If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Has anyone ever convinced you to change from being conservative to being liberal (or vice versa)?   (fark.com) divider line 737
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1364 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 2:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



737 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
m00
2013-07-22 07:56:37 PM

Serious Black: Another problematic case is the right to life (at least with respect to abortion). It's not enough for the government to not give women abortions. They have to stop women from getting abortions and stop doctors from giving abortions.


In that case, this would just become a criminal issue. Plenty of things are legal or illegal because they are (in theory) necessary for the proper functioning of a society, not because they violate a specific right in a cut-and-dry fashion. Although in general, freedom and liberty should be the basic underpinnings of all laws.

Abortion in my mind is a hugely complicated issue of bioethics. And in fact, it is a small subset of a much larger question of bioethics. I think what we need to do there is have some honest discussions about biological and genetic rights and even what it means to be human in general, and then abortion policy should be an outcome of that larger issue. Imagine a world where they can take some of your tissue and grow clones of you for organ harvesting (even if that creature doesn't have a brain). Is that person a human? What about a child born without a brain (which is a condition), is there a difference? What about genetically engineering your kids to have blue eyes or be taller or smarter or fit some ideal, or conversely aborting your kids because they have a 73.2% chance of being gay?

We as rational individuals need to make some hard decisions about bioethics and what we value for our society, and then have government implement policy that reflects those decisions.

But what's actually going to happen is the corporations will decide for us.
 
2013-07-22 07:58:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: All well and good, but as I have not said anything about taxes being WRONG, or disputed governments lawful authority to levy them, I fail to see what Rand's distorted philosophy has to do with me. If the simple accurate use of the word confiscate is being parlayed into a tacit endorsement of Objectivism in the minds of some Farkers, then I can only refer to Tolkien's admonishment on the difference between what the author implies and what the reader infers. Just because I refer to natural resources as being held in the commons does not mean I am a socialist either. Meaning I am not responsible for people's  mistaken assumptions made in the absence of evidence.


Again, you may want to examine how you present your arguments. If people continue to make assumptions of things you say, perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are. Again, I suspect that this is a perception problem, and not necessarily on the part of those who are reading your posts. I entreat you to read your previous posts, and then perhaps ponder how folks might have misconstrued them. Just as one verbose poster to another verbose poster in these threads. Clarity does not necessarily mean brevity, but one does have to make your points with some precision, and this thread illustrates fairly well, a lack of clarity in your posts, with huge room for inference to occur.

Take my own posts about religion and science. I have found it enormously helpful in clearly delineating, from the get go, on matters of what questions that science and religion answer. How vs Why. Intentional why. How does the sun fire itself? Why does the sun rise? Two different question sets, and when you ponder questions of how, science does brilliantly at answering those questions. Why, as in the intentional way, it is a bit dodgy, since those are questions with slightly more subjective answers. You may want to examine your posting style, if you continue to find folks misunderstanding your own intentions, and your own positions. Just as a thought.
 
2013-07-22 08:00:29 PM

mmmk: Whiskey Pete: hubiestubert: This is perhaps a perception problem

That's one way to put it.

Maybe it's a conception problem. He's sensory inputs are probably up to par.

It's seems there's a disagreement on what rights are. To hell with rights. I just seek justice which to me would be a nash equilibrium with all of humanity, so my life and others are maximized. So for me, justice is a restoration of balance. I don't care what Websters says.  What the road to that is is probably going to involve a lot of time and discoveries that eliminate scarcity. I haven't seen a working economic model that fairly redistributes wealth, but what's the harm in trying. It's not like it could end up with famines or something.


I think rights are important as a barometer of justice, and I am also of the opinion that rights often require government action to secure. Just looking at economic issues for an example, banning employers from discriminating against black people hugely improved the rights to a job for blacks in America.
 
2013-07-22 08:06:39 PM

jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: That wasn't what I said. (Although it was an almost amusing parody.)
You can accept the social contract.
You can reject the social contract and suffer the consequences.
Or you can absent yourself from civilized society.
That's how civilization works.

