What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Federal Government needs to be put back on its Constitutional leash.

Friends

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
445
Points
130
I couldnt [sic] imagine going through life being such a pathetic hack. I feel sorry for you. You miss out on so much!
How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not.


1061px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png


TNHarley,

Your ad hominem attacks and name calling are at the bottom of the pyramid. Try to improve.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
19,479
Reaction score
8,882
Points
970
Sic may also be inserted derisively or sarcastically, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes
.

Conversely struggling with the entirety of the comment and never realizing the depth of the implications therein.

.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
81,853
Reaction score
35,631
Points
2,290
How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not.


View attachment 666957

TNHarley,

Your ad hominem attacks and name calling are at the bottom of the pyramid. Try to improve.
When one is making my argument for me and they dont even realize it or admit it after its pointed out, they deserve ridicule.
Im not calling you a dumbass because I feel like you won this.
When i lose i admit it. I have had to apologize many times on this site. But i lost to logical people. People with awareness. Without that, you get called a dumbfuck. Because that is what you look like. It is what it is :dunno:
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
188,357
Reaction score
36,091
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
I buy products, the most recent is a can of Off Insect Repellent. The first statement of "Directions For Use" states " It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" I always read the labels to see how to use the product safely. The Federal government has gone far beyond its authority to make such laws. One thing that would help is to make agencies advisory. If the Environmental Protection Agency decides that something needs to be done, they should advise Congress so a law can be proposed to solve whatever problem they see. They should not just go off and implement policies that have not been made law by Congress. That is what Congress is for.
What makes the law unconstitutional?
 
OP
gmeyers1944

gmeyers1944

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
770
Reaction score
552
Points
918
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)
Why do countries that spend less per capita on health care than we do get better results?
They don't get better results. Canada has socialized medicine. The waiting line is long for surgeries such as hip replacement. Canadians are fortunate that if a Canadian needs hip replacement surgery, they can always come to the US. Canadians can go to The Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, and get their hips replaced in a more timely fashion. I hear that a lot of Canadians avail themselves of that service although they have to pay for it.
 

Friends

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
445
Points
130
They don't get better results. Canada has socialized medicine. The waiting line is long for surgeries such as hip replacement. Canadians are fortunate that if a Canadian needs hip replacement surgery, they can always come to the US. Canadians can go to The Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, and get their hips replaced in a more timely fashion. I hear that a lot of Canadians avail themselves of that service although they have to pay for it.

U.S. health care system - “envy of the world”? not in Canada!​

News Medical Life Sciences, Aug 12 2009

As members of Congress return to their states and districts to debate the merits of the Democrats' proposals for health care reform, critics of the proposals may repeat the phrase used by some Republicans, newspaper editorials and bloggers that 'the American health care system is the envy of the world."​

If so, they should read the results of a recent Harris/Decima poll in Canada that found a 10-to-1 majority of Canadians believed their system was "superior" to the U.S. system. They might also note that a 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was "performing well"; and that a majority favored an expansion of public sector health care (i.e., "government-run" health care in the current debate) over private sector health care.

 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
101,344
Reaction score
12,415
Points
2,210
Location
Michigan
If Medicare is ruled unconstitutional the Republican Party will be in trouble. Retired whites are a Republican constituency.
They won’t yank it from seniors. They’ll be grandfathered in. 51 year old like me will take 20% cuts. 30 year olds will be sold on it by telling them they don’t have to pay into it.
 

Dure Shehwar

Rookie
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Points
1
It will be unconstitutional, something the Republicans dislike. Just like they criticised and said we did in the 2000s, they are legislating from the bench. Illegal to get an abortion. What will happen next? unions, rules governing firearms, gay marriage, affirmative action, and the EPA. The Supreme Court did not declare that abortion is unconstitutional. According to the statement, abortion is not a federal subject. Just now, the state level received back control over abortion rights. Additionally, every two years, a political revolution is embedded into the Constitution. The House and a third of the Senate are up for election every two years, respectively, by the people. Candidate selection should focus on the Constitution's need for revision.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
101,344
Reaction score
12,415
Points
2,210
Location
Michigan

The Federal Government needs to be put back on its Constitutional leash.​

And the Constitution has a political revolution every two years built into it. Voters have the potential to clear out the House and a third of the Senate bi-annually. Put in candidates who have one issue, the changes necessary to the Constitution.
Yes. Kansas showed how too last night.

 
OP
gmeyers1944

gmeyers1944

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
770
Reaction score
552
Points
918
Location
Westfield, NY (near Buffalo)

U.S. health care system - “envy of the world”? not in Canada!​

News Medical Life Sciences, Aug 12 2009

As members of Congress return to their states and districts to debate the merits of the Democrats' proposals for health care reform, critics of the proposals may repeat the phrase used by some Republicans, newspaper editorials and bloggers that 'the American health care system is the envy of the world."​

If so, they should read the results of a recent Harris/Decima poll in Canada that found a 10-to-1 majority of Canadians believed their system was "superior" to the U.S. system. They might also note that a 70% majority of Canadians thought their system was "performing well"; and that a majority favored an expansion of public sector health care (i.e., "government-run" health care in the current debate) over private sector health care.

I have 2 questions to ask. The poll was taken 13 years ago. 1) Have Canadians been polled more recently? They possibly may have changed their minds. 2) Who was polled? Was it Canadians in general or was it people who had personal experience with the Canadian system. A lot of times, people like something in theory but change their mind when they have personal experience.
 

Friends

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
445
Points
130
I have 2 questions to ask. The poll was taken 13 years ago. 1) Have Canadians been polled more recently? They possibly may have changed their minds. 2) Who was polled? Was it Canadians in general or was it people who had personal experience with the Canadian system. A lot of times, people like something in theory but change their mind when they have personal experience.
This was the most recent poll I could find of Canadian attitudes about their health system. If you have a more recent poll, please post it. I have never read that most Canadians or even a large minority want to replace their health system with with what we have.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top