'Murica! (350 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

That really is not the point. You can have an efficient government. It's just that many countries don't. My own being a very good example.

As for welfare states.. I think healthcare should always be free, no matter what. It's the 21st century ffs. Also, logistically speaking we can feed and house every single person on this planet. If people die from hunger or freeze to death, it is because we made a moral choice not to help them. Don't hide behind clichés and say you're against a welfare state. You choose to let people die. Fine. Say it like it is. Weakling.

So how will you accomplish this? How will you pay for it? What will you take from me? Will you be able to save everyone on the planet or only certain countries? How do you make the decision who to help first and how, instead of helping others? What do you do personally to help combat hunger and poverty? What's the guarantee your plan will help everyone instead of being used for something else? What's to say the funding doesn't get into the wrong hands?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

So how will you accomplish this? How will you pay for it? What will you take from me? Will you be able to save everyone on the planet or only certain countries? How do you make the decision who to help first and how, instead of helping others? What do you do personally to help combat hunger and poverty?

Those are actual questions. Now we re getting somewhere. Obviously the endgoal is to provide shelter, food and healthcare for everyone. Just like any society worth its salt should work towards a jobless utopia. Achieving those things won't be easy but it can be done. In fact we see significant progress in fighting world hunger and poverty.

Now as for choosing who gets all these things first.. Well, it's gonna suck. I actually want everyone in the Europa and North America to be taken care of first. Why? Because that's the world I know most. And because right now it is also the easiest.

The sad part is that all the politics in the world won't matter, because we won't make the choice to provide for everyone. Scientific breakthroughs will eventually make healthcare cheap and food abundant and only then will we actually consider it.

 

[Bjerknes]

Those are actual questions. Now we re getting somewhere. Obviously the endgoal is to provide shelter, food and healthcare for everyone. Just like any society worth its salt should work towards a jobless utopia. Achieving those things won't be easy but it can be done. In fact we see significant progress in fighting world hunger and poverty.

Now as for choosing who gets all these things first.. Well, it's gonna suck. I actually want everyone in the Europa and North America to be taken care of first. Why? Because that's the world I know most. And because right now it is also the easiest.

The sad part is that all the politics in the world won't matter, because we won't make the choice to provide for everyone. Scientific breakthroughs will eventually make healthcare cheap and food abundant and only then will we actually consider it.

Yes, those are actual questions. But unfortunately, nobody, including you, have any factual answers to them. You sound like a Bernie Sanders fan with no real plans or wherewithal to actually breakdown anything other than pie in the sky nonsense, which is why I lovingly refer to you as Andries the Skittles-Shiithig Unicorn. You need to live in the real world, buddy. Plus you can't take everything away from the producers and think that's ethical.

Moreover, who will create the scientific breakthroughs? Obviously the free market is more adept at creating innovation, not government. You'll tax everyone to death before the innovation can occur. But that's just one issue with your reasoning. There are plenty.

I can agree with some social assistance programs. But what you are preaching is not feasible.

 

[Ronn]

A lot of that isn't true.

You think!?

 

[Bjerknes]

You think!?

No, Alex Jones does not believe the moon landing was fake, or the other thing. Yes, he believes 9/11 was an inside job, but who doesn't, really? Obviously the 9/11 report was a fraud.

 

[Hængebøffer]

You've seen too much Utopia.

 

[Seven]

Yes, those are actual questions. But unfortunately, nobody, including you, have any factual answers to them. You sound like a Bernie Sanders fan with no real plans or wherewithal to actually breakdown anything other than pie in the sky nonsense, which is why I lovingly refer to you as Andries the Skittles-Shiithig Unicorn. You need to live in the real world, buddy. Plus you can't take everything away from the producers and think that's ethical.

Moreover, who will create the scientific breakthroughs? Obviously the free market is more adept at creating innovation, not government. You'll tax everyone to death before the innovation can occur. But that's just one issue with your reasoning. There are plenty.

I can agree with some social assistance programs. But what you are preaching is not feasible.

The real world. Dude, you are such a brainless moron. Seriously. You go from sort of progressive to this indoctrinated weird ass catholic conservative with age. You are a walking cliche talking to people in cliches.