/The worst punishment an ancient Greek city could impose on one of its citizens was not death - It was exile.

"That isn't what I said, but here let me repeat it, either follow all laws or be exiled."

And fark Ben Franklin: "All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,"

This is just retarded. Hell, it's almost Marxian. Who decides what property is "superfluous"?

Not only does on have to accept what superfluous property that "civil society" thrusts upon him, but also pay the price set by this "civil" society.


Welcome to society?

I have never seen the concept of society confuse people the way it seems to affect you. You might as well be asking why you aren't the default dictator of any any area you go to.

'there are rules people will make me follow? How dare they?! Also, follow MY ruleset because it is special since I thought it up'
 
2013-07-22 08:07:19 PM

m00: Abortion in my mind is a hugely complicated issue of bioethics.


No it isn't.
Abortion is really simple: It's a medical decision that's none of your business unless you are the owner of the uterus in question or her care provider.
 
2013-07-22 08:11:46 PM

jchuffyman: Yeah, that sounds OK, but I am just curious about why you have this completely unbreakable idea that it is impossible for a right to require at least some level of unwilling participation


Because it is a fundamental assumption of human rights that there cannot be an inalienable right that exists through the unwilling effort of another. That is a bedrock position at the heart of the very concept of a human right. As they say, your rights end at the end of your nose. And that's OK, because so does everyone else's rights.

Which is why this nonsense of "healthcare is a right" is a dangerous looseness of what rights are. And that is important. It is one thing to say that "everyone is entitled to healthcare" or that "the government has a moral duty to provide healthcare to its citizens". It is another to assert that I have a basic human right to make another human being care for my health.

m00: I'm going to quibble a bit with you here.

I said it was problematic because it's not really about marriage. I don't think anybody has a right to be married. Meaning, government could just say "we're not marrying anybody" and nobody's rights would be violated. The problem is government is choosing to arbitrarily marry some people but not others. So it's taking a service and providing it selectively without any logical rationale (and this is what the debate has been about). So it doesn't violate a right to marriage (which doesn't exist) it violates the right of equality.


I'll quibble with YOUR quibble :)

Marriage is not a service, it is a licensed legal status. And it is within the authority of States (but NOT the Federal government) to confer that status on citizens who meet the criteria that they set out as being required for a special legal status. Thus some states allow for first cousins to qualify, but some states do not. The Federal government chooses to recognize that legal status and provides certain benefits for that legal status such as different tax rules, inheritance taxes, etc. Of course both States and the Federal government could simply opt to provide no benefits to people who have the legal status of matrimony, but obviously do. But the issuance of marriage licenses and the determinations of criteria for that legal status resides exclusively with the states.

Which is why DOMA was correctly struck down, because the Federal government having established that it recognizes the state's conference of marital status and awards benefits based on that legal status, has no authority to deny the benefits a legal marriage to certain groups, but not others. The Federal Government must either accept all legal marriages as confirmed by each state, or none. It cannot deny a same sex couple any more than it could deny a first cousin marriage, provided that both are legally conferred by the State with jurisdiction.
 
2013-07-22 08:15:22 PM
Who says "your rights end at the end of your nose"?

Is that meant as a bad paraphrasing of 'your right swing your fists ends where my face begins'? If so I would argue quite a bit of meaning and specificity is lost in the rewording.
 
m00
2013-07-22 08:18:42 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: No it isn't.
Abortion is really simple: It's a medical decision that's none of your business unless you are the owner of the uterus in question or her care provider.


I guess simple minds see everything as simple, :)

So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days because fetal testing indicates the baby might be gay? It's her uterus, she can do what she wants, right?
 
2013-07-22 08:19:51 PM

m00: Serious Black: Another problematic case is the right to life (at least with respect to abortion). It's not enough for the government to not give women abortions. They have to stop women from getting abortions and stop doctors from giving abortions.

