US - Colorado Amendment 69

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Why does the US think it's okay to make Public Schools fully free and paid for by taxes, and yet, health care is not? The two should go hand in hand.

Because that would kinda make sense. However keep in mind, that Public Schools in the US are shit, at least in Michigan. Our Government has failed us when it comes to education. Which is why a lot of charter schools are poping up, and they dont have to follow the same rules as the Public Schools and they in some ways are doing better. Id be scared if our Government controls health care entirely. Because over Government at all levels could not manage a hot dog stand without fucking something up. LOL. 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Because that would kinda make sense. However keep in mind, that Public Schools in the US are shit, at least in Michigan. Our Government has failed us when it comes to education. Which is why a lot of charter schools are poping up, and they dont have to follow the same rules as the Public Schools and they in some ways are doing better. Id be scared if our Government controls health care entirely. Because over Government at all levels could not manage a hot dog stand without fucking something up. LOL. 

This is a problem with elected officials - elect someone else who will do better.

 

Also, Charter Schools are a joke in many cases - there's VERY LITTLE regulation. John Oliver did a story on them not too recently. Many of them close within weeks or months, or don't even have a school (One was renting out various rooms at random community centres and what not).

 

Some are good - no question there, but the insanity that's allowed to happen with some of them is just hard to believe.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

This is a problem with elected officials - elect someone else who will do better.

 

Also, Charter Schools are a joke in many cases - there's VERY LITTLE regulation. John Oliver did a story on them not too recently. Many of them close within weeks or months, or don't even have a school (One was renting out various rooms at random community centres and what not).

 

Some are good - no question there, but the insanity that's allowed to happen with some of them is just hard to believe.

We have a local charter school that has 100% graduation rate and a 100% college admittance rate. 

 

If you all want better political officials then we need to get a constitutional amendment that will put term limits on congress. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

We have a local charter school that has 100% graduation rate and a 100% college admittance rate. 

 

If you all want better political officials then we need to get a constitutional amendment that will put term limits on congress. 

Well, petition your congressman and senator. Only way to make changes is to vote for people who support those changes.

 

As for your Charter School? Great! Many are utterly ridiculous though.

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well, petition your congressman and senator. Only way to make changes is to vote for people who support those changes.

 

As for your Charter School? Great! Many are utterly ridiculous though.

The only reason school in Michigan suck is many cities were in the shitter during the recession. Up till about 2006, the city I lived in had one of the best school districts in the state. But piss poor spending cause issues. Inkster public schools closed and they opened the districts up. Up till that point, you had to live in the city to use the schools. Also, Detroit Public Schools are so far gone they need to burn them schools down and start over. Probably didn't help that a few years back our current Governor took 1 billion dollars from the education budget. Michigan was in a bad place back then. Now we have a surplus. Also, Detroit is finally recovering. But this Flint Michigan thing didnt do well for us. Now the Governors reputation is tarnished and I doubt he will be able to do anything else for the rest of his term. Before the Flint fiasco he was leading us to recovery. Now they are trying to recall him over Flint. 

[NavyCuda]

On 9/10/2016 at 10:24 AM, dalekphalm said:

Well according to your own definition, you don't have the right to freedom then, You don't have the right to free speech, or to any number of things which are considered "Rights" in the Charter of RIghts and Freedoms.

 

If you want to take that approach, that's your choice. But I honestly think you'd be better off with an Anarchist ultra-capitalist society then.

I don't believe in anarchy at all, it's disappointing you would suggest such a thing.  I believe in being honest, and you're right, we don't have the right to freedom, we don't have the right to free speech, we don't have the right of free association, the list can go on and on.  The reason I say that is because all of our so called rights have conditions attached to them that take away the essence of the freedom those rights are supposed to represent.  Take free speech for example, a person should not be judged by what the say, even if they are encouraging anti-social behavior.  They should be judged only on their actions, and held responsible only to their actions.  Even if their words encourage another person to do something stupid, it was the choice of the second party to follow those directions.  

 

I should lawfully be permitted to carry my 1911, because it makes me feel safer.  I should not be prohibited from carrying my 1911 because someone that doesn't know me makes a false assumption and decides they can't trust me. Then their prohibition takes away my feeling of safety while simultaneously leaving me at a disadvantage.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that while some things are called rights, they're restricted in a way that prevents them from being rights.  So the conversation has to be boiled down to what are the things that no government, no written law can take away from you?  The desire to survive and the free will to make choices.

