Hey, this is a pretty fun game after all! I hope I got the rules right!
Not even remotely. First and foremost, you have to be honest, and you're not being honest at all.
Because this really isn't a Left/Right issue. It's a question of whether our RCOs retain any accountability whatsoever.
And the answer seems pretty much: "No".
Well, the left wants there to be no accountability when it's the left that screws up, and covers it up. That much is painfully clear. But that doesn't mean they will not be held accountable.
Finding your distinction slightly artificial here.
Then you are missing the point or the facts, or both.
The events leading to the tragedy and the cover-up are part of a continuous pattern.
Whether that pattern extends throughout our government, or is confined to the senior executive branch knobs is worth knowing.
You're not going to effect any punishment on Hillary, except perhaps communicating to the world her unfitness for further public service.
Which is a severe punishment, especially for her.
But you didn't mention my point, which is that the cartoon makes it look like she was saying the events themselves, and what led to them, don't matter. She wasn't. She was saying that whether she and others in the White House lied about it doesn't matter.
I don't like that cartoon. How they lied about and covered up what happened does not make a difference in whether those people died. The lies came after.
The difference is not in that they are dead. The difference is in that if we do not punish her and Rice and Carney others for lying to the American public about it, then we essentially just encourage more public officials to tell more lies in the future.
If such a discussion happened, then it should not be difficult for you to provide an example of such a discussion.
Again, with your wonderful examples of hypocrisy. You refuse to provide any examples anywhere of me not answering a reasonable question, and now you demand I provide examples to you?
You do realize, of course, that given your hypocritical refusal, your request here counts as "unreasonable," right?
... I refer you back to what I already said, which already proved you wrong.
You're a liar. You did no such thing. The weird thing is that you are claiming you proved me wrong, when as best I can tell, you didn't even try to do so. You never provided evidence or argument of any kind. You just kept making assertions against me, and when I said you were wrong, you demanded I provide the evidence.
I have to hand it to you, though. Despite you being absolutely terrible at this -- among the worst I've seen -- you persist.
If someone else was reading this far into this discussion they likely are aware of the questions I have asked you before that you have chosen not to answer
... even though you have given NO examples? Huh.
Wow, you are so self-righteous that you are now claiming to be an expert on what I have or have not seen.
I know you have seen discussions you have taken part in. I know that I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, asking and answering reasonable questions, and that you have been involved in some of them.
This isn't self-righteousness, it's simple deduction.
I stated that I have not seen something, and you are now insisting that I have.
Correct. Because you have. You might not recall it, for various reasons, or due to your myopia you may not have recognized it for what it was. But you've seen it, regardless.
Wow, what a surprise. You decided not to answer a question I asked you.
Yes, I did not answer an unreasonable question. I explained why it is unreasonable. Unless you can rebut my claim that it is not reasonable, and convince me it is reasonable, then this only backs up my case, not yours. You would, for clarity, have to show not only that the knowledge of why I do things is any of your business, but how it pertains to the discussion at hand. Good luck with that.
(And if you can't do that, you must therefore concede it was an unreasonable question, by the way.)
Wrong, you were not sufficiently specific. You did not specific that some states can require you to do those things for a specific job with the state.
You clearly did not believe I meant all jobs, because your response showed you clearly understood that I was referring to particular jobs. Stop lying.
You are just simply 100% wrong on that matter. Responding with one word does not make you less wrong.
Responding with many words, but no actual argument, doesn't make you any more right.
You don't seem to get this.
You didn't actually back up your claim, in any way. You simply made assertions. To deny a mere assertion, no more words are required than "False." If you present an actual argument, then I would be required, by the rules of logic and reason and argument, to address them. When you don't, I have no such obligation.
All you said is I chose for them to die. That is self-evidently false. I chose no such thing. I merely chose to not help. You're wrong.
I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them.
You're a liar.
I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.
I have asked you many reasonable questions, including the one that you originally placed me on your perma-hate list for, which you have never answered.
You realize that anyone reading this will note the fact that you refuse to give even a single example, and take it as proof that you are as much of a liar as I say, right?
Can you show an example?
I have not seen one here on slashdot.
I have, however, seen a great number of times where you have instead demonstrated the same behavior of deep eternal hatred that you display towards me, towards others.
You're a liar. I have only extremely rarely demonstrated anything that could be called "hatred," let alone any emotion that was "deep" or "eternal." I am one of the most dispassionate people on this site.
So then since you refuse to consider the possibility of my ever being reasonable
You're a liar.
... why do you come and ask me questions?
Frankly, it's none of your business why I ever do anything I ever do. I find this question to be generally rude and presumptuous (and, quite obviously, unreasonable).