In that case, this would just become a criminal issue. Plenty of things are legal or illegal because they are (in theory) necessary for the proper functioning of a society, not because they violate a specific right in a cut-and-dry fashion. Although in general, freedom and liberty should be the basic underpinnings of all laws.

Abortion in my mind is a hugely complicated issue of bioethics. And in fact, it is a small subset of a much larger question of bioethics. I think what we need to do there is have some honest discussions about biological and genetic rights and even what it means to be human in general, and then abortion policy should be an outcome of that larger issue. Imagine a world where they can take some of your tissue and grow clones of you for organ harvesting (even if that creature doesn't have a brain). Is that person a human? What about a child born without a brain (which is a condition), is there a difference? What about genetically engineering your kids to have blue eyes or be taller or smarter or fit some ideal, or conversely aborting your kids because they have a 73.2% chance of being gay?

We as rational individuals need to make some hard decisions about bioethics and what we value for our society, and then have government implement policy that reflects those decisions.

But what's actually going to happen is the corporations will decide for us.


I understand your views on bioethics. I think that a lot of the stuff we've done so far in that realm is more than acceptable. I have no problem with the three-parent child that replaced the mitochondrial DNA with another set. That will save lives. Fixing the chromosomal disorders that cause 50% of fertilized eggs to die before implantation would be a future technology I'd approve of. I'm not sure where the line is, but I'd be much more likely to support things that save lives rather than artificially make them better.

Also, wrt the marriage thing, I see where you're coming from, but I don't see a privatized marriage system to be feasible at improving freedom.
 
2013-07-22 08:20:31 PM

hubiestubert: I entreat you to read your previous posts, and then perhaps ponder how folks might have misconstrued them.


Can you perhaps provide an instance of a statement in this thread that could be misconstrued as "Randian"? As near as I can determine, it is simply the CORRECT use of the term confiscation when applied to taxes. And considering that the counter to that was to try to disingenuously  re-phrase it a "theft", I would say the lack of clarity was more a willingness to mischaracterize.

What others can you point to as examples of "a lack of clarity in your posts, with huge room for inference to occur."?

Again, I do not hold myself accountable for the materials with which others choose to fill the "gaps" they see. And you and I both know that a not insignificant number of Farkers come here with the specific intent to find a phrase or sound bite to use as a jumping off point to launch into a pre-packaged screed against a shadowboxing opponent that need not actually exist.

So what exactly left room for my comments to be confused with a "Randian" position to anyone who actually red them?
 
2013-07-22 08:24:06 PM
m00

So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days because fetal testing indicates the baby might be gay?

That sounds like a test the Religious Right might develop except....... they're not real big on SCIENCE!

/I can't believe this thread is still alive.
 
2013-07-22 08:25:28 PM

m00: demaL-demaL-yeH: No it isn't.
Abortion is really simple: It's a medical decision that's none of your business unless you are the owner of the uterus in question or her care provider.

I guess simple minds see everything as simple, :)

So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days because fetal testing indicates the baby might be gay? It's her uterus, she can do what she wants, right?


First things first: The proper word is fetus.
B. Her reasons are her own. I have never met anybody who takes abortion lightly. Perhaps a few such people exist.
3. Yes, it is her uterus. Not yours. Not society's. Hers. She is a person, not property.
iv. A hypothetical woman who would be concerned about homosexual offspring would also very likely be a woman who belongs to a sect that wants to ban abortions.

That said, it is still none of your business.You don't get to make medical decisions for other competent adults.
 
2013-07-22 08:26:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: hubiestubert: I entreat you to read your previous posts, and then perhaps ponder how folks might have misconstrued them.

Can you perhaps provide an instance of a statement in this thread that could be misconstrued as "Randian"? As near as I can determine, it is simply the CORRECT use of the term confiscation when applied to taxes. And considering that the counter to that was to try to disingenuously  re-phrase it a "theft", I would say the lack of clarity was more a willingness to mischaracterize.

What others can you point to as examples of "a lack of clarity in your posts, with huge room for inference to occur."?