[dalekphalm]

52 minutes ago, NavyCuda said:

I don't believe in anarchy at all, it's disappointing you would suggest such a thing.  I believe in being honest, and you're right, we don't have the right to freedom, we don't have the right to free speech, we don't have the right of free association, the list can go on and on.  The reason I say that is because all of our so called rights have conditions attached to them that take away the essence of the freedom those rights are supposed to represent.  Take free speech for example, a person should not be judged by what the say, even if they are encouraging anti-social behavior.  They should be judged only on their actions, and held responsible only to their actions.  Even if their words encourage another person to do something stupid, it was the choice of the second party to follow those directions.  

 

I should lawfully be permitted to carry my 1911, because it makes me feel safer.  I should not be prohibited from carrying my 1911 because someone that doesn't know me makes a false assumption and decides they can't trust me. Then their prohibition takes away my feeling of safety while simultaneously leaving me at a disadvantage.

 

The point I'm trying to get across is that while some things are called rights, they're restricted in a way that prevents them from being rights.  So the conversation has to be boiled down to what are the things that no government, no written law can take away from you?  The desire to survive and the free will to make choices.

There is no such thing as true freedom. At least, not in a society with other people.

 

There are always rules. By definition, total freedom is anarchy.

 

So we define freedom and rights and add context, because context is important. It's what makes modern society possible.

 

Also, speaking is an action. The words you choose to use are actions. So yes. I can and will judge someone based on what they say. However, I will also judge them on all known information, not just a sound-bite taking something out of context - there it is again - as I said, context matters and is extremely important in all of these discussions.

 

I'm very liberal, socially and morally. Some conservatives think liberals are the anti-christ and are all "libtards" and other insults. I don't think all conservatives are idiots or bigots or assholes. But, despite being a liberal, I do believe that ownership of guns should be legal - with restrictions. I don't think gun ownership is an inherent right. I don't think firearm carrying - whether concealed or not - is an inherent right either.

 

I do think that gun laws in Canada could be tweaked - no doubt about that. They aren't perfect. But they're a pretty damn good place to start.

 

I think it's perfectly correct that you need to get a license to own a gun at all. I think it's correct that you need another license for "restricted" guns, which are deemed more risky or perhaps more dangerous or easier to hide/conceal/sneak into places, etc.

 

I think that Canada probably could institute a Carry law, but with heavy regulation, including but not limited to both background checks AND psych evaluations. I DEFINITELY don't think just anyone should be able to get a gun and carry it, even if that person has a totally clean background record.

 

Mental health is absurdly important when dealing with ownership, carrying, and the use of guns. Something which America has still yet to deal with in any really good way (Some states are better than others, but it's still a major issue nationally).

 

I don't think you should just automatically get the right to carry your 1911, because it "makes you feel safer". If we ever allow Carrying in Canada, you should have to prove that you're a mentally healthy, stable person, who is trained in the safe use of the weapon, and that there is little risk of you using your gun on others (since you cannot 100% eliminate any risk in the world).

 

So yes, you're correct in that rights come with a "but", or an "asterisk" - but they're still rights, as defined by our Charter (The Canadian version of the Constitution). So we should still refer to them as such. Because total freedom and total rights do not exist in society, so there's little point in talking about them in that "pure" and totally inapplicable form. We should talk about them in the form they exist today.

[NavyCuda]

Technically speaking we already have a carry law in Canada.  I qualify for it but it is extremely unlikely the CFO will issue it.

 

Also, like cars, no gun is more dangerous as another, all are equally deserving of respect.

 

Getting out on a bit of a tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, NavyCuda said:

Technically speaking we already have a carry law in Canada.  I qualify for it but it is extremely unlikely the CFO will issue it.

 

Also, like cars, no gun is more dangerous as another, all are equally deserving of respect.

 

Getting out on a bit of a tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

Ah yes, but I thought it was nigh impossible for non-law enforcement to get the Carry license? Perhaps my information in that regard isn't up to date, as frankly, I haven't looked into Carry laws in Canada in any depth.

[LOLZpersonok]

On September 9, 2016 at 2:24 PM, NavyCuda said:

History has proven time and time again that Socialism leads to massive abuses and a failed state.  The Roman Empire is a perfect example of that.

The Roman Empire lasted 507 years and most of its citizens (with the exception of slaves and certain others) were quite well off. Frankly, the Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires to have ever existed.

 

Canada is much closer to Socialism than the US is, but it isn't close enough to be considered Socialist. There are plenty of studies to show that Canada is doing quite well when it comes to many things including (but not limited to) healthcare, education, personal safety, personal and economic freedom and overall quality of life. You can't say that "Canada is a bad country because it's almost Socialist" because it simply is not true. Obviously, things could be better, but there's no country out there that's perfect.

