The My DB Has More Strawmen Than Your DB Thread, with a side order of How California’s New Immigration Law Affects Screening Policies
-
-
That first sentence is so long and full of hyphenated terms, all I got was "blah blah blah."
Folks who don't like free health care do tend to have a hard time when things are not laid out in sound bites made from short words. Sad but true.
-
-
She probably saw that already. She's just trying to boost her post count.
trying to make a joke actually, but apparently i failed there.
oopsies?
<this is increasing my post count though....
-
since you have to submit forms for your baby to get one, and a lot of homeschoolers are pretty anti-government so they refuse to fill out the forms.
In many places, the hospital will submit a form for you without even asking, which is how my daughter wound up with an SSN[1]. They don't tell you they're going to do it, so unless you already knew they did that and told them not to, you wouldn't have any way of stopping it.
[1] I probably would've gotten one anyway, but it's a bit irksome not to even be asked if you want the form submitted, let alone being told it'll be done for you.
-
-
If California has a shitload of laws and regulations then why is anti-government more accepted there?
Only some kinds of anti-government are acceptable.
-
Only some kinds of anti-government are acceptable
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg
These words are too long! I do not know what they mean!
-
Now that's a real idiot right there.
-
every owner’s written screening policy should include a process for evaluating applicants who have neither.
Policy: Application denied. Come back to me when you pay your taxes.
-
roup activities with other home schooled kids on a regular basis, and I
Yawn. It turns out the first time that was seen was a photoshop. This was probably a false flag, because it's well-known people infiltrated Tea Party protests with racist signs.
-
That doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working here
Perhaps if more of you got together to demand decent government, instead of wimping out and writing off the entire idea of government as broken and wrong from the start, you could fix that.
-
Perhaps if more of you got together to demand decent government, instead of wimping out and writing off the entire idea of government as broken and wrong from the start, you could fix that.
That's probably a big part of the problem. Most of think our government think our government is decent as long as their preferred side of our two-party coin is on top.
By the way, that's a nice straw man you have up there (bolded).
-
Have you forgotten where we are?
Not at all, but you might want to get your sarcasm detector adjusted.
Filed under: Actually facetious, not sarcastic.
-
nice straw man you have up there (bolded)
It's pretty much a straight-up reaction to people who take it as an article of faith that small government automatically leads to better government.
I have never had much sympathy with that line of thought. To me, the purpose of government is to look after the commons, which is something the free market is by its very nature unable to do; and there are many kinds of commons that we're all better off for looking after. If there are times when it takes the collection of a lot of taxes and the spending of vast sums to do that: so be it.
-
It's pretty much a straight-up reaction to people who take it as an article of faith that small government automatically leads to better government.
You know you're still doing it (the straw man thing), right?
I have never had much sympathy with that line of thought. To me, the purpose of government is to look after the commons, which is something the free market is by its very nature unable to do; and there are many kinds of commons that we're all better off for looking after. If there are times when it takes the collection of a lot of taxes and the spending of vast sums to do that: so be it.
What does the commons have to do with health care? Unless you're claiming that the free market has failed in this regard, in which case I'll give up instead of reminding you that there hasn't been a free market for health care here for at least 100 years.
-
Folks who don't like free health care
Who doesn't like free stuff‽
Oh, wait...that's not what you meant. Carry on.
-
-
Now that's a real idiot right there.
Indeed. Probably just another moby, but maybe just an honest idiot.
-
It's pretty much a straight-up reaction to people who take it as an article of faith that small government automatically leads to better government.
It's generally less bad government.
To me, the purpose of government is to look after the commons, which is something the free market is by its very nature unable to do;
Depends on what you mean by "commons." It looks after most things better than any sort of planning. I've probably also walked into a No True Free Market trap, haven't I?
-
I've probably also walked into a No True Free Market trap, haven't I?
Not really. Health care has obvious restrictions (or at least they should be obvious) to market entry.
-
Not really. Health care has obvious restrictions (or at least they should be obvious) to market entry.
Right, but I meant that @flabdablet would tell me that all of our markets have law enforcement over them (or whatever) so they aren't free so fuck you I've got mine and now centrally plan all the things!
-
I assumed he would do that regardless.
-
Well, that was my INB4 declaration without the literal (I mean literally literal) INB4.
-
You can't exactly say "people without citizenship from this country are considered sub-human", now can you?
That's a nice strawman, Ben.
@FrostCat is correct of course. That being said, treating illegals all alike as criminals would lead to sub-human treatment of them by many, which is what I believe he was referring to. The laws passed were probably an attempt to address the human rights issue, but instead got mangled in the lawmaking process (read: add special interests) and have created a legal nightmare for all involved.
-
It's hard to argue with a guy who talks about Free Stuff the way he does.
That being said, treating illegals all alike as criminals would lead to sub-human treatment of them by many, which is what I believe he was referring to.
But...they pretty much are all criminals. Well, lawbreakers, at least. Some of the infractions are probably civil instead of criminal, which is maybe part of why they're called "illegal immigrants" rather than "criminal immigrants."
-
That's a nice strawman, Ben.
Young apprentice is learning fast.
Only some kinds of anti-government are acceptable.