Again, I do not hold myself accountable for the materials with which others choose to fill the "gaps" they see. And you and I both know that a not insignificant number of Farkers come here with the specific intent to find a phrase or sound bite to use as a jumping off point to launch into a pre-packaged screed against a shadowboxing opponent that need not actually exist.

So what exactly left room for my comments to be confused with a "Randian" position to anyone who actually red them?


Remember a while back when I said you blame Obama as a failure for not forcing republicans to play nice? You denied it up and down, clarified your view, and at least three people in the thread said you were doing exactly what I accused you of?

That is what hubie is talking about. I've been there too, but at a certain point of everyone else misconstruing my statements I give up and start from scratch. At that point I think the miscommunication is my fault.

I used to think you were trolling and loved the hell out of moving goalposts and vague confusing points loadedwith implied arguments. I'm not alone in that. /shrug
 
2013-07-22 08:32:08 PM
Bojangles...have you taken a meal or bathroom break today? Do you feel weak or bloated?
 
kth
2013-07-22 08:44:40 PM
Operation Rescue sent me running from the republican party in 1991.
 
2013-07-22 08:49:03 PM

Smackledorfer: Remember a while back when I said you blame Obama as a failure for not forcing republicans to play nice? You denied it up and down, clarified your view, and at least three people in the thread said you were doing exactly what I accused you of?

That is what hubie is talking about. I've been there too, but at a certain point of everyone else misconstruing my statements I give up and start from scratch. At that point I think the miscommunication is my fault.

I used to think you were trolling and loved the hell out of moving goalposts and vague confusing points loadedwith implied arguments. I'm not alone in that. /shrug


In part, I suspect it's because our Beamish Boy thinks that everyone is using the same inner terminology, with the same interior precision that he has focused upon--forgetting that sometimes language is a bit plastic and that when you use language with fine gradations of meaning, especially when terms are often used in an imprecise manner as a matter of course, it leaves room for misunderstanding, IF everyone isn't on the same page with such gradations. Not a bad egg, but a bit focused on that interior monologue where everyone should be on the same page, and when they're not, then it leads him to the conclusion that everyone else in the world MUST be an idiot to not see things his way, when in fact, he's simply not communicating well.

If EVERYONE misses the point of a post, then perhaps it is how you have framed things. Much like the old saw that the one thing that is in common with all your past failed relationships is you. It's not that we want to pick you apart, BojanglesPaladin, but rather help you be clearer. You're a bright enough fellow, but your writing style...it conveys that you are think that you're being far more clever than they really are. Consider this sort of an intervention. You have decent points to bring up, but your method is muddied and often unclear, because you fail to define things clearly. You may think that your interior definitions are quite clear, but out here, in the real world, or rather the world of these threads, they're kind of a train wreck, which is why folks tend to pick at them.

Please. Just read your posts, and the responses, and consider how folks might have misconstrued them. Use this as a teachable moment, for yourself. You have some decent ideas, and we just want to help you make them clearer, and to be honest, while I do have that pesky teaching degree, I don't exactly have the time to pick apart every post for the last month, and grade them for clarity. This is on you, because I'm sure that you want folks to recognize your brilliance--that comes through quite strongly in your posts--but your method is muddied. Not trying to be a dick, but it is painfully clear that you have no idea how folks are misunderstanding your views, and if folks are doing so consistently, then you have to consider that your approach and argumentative style might be getting in the way.
 
2013-07-22 08:53:50 PM

m00: demaL-demaL-yeH: No it isn't.
Abortion is really simple: It's a medical decision that's none of your business unless you are the owner of the uterus in question or her care provider.

I guess simple minds see everything as simple, :)

So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days because fetal testing indicates the baby might be gay? It's her uterus, she can do what she wants, right?


I hate those sorts of questions, they're low on possibilities and high on being extreme enough that they hopefully entice a emotional response. In any case I still wouldn't have a problem with a woman doing such, its her body and her choice. Also, how exactly do you restrict what people do with their own bodies? Any political action to ban/stop such stuff has been a failure. See the war on drugs, etc. As long as what they're doing with their own body doesn't bother anyone else in a public setting, screw you and stop telling people what they can or cannot do.