 

I think you should stop thinking in extremes, because the only true extreme country out there is North Korea. Everything in moderation.

[Mug]

On 10/09/2016 at 3:08 PM, kaiju_wars said:

There's a lot of misinformation out there about the US healthcare system.  Like how they'll leave you to die if you don't have insurance.  Or if you don't and you can't afford it, they'll out right bill you into bankruptcy.  There's actual things in place to help a person.  There's medicaid, medicare, among other programs.  There's also programs hospitals and some states do where they'll subsidize the cost of a bill to help those who can't afford it.

The sad thing is that healthcare is based around paying. I'm not going to give you some communist lecture here, but having grown up in a country where paying for the care that I need is out of the question, I just find it so backwards that more countries don't have it. If I was billed for a doctor's appointment, I'd never go even when I needed to (I go to the dentist much more infrequently now because it costs me £20 a pop). It just seems like the system works against treating people in an effective manner and instead tries to extort money out of people.

 

About the help people recieve through medicare and medicaid, it shows nothing but how bad the system is. The federal government spends $3700 per capita on healthcare a year through these programmes, which only covers about a third of people in the US. NHS England spends $3200 per capita for everyone's healthcare. It's cheaper to have our system, medicare and medicaid are just massive white elephants that prevent further progress in the system.

[kaiju_wars]

1 hour ago, Mug said:

The sad thing is that healthcare is based around paying. I'm not going to give you some communist lecture here, but having grown up in a country where paying for the care that I need is out of the question, I just find it so backwards that more countries don't have it. If I was billed for a doctor's appointment, I'd never go even when I needed to (I go to the dentist much more infrequently now because it costs me £20 a pop). It just seems like the system works against treating people in an effective manner and instead tries to extort money out of people.

 

About the help people recieve through medicare and medicaid, it shows nothing but how bad the system is. The federal government spends $3700 per capita on healthcare a year through these programmes, which only covers about a third of people in the US. NHS England spends $3200 per capita for everyone's healthcare. It's cheaper to have our system, medicare and medicaid are just massive white elephants that prevent further progress in the system.

Also look at population sizes of our two nations.  The UK has the population size of just California and Texas put together.  That's a lot more money required to give all the 300+million people 'free' healthcare here.  (Regardless you are paying for it, just through taxes).

 

Also, any form of socialized healthcare in the US has a history of failing (minus medicaid, cause technically, medicare is part of social security, meaning it's money you already are paying towards your retirement).  Obamacare has also scared most Americans from even muttering the term "socialized healthcare."   

 

As for trying to extort money.  What the hell do you think the doctors are doing?  Holding a gun to our heads and, "Fucking pay us now you fuckers, fucking put the god damn money into the register or we won't treat you, you filthy fucks!"  It's nothing like that.  

 

Also, I wouldn't mind paying a dentist $20.  I pay for so many other services, some even considered human rights also, such as food and water.  Hell, they have to feed their families also, and the US government doesn't exactly have the best track record with money.  (19 trillion dollar debt)

[Mug]

2 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

Also look at population sizes of our two nations.  The UK has the population size of just California and Texas put together.  That's a lot more money required to give all the 300+million people 'free' healthcare here.  (Regardless you are paying for it, just through taxes).

 

Also, any form of socialized healthcare in the US has a history of failing (minus medicaid, cause technically, medicare is part of social security, meaning it's money you already are paying towards your retirement).  Obamacare has also scared most Americans from even muttering the term "socialized healthcare."   

 

As for trying to extort money.  What the hell do you think the doctors are doing?  Holding a gun to our heads and, "Fucking pay us now you fuckers, fucking put the god damn money into the register or we won't treat you, you filthy fucks!"  It's nothing like that.  

 

Also, I wouldn't mind paying a dentist $20.  I pay for so many other services, some even considered human rights also, such as food and water.  Hell, they have to feed their families also, and the US government doesn't exactly have the best track record with money.  (19 trillion dollar debt)

• If the NHS was like-for-like set up in America, everyone's taxes would be $500 a year less in the US. Again, the per capita spending on governemnt healthcare is higher in the US than the UK, only it covers just a third of the population.
• Goverrnment healthcare programs have failed in the US not because government healthcare is bad but because the plans were. Obamacare is sort of a failure because it just acts as insurance, not a healthcare provider. It does nothing but exacerbate the problems with the system because it snowballs them rather than controlling them. Again, well-regulated private systems like those in France are the best in the world and badly-regulated privete ones are the worst in the world.
• The system is built around paying money. Everything that you touch, everything that you use is scanned and negotiated and billed to you. Again, the culture of the service isn't to make people better it's to make money, and as much of it as possible.