 

[Ronn]

No, Alex Jones does not believe the moon landing was fake, or the other thing. Yes, he believes 9/11 was an inside job, but who doesn't, really? Obviously the 9/11 report was a fraud.

yeah he does. He brings moon landing and sandy hook conspiracy theorists to his show all the time. And honestly I have no time explaining how idiotic the idea of "9/11 is an inside job" really is.
Your "Who doesn't?" question is hilarious tbh.

 

[Seven]

Yes, those are actual questions. But unfortunately, nobody, including you, have any factual answers to them. You sound like a Bernie Sanders fan with no real plans or wherewithal to actually breakdown anything other than pie in the sky nonsense, which is why I lovingly refer to you as Andries the Skittles-Shiithig Unicorn. You need to live in the real world, buddy. Plus you can't take everything away from the producers and think that's ethical.

Moreover, who will create the scientific breakthroughs? Obviously the free market is more adept at creating innovation, not government. You'll tax everyone to death before the innovation can occur. But that's just one issue with your reasoning. There are plenty.

I can agree with some social assistance programs. But what you are preaching is not feasible.

So let's say you own a pharmaceutical company.

You have the choice between investing in a hair loss prevention drug and a drug that might save millions in Sub-Saharan Africa from an exotic and highly local disease.

Let's say we have it your way. We trust the free market. No government funded research, no grants, no government incentives, no nothing. Just free market. You tell me what happens next.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah he does. He brings moon landing and sandy hook conspiracy theorists to his show all the time. And honestly I have no time explaining how idiotic the idea of "9/11 is an inside job" really is.
Your "Who doesn't?" question is hilarious tbh.

I know we're debating with this guy and all, but in truth he's a goner. He was always above average in terms of IQ, but lazy and arrogant in his reasoning. I guess that really catches up with you as you age. He's a lost cause.

 

[DAiDEViL]

let's blame it on chemtrails.

 

[ALC]

So let's say you own a pharmaceutical company.

You have the choice between investing in a hair loss prevention drug and a drug that might save millions in Sub-Saharan Africa from an exotic and highly local disease.

Let's say we have it your way. We trust the free market. No government funded research, no grants, no government incentives, no nothing. Just free market. You tell me what happens next.

- - - Updated - - -



I know we're debating with this guy and all, but in truth he's a goner. He was always above average in terms of IQ, but lazy and arrogant in his reasoning. I guess that really catches up with you as you age. He's a lost cause.

Let's say you own a car company.

You have the choice between investing in an SUV that a large portion of your market is interested in and your competitors are already making with a large margin of profit or investing in a solar powered golf cart for sub Saharan Africa. Which one do you go with?

And the pharmaceutical companies will invest in as many drugs as possible. That's how they run, they need to stay ahead and keep churning out new shit. They don't just pick one.

 

[Ronn]

I know we're debating with this guy and all, but in truth he's a goner. He was always above average in terms of IQ, but lazy and arrogant in his reasoning. I guess that really catches up with you as you age. He's a lost cause.

Yeah debating somebody who believes in conspiracy theories is an exercise in futility. It's a shame some serious percentage of GOP voters belong to this group.

 

[Seven]

Let's say you own a car company.

You have the choice between investing in an SUV that a large portion of your market is interested in and your competitors are already making with a large margin of profit or investing in a solar powered golf cart for sub Saharan Africa. Which one do you go with?

And the pharmaceutical companies will invest in as many drugs as possible. That's how they run, they need to stay ahead and keep churning out new shit. They don't just pick one.

Yes, they do. But the question is which is going to get the most funding and attention.

Also comparing a car with lifesaving medicine is a bit off.

 

[Seven]

Yeah debating somebody who believes in conspiracy theories is an exercise in futility. It's a shame some serious percentage of GOP voters belong to this group.

It's funny that he's also the guy telling everyone to live in 'the real world'.

 

[Trequartista]

There are some conspiracies that are true though. Believing that there aren't any conspiracies out there ever is every bit as naive and deluded as believing that every event is a conspiracy, like Alex Jones does.

There is some pretty dubious stuff in the 9/11 official report even though a lot of 9/11 truthers are crazy and stupid... but I think it's not irrational to believe that the government might have had intelligence about the impending attacks and let it happen, considering the way it instrumentalized 9/11 to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq. There's also some very weird stuff about 9/11, like the collapse of building 7.