So yes, I think banning abortion for any reason is bad, as well as banning it for any particular stage. Granted, I'm not saying everyone should late term abort or that should even be a thing but coupled with access to contraceptives and sexual eduction that really is sexual eduction and you wont get to that point anyway.
 
2013-07-22 09:40:53 PM

hubiestubert: If EVERYONE misses the point of a post, then perhaps it is how you have framed things.


Not everyone did. Few in fact. And those were specific known trollish posters with whom I am already familiar. In point of fact the "Randian" comment was made by a straight-up seagull, who to the best of my knowledge has not responded as to what led him to that mistaken assumption.

So while I thank you for your helpful and unsolicited advice, I think you may be carrying it a bit too far in regards to this thread. It is also worth noting that on Fark, there are too many posters who thrive on deliberate misinterpretation in lieu of reasoned discussion. When asked, I am happy to clarify, as I have done here and do on many threads. But absent a specific example, other than selection of the word 'confiscation' which I stand by, the "Randian" comment was not a result of a lack of clarity, but rather someone's willful blind assumption.

I have read my posts in this thread. and can find nothing that can be honestly interpreted as "Randian", and you haven't provided one either.

Smackledorfer: That is what hubie is talking about. I've been there too, but at a certain point of everyone else misconstruing my statements I give up and start from scratch. At that point I think the miscommunication is my fault.


I am quite accustomed, even resigned, to making a fairly innocuous comment and then spending forever fending off other poster's attempts to inaccurately re-cast them into something the poster would rather fight about. I am not denying that I tend to live in the nuance, and my Boobiess can often require clarification specifically because I tend not to be absolutists. To the point, I COME here to sharpen and hone my thinking and my presentation.

And while I make no claim to be being perfectly precise or concise, I do reasonably attribute a significant portion of the "misunderstanding" to the simple fact that many Farkers have a hard time conceptualizing a position that is neither redteam or blueteam, but rather a bit of both or neither. And since so many Farkers here are basically binary politicos, they simply assume that my comments belong to one side or the other and attack them accordingly. That does not mean I am being unclear, it means that assumptions about associated positions or what I really mean are invariably wrong.

I almost always mean exactly what I say. That others decide I mean more or less than what I have actually said, combined with the unpredictable nature of connotations all Farkers bring with them, is the root of much of the "confusion".

Well, that and I am sometimes not clear and write too much....
 
2013-07-22 09:50:53 PM
And on that note, I'm out. Thanks everyone for a (mostly civil) discussion, especially considering how far afield it went.

I'm glad we have all agreed that no human right can exist that relies on the unwilling participation of someone else. (We are all agreed, aren't we? Guys? Hello?)

jchuffyman:  I will try to check back to see if you responded to my last post responding to your question. I promise not to cry if you have moved on.

Everyone have a good evening.
 
2013-07-22 09:53:52 PM

SuperTramp: Bojangles...have you taken a meal or bathroom break today? Do you feel weak or bloated?


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-22 10:41:22 PM
1.) The insanity we call the Tea Party, and 2.) a man named Fred Clark, convinced me of the errors of conservationism, though I did have a bit if guilt in holding from since I was a teenager. Turns out that is hard to be a conservative and have a conscience at the same time.
 
2013-07-22 10:53:40 PM
A young woman goes to the doctor to get her test results:

DOCTOR: I'm afraid you have terminal illness, there's no cure, and you have six months to live.

WOMAN (sobbing): Oh doctor, what should I do?

DOCTOR: If I were you, I'd marry a conservative and move to Utah.

WOMAN: Will that help me live longer?

DOCTOR: No, but those six months will seem like a very long time.
 
