16 ways military spending takes away your freedom.

[FunkyTown]

With thanks to Bytor.

From my own mind

The sections below are taken from the $791 billion dollars spent in 2008 on the military.

1. You are young and don't want to spend a significant portion of your taxes on wars in places you don't care about? Tough.

2. You are young and healthy and want to show up in foreign nations with violent dictators and just shoot said dictator? Tough. Your government has passed laws preventing you from leaving the country with the sole purpose of assassinating foreign dignitaries!

3. You would like to pay less in military by hiring mercenaries from foreign nations with little to no money? Tough. The government won't let you not pay for the US military and simply send your money to some African nation where soldiers are cheap and have them fight your war.

4. Think you’d like a military that is cheaper because it doesn't cover things like 'Sappers' or the Navy? Tough. The government decides what military branches they want. You don't have the freedom to say you aren't going to pay for the Marines.

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer a military that doesn't protect the freedom of your slacker Socialist kids and their New York friends? Tough. The government intends to take money from companies and spend it in ways that are uniform in their application.

6. You must buy a military that covers emergency services, land wars, sattelite warfare, germ warfare, chemical warfare and nuclear warfare. You're even required to pay for medical care - for free for the men and women who fight in a military you are required to pay for.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough. Your military will spend money making long term plans protecting the nation or developing contingencies well in to the next century, when you will be dead. Your taxes will go to that.

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost sharing and no premiums? Tough. The US requires you to pay taxes even if you are a soldier or are willing to load up for bear and just go to town in some foreign nation and just start blasting people.

8. You are an employer in the small-group military tactical environment and you want to send your mercenaries over with AK-47s, full body armor and armour piercing ammunition? Tough. The government doesn't let random mercenary operations show up, not pay taxes and just start blasting the poop out of places.

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to pay taxes for the military, you will face jail-time. They'll actively take away your freedom if you don't pay your taxes for this socialist military.

10. You are an employer with flexible military arrangements, where your employees can opt out of paying for a military by personal contributions, such as giving ammunition to soldiers? Tough. The government will still tax you.

11. If you are a mercenary and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The government won't let you operate without oversight in the land of your choice with the freedom to fight the wars you want to fight.

12. If you are a soldier and you want to fight in a foreign war, you must be a member of the US military or a US military ally currently involved in a war before they'll let you fight

13. If you are a soldier and you want to expand your military operation? Well, you can’t Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, war has already been declared and... Get this... where the government actively sends you!

14. You are a soldier and you want to raise your wages to meet the costs of being wounded? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by your CO then they can refuse it without you having recourse to simply go home and stop fighting. That's right. You can't even choose to just leave the military and come home even if you disagree with what they're doing there and think you could do a better job yourself. What is this? Russia?

15. The government will extract a fee of 791 billion annually from the people of the United States of America. This number may even increase!

16. The government will extract a fee of $51 billion annually for homeland security. That's defense at home people. Think you can do better by buying a handgun for your house? Tough.

Edited March 23, 2010 by FunkyTown

[rameumptom]

Funkytown,

I spent 20 years in the US Air Force. I received an honorable discharge. I served under both Republican and Democratic presidents and Confresses. I've seen good decisions and bad decisions on all levels.

but your point is insulting, very insulting, to our men and women of the Armed Forces. Yeah, I get it that you are against the war in Iraq. Know what? So am I. However, I don't go about pretending that the men and women of the military were forced into any situation. They all volunteered for their duty. They understand duty, whether they fully agree with it or not. They realize that while this may be a wasteful and expensive war, their efforts are reducing the terrorist activities at home. You are safe because most of the bad guys are flocking to Afghanistan and Iraq!

I know many great men and women who dislike the long interruptions and duty overseas, who hate the violence of war and the threat of road-side bombs just waiting to kill them. Yet these same people eagerly go to war so you can have an easy lifestyle.

Grow up. Life and the important things in life go well beyond your liberal thinking. My son served both in Iraq and Afghanistan. While in Afghanistan, his vehicle hit an explosive. It tipped them over. The vehicle beside them was totally destroyed and the soldiers and airmen inside dead. He was lightly wounded, but stayed on tour to finish it out, because it was his duty. He knew that if he left early, someone else would have to come and take his place in the danger zone. My son understands true priorities.

Meanwhile, national health care may be a good thing, it is not important compared to what those soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors are doing for us. Don't use them as political propaganda. It is very repulsive and wrong.

[hordak]

Yet these same people eagerly go to war so you can have an easy lifestyle.

Location: Canada

[Hemidakota]

In the near future as those warring nations will try to cross the oceans to conquer this land when its civil strife and lack of govenment is in place, we can tell them to go north [Canada]. :)

[Dravin]

Heh. I actually go through a half dozen points until I caught the parody. I must be slow today.

[NeuroTypical]

Tip of the hat to Funky. Nicely done, ya liberal peacenick!

Can't argue with the validity of (most) of your items - it's an honest comparison. I can only argue with why a military is good and national healthcare is bad.

[Wingnut]

I caught the parody just by reading the title of the thread. I didn't bother to read either one.

[Dravin]

I caught the parody just by reading the title of the thread. I didn't bother to read either one.

I didn't notice Bytor's thread. I came here directly from latest post link in the forum index. If I had I imagine I would have gotten it quicker, at least I like to think I would have.

[bytor2112]

You are a soldier and you want to raise your wages to meet the costs of being wounded? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by your CO then they can refuse it without you having recourse to simply go home and stop fighting. That's right. You can't even choose to just leave the military and come home even if you disagree with what they're doing there and think you could do a better job yourself. What is this? Russia?

Of coursed the difference is that we have an all VOLUNTARY military, where as the health care sham isn't voluntary.....heck, it doesn't even represent the will of the people and is now the law of the land becuase of back room payoffs and the spineless votes of 219 shmucks in Congress.

Edited March 23, 2010 by bytor2112

[Wingnut]

Hey, that's Congressman Schmuck to you!

[Moksha]

Good point for the need of war. Why, if we had not gone to war against Vietnam, the sole surviving remnant of their fleet of sampans would just now be sailing into San Diego harbor. It would be in tatters, but the aged fishermen might still be hostile and they might still possess a few Chinese firecrackers if they had wrapped them water-tight enough.

[talisyn]

Funky, the difference is in the military you get guns and in health care you just get seen by a doctor. Obviously, guns are more popular.

[FunkyTown]

Hahah. Thanks to Bytor for being such a good sport.

Rame? I respect the men in uniform and this thread was never meant to be insulting to them. I was simply taking the same arguments(Almost word for word) against taxation for health care as taxation for the military.

It was definitely meant as a parody, using the exact same terminology and arguments used against health care in a thread here.

So, Rame, here was my argument: The exact same arguments used by the far right against health care are the same arguments that would rile up and anger the far right were they used against something the far right endorses.

I admit I hadn't expected people to get riled up and angry, which shows a little bit about my short-sightedness considering what the whole thread was supposed to argue.

But at least I think my point is proven.

[rameumptom]

Location: Canada

But it applies equally to the brave Canadian armed forces who are in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well. They seek to eradicate dangers to their homeland, as well as the USA.

[rameumptom]

Good point for the need of war. Why, if we had not gone to war against Vietnam, the sole surviving remnant of their fleet of sampans would just now be sailing into San Diego harbor. It would be in tatters, but the aged fishermen might still be hostile and they might still possess a few Chinese firecrackers if they had wrapped them water-tight enough.

Different story altogether. In Vietnam, we had a forced draft. Soldiers didn't have a choice. And Vietnam didn't attack us as Al Qaeda and radical Muslims did.

In Vietnam, we were trying to promote the Truman Doctrine of containing communism (Truman, btw, was a Democrat). It was Kennedy and Johnson (2 Democrats) that got us into the middle of a war that had been going on for a decade already with the French. Richard Nixon (a Republican) actually sought to end the war with dignity.

So, your attempt at biting humor really hits home. For the Democrats.

[FunkyTown]

But it applies equally to the brave Canadian armed forces who are in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well. They seek to eradicate dangers to their homeland, as well as the USA.

Rame? I think you may have missed the point. This post had nothing to do with the military. The points I was making were deliberately ridiculous and were the exact points being made against national health care, only with the words 'military' replacing the words 'national health care'.

This was not an attack on the armed forces. My Grandpa served as Chief Engineer on several ships during the Korean War. He basically raised me.

My Father served in the army.

I was not attacking the military. This post was a parody of the arguments being made against universal health care. It was not an anti-Military post.

I was not seriously advocating that it is an affront to freedom that people can't just decide personally what wars they want to fight and hire cheaper African mercenaries to go fight the wars they decide are appropriate.

This post was a parody.

This post was not serious. It was a poke at people using arguments they wouldn't accept if the tables were turned.

I apologize that I'm repeating myself several times in this post, but my last post that said this was a joke didn't seem to penetrate. This post was a joke.

A parody. A comedy of errors. It was a commentary on the absurd arguments being thrown around now. Arguments that only work because nobody questions them.

Originally, I had intended to use federal police forces, but I couldn't find exact numbers on their costs.

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."

-Brigham Young.

[Blackmarch]

With thanks to Bytor.

From my own mind

The sections below are taken from the $791 billion dollars spent in 2008 on the military.

1. You are young and don't want to spend a significant portion of your taxes on wars in places you don't care about? Tough.

the US at one used to not be interested in affairs that were remote and outside its borders, beyond getting goods... it was "their" problem. Guess what happened, both times?

2. You are young and healthy and want to show up in foreign nations with violent dictators and just shoot said dictator? Tough. Your government has passed laws preventing you from leaving the country with the sole purpose of assassinating foreign dignitaries!

snipping off the head of the dandelion does not kill the flower..

3. You would like to pay less in military by hiring mercenaries from foreign nations with little to no money? Tough. The government won't let you not pay for the US military and simply send your money to some African nation where soldiers are cheap and have them fight your war.

I'd rather have my money go to the US military over any mercenary unit. Merccing generally tends to be a poor way of doing things. ONe of the reason some battles the US won in gaining its freedom was because the enemy was using mercenaries.

4. Think you’d like a military that is cheaper because it doesn't cover things like 'Sappers' or the Navy? Tough. The government decides what military branches they want. You don't have the freedom to say you aren't going to pay for the Marines.

I'd rather pay the military in general anyways. things get royally !@#%$# up when its run by beurocrats and civilians who have no idea what's going on.

And i'd rather pay for an expensive one as long as it knew how to use the money well, and knew its bounds, and how to do things.

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer a military that doesn't protect the freedom of your slacker Socialist kids and their New York friends? Tough. The government intends to take money from companies and spend it in ways that are uniform in their application.

?? something would be fundamentally wrong if I was an employer with the with the desire and the potential capability to offer any kind of paramilitary.

6. You must buy a military that covers emergency services, land wars, sattelite warfare, germ warfare, chemical warfare and nuclear warfare. You're even required to pay for medical care - for free for the men and women who fight in a military you are required to pay for.

Good I'll take that and you can go live in a country with one without those capabilities.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough. Your military will spend money making long term plans protecting the nation or developing contingencies well in to the next century, when you will be dead. Your taxes will go to that.

Good!

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost sharing and no premiums? Tough. The US requires you to pay taxes even if you are a soldier or are willing to load up for bear and just go to town in some foreign nation and just start blasting people.

that does not make any sense. I tried signing into the military, and at that time and still, I am quite willing to pay taxes were I part of the armed forces, whether top brass, mud mover, or ground pounder.

8. You are an employer in the small-group military tactical environment and you want to send your mercenaries over with AK-47s, full body armor and armour piercing ammunition? Tough. The government doesn't let random mercenary operations show up, not pay taxes and just start blasting the poop out of places.

Good!!!!!!! YOu have no idea how good that it is that someone can't legally up and become a merc.

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to pay taxes for the military, you will face jail-time. They'll actively take away your freedom if you don't pay your taxes for this socialist military.

why should employers be exempt from taxes?

10. You are an employer with flexible military arrangements, where your employees can opt out of paying for a military by personal contributions, such as giving ammunition to soldiers? Tough. The government will still tax you.

then vote for the people who can change that.

11. If you are a mercenary and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The government won't let you operate without oversight in the land of your choice with the freedom to fight the wars you want to fight.

mercs should be shot.

12. If you are a soldier and you want to fight in a foreign war, you must be a member of the US military or a US military ally currently involved in a war before they'll let you fight

You have no idea how good a policy this is. Personally if you want to fight in a foriegn war that the US is not involved with, why the crap did you sign up for the US military?

13. If you are a soldier and you want to expand your military operation? Well, you can’t Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, war has already been declared and... Get this... where the government actively sends you!

there is such thing as rules regulations on how you can conduct warfare. I don't get what you are trying to say here- a grand majority of those regulations are there for good reasons.

14. You are a soldier and you want to raise your wages to meet the costs of being wounded? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by your CO then they can refuse it without you having recourse to simply go home and stop fighting. That's right. You can't even choose to just leave the military and come home even if you disagree with what they're doing there and think you could do a better job yourself. What is this? Russia?

then why'd you sign up for that in the first place? That's part of the deal when you sign on with the military ...

15. The government will extract a fee of 791 billion annually from the people of the United States of America. This number may even increase!

ya so? At this time it is not going to increase much.

16. The government will extract a fee of $51 billion annually for homeland security. That's defense at home people. Think you can do better by buying a handgun for your house? Tough.

good!

btw is this supposed to be joke or something.. or have you taken meds?

edit.... just saw previous post.

dunno what to think, replacing all the military/merc items with health care doesn't change things much if not makes theings less sensible for either a support or an against reason.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[FunkyTown]

edit.... just saw previous post.

dunno what to think, replacing all the military/merc items with health care doesn't change things much if not makes theings less sensible for either a support or an against reason.

All right. I may not have been clear. Here is the argument:

If the arguments you're using against Health Care are ridiculous when applied to another situation, then the arguments are ridiculous.

Blackmarch? The arguments against health care being issued on this website are ridiculous. If you're going to use those arguments, make certain that they can't be used against something you hold dear.

I'm glad that you saw that the arguments are ridiculous. It means you must be aware that using those same arguments against a national health care that has some restrictions are ridiculous.

[Blackmarch]

All right. I may not have been clear. Here is the argument:

If the arguments you're using against Health Care are ridiculous when applied to another situation, then the arguments are ridiculous.

Blackmarch? The arguments against health care being issued on this website are ridiculous. If you're going to use those arguments, make certain that they can't be used against something you hold dear.

I'm glad that you saw that the arguments are ridiculous. It means you must be aware that using those same arguments against a national health care that has some restrictions are ridiculous.

actually most were rather hard to see what they were supporting. 2 the arguments are not ridiculous per se for the most part, pointless might be a better descriptor.

But in the first place replacing an Organization that is designed to save people with one that is designed to kill people doesn't work well.

I saw your thread before i saw the thread youre referring to...

The other one makes a bit more sense. Somethings I agree with some things I don't.

also IMO we get a lot more out of our military than we do from Healthcare.

HOwever in regards to health care, having to hand over money just because I exist is wrong.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[FunkyTown]

actually most were rather hard to see what they were supporting. 2 the arguments are not ridiculous per se for the most part, pointless might be a better descriptor.

But in the first place replacing an Organization that is designed to save people with one that is designed to kill people doesn't work well.

I saw your thread before i saw the thread youre referring to...

The other one makes a bit more sense. Somethings I agree with some things I don't.

HOwever in regards to health care, having to hand over money just because I exist is wrong.

All right. This is no slight on you, but rather a slight on the educational system. Systems of thought: Specifically, logic, are not taught in schools to any extent any more, resulting in arguments that are not actual arguments. I know that sounds condescending, but it really isn't. Logic is not a natural skill and must be learned like any other.

Here is a base rule of logic:

An argument must be able to be applied universally for it to be true.

Now, the first argument people are going to raise against this is 'That isn't true! There's an exception to every rule'.

This is patently false when applying logic to something. For instance: If someone said 'The majority of humanity on earth are male', this would be a true rule. More than 50% of all of humanity are male. This rule would pass the test on whether it would be universally true. If, on the other hand, someone said 'All of humanity are male', then this is patently false even though it's true in the majority of cases.

If you created a rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', then you are creating a rule that passes a test of universality. 'But wait!' someone could argue, 'What about if someone was feeling guilty for something and went out to commit 'Suicide by cop'. Would that mean it was okay for him to go shooting people?'

The answer to that is 'No'. That's because this person does not want to be shot; He wants to be assuaged of guilt. He is not the type of person to go around, asking to be shot at the best of times. If there were such a person, who simply wanted to be shot for the purpose of being shot, then they could argue they were following the law. To the original person, he would do well to go comfort the guilty, since that's what he wants.

In the case of the arguments against the Health Care system, the majority of arguments made in the thread I was parodying were of the 'This prevents me from choosing to do X'. This is patently true. No one can deny it. However, the implication was that anything that reduces choice is a bad thing. I pointed out in my thread that there are laws that involve taxation going to something they disagree with, designed specifically to benefit most of America, that the original poster most likely would agree with. This invalidates those same arguments.

Just because something prevents you from choosing something does not make it inherently bad.

Taking my case, for instance, I illustrated that there are several things that the OP would agree with limiting our freedom to choose on. For instance: It would be silly to allow the average person to say 'Forget Iraq! I disagree with that. I'm not spending taxes on a military I disagree with to invade a country I don't care about. I'm hirin' some Mercenaries to go in to IRAN!'.

We all agree that would be a silly 'freedom' to have. There are laws there for a reason. In the same vein, it is not inherently bad for a law to limit your freedom to some extent. See: Seatbelt laws, speed limits and various traffic laws as an example.

In that vein, I would like you to defend the following statements:

But in the first place replacing an Organization that is designed to save people with one that is designed to kill people doesn't work well.

Why? Please give specific, rather than general, reasoning as to why this is true.

HOwever in regards to health care, having to hand over money just because I exist is wrong.

Why? Are you suggesting you have no opportunity to be sick? That it's out of the realm of possibility? Are you suggesting that your taxes also should not go towards road-works in areas you're unlikely to drive? Please give specific reasons why you hate this particular tax and not others.

[Blackmarch]

All right. This is no slight on you, but rather a slight on the educational system. Systems of thought: Specifically, logic, are not taught in schools to any extent any more, resulting in arguments that are not actual arguments. I know that sounds condescending, but it really isn't. Logic is not a natural skill and must be learned like any other.

Here is a base rule of logic:

An argument must be able to be applied universally for it to be true.

Now, the first argument people are going to raise against this is 'That isn't true! There's an exception to every rule'.

This is patently false when applying logic to something. For instance: If someone said 'The majority of humanity on earth are male', this would be a true rule. More than 50% of all of humanity are male. This rule would pass the test on whether it would be universally true. If, on the other hand, someone said 'All of humanity are male', then this is patently false even though it's true in the majority of cases.

If you created a rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', then you are creating a rule that passes a test of universality. 'But wait!' someone could argue, 'What about if someone was feeling guilty for something and went out to commit 'Suicide by cop'. Would that mean it was okay for him to go shooting people?'

with that rule alone? yes it would, but only if he was able to get a cop to kill him.

The answer to that is 'No'. That's because this person does not want to be shot; He wants to be assuaged of guilt. He is not the type of person to go around, asking to be shot at the best of times. If there were such a person, who simply wanted to be shot for the purpose of being shot, then they could argue they were following the law. To the original person, he would do well to go comfort the guilty, since that's what he wants.

In the case of the arguments against the Health Care system, the majority of arguments made in the thread I was parodying were of the 'This prevents me from choosing to do X'. This is patently true. No one can deny it. However, the implication was that anything that reduces choice is a bad thing. I pointed out in my thread that there are laws that involve taxation going to something they disagree with, designed specifically to benefit most of America, that the original poster most likely would agree with. This invalidates those same arguments.

Just because something prevents you from choosing something does not make it inherently bad.

Taking my case, for instance, I illustrated that there are several things that the OP would agree with limiting our freedom to choose on. For instance: It would be silly to allow the average person to say 'Forget Iraq! I disagree with that. I'm not spending taxes on a military I disagree with to invade a country I don't care about. I'm hirin' some Mercenaries to go in to IRAN!'.

We all agree that would be a silly 'freedom' to have. There are laws there for a reason. In the same vein, it is not inherently bad for a law to limit your freedom to some extent. See: Seatbelt laws, speed limits and various traffic laws as an example.

In that vein, I would like you to defend the following statements:

Why? Please give specific, rather than general, reasoning as to why this is true.

Healing a person prolongs their life. Killing a person ends their life. Using techniques to prolong life to kill generally don't work and vice versa.

My taxes help pay the military, that does not mean I should be required to go buy a gun or a humvee.

My taxes help pay for medicare/healthcare, that does not mean I should be required to go buy health insurance.

Why? Are you suggesting you have no opportunity to be sick?That it's out of the realm of possibility?

no more opportunity than i have to win the lottery. I really wasn't suggesting antyhitng along that line in either direction. Be wary what you choose to read into a comment.

now using your logic, which of these statements are universally true.. or can be found to be true:

All people get critically sick.

Most people get critically sick.

And we will define critical as a situation where a person would have to have something like Health insurance to be able to over come it.

Are you suggesting that your taxes also should not go towards road-works in areas you're unlikely to drive?

No... but thats a very good idea, one I quite support (were it to be defined a little more specifically).... however I should not be required to go buy a car in either case in regards to the roads, if I don't want one.

I wasn't talking about the taxes, altho my issues with taxes are more on how the broad scope of how the government, its agencies, and what it contracts with are spending money tax money thats a whole other ballgame... and don't get me started on that.

Please give specific reasons why you hate this particular tax and not others.

1 its not a tax in itself, its a law requireing you to go buy something because you exist. The tax parts isn't what's fundamentally wrong with it (tax rates and government spending are a seperate issue). See previous comments.

If it was just a tax hike so that the government could help fund medicare, healthcare and etc... then it would not be a problem of right or wrong.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[FunkyTown]

Healing a person prolongs their life. Killing a person ends their life. Using techniques to prolong life to kill generally don't work and vice versa.

All right. It's clear that my point is lost on you. If you don't understand, I can't be any clearer. I'm afraid I'll have to stop arguing that, since my 'humorous' post long since lost its humor. I was pointing out that several points are illogical. I will allow other people more patient than myself to figure out if your comment makes sense.

now using your logic, which of these statements are universally true.. or can be found to be true:

All people get critically sick.

Most people get critically sick.

All people get critically sick. In fact, all people will fall at one point or another in to this definition of critical

5.

a. Of or relating to a medical crisis: an illness at the critical stage.

b. Being or relating to a grave physical condition especially of a patient.

Everyone will face a point where they are sick enough that they will, in fact, die.

This includes heart failure, stroke or other illness. So, were I to apply the rule of universality, everyone in the world will eventually die.

No... but thats a very good idea, one I quite support.... however I should not be required to go buy a car in either case in regards to the roads, if I don't want one.

I wasn't talking about the taxes, altho my issues with taxes are more on how the broad scope of how the government, its agencies, and what it contracts with are spending money tax money thats a whole other ballgame... and don't get me started on that.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. What do you support? Paying taxes for roads you won't use? I'm puzzled what you're saying.

1 its not a tax in itself, its a law requireing you to go buy something because you exist. The tax parts isn't what's fundamentally wrong with it (tax rates and government spending are a seperate issue). See previous comments.

If it was just a tax hike so that the government could help fund medicare, healthcare and etc... then it would not be a problem of right or wrong.

Are you saying you'd be happier if this was simply a government run system like the UKs NHS? Then, it would be strictly taxes and you wouldn't be forced to buy it.

Actually, you know what? It doesn't matter. This was meant to be a humorous post. I won't respond to any further posts because this was just supposed to be a funny parody.

[Blackmarch]

All right. It's clear that my point is lost on you.

that you thought that the other threads reasons were ridiculous? pretty sure i responded to that.

Or that you should be able to apply the same argument for every situation?

If you don't understand, I can't be any clearer. I'm afraid I'll have to stop arguing that, since my 'humorous' post long since lost its humor. I was pointing out that several points are illogical.

Mocking something does not mean that they are illogical.

If you want to show something as illogical then go through a logical process.

All people get critically sick. In fact, all people will fall at one point or another in to this definition of critical

5.

a. Of or relating to a medical crisis: an illness at the critical stage.

b. Being or relating to a grave physical condition especially of a patient.

Everyone will face a point where they are sick enough that they will, in fact, die.

please prove that everyone will face a point where there will become sick enough to die.

I certainly cannot support this logically... unless the process of death is also considered to be a sickness. IN which case it becaomes a contest of defining things.

This includes heart failure, stroke or other illness. So, were I to apply the rule of universality, everyone in the world will eventually die.

you must've missed my definition of critcial, my apologies- which was "in a situation where they would need something like health care to overcome it". otherwise like you said all die anyways, which one could conclude that healthcare is ineffective.

Altho, I did not know heartfailure is considered sickness even tho it can stem from sickness. I'll bet tho that heart failure is not considered a sickness.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. What do you support? Paying taxes for roads you won't use? I'm puzzled what you're saying.

the first part was just making an aside with your question ( an agreement), the second part was what used your question to address the topic.... why did you bring up roads? I was using your question to try to show you why the health care thing is wrong-

did you read the "..however I should not be required to go buy a car in either case (IE whether my taxes paid just for local roads or paid for all roads) in regards to the roads, if I don't want one (a car)."?- what do you suppose this illustrates?

reiterating some of my previous statemesnts:

"My taxes pay the military, should I be required to buy a gun or humvee?"

"My taxes help pay for healthcare/medicare, should I be required to buy health care?"

Are you saying you'd be happier if this was simply a government run system like the UKs NHS? Then, it would be strictly taxes and you wouldn't be forced to buy it.

Perhaps. That's more logical.

I'm not here to state what makes me happy, I stated a reason why the healthcare that was passed is wrong.

Actually, you know what? It doesn't matter.

then why post?

This was meant to be a humorous post. I won't respond to any further posts because this was just supposed to be a funny parody.

it failed. I generally find mockery to be very distasteful and a poor way of communicating, and a poor way of proving. Parody

I'm sorry I didn't realise OP was such.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Moksha]

Richard Nixon (a Republican) actually sought to end the war with dignity.

We got out because Congress cut off the funds. Otherwise we would have continued under the banner of being a stabilizing influence to South Vietnam and the region. Peace Plan with Honor ™ was a scam from 1968 onward.

[Just_A_Guy]

We got out because Congress cut off the funds. Otherwise we would have continued under the banner of being a stabilizing influence to South Vietnam and the region.

Indeed. Betraying our allies by forcing them to accept a peace treaty any idiot could have told you the PAVN wouldn't honor, the ARVN's resultant defeat, the collectivization and re-education camps that followed, and the two subsequent regional wars involving the victorious North Vietnamese Army, were all very much preferable to the specter of running an American military base or two for the next fifty years. Pity we didn't try the same policy in Korea.

Vietnam may have been a wholly unnecessary war. But once we've made a commitment to a friend, and that friend relies on our commitment for their very survival--we ought to stick by 'em.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Just_A_Guy