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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hell no. Other coast. The good one.

Weird. I got plenty of love in my time in BC

Oh, and to the list of things all Canadian agrees with, let's add ;

3. Toronto is a fugly city.

deleted

 Goliath wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

Dogma for Philosopher-King?

I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.

Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?

Plato's Republic, book I or II, not too sure. It was the myth the philosopher kings were supposed to feed their population from birth in order to get them to accept both familial communism and the caste system. ''You were born from the Earth, and not from a women, so you shall share all women and all women shall share all men and children. Those born of Gold will lead, those born of Silver will fight and those born of Bronze will toil'' or some crap like that.

Edit ; Crap I was far off : Book V. The Noble Lie, it's called.

The Noble Lie first occurs in Book III

 azazel the cat wrote:
The Noble Lie first occurs in Book III

Oh for feth sake's, I'll have to re-read that book a 4th time...

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
raised from birth to know that is their duty not their right ?

I think in practice the separation between the two becomes quite hazy. If you're told from birth that something is your duty, and yours alone, than you start acting as if it's your right, IMHO.

On paper it's good, but so is Communism I suppose.

 Amaya wrote:
Have you bothered to look at the polling data for it?

Yes. According to Gallup, the same percentage of people agreed with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the ACA than who disagreed with it-- 46% for, 46% against, and 8% no opinion.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-americans-evenly-split-on-scotus-health-care

So... there is arguably no majority opinion against the ACA amongst the US populace.

Communism and pure capitalism are both great on paper, IMO. It's the humans and their greed that feth it all up.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.

That's only because A) almost no one takes the time to read and understand the damn thing, and B) Nearly half of America has politically aligned itself with a party and with news sources which deliberately take advantage of that ignorance to pretend that they would do some undefined and unspecified better thing, which will never materialize.

Whenever people are polled about any individual provision of the ACA, like keeping dependent kids on their parent's plan to 26, or requiring insurance companies to spend 80% or more of premiums on care for patients, there is overwhelming support. When they get asked about the bill as a whole they say they object, because they want something "better"; like Romney just promised the American people a few minutes ago on my TV. But this is a false argument, because Romney is not offering anything better, nor is his party. Republican ideas used as the basis of the ACA, particularly Romney's own program in Massachusetts, and Republican legislators were given a year to contribute ideas to make the law better, and they chose not to do so. The truth is that they have no interest in reforming healthcare, because they personally have plenty of money and no problem accessing care, and the poor and middle class people who are hurt by our system fall into two groups: Folks who vote Democrat, and folks who have been tricked into voting against their own interest, to help millionaires get richer.

 Amaya wrote:

It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.

"Shoved down our throats" is propaganda that you have been fed. It was passed by our elected representatives, and signed by the President, in full accordance with the law. One of the central founding precepts of the ACA was that it was to be a bipartisan project, They started with a REPUBLICAN-originated plan, and spent A YEAR attempting to compromise to get Republicans to support and contribute to the project. The Republican party publicly stated that making Barack Obama fail was their highest priority, and they engaged in a deliberate and calculated plan of delay, obstruction, obfuscation and deception, attempting to prevent necessary reforms from passing for their personal political gain, and for the benefit of their corporate contributors in the health insurance industry.

Part of the reason we, the American people, elected Barack Obama and a Democratic majority to the House and Senate in 2008 was to finally make some progress on reforming healthcare, which IS an emergency in our country, despite half of our politicians lying and pretending it isn't, to people too ignorant to know better.

You have this issue exactly backwards, and are either trolling us all badly, or missing a fundamental understanding of US Civics and government, the kind we're all supposed to learn in grade school.

 Amaya wrote:
Nor is their majority support. It is dead even.

Therefor your argument is wholly without merit.

deleted

You say that like I give a damn.

We don't live in a Democracy. And Throne on Earth am I glad we don't. We live in a Representative based government. In general, Representative based governments scale up far better than pure democracies.

 Melissia wrote:
You say that like I give a damn.

You are the most incredibly angry person on these forums.

 Amaya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
You say that like I give a damn.

You are the most incredibly angry person on these forums.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your failed argument?

deleted

You are the most incredibly angry person on these forums.

 Amaya wrote:
Were you fuming so hard that it took you three tries to successfully type that query?

Actually, it's more like I decided to reword that post because I didn't want you to think I was insulting your intelligence.

I have a way of wording things that can seem inflammatory when it was not intended to be.

deleted

 Melissia wrote:
You say that like I give a damn.

We don't live in a Democracy. And Throne on Earth am I glad we don't. We live in a Representative based government. In general, Representative based governments scale up far better than pure democracies.

Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Amaya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
You say that like I give a damn.

You are the most incredibly angry person on these forums.

She has a pretty solid reason to be angrier than -what, 85%? of the people on these forums. Rights specific to her, and not to you, are under attack by a group of people that appear to hate her for biological reasons, and thus she gets to read about people here agreeing with that group, and people siding with that group due to discounting her rights as being a serious issue.

Are you seriously that desperate to avoid talking about the subject matter that you'd rather talk about me?

Because if so, I'm gonna go over there and play guild wars 2 some more. I'm a boring person, I'd rather talk about anything other than me.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Pointless pedantry; not worth reading.

deleted

Amaya wrote:There is somebody out there who hates you for no good reason at all! Probably quite a few of them at that. Getting bent out of shape about is a pointless waste of energy.

But I don't constantly hear about people trying to legislate away my personal rights.

EDIT: Nor trying to justify it by claiming it's God's will or fake science.

deleted

And yet, you're avoiding the argument.

So I'm gonna go back to my Sylvari Warrior.

Amaya wrote:I do not associate with those generating excessive negative energy.

Ummm, not true, you post here regularly...

deleted