2013-07-22 10:55:00 PM
I don't know. I find on some topics, there are points of view brought up occasionally that I hadn't considered... but generally, I consider the "liberal" and conservative labels to be utter bullshiat. I mean, the "conservatives" are all about bigger government deciding who I should have relationships with, who I should have sex with, and bent on charging me more in taxes (as I earn most of my money by way of working, not investing). Then there's the "liberals," most of whom support the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, banking bailouts that hose the poor, and all the other shiatty welfare for the rich, all while constantly saying they're going towards the middle by sacrificing things like universal healthcare, better public education, and feeding the poor.

In short, I'm just me... I didn't support Obamacare, I put (on fark) a damn near five-page summary of what I would actually do instead. I supported President Obama's re-election, but I'm very upset about the NSA spying thing, and even more upset that none of these so-called Liberals will fall out of lock step with the authoritarians to condemn this horsecrap. I'm with "conservatives" in that I'm for lower taxes... but I'm totally against them in that I think the best way to lower taxes would be to treat capital gains as regular income and tax them the same as payroll... just drop the base tax rate to where that would be revenue neutral. I'm conservative in that I think we should spend less on Social Security, I'm liberal in that I think the best way to do that would be means-testing. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be impossible to convert me from label a to label b because I think the labels are just different stickers on the same turd sandwiches.
 
2013-07-22 11:01:29 PM
 
2013-07-23 12:46:38 AM

star_topology: Abacus9: Same here, both sides are ultra-conservative, and they consider me the libbiest lib that ever libbed (which isn't completely true). They also consider me the smartest in the family, go figure.

I have this exact line listed in my Facebook About Me: "Political Views."


I don't remember who I ripped that off from, but it was someone on Fark. It might have been you!

GoldSpider: Abacus9: If you think conservatives care about small government and less spending, perhaps you don't remember GWB? Starting unnecessary wars, greatly expanding the power of government under the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage and all that?

Ahem, DOMA was signed by Bill Clinton.


I know, but Bush still supported it, and it doesn't refute what I was saying. Democrats are expected to be the party of big government. And if anyone is a paragon of marriage sanctity, it's Bill Clinton. :P
 
2013-07-23 12:57:46 AM
So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days

why do conservatives have to lie consistently in order to make a point
 
2013-07-23 01:40:11 AM

Jackson Herring: So you have no problem with a woman aborting a baby that is due for delivery in days

why do conservatives have to lie consistently in order to make a point


Seriously. what a boatload of crap that is.
 
2013-07-23 02:21:57 AM

m00: 1) the level of waste and mismanagement and corporate influence in the US government is unparalleled amongst developed countries


Now don't get me wrong, our government does a quality job of waste and mismanagement, but are you familiar with the rest of the developed world? We're barely bush league compared to places like Italy, Russia, Greece, etc.
 
m00
2013-07-23 03:46:17 AM

Thrag: Now don't get me wrong, our government does a quality job of waste and mismanagement, but are you familiar with the rest of the developed world? We're barely bush league compared to places like Italy, Russia, Greece, etc.


Well, we're talking about "why doesn't the US have state-run healthcare like the rest of the developed nations"

According to my Italian friends, despite the political corruption in Italy the public sector is actually quite efficient.
Healthcare in Russia is awful. Yes they are very corrupt, and it extends to the public sector.
Greece can't pay for their state-run healthcare (or any of their social programs) and that's part of the problem.
 
2013-07-23 04:21:52 AM

SunsetLament: Wendy's Chili: Hayek and Friedman weren't as batshiat as their modern disciples would lead you to believe. They even supported guaranteed minimum incomes.

Friedman did not support minimum wage laws.


Yes he did.

But whatever, you won't be swayed by facts.
 
2013-07-23 04:29:41 AM

iq_in_binary: SunsetLament: Wendy's Chili: Hayek and Friedman weren't as batshiat as their modern disciples would lead you to believe. They even supported guaranteed minimum incomes.

Friedman did not support minimum wage laws.

Yes he did.

But whatever, you won't be swayed by facts.


