Thread: Turn the tables! Don't enter if your thin skinned

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Why should public funds, over and above the insurance provided, go to the children of an employee of the government. If you were to pay for dead soldiers children shouldn't you also pay for a bureaucrat who died of a heart attack in his office, or a car accident between meetings? The public good would not be served by adding another benefit to public workers. Sure the military or law enforcement is dangerous while sitting in an office is not but everyone is allowed to choose their own path by the government and all paths should be considered equal.

Private charities can do whatever they want and serve whomever they choose. It's kind of meeting society short-comings via the free market system. If you see a need meet it, don't depend on the government to meet it for you. Thats not what government is there for.

Woowoo!

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Why should public funds, over and above the insurance provided, go to the children of an employee of the government. If you were to pay for dead soldiers children shouldn't you also pay for a bureaucrat who died of a heart attack in his office, or a car accident between meetings? The public good would not be served by adding another benefit to public workers. Sure the military or law enforcement is dangerous while sitting in an office is not but everyone is allowed to choose their own path by the government and all paths should be considered equal.

Private charities can do whatever they want and serve whomever they choose. It's kind of meeting society short-comings via the free market system. If you see a need meet it, don't depend on the government to meet it for you. Thats not what government is there for.

Good point!

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I love how Rush gets characterized as outragous or far right!! he is actually not all that extreme. Listen to a few of the other conservative talk show hosts with big ratings and Rush is the mildest of them all.

I don't think he's all that far right, but he's certainly outrageous-- or don't you remember when he was helping to spread the rumors that Hillary was involved in the Vince Foster suicide?

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topic...e/rushlimbaugh

Originally Posted by ScottS

I don't think he's all that far right, but he's certainly outrageous-- or don't you remember when he was helping to spread the rumors that Hillary was involved in the Vince Foster suicide?

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topic...e/rushlimbaugh

Thats funny you should provide a link to media matters. they are the same group who twisted his "phony soldier" comment and took it out of context!

Originally Posted by JMS

Thats funny you should provide a link to media matters. they are the same group who twisted his "phony soldier" comment and took it out of context!

They print almost the entire transcript: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

What context do you think is missing? Some of those soldiers that signed that op-ed piece have been KIA-- and Rush is insinuating that they are "phony soldiers". Limbaugh has said "out of context" so many times already that he probably has it tatooed on his butt-- that doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by gugi

- the second caller is the first to use the phrase 'phony soldiers', making a general statement about how the other side never talks to real soldiers, therefore they hold the views they hold. Limbaugh seems to agree that any real soldier is bound to be looking forward to serving in Iraq

The transcript I posted doesn't have things that way.

yes, you are correct, Rush uses 'phony soldiers' first - what was i looking at then .
Anyways it seems the whole controversy revolves around the context. Rush's take on context:

Wednesday, September 26, 2007: Rush takes a call from an Army soldier who laments, [W]hat's funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media," to which Rush adds: "The phony soldiers." The caller repeats the phrase and continues with his point. After respectfully letting him finish, Rush explains for those in the audience the phenomenon of "phony soldiers" like Jesse MacBeth, a darling of the anti-war left exposed as a total fraud who never served and never was in iraq.

Here is the transcript from rushlimbaugh.com. It goes few more paragraphs (beyond mediamatters) in which Limbaugh goes over this undisputed case of a 'phony soldier'. The context, or framework if you will, he considers it within is that 'the other side' uses only phony soldiers.
[quote]They have their celebrities and one of them...[quote]
When I read the whole thing the context and implications to me are pretty clear - there is no real soldier of the us armed forces who has witnessed atrocities committed by said forces in Iraq and Afganistan (pardon my memory, but I believe there were convictions on the subject).

In any case, to my mind RL is implying that all poster soldiers of his opponents are 'phony soldiers', which is an obvious fallacy and the other side has tried to capitalize on it.

And why is it that deliberate twists of words like 'Democrat party' so entertaining? I find this rather childish and disrespectful to the audience?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Private charities can do whatever they want and serve whomever they choose. It's kind of meeting society short-comings via the free market system. If you see a need meet it, don't depend on the government to meet it for you. Thats not what government is there for.

I agree with you that people in professions where they risk their lives have made such choice with their free will. Some will find the willingness to risk one's life on a daily basis commendable and some will find it just the result of free market at work, but everybody will agree that it is risking the most valuable thing one has and therefore may deserve different structure of compensation. I was just asking to see what this compensation should be and how far it should extend.

As far as how far should government's responsibilities reach - this, of course, is a philosophical and highly subjective topic. The only way to find a reasonable answers on the subject is to have an experiment and see what works and what not. There are many governments all over the world and some do better job in some areas than the US government does, some do worse. Personally I am very skeptical of any claims that there is a perfect way of doing something. Unless you have a strict proof in the mathematical sense.

So, back to private organizations doing things more efficiently than public ones - there are many cases where it has been demonstrated that this is not true (at least not in practice). And as far as services are concerned (some of which such as law enforcement are undisputably government's responsibility), efficiency is not the goal. By definition these operate with built-in inefficiencies because they deal with abnormal situations and therefore you have to provide for the overhead of abnormalities.

Last point I want to make is that statistically the impact of fluctuations decreases with size (usually 1/√size) which argues for large, centralized government. But of course this is the most simplistic view - when you take into account the increase in inefficiency that comes with the increased size I'm sure that the result is an optimal (or several optimal) sizes for each particular problem. This is just an illustration of why I am skeptical about any claims that government should be expanded or shrunk which are based just on some bogus principle and not on a specific problem.

So anybody care to throw in a formula or two which disprove me

Originally Posted by gugi

So, back to private organizations doing things more efficiently than public ones - there are many cases where it has been demonstrated that this is not true (at least not in practice).

Name One.....

student loans