Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 olympia wrote:
hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too. Hiiilarious. I think the grand strategy of the more intelligent, educated Republicans is working out. This thinking was this: the Republican party needs an enema to free itself from the Tea Party red-necks. The best way to achieve this purge is to give these jackasses free reign--enter Paul Ryan. After Obama cruises to victory the Republican primary system can rid itslef of Tea-Baggers who are unelectable nationally. Even the dimmest right-winger will be able to grasp this. The focus can then return to 2016 with a bump in the mid-term elections and the 'regular' Republican makes a return.

The modern traditional response to failure at the polls is not to moderate, but to instead double down on "conservative principles" rhetoric. I can almost hear Hannity and Rush now talking about how Mitt and Ryan didn;t advocate ENOUGH for what conservatives believe in, and hnece that is why they lost.

They did the same thing after McCain got crushed. They will do the same thing after Romney gets crushed in the Electoral College.

They are already doing this in regards to the 47% quote.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/romney-percentages.php

I figured this is pertinent to the discussion.

Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.

What's with this guy? It's like he's actively trying to not get elected. Is it just that he thinks beating out a black guy carrying a bad economy would just be too easy, so he needs to create a bigger challenge? Oh well if nothing else it's entertaining. Can't wait to see how he tops this one.

 dogma wrote:
True, but he should have anticipated that he wouldn't know what his audience was.

Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.

And as for Paul Ryan's "Catholicism":

John XXIII wrote:Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

From Pacem In Terris.

 Chongara wrote:
Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.

What makes you think he thinks that?

And healthcare is not a right. Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

 olympia wrote:
hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too. Hiiilarious. I think the grand strategy of the more intelligent, educated Republicans is working out. This thinking was this: the Republican party needs an enema to free itself from the Tea Party red-necks. The best way to achieve this purge is to give these jackasses free reign--enter Paul Ryan. After Obama cruises to victory the Republican primary system can rid itslef of Tea-Baggers who are unelectable nationally. Even the dimmest right-winger will be able to grasp this. The focus can then return to 2016 with a bump in the mid-term elections and the 'regular' Republican makes a return.

bs. In general Romney has been running one part "I'm a businessy guy and sort of conservative" and three parts "the other guy sucks campaign." The Other guy sucks campaign only works for Democrats due to the incredible bias of MsM. Republicans win when they go epic. Romeny's a moderate. He ran as a moderate, nad has just been painted wacky right to win the nomination and by the willing MsM.

If you're going to run on competence you have to come from a place where the population knows about you, and you aren't instantly painted by Pravda, er the NYT and the opposing campaign in negative terms. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton). He was a very well known entrepeneur, and had some good ideas. Plus the media loved his quirkiness, which he used.

Having said that, Romney was the best of the ones that ran, which says so much.

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.

What makes you think he thinks that?

His tone of voice. Watch the video he says "who believe that they [the 47% of Americans] are ENTITLED to food, to healthcare to housing, you-name-it". He really puts emphasis on entitled in that sentence in a way that makes him seem incredulous (or at the very least annoyed) that people would feel that way.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

 Frazzled wrote:
and you aren't instantly painted by Pravda, er the NYT

Oh dear.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Rights belong to individuals not to the species. I think you will find that an individual man deprived of healthcare will not survive long once he is injured or becomes sick.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Rights belong to individuals not to the species. I think you will find that an individual man deprived of healthcare will not survive long once he is injured or becomes sick.

Depends entirely on the injury. There are plenty of sicknesses and injuries that don't require anything beyond some rest. And I still do not believe it is a right or an entitlement.


Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them. I see nothing giving me or anyone else the right to medical attention off the bat. its not in the constitution nor can I see any basis of it being a natural right(I don't even believe in natural rights)

The right to food, water, and shelter is something thats earned. You have to go and collect food and water. You have to build a shelter. Once you've done that, you have the right to what you just collected and built. You have earned the right for yourself.

Medical attention is the same thing. You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them.

TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.

You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.

I think this is the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans today.

Democrats emphasize that all people, regardless of who they are or what they have done, have certain basic and inalienable rights. Republicans emphasize that rights are something that people have to earn (and are basically fungible with money).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.

Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Medical attention is the same thing. You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.

Not you specifically. If other's struggled before to have a right recognised, by the Rule of Law, you get it extended to your person.

The government is not some "thing" that is separate from us. When we ask what the government should do, we are asking what WE should do as a people, as a community, as a society, as a nation. What is the point of our cooperation? Clearly, the point is to foster the commonwealth.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them.

TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.

TBH, this is why I never understood the religious / christian approach to rights. Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.

Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

Well I'm glad to live in country that it likes to provide other services besides just protecting itself from other countries.

PhantomViper wrote:
Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?

The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Medical attention is the same thing. You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.

'


You offer a more scathing critique of your own position than I ever could.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.

How does that make any sense?

How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?

Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.

Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

That is a very strange thing to think to say, not to call it other things that would probably get me banned (again).

A healthy individual is a productive member of society that by its contributions benefits everyone else and therefore you as an individual as well.

Someone that is dead or permanently ill because of a lack of healthcare is a drain on society and therefore on everyone else and you as an individual as well.

Society as a whole (and by extension all the individuals that compose it), benefits allot more from healthcare being available to everyone than by restricting it to only those that have the means to purchase it...

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?

Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?

Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.

Positivism is a position not a reality.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?

Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.

Positivism is a position not a reality.

Law doesn't care much about reality. When reality doesn't fit, we create legal fictions.

 Manchu wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?

The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.

Exactly. We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.

I'm profoundly sorry that your God doesn't give you the right to free healthcare that my secular society provides me...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them.

TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.

TBH, this is why I never understood the religious / christian approach to rights. Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!

That actually is the exact basis. Personal responsibility.

God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.

Its good because it forms a 3rd party baseline of what is moral.

If everyone independently comes up with their own concepts of what is moral, then in the end you have chaos because one person may find it completely ok to go around killing people and taking their stuff, because its good for them. Who cares what other people think right?

If God tells you what is good and bad, then everyone has the same standard to compare to.


Good/Bad is a useless definition unless a third party defines it.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Law doesn't care much about reality. When reality doesn't fit, we create legal fictions.

Yes but we keep in mind that they are indeed fictions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.

No, those are called privileges not rights.

PhantomViper wrote:
I'm profoundly sorry that your God doesn't give you the right to free healthcare that my secular society provides me...

As I already mentioned, the Church teaches that healthcare is a right. It is up to people of good will to create societies in which such a right is recognized and enacted.