Really? So who said the following, Milton Farking Berle?
'The real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that they are supported by well-meaning groups who want to reduce poverty. But the people who are hurt most by higher minimums are the most poverty stricken.'
 
2013-07-23 05:08:36 AM

SunsetLament: Dusk-You-n-Me: BojanglesPaladin: Nothing that requires the labor of another person can be a right.

The right to an attorney?

The "right to an attorney" is the concept that the government cannot deny you legal representation and advice.  It is not a right to conscript any attorney into your service.  The Constitution does not guarantee legal representation absent money to pay for it.


So you've just publicly screamed to all those around you that you have absolutely no farking clue how our legal system works.

Little hint, "lack of competent representation" will get you off on appeal pretty much every time. Unless you're black, well, then, hopefully you have a hot enough sister to get me on the case. Investigators tend to have enough pull to bring lawyers on to your case, get to know them before the lawyers.
 
2013-07-23 11:27:59 AM

feckingmorons: Ctrl-Alt-Del: feckingmorons:I worked in a big city ER (several cities I even worked at St. Johns in St. Louis for 13 weeks on a contract) and I've seen it myself. Sure it is not everyone, but one out of 100 unfunded patients quite easily.

So you saw one percent of unfunded patients scamming the system (a deduction based on your observations of the purse they were carrying or the car they were put in, natch), so you're willing to tell the other 99 percent to go fark themselves as a result.

I don't know a real Gucci bag from a fake one, but still they had them.

And yet you'd deny 99 people healthcare because of the one person carrying the bag that you can't even tell is real or not.

I don't particularly like being called an asshole.

Then you should avoid conversations about healthcare. Or reconsider your opinion on it

Nobody was denied anything, try for some reading comprehension.


I can't decide whether you are simply unaware that  "you'd" is a contraction meaning "you would" or if you actually don't understand the use of conditional clauses in the English language. If you have any nieces or nephews in middle school I'm sure they'll be glad to explain to you how my sentence doesn't claim that anyone was denied care, but instead points out that you would deny care to the 99 honest unfunded patients, if you could, based on your conclusions about the honesty of the 1 unfunded patient with an expensive looking purse, even though you admit you completely ignorant of its actual value.

I understand that the sentence was probably difficult for you to parse because the "if" clause was implicit, rather than explicit. I'll try to remember to use simpler sentence structures with you in the future. In the meantime, here's a handy guide you can use when you get confused: Omission of "if" in conditional clauses

 try for some reading comprehension

Thanks, Reading Comprehension Man! Maybe you could give me some pointers - for example, how does the concept of irony apply to this exchange?

Screw you.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-23 12:33:04 PM

iq_in_binary: So you've just publicly screamed to all those around you that you have absolutely no farking clue how our legal system works.
Little hint, "lack of competent representation" will get you off on appeal pretty much every time.


I'm just curious, because I always love a post that says someone is an idiot with no understanding of a subject without actually demonstrating an error...

a) What part of "The "right to an attorney" is the concept that the government cannot deny you legal representation and advice.  It is not a right to conscript any attorney into your service.  The Constitution does not guarantee legal representation absent money to pay for it." is inaccurate?
b)
What does "lack of competent representation" as a grounds for appeal have to do with the above statement?
 
2013-07-23 12:51:10 PM
I never really changed. I was registered as a republican in 1992 and my views are about the same as they were at the time. But the GOP moved so far to the right that I am now considered a Liby Libber who libs on liberty.

fark you GOP
fark you in your stupid hate filled ass.
 
2013-07-23 02:13:19 PM
What does "conservative" even mean any more... they aren't Goldwater Republicans... and they aren't even biblical... heck, if Jesus came back today, they'd just crucify him again.
 
2013-07-23 02:44:52 PM

firefly212: What does "conservative" even mean any more... they aren't Goldwater Republicans... and they aren't even biblical... heck, if Jesus came back today, they'd just crucify him again.


Been reading excerpts from Russian novels again?
 
Displayed 37 of 737 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report