Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42241 - 42260 of total 45362 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 15, 2014 - 10:49am PT
lib definition of tolerance:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2014/05/13/msnbc-s-capehart-tolerance-should-not-be-two-way-street?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=ToleranceOneWay



winston smith is dead
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
May 15, 2014 - 10:55am PT
Why are Republicans wrong about everything?
Because they are greedy selfish Americunts that don't care about this great Nation.
They only care about how much marrow they can suck out of our bones.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 15, 2014 - 11:18am PT
your tax dollars at work:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9fc3a01217d03b0354e1e18b69aa7bad&tab=core&_cview=0


ok libs, explain why the dept of AGRICULTURE needs "submachine guns"




winston smith is dead
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
May 15, 2014 - 11:38am PT
Perhaps because stupidshit red neck militias are armed to the tits and getting in their way.
jammer

climber
May 15, 2014 - 12:03pm PT

What is it about intolerance of intolerant attitudes that boggles your mind so bad? How on earth do you confuse this with blatant intolerance? Seriously, lets hear some kind of argument.
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
May 15, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
Read the comments in that article. The level of ignorance in this country is staggering.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 15, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
What is it about intolerance of intolerant attitudes that boggles your mind so bad?

Apparently, intolerance is rather like any other negative. Done an even number of times, it becomes a positive. Thus intolerance of intolerance = tolerance, rather than an oxymoron.

Of course, "intolerance" being in the eyes of the beholder, it now has become the fashion for rejecting honest and respectful debate, e.g. "My opponent is intolerant, therefore he or she has no right to express an opinion, and I am under an obligation to reject it without consideration."

That seems to be the modern definition of "critical thinking."

John
Fritz

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
May 16, 2014 - 03:06am PT
It doesn't get much better than watching this short news video hi-light of Idaho's Republican Governor's debate. The existing governor, who's first name is "Butch" is in a suit. The two doing the ranting are somewhat more conservative.

The TV station that filmed and edited this was having fun------- and you will too.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/15/3186178/idahos-goofy-guvs-debate-could.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 16, 2014 - 03:46am PT
You mean you aren't running out to vote for Harley, Fritz?

John
jammer

climber
May 16, 2014 - 10:44am PT
Of course, "intolerance" being in the eyes of the beholder, it now has become the fashion for rejecting honest and respectful debate, e.g. "My opponent is intolerant, therefore he or she has no right to express an opinion, and I am under an obligation to reject it without consideration."

That seems to be the modern definition of "critical thinking."

John

No, it has become the fashion for imposing honest and respectful debate (and when this fails it serves to send the bigot running with their tail between their legs, since everyone is "different" to someone) since you can not have an honest nor respectful debate with someone who is arbitrarily intolerant, and since their unjustified intolerance (hatred of gay people, black people, "different" people in general) is in itself an act of aggression, people like me are just going to treat it that way. What can I say, karma is a bitch? Don't like it? Try being tolerant in the first place :). Then your karma will be very different :). Again, what boggles your mind so badly about this? No one is saying that any particular viewpoint is bad unless it is unjustifiably biased against certain people, and all people like myself are advocating for is to ignore the unjustifiably biased a-holes based on what they say, the actual words they CHOOSE to speak. Sounds pretty civil, really.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 16, 2014 - 01:37pm PT
from the ap, the latest cog in the vast right-wing conspiracy:

"The Obama administration has given the go-ahead for a new cost-control strategy called "reference pricing." It lets insurers and employers put a dollar limit on what health plans pay for some expensive procedures, such as knee and hip replacements."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cost-control-plan-health-care-could-cost-you


so, barry favors letting insurers and employers (to libs aka "evuhl corporations") refuse to pay for certain "expensive procedures"?

behold, the death panels are born
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
May 16, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
Go back to church, booky.

I've recently received some of the best medical care I've ever had...thanks, Mr. President!
jammer

climber
May 16, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
"bookworm", do you even read the articles you post, and if you do, do you understand them? From your article:

Your health insurance plan slaps a dollar limit on what it will pay for certain procedures, for example, hospital charges associated with knee and hip replacement operations. That's called the reference price.

Say the limit is $30,000. The plan offers you a choice of hospitals within its provider network. If you pick one that charges $40,000, you would owe $10,000 to the hospital plus your regular cost-sharing for the $30,000 that your plan covers.

So if you as a consumer are so stupid that you CHOOSE to go to a hospital that charges more than the "reference price" as defined by the "reasonable amount" a hospital charges for a procedure, you get charged the difference. Sounds fair to me, and a "conservative" form of regulation if anything, as long as "reasonable amount" does not come to severely limit the quality of available procedures. Is this what you want to talk about though? Hell no. You just want to be confused about the issues, and keep your head in the sand regarding the reality of health care for everyone being here, and being a good thing (as long as we all work together to make it/keep it so).
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 16, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
I like the idea of a "reference price" in theory, because it moves us closer to a contract, rather than a tort, model of health care. You want a Lexus rather than a Toyota, you pay the difference. It results in greater consumer choice.

The problem in practice will be for those who cannot afford to pay any more than what the plan covers. As reimbursement rates decline, more health care providers will refuse to accept those rates, thus limiting the choice of providers for those who won't or can't pay extra, but that doesn't really differ from what we have already.