In other words, once again you are the one being unreasonable.
Just to point out the obvious: you lied about what I will "consider," and then you presumed that my reasons for doing what I do are poor, despite having no apparent idea what those reasons are. No, I think, self-evidently, your claim that I am unreasonable is unreasonable.
So we agree then that you were not sufficiently specific in your claim of state's requiring union membership as what you said and what I said were not the same thing.
Um. I was perfectly sufficiently specific. I said all that needed to be said: that this is not a free country, in part because "In some states you are required to join a union or pay exorbitant fees to the government or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work." This is true.
There is not a state that I am aware of that requires all of it's state employees to be union for all jobs.
Union membership is an easy way to ensure that employees are properly vetted for the job
False. That is not remotely accurate. You, frankly, have no idea what you are talking about.
If your choice to act could prevent their death, and your choice not to act causes their death, then you have chosen for them to die.
You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all.
It's "fair" to lie? That explains a lot.
When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.
You're a liar. I do no such thing. I do accuse you of lying -- because, as you said above, you (thinking it is fair) lie a lot -- but I always answer reasonable questions, and most questions are reasonable. I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.
And keep in mind that it is not reasonable to ask an apparently reasonable question, while dodging other points. For example, if you say I am wrong that 2+2=4, and I ask you to explain it, and you ignore me and ask me the answer to 3+3
I would ask you if you see those terms as exactly synonymous to anything that does not agree with you philosophically
Yes, you could ask that inherently dishonest question.
You have before you my obviously true claim that I have many discussions with people who disagree with me. You also have before you my claim that I do not engage with people who are dishonest or abusive. Your question is, quite obviously, therein answered.
And putting someone on your permanent hate list somehow encourages asking and answering of questions? No, it most certainly does not.
Correct. I do not intend it to. I intend it to prevent them from polluting a space where others might ask and answer questions, and to prevent them wasting my time. It's because I've given up on that person's comments being reasonable, and do not care to see them anymore.
It is no better than when a radio host yells at a caller to shut up and then disconnects them.
Many callers deserve to be hung up on. Sometimes that is a very good thing, because if a caller is dishonest or abusive, it discourages listeners and takes up radio time that could be used by reasonable callers.
That depends on what you consider to be "force".
No, it does not, because there's only one reasonable definition.
If you mean physical force with a whip and a gun, then sure. There are other senses of force that apply that are indeed used. Of course in your black and white world you probably would not consider them valid.
They aren't. And the reason you didn't provide any examples is because you know they wouldn't hold up to reasoned analysis.
Just because you say so?
See, this is an actual example of hypocrisy. You do not back up your claim initially. If you had, I would've responded to your evidence. But since you gave no evidence, I didn't rebut anything. You said x, I said !x. But somehow I am in the wrong for doing precisely what you did.
Try opening your eyes and reading some time, rather than just giving a single-word response based on your own opinion of how the world might be.
The number of words you use don't change the fact that you provided no evidence of any kind to back up your claim, despite now TWO chances to do so.
Are you referring to employers requiring you to join a union?
I am not aware of a state that requires you to join a union for a job (or than a job working for that state).
So, you are keenly aware of states requiring you to join a union for a job.
However you already said that nobody can force you to work. If you don't want a job with a union employer, don't take it. Where is the problem?
Fine, then we'll require everyone who wants a job with government to be a Christian. Where's the problem?
Same basic place: the First Amendment. Just like government has no right to have a religion requirement for employment, it has no right to have an associational requirement for employment. Freedom of association is an important constitutional principle. Read about it.
You are free to go work some place else, right?
I actually stood up for the rights of private businesses to require union membership, in the recent hubbub. Government, however, is required to provide equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity.
How can they be such a huge impediment on your freedom when they represent such a tiny fraction of all workers? If less than 1 in 6 workers are in a union it makes no sense to blame them for your problems, you might as well blame your problems on people with blonde hair.
You are not actually arguing against anything I said. Please try again. (This is an example of an unreasonable and dishonest question. You pretend to be responding to a point I made, but you're not.)
Deciding to not help someone in need is not "playing god."
It most certainly is.
No, it's not.
If someone comes to you in mortal danger asking for help which you are qualified to provide and you deny it to them, you have chosen for them to die.
That said, I believe strongly that I, and anyone else in that situation, should help them. I also believe strongly that no one has the right to force me, or anyone else, to do so, because -- unlike you -- I believe in both compassion and freedom. I know you don't believe in the latter, and I suspect you don't believe in the former.
The fact is that all employment in the U.S. is at will. No one is forced to work. Period.
Well, except for the draft, of course.
