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.

GMMStudios wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I have a friend that won't go to Chick-fil-a because the one near his residence started giving free chicken sandwiches if you brought in a Church Service guide on Sundays. True story. Not an interesting one, but true.

That is a weird reason to stop eating fried chicken...

Not really. He isn't a Christian and thinks it is crap they give away free food to Christians but no one else. They don't want him so he doesn't want them.

dogma wrote:To be fair, Whole Foods is a business that should not exist. They artificially inflate the prices of produce based on the false pretext that 'organic' equates to 'healthy'.

Ding ding ding!

I'd have more sympathy for the guy, if he hadn't already based his business on the kind of people who do this sort of thing.

I wonder if the chicken meat is kosher and/or halal?

BrotherStynier wrote:

reds8n wrote: That seems a far too friendly of a law to be in the USA... you are allowed to shoot them still right ?

Only if they touch your dog, horse, cattle or wife. The last two being interchangeable in some places in the South

Incorrect. You have the hang a horse thief. Come on people educate yourselves

Posters are pointing out that people have a right to boycott, they're right but that doesn't mean they're using that right sensibly. These people have a right to boycott Whole Foods, but boycotting over an opinion piece from the CEO? It's kind of inane.

While they have a right to boycott, the rest of us have a right to tell them they're being inane.

GMMStudios wrote:"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money,"

Man that quote made it worth reading.

Really? Because that quote shows almost no understanding of the concepts of 'socialism' and 'money'.

sebster wrote:Posters are pointing out that people have a right to boycott, they're right but that doesn't mean they're using that right sensibly. These people have a right to boycott Whole Foods, but boycotting over an opinion piece from the CEO? It's kind of inane.

While they have a right to boycott, the rest of us have a right to tell them they're being inane.

Thank you sebster!!!! You are the first one who posted who got the meaning of my post! I had begun to lose hope!

JEB_Stuart wrote:Thank you sebster!!!! You are the first one who posted who got the meaning of my post! I had begun to lose hope!

Treasure this moment, it may be the one and only time we agree on anything.

sebster wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Thank you sebster!!!! You are the first one who posted who got the meaning of my post! I had begun to lose hope!

Treasure this moment, it may be the one and only time we agree on anything.

Hahaha, indeed! If I kept a journal it would say, "Sebster understood my intent on something better than anyone else...and he agreed!" But I don't, so this will be treasured in my head. Despite your contention, I do think that we probably would agree on quite a bit...sadly this medium of communication greatly inhibits any progress we might make.

halonachos wrote:But I do like the idea of a voluntary donation. That way supporters can pay for it and non-supporters won't have to.

Yes, beause opting into policies you like and not those you don't is a viable way to run a country.

While they are at it, why not let soldiers decide for themselves whether to go to Iraq, single, childless people opt out of paying towards education for other people's children, criminals opt out of paying towards a police service and slobs hold back a portion of their taxes and let garbage pile up in the street in front of their house.

Well, soldiers are under a little thing called a "contract", I don't know if its the same over there. While all of the other things you have said are run by the CITY and not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I don't like the feds getting all up in my grill if you understand and criminals actually don't pay for police services.

You see, if you make a bundle of cash illegally then you don't report it and you don't pay taxes on it. On another note, garbage pick up helps everyone.

Now the whole healthcare thing benefits only those without healthcare so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:Posters are pointing out that people have a right to boycott, they're right but that doesn't mean they're using that right sensibly. These people have a right to boycott Whole Foods, but boycotting over an opinion piece from the CEO? It's kind of inane.

While they have a right to boycott, the rest of us have a right to tell them they're being inane.

Thank you sebster!!!! You are the first one who posted who got the meaning of my post! I had begun to lose hope!

The idea is that you are mad at these people for boycotting a chain over petty reasons, sounds pretty petty to me.

halonachos wrote:Well, soldiers are under a little thing called a "contract",

You know, there was theory about this. One of the theories which founded the entire liberal movement on which our government is based. Social somethingorotherarianism...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Hahaha, indeed! If I kept a journal it would say, "Sebster understood my intent on something better than anyone else...and he agreed!" But I don't, so this will be treasured in my head. Despite your contention, I do think that we probably would agree on quite a bit...sadly this medium of communication greatly inhibits any progress we might make.

True, considering there's no easy fix the issues of a text based medium, I think we should just keep yelling at each other.

sebster wrote:
True, considering there's no easy fix the issues of a text based medium, I think we should just keep yelling at each other.

If you insist you liberal nutcase!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:
True, considering there's no easy fix the issues of a text based medium, I think we should just keep yelling at each other.

If you insist you liberal nutcase!

dogma wrote:
You can't run a sustainable program effort on donations alone. That's why your idea won't work. You might feel its morally superior, but morality is irrelevant here when functionality is impaired. You're essentially asking those people without healthcare to pay for their own services via national insurance, which will be provided supplementary funding via donations. Its not different from the system we currently have, except that it features an established program rather than a take-all-comers ER policy supported by federal funding.

Also except for the fact that other people who are willing to donate will be able to pay for their care, but besides that little point it is completely the same thing.

Oh look, an 800lb gorilla.

halonachos wrote:
Also except for the fact that other people who are willing to donate will be able to pay for their care, but besides that little point it is completely the same thing.

Oh look, an 800lb gorilla.

They already pay for it. Either in taxes through Federal subsidies, or the cost of medical services themselves. They can even donate to their hearts content. There are plenty of non-profits that work to develop medical funding for the underprivileged, and many hospitals run charity services.

Yes, but I am talking specifically about a program that benefits uninsured persons directly and doesn't just give money to hospitals so they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

Also, are you saying that we already have programs that help take care of the uninsured?

Time out...

Foul called on Halanchos for travelling.

*BEEEEEEP*

At some point Halanchos will actually understand who he is in this picture... heck, I don't even understand .



And in this picture we know who halanchos is...

halonachos wrote:Yes, but I am talking specifically about a program that benefits uninsured persons directly and doesn't just give money to hospitals so they can choose to do whatever they want with it.

So am I. Since hospitals are (mostly) NPOs they must also keep a correct account of all the money the charity accrues, lest they receive a visit from the IRS and its battery of lawyers.

halonachos wrote:
Also, are you saying that we already have programs that help take care of the uninsured?

No, I'm saying that hospital ERs are required to treat anyone that comes in. If they don't do that, they don't receive Federal subsidies. Thus they have to take everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. As such, people support the uninsured through those subsidies.

They also support them through the increased cost of services. The way the system is set up now doctors and hospitals are forced to eat the cost of treating people who are unable to pay. They must price their services in a way which accounts for this, so anyone receiving medical attention pays for those that don't. Its one of the reason services, and insurance, are so expensive here. And one of the reasons reform is so important.

Dogmatic and automatic wrote:No, I'm saying that hospital ERs are required to treat anyone that comes in. If they don't do that, they don't receive Federal subsidies. Thus they have to take everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. As such, people support the uninsured through those subsidies.

This whole system ends up costing us ridiculous amounts of money, and it produces situations that sets people up to rely on the ER for all their health-care needs.

I am quite pissed that Obama backed down so easily on this... he better have a plan going on.

Honestly, I was pretty pissed that he didn't open with his own bill proposal. It would have made it much harder for Conservatives to fabricate clauses which didn't exist.

That said, such an action might also have incurred allegations of 'impeding debate', but those could easily have been mitigated by the early acceptance of suggestions.

The whole death panel thing was in a bill passed by Bush right? Just... they did not call it a death panel then... and you though Sarah Palin was stupid... Oh, hey guys, didn't know you were listening ...

Wrexasaur wrote:
At some point Halanchos will actually understand who he is in this picture... heck, I don't even understand .

Yes, I'm the guy with the blue shirt and a sumo hand blocking my face, worst portrait ever.



But look at the number of uninsured and what they are. You have hard workers who can't get it from their small business owners, the homeless, illegal immigrants, etc.

Now, we can cut the tax on small business so they don't close down and can afford healthcare, get the illegals out of the country, and then we just have the homeless to take care of.

New York is sending them overseas to their families(if they have one), so I guess we should do that.