I am against any government that doesn't accept my absolute rule over the planet (and / or parts of the Solar system).
-
Perhaps if more of you got together to demand decent government, instead of wimping out and writing off the entire idea of government as broken and wrong from the start, you could fix that.
If history has taught us anything, the typical result of said approach leads to one being introduced to a place called "jail," frequently even when one has done nothing wrong. Things have to be pretty bad before people risk that.
By the way, that's a nice straw man you have up there (bolded).
It was stiil worthy of a response.
-
That being said, treating illegals all alike as criminals would lead to sub-human treatment of them by many
Some people treat other people as subhuman for a variety of reasons, and this law will do little to change that.
The law in our country gives all people, regardless of citizenship or place of residence, with certain rights. The right to reside in this country is not among those. Forcing landlords to treat everyone as if they had the legal right to live here is a WTF.
-
You know you're still doing it (the straw man thing), right?
So if boomzilla weighs the same as a duck, that means he's made of straw, and is therefore a witch! Burn him!
-
Folks who don't like free health care do tend to have a hard time when things are not laid out in sound bites made from short words. Sad but true.
Resorting to name calling now?
-
Bedevere: What also floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Grape gravy.
Peasant 1: Cherries.
Peasant 2: Mum
Peasant 3: Churches, churches.
Peasant 2: Lead, lead.
Arthur: A duck.
-
Yawn. It turns out the first time that was seen was a photoshop. This was probably a false flag, because it's well-known people infiltrated Tea Party protests with racist signs.
Umm, did you quote the wrong post?
-
It's pretty much a straight-up reaction to people who take it as an article of faith that small government automatically leads to better government.
You misunderstand the argument apparently. It's not:
[smaller government] ≡ [better government]It's
[smaller government] ≡ [less government intrusion on personal freedoms]At least, that's the way I view it.
-
-
That being said, treating illegals all alike as criminals would lead to
But... they are criminals?
Look. Here's the thing. I love immigration. I love that poem on the bottom of the Statue of Liberty. I think our country has plenty of room for everybody, and I'd welcome all of them. I love that any office building in the Seattle area is going to have at least 10-15 nations represented on every floor. I love that I live in a country town, population 7,000, and I can buy Pho for lunch. I love it.
Our immigration laws, already probably the easiest hurdle to jump of any western nation? I think are still to strict. I'm all for removing quotas and making immigration to the US easier.
But I still don't support people just slinking over the border and expecting to be treated like normal Joe Sixpack.
And to sit here and type "treated as criminals" as if they weren't in reality criminals is just crazy Orwellian double-think I can't get behind, sorry.
-
[smaller government] ≡ [less government intrusion on personal freedoms]
At least, that's the way I view it.
ORLY? Tell that to any of the countries ruled by small fascist dictatorships.
-
ORLY? Tell that to any of the countries ruled by small fascist dictatorships.
TDEMSYR
Was that intentional trolling or just missing the point?
-
-
[smaller government] ≡ [better government]
Back in the 90's, some of the Libertarians were actually pushing this because no one else seemed to care about intrusions on personal freedoms unless it was their own freedoms being intruded on (and sometimes not even then).
-
What part of it doesn't make sense? That there is no connection between the number of people employed by the government and the amount of intrusion into people's personal freedoms?
Unless you also want smaller military and police forces to go with that smaller government?
-
because no one else seemed to care about intrusions on personal freedoms unless it was their own freedoms being intruded on
This is exactly the problem on both sides of the political spectrum. No one cares until it affects them directly.
-
ORLY? Tell that to any of the countries ruled by small fascist dictatorships.
As @boomzilla said:
TDEMSYR
Was that intentional trolling or just missing the point?
But just in case, let me clarify something for your tiny brain
A smaller government, in this context, means a less controlling governing body. A fascist dictatorship would then be considered a larger government, irregardless of the actual number of people involved.
-
What part of it doesn't make sense? That there is no connection between the number of people employed by the government and the amount of intrusion into people's personal freedoms?
If it's a fascist government, it's probably going to be doing a lot of that intrusion stuff. What countries in particular were you thinking of?
-
This is exactly the problem on both sides of the political spectrum.
No oneToo few caresuntil it affects them directly.FTFY
-
But even then...look at how the Dumocrats bitch and moan that the little people vote against their interests in not jacking up taxes on the "rich."
Well, maybe they actually understand how that stuff affects them, but still, it fits on the first order analysis.
-
-
This is exactly the problem on both sides of the political spectrum. No one cares until it affects them directly.
If no one cared, we wouldn't be here discussing it. What you're saying is a problem, but a bigger problem is that of the people who do care, for the most part each side thinks the other is causing all the problems.
-
A smaller government, in this context, means a less controlling governing body.
So...... those are not the same words. They do not have the same meaning without just making up your own definition that equates them, as you have just done.
I can agree that "less controlling governing body" = "better governing body".
But your other phrase does not necessarily mean the same.
-
ORLY? Tell that to any of the countries ruled by small fascist dictatorships.
Fascist dictatorships are usually huge. Look at North Korea for an example. 6.1% of their population is in the military, for Christ's sake.