I'm just not sure how reference pricing fits within the actual ACA legislation, as opposed to the Executive Branch re-writing of that legislation.

John

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 16, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
No, it has become the fashion for imposing honest and respectful debate (and when this fails it serves to send the bigot running with their tail between their legs, since everyone is "different" to someone) since you can not have an honest nor respectful debate with someone who is arbitrarily intolerant, and since their unjustified intolerance (hatred of gay people, black people, "different" people in general) is in itself an act of aggression, people like me are just going to treat it that way. What can I say, karma is a bitch? Don't like it? Try being tolerant in the first place :). Then your karma will be very different :). Again, what boggles your mind so badly about this? No one is saying that any particular viewpoint is bad unless it is unjustifiably biased against certain people, and all people like myself are advocating for is to ignore the unjustifiably biased a-holes based on what they say, the actual words they CHOOSE to speak. Sounds pretty civil, really.

No matter how many times I read those words, Jammer, I cannot see how they contradict what I posted, namely that intolerance is in the eyes of the beholder.

When you say "unjustifiably biased against certain people" how do we determine what is a justifiable bias? Since the "rich" are, by definition, different, may I conclude that any "hate speech" against "the rich" constitutes unjustifiable bias, allowing me to be intolerant of the speaker espousing that doctrine? Or is hate speech against those the left dislikes (employers, Christians, white males, etc.) "justified?"

John
Fritz

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
May 16, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
JE! Re your question on my post on the Idaho Governor's Republican candidate debate!

It doesn't get much better than watching this short news video hi-light of Idaho's Republican Governor's debate. The existing governor, who's first name is "Butch" is in a suit. The two doing the ranting are somewhat more conservative.

The TV station that filmed and edited this was having fun------- and you will too.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/15/3186178/idahos-goofy-guvs-debate-could.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1

Absolutely! I voted absentee ballot for Harley, since both he and our cat are named Harley!

Credit: Fritz

Harley for governor! (the crazy-dude, not my cat)
jammer

climber
May 16, 2014 - 04:20pm PT
John, the difference is that intolerance of intolerance is reactive but intolerance itself is pro-active. Intolerance of intolerance cannot, by definition, exist without the original intolerance. This is not a chicken and the egg thing, rather an e=mc^2 kind of thing.

Also, simply saying someone is "intolerant" is like saying they are "despicable". It is meaningless without an accompanying argument based in FACT. This, in and of itself, is what regulates it. Is this "conservartive" enough for you?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
May 16, 2014 - 08:50pm PT
http://www.mail.com/news/us/2849660-towns-white-police-official-calls-obama-n-word.html#.2851748-rightcolumn-mostviewed1-1

WOLFEBORO, N.H. (AP) — A police commissioner in a predominantly white New Hampshire town says he won't apologize for calling President Barack Obama the N-word, and he sat with his arms crossed while angry residents at a meeting called for his resignation on Thursday.

Wolfeboro Police Commissioner Robert Copeland, who's 82 and white, has acknowledged in an email to his fellow police commissioners he used the racial slur in describing Obama. Town resident Jane O'Toole, who moved to Wolfeboro four months ago, said she overheard Copeland say the slur at a restaurant in March and wrote to the town manager about it. Copeland, in an email to her, acknowledged using the slur in referring to the president and said he will not apologize.

This is what you get when you get old senile white trailer trash in power. Sterling has brothers.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 17, 2014 - 02:25am PT
Thanks, jammer. That helps, but The concept of "intolerance of intolerance" still carries too much potential for closed minds for me to accept. I watched the birth of the Free Speech Movement at Cal, uniting groups as divergent as the W. E. B. DuBois Club and Youth for Goldwater. The philosophy behind that movement was really the ideal behind both academic freedom and freedom of expression, viz. that people should be free to express themselves without interference, and the that the cure for bad ideas was the expression of good ideas.

Sad to say, the modern academy -- and way too many internet "debaters" (I obviously use the term rather loosely) don't want to demonstrate the error of those with whom they disagree. Instead they want to silence them by force. We end up with things like speech codes, that purport to keep things civil but in practice simply prevent the expression of unpopular opinions -- almost always in the name of stopping intolerance.

As many others on many other threads repeat, disagreement does not equal hate, but the application of anti-hate, anti-intolerance in the real world, and particularly in the unreal world of academics, results in intolerance of divergent opinions, rather than intolerance of intolerance.

John
jammer

climber
May 17, 2014 - 05:15am PT
John, would those people have tolerated an intolerant a-hole being in their midst, whilst being an active intolerant a-hole? Seriously, how would they handle such a thing? To me, to be tolerant is to be accepting, and to be accepting is to welcome and love. Did they successfully persuade every a-hole with love and understanding to join their circle of friendship and celebrate everyone's differences, white supremacists, black people, hippies, and businessmen all? If so, how was that not a giant contradiction? If there were conveniently no conflicting viewpoints present, if you wouldn't mind conducting a thought experiment, how do you think it would have been handled if there were mutually conflicting viewpoints?

Are we perhaps having an argument over semantics? ;)
Messages 42241 - 42260 of total 45362 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews