Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Isn't it worthwhile to determine what a 'fact' is, if there's some disagreement about it? I don't understand why he isn't entitled. It's far too easy to simply declare someone is being unreasonable and demand their silence. (See "NOG, just stop.") If you're (not you specifically, anybody) winning an argument, it should be fairly clear to any reasonable person. You don't need to declare yourself a winner, have friends jump in in support, and/or insist that the opponent stop arguing. That doesn't really help your case in the court of public opinion, particularly on an internet message board, where people are rarely convinced of anything anyway and it doesn't really matter as far as having any appreciable impact goes.

Not really ... as long as people debate honestly and with integrity, I have no real complaints. (e.g. I may dislike Drew's dismissal of NOG's arguments, but at least he's debating him.) Where I become concerned is with the "me too" stuff, because it smacks of the forming up of shady group dynamics. You guys are all intelligent people and shouldn't have to resort to that.

@Ragusa, thanks for the synopsis, but if you're hoping I'm going to debate NOG's position for him, I'm not. I'd suggest (quite honestly and with no malice) that if you're convinced of your position, you stick with it and perhaps wrap it up with a "my mind remains unchanged" if you're tired of the back and forth. It never does anyone any good to drop down to the insult level, which your remarks ("I consider debating NOG a lamentable waste of valuable time") enter into rather clearly, imo. And is it really a waste of time? Isn't that what we post in the Alleys for in the first place?

You can find a nasty fight just about anywhere you like on the net. One thing I like about SP is that by and large, most members are above that. Not because you're not passionate about what you're discussing, but because the general maturity level is significantly greater than that of an insecure teenager, meaning insults are unnecessary. I would like for the Alleys to stay that way too.

edit ... @dmc - sorry. I must have been 'composing' while you posted. Feel free to delete if you deem it necessary.

 

Gaear,
SP and the forums in themselves are worthwhile. Intractable debates are not. And no worries, I don't expect you 'to make NOG's case'. Presumably I just got tired of those déjà-vu experiences '... 'tis ... again??!'

Talking points, long thought dead, rising from their graves!

 

Only if it is important to the topic at hand. What is the topic here? You tell me.

Entitled to asking what "a fact" is? well, I'm not sure Gaear, what do mean by "entitled?"

Where has anyone said that he should be silent. It would be better if you did not misrepresent what was said here.

Just stop the tactic.

Ah, hah. I can only speak for myself but I'm not here "to win" any argument, only to state an observation or an opinion. There is nothing to "win." I think that's why some are fed up with these boards. For some of us this isn't some pissing contest, but a posting board where we can post some of our ideas, but as I said, I can only speak for myself in that respect.

However, I don't mind a worthwhile debate and generally welcome it.

1. I don't care about any court of public opinion. What is that anyway?
2. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I don't care what Nog, or anyone else thinks about being convinced of my thoughts or opinions. That's not my job. I already have three kids and it takes a lot to convince them of anything.

You are really trying to start some crap, aren't you? Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.

There is nothing I care to "win" from you, Gaear.

After your post, you post that at the end? You really are something....

 

I wasn't demanding silence. The rest of my post made quite clear what I was asking NOG to "stop" doing -- and nowhere in it did I suggest that what he needed to "stop" was posting in this thread. I won't re-hash my post again because I think I said it pretty well the first time -- and also because I neither intended to trigger nor wish to perpetuate a referendum on NOG.

 

Ah, but who are SP and the forums if not the people who populate them?

Anyway, fair enough. And thanks for playing (and I mean that in a good way).

[edit]

Fair enough as well. I was mistaken and take that part back.

 

Well, let me ask a reasonable question: can that apply to a referendum on others as well (Drew, DR, etc)? I just want to be clear that posts on ALL members were off limits for ALL members, in case there was a question (In other words, it seems we already have enough mods without any self-appointed ones).

Edit - I've noticed a number of attacks on Ragusa from certain parties (like being "anti-American," or whatever, in his posts).

 

I don't know ... he's anti-American beer and that's enough for me....

 

I thought most everyone was.

 

Great. Thank you, DMC.

 

I have yet to drink a good one. Show me one and I might change my mind.

 

I wish I could introduce you to Dixie Blackened Voodoo but alas the brewery was looted in the aftermath of Katrina and they've not made a drop since ... a very sad thing indeed.

Speaking of which ... I just haven't been feeling as well since then. My hypothesis is a great beer makes a person feel better and free beer should be an essential part of any good healthcare program.

 

Not to get too off-topic, but there are quite a few decent American brews. Sam Adams is quite good (just the regular lager, not all their fancy-schmancy seasonal brews), and Yeungling Lager is one of my personal favorite brews.

It's the mega breweries like Bud, Miller, et al., that are not good (which is true of just about everything that is mass produced). (Although Bud is now foreign-owned I still consider it a domestic.)

EDIT: Although I must concede if I was going to make a list of favorite beers, most would not be American made.

 

I'll toast to a Yuengling Aldeth! I also enjoy their Black & Tan.

 

DMC is right. Let's get back on track here fellas, this is the "Health"care thread mind you. So....


A Toast to everyone's good Health!....(Me runs and hides from DMC's wrath...)

 

Well, facts are great, but there's no doubt that in these days of spin, the evaluation of the significance of a particular fact and it's relevance in terms of context is a difficult thing, to say the least. Also, the wording of some facts, and someone's insistance that their opponents concede to that fact as worded, can make a big difference in the direction of an argument.

In terms of health care*, I suppose that it is a valid question to look at who is funding support for or against a certain bill or (more generally) a policy. But when doing so it is all too easy to smear things up by saying "well, such and such a lobby is fully funded by X, and we all know what slimy <snippers> X is full of!" As it stands, I will state for the record that I believe that many health insurance providers are making a lot of money, and they are using it to defend their ability to keep making that money. That their goals may not coincide with the well being of the general populace is also highly probable and likely demonstrable via a million links. That's not rocket science. That they may also be correct in their assertion that major changes could bankrupt them is also a possibility. I'm sure lots of facts could be presented that would back up that POV.

*and most other political issues.

 

I'm really more interested with the implications and scale of financial support. The provided links show that some HC companies (I think only one was officially shown, but a few others are likely) provide some money to back the Tea Party. I think that's enough to support a suspicion that they may have tried to influence the Tea Party position, but I also think you'd have a hard time proving it considering that I didn't see anything change in their position, and that it still doesn't look like the money provided was that much. Rachel Maddow's assertion that it (and Dick Armey) ammount to proof that the Tea Party movement is 'astroturfing', i.e. a fake grass-roots movement and not a real one, however, is preposterous. It's simply not even close to the level of evidence she'd need to even support a suspicion of that. The most important thing she'd need to show in that case would be a timeline, either of the money preceeding the movement as a whole, or the money preceeding the movement's attack on the HC bill. Everything I've seen says that the major organizing groups sprung up after the Tea Party movement took hold.

Basically, when the accusation is made that an entire movement is fake and/or in the pocket of a private entity (either an individual or a corporate group), I expect more proof than just vague associations. Even direct funding isn't much proof unless you can show that it either effected a change or is a significant portion of the group's whole funding.

 

This is the last thing I care about. I'm more interested in the organizing tactics and media coverage. I think corporations should be free to donate some money to any political group, as long as it is transparent. To ignore such actions as phone organizing, busing lobbyists into TH meetings, passing out lists of talking points, pre-made signs, is all evidence that corporate lackies are actually a part of TP activities.

BTW, I'm surprised that you keep ignoring the fact that Dick Armey has declared himself a "Tp organizer and leader." NOG, your agrument is not with Rachel but with Armey.

A "hard time" proving it to whom? The suspicion is already there for many of us. Even though there is not conclusive proof, everything they do, at least for me and some others is suspect. If you are only speaking for yourself, go ahead and ignore the evidence (I'm not trying to convince you of anything). It's still a free country (I think).