Some conspiracies are ludicrous though, which is why Alex Jones has such a pernicious influence. By treating every event as a conspiracy and sounding crazy like he does, people who talk about real conspiracies(Gulf of Tonkin, USS liberty, Operation Gladio) are immediately dismissed.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Please show me the spooky stuff. The States don't need something like that to invade another country. No matter how "evil" America is, it's nothing compared to the other bad guys.

 

[swag]

let's blame it on chemtrails.

I always do.

Let's say you own a car company.

You have the choice between investing in an SUV that a large portion of your market is interested in and your competitors are already making with a large margin of profit or investing in a solar powered golf cart for sub Saharan Africa. Which one do you go with?

And the pharmaceutical companies will invest in as many drugs as possible. That's how they run, they need to stay ahead and keep churning out new shit. They don't just pick one.

I wouldn't compare a commodity like a car with health care. If the federal highway system operated that way, nobody would be able to get to Montana. There are some things that should be basic infrastructure to support a society. Arguably I believe health care should be one of those for a multitude of reasons.

At one level, health insurance works best when everyone can be insured... just as society is at risk when a large proportion of the population does not get basic vaccinations: both the insured and uninsured suffer. At another level, we are already paying for the uninsured given that only 1 in 7 who come to trauma care have insurance. So that one has to pay at least 7x the true market price just to keep public services like trauma care solvent.

For another we are paying massively for a Byzantine insurance system of people whose job is to pass the buck and do nothing productive for their salaries. These jobs and roles should be eliminated. Just because they belong to private industry, for purely artificial reasons of government policy, doesn't mean they should be preserved while everyone is clamoring to eliminate government jobs on the other hand.

For another still, state and federal medical grants to research certain types of cancer and diseases and not others is a clear expression of health care favoritism towards one group's affliction but not another's. We are consciously making government decisions today to increase the lifespan of some groups of citizens and not others with public money regardless of whether they are insured or not. That is far from an equitable system.

And pharmaceutical companies cannot afford to invest in as many drugs as possible. The general cost of taking one drug to market is over $2.5 billion now.

 

[Trequartista]

Please show me the spooky stuff. The States don't need something like that to invade another country. No matter how "evil" America is, it's nothing compared to the other bad guys.

Why didn't the government authorize air strikes on the hijacked planes as they were heading to NYC, especially on the second plane that crashed in the WTC?

The Neocons who dominated W. Bush's government wrote in Project for New American Century (PNAC) in 1999 that for their military adventures in the Middle East to be possible, they would need a new Pearl Harbor. This doesn't prove that they were complicit but it was certainly convenient, wasn't it?

I think it is possible they let it happen as a pretext to invade all those countries.

 

[Seven]

I always do.



I wouldn't compare a commodity like a car with health care. If the federal highway system operated that way, nobody would be able to get to Montana. There are some things that should be basic infrastructure to support a society. Arguably I believe health care should be one of those for a multitude of reasons.

At one level, health insurance works best when everyone can be insured... just as society is at risk when a large proportion of the population does not get basic vaccinations: both the insured and uninsured suffer. At another level, we are already paying for the uninsured given that only 1 in 7 who come to trauma care have insurance. So that one has to pay at least 7x the true market price just to keep public services like trauma care solvent.

For another we are paying massively for a Byzantine insurance system of people whose job is to pass the buck and do nothing productive for their salaries. These jobs and roles should be eliminated. Just because they belong to private industry, for purely artificial reasons of government policy, doesn't mean they should be preserved while everyone is clamoring to eliminate government jobs on the other hand.

For another still, state and federal medical grants to research certain types of cancer and diseases and not others is a clear expression of health care favoritism towards one group's affliction but not another's. We are consciously making government decisions today to increase the lifespan of some groups of citizens and not others with public money regardless of whether they are insured or not. That is far from an equitable system.

And pharmaceutical companies cannot afford to invest in as many drugs as possible. The general cost of taking one drug to market is over $2.5 billion now.

Well. That was a very good post, Greg.

 

[swag]

Thank you, sir.