You oppose the exchange of opinions
You're a liar. There is no sense in which any of that is true. I have spent more time exchanging opinions, and asking and answering questions, with people I disagree with than most people, including yourself. You're just making things up, as usual.
What I explicitly oppose is dishonest or abusive discussions, that prevent reasonable exchange of opinions, and asking and answering of questions. Hence
So are you opposed to selective service or are you not aware of the consequences of not signing up for it?
I recognize the fact that the requirement to sign up for Selective Service is unconstitutional, regardless of what the Court has said about it.
Even for you, that is a bizarre conclusion to draw.
How? You don't actually explain it. The fact is that all employment in the U.S. is at will. No one is forced to work. Period. If you can show me any counterexample, it will necessarily be illegal slavery. You are just making shit up, as usual.
Except that the labor market in the united states in its current configuration favors so heavily the employer that the fate of the employee is of nearly no consequence.
If you are trying to present such conditions as being a "free country" then you have a very twisted notion of freedom.
Well, sure. In some states you are required to join a union or pay exorbitant fees to the government or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work. We do not live in a free country, because the left does so much to get in our way.
So you are saying then that a hospital is constitutionally entitled to play god as they so see fit?
No, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Not even remotely. You're making shit up again. All I said was that I own myself -- and the people at hospitals own themselves -- and that you have no right to force us to do something.
Deciding to not help someone in need is not "playing god." You're making shit up again. The bizarre thing is that you have it precisely backward: forcing people to do what you want is "playing god."
Wow, another Pudge drive-by? How exciting! I am still intrigued by how Pudge would eternally ban the likes of myself from discussions and yet come and inject himself into an existing discussion that I am involved in without seeming to have the least bit of regard for the rank hypocrisy of such an action.
Perhaps I should not be, but I am a bit surprised that you do not understand what "hypocrisy" means. For there to be hypocrisy, I'd have to be engaging in or promoting ideas or behavior that I, in some way, opposed.
Hope that helps!
Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service?
Do employers have the constitutional right to work their employees for arbitrarily long hours for no pay?
Of course not. That's my point. You can't force people to do anything, which includes forcing employees to work (whether for pay, or not).
Again, perhaps I should not be, but I am always surprised when you work so hard to make my case for me, while appearing to think you're damaging my case. You appear to think that it makes sense to say that if we cannot use force against others, then employers cannot be forced to not use force on their employees. But even you must agree that this makes no sense. The government exists for the purpose of securing individual rights, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, which would include preventing your employer from forcing you to work (again, whether for pay, or not).
All work must be mutually agreed to in a free country: the employee must volunteer his services, and the employer must volunteer payment in return. That's absolutely required.
Do hospitals - including private ones - have the constitutional right to turn away mortally injured patients who they don't like, don't agree with philosophically, or cannot pay?
If they are private, then yes, they do.
Now, on the first and third questions, I concede the government disagrees with me. But they are wrong to do so. A military draft could not be a more obvious violation of human rights, and while I believe all private hospitals should treat everyone who needs emergency care to survive, it's quite clear they cannot be obligated to do so in a free country.
The Hobby Lobby Decision has ramifications that has NOTHING to do with health care or even freedom of religion or contraception.
Not really. It may, in the future, but it is a minority ruling, in that pretty much every other challenge on religious grounds has been upheld so far. And there's simply no way, in the end, it won't be upheld. This ruling will be overturned easily. There's two undeniable factors here, that are sufficient for victory:
* You do not lose your religious freedom just because you're operating a business
* This law is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest while respecting religious freedom
The end. That's all she wrote. The District Court judge was clearly wrong, and it won't stand.
The HHS Mandate goes beyond the written law of Obamacare, and therefore, is a new law in and of itself.
Well, the government often empowers its agencies to make rules, and the ACA did that here. That's why Pelosi said you have to pass it to know what's in it, because literally, the law empowered the creation of new laws. I think it does cross an unconstitutional line -- you are penalizing people millions of dollars for doing something that Congress never said they couldn't do! -- but it's commonplace these days.
They decide you are a terrorist and a drone is sent to destroy your house from 30,000 feet? Your survivors have no recourse to the courts, because by the Hobby Lobby decision, executive actions are always legal.
You are misinterpreting the case -- which wasn't about the legitimacy of the process of rulemaking -- and the scope, which isn't about killing citizens. You're, as usual, just making stuff up.
providing insurance that includes contraception coverage is really exactly the same thing as providing abortions in your place of business in spite of your beliefs, right?
In that you have a constitutional right to not be forced to do either, yes.
The "decision" didn't mean anything at all. It's just that they picked the wrong venue for relief.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.