oranges. You describe civil society's requirement for basic local police and court protection...needed under any system free market or not. Yes I wanted one and most did but then $9000 homes of the 1960's wouldn't have just a few years ago, had been selling for $400,000. They wouldn't have appreciated that much without govt, getting involved in the interest of the profiteers. If we had regulated the paper traders we wouldn't be slave to the profiteering of the speculators who Adams warned us about.

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Plus this country started out with no income tax and a protective tariff regime that we operated under for almost 200 years. Fwiw, a tariff is a more regressive way to raise revenue than a graduated income tax. The tariffs protected labor and the standard of living we could create and were supposed to enjoy with all of the hard work we were told...would secure for us. It was never about raising revenue.

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying. I thought the utopian definition of a free market is where supply and demand set a "fair" price. Even things not worth buying (junk) can be sold in a free market. Value is set by the mythical market. No? Sadly not: value tends to be set by people manipulating the free market to suit their own agenda, rather than normalising naturally to a "fair" price. That's why the definition you've provided is utopian, rather than one that works in practice.

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:39:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying. I thought the utopian definition of a free market is where supply and demand set a "fair" price. Even things not worth buying (junk) can be sold in a free market. Value is set by the mythical market. No? Yes except that it is not mythical. The American free market of the 19th century only suffered the typical criminality of the American businessman who paid (bribed) local govt. to allow their criminality. Where the country could, they had a free market again, like I've written for example, the typical 4 bedroom brick colonial was mortgaged locally, in a free housing lending market and one man could typically pay off his house in 6 years.

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:44:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I really dont believe there is any such thing as a "free market". I also believe that if we had one, we would not want one. You wouldn't: that only benefits those who have something they want to sell that's worth buying, and adequete capability to defend themselves to prevent people just taking it without paying. I thought the utopian definition of a free market is where supply and demand set a "fair" price. Even things not worth buying (junk) can be sold in a free market. Value is set by the mythical market. No? Sadly not: value tends to be set by people manipulating the free market to suit their own agenda, rather than normalising naturally to a "fair" price. That's why the definition you've provided is utopian, rather than one that works in practice. Oh it most certainly did work for what made up most of the cost of living. That market manipulation needed tools and those were bought with bribes and the vast criminality of the American businessman and bankers. Far enough back in history most business that could be done between buyer and seller at arms length negotiations, was in a free market and the prices without govt. manipulation through bribes...were such that your hard work could afford you a higher standard of living.

Politesub53 -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne: We need a real president rather than these el prazzie danties that we get out of britain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfG89BkvPOU More UK conspiracy bullshit. And again, none of it backed by anything stupid, like a fact.

Moonhead -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:53:25 PM)
You could also argue that socialism is perfectly viable method of running society as it worked okay around the Ukraine for ten minutes in 1918, and the Kibbutzes in Israel more or less work pretty well most of the time. If something requires a specific set of historical circumstances to work, then expecting it to work just as well outside of that context is idiocy, I'm afraid.

dcnovice -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 4:56:16 PM)
quote: The tariffs protected labor and the standard of living we could create and were supposed to enjoy with all of the hard work we were told...would secure for us. It was never about raising revenue. History is far more complex than that. For much of the 19th century and into the 20th, the "have-nots"--farmers in the South and West--bitterly opposed tariffs, which they saw as protecting Northeastern industrialists at the expense (through a higher cost of living) of everyone else. The Populist movement arose in large part as a response to a McKinley tariff, and one of Woodrow Wilson's first acts as an avowedly progressive President was to lower the tariff. The idea of tariffs as beneficial to ordinary Americans is comparatively recent.

MrRodgers -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 5:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You could also argue that socialism is perfectly viable method of running society as it worked okay around the Ukraine for ten minutes in 1918, and the Kibbutzes in Israel more or less work pretty well most of the time. If something requires a specific set of historical circumstances to work, then expecting it to work just as well outside of that context is idiocy, I'm afraid. Socialism as defined was never an attempt to run society as it were but through [its] sufficient ownership of the means of production would have economy serve society and without the fiduciary responsibility, strictly...to fuck society and have economy serve...only the profiteers.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: What the future holds for America (7/8/2013 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have noticed in my time here on collarme, that the majority of posters fall into one of two categories. There seem to be very few moderates on the boards. So there are three possibilities for the Future of the United States, two in our control, one that isnt. Option 1, the ultra conservatives gain the upper hand and we end up with a theocracy, i.e like V for Vendetta or the classic "The Handmaid's Tale." Option 2) We end up with a liberal country where everything is legal but guns. Option 3) Some despot in some collapsing regime decides to start nuking people for making his life a living hell by setting up sanctions for human rights violations, sponsoring terrorism or just because he hasnt gotten laid in a month and he is going to nuke the planet. In my opinion, compromise has become some evil thing that should never be considered by either side. Personally, considering the problems that civilization has caused in the forms of pollution, poverty and general distrust, I would almost consider living in a post apocalyptic world a welcome change. At least then people would have a fair idea of where they stand in relation to everyone else. Option 4 (the one you missed): It's all the exact same shit, whether you vote Democrat or Republican. It's the exact same shit.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625