# What political inclination would you describe yourself as?

• News

## What political inclination would you describe yourself as?

• ### I don't do politics.

• Total voters
63
mheslep
Gold Member
In other words, once people have already made the decision that health care is a universal right, you have to figure out the most cost effective way to provide it.
I think that idea (a common one) is self-contradictory. If the thing is truly a fundamental right then cost can not be a basis for it.

Gold Member
Can you elaborate (and maybe support)?
I assume you mean my second statement, so I'll go from there if you don't mind.

McCain has personally named Obama a radical via guilt by association with Bill Ayers, repeatedly.

As for Nazi, I've seen enough Tea Party signage showing Obama with a Hitler 'stashe or something else relating him to Nazism to fill the Empire State Building with.

Muslim is so obvious as to not need clarification.

There are still conservatives claiming that Obama wasn't born in America, that he is a Kenyan. I can't believe these "Birthers".

Terrorist was just something I threw in there, it seemed pretty likely.

Sorry I have no links, but I'm on an iPod.

mheslep
Gold Member
I assume you mean my second statement, so I'll go from there if you don't mind.

McCain has personally named Obama a radical via guilt by association with Bill Ayers, repeatedly.

As for Nazi, I've seen enough Tea Party signage showing Obama with a Hitler 'stashe or something else relating him to Nazism to fill the Empire State Building with.

Muslim is so obvious as to not need clarification.

There are still conservatives claiming that Obama wasn't born in America, that he is a Kenyan. I can't believe these "Birthers".

Terrorist was just something I threw in there, it seemed pretty likely.

Sorry I have no links, but I'm on an iPod.
Then why not edit your earlier post and remove the part where you attribute ALL of this to Senator McCain?

Gold Member
Simple.

At a previous forum, the rule was that you only edited your post if no one posted since then. This has become my personal rule. I don't erase my mistakes.

You are right: I was wrong to attribute this all to the good Senator. Senator McCain is only responsible for two-fifths of the accusations, unless he's called Obama a terrorist at some point.

McCain did call Obama a Muslim at some point, right?

mheslep
Gold Member
McCain did call Obama a Muslim at some point, right?
Wrong.

Gold Member
Dang...
Why am I so certain that I've heard McCain call Obama a Muslim?

At least I'm 161.8% sure that McCain implied rather strongly of Obama's radicalism via Bill Ayers. That much I'm sure of.

Actually, I could almost be a Libertarian. I just couldn't vote for one. They have a strict criteria of only allowing slightly off kilter characters to run for office.
Rand Paul doesn't seem too off kilter (granted he's technically running as a Republican, I think he can safely be viewed as a Libertarian).

BobG
Homework Helper
In other words, once people have already made the decision that health care is a universal right, you have to figure out the most cost effective way to provide it.
I think that idea (a common one) is self-contradictory. If the thing is truly a fundamental right then cost can not be a basis for it.
It's an absolute necessity that I need food to survive. In fact, I need to go grocery shopping today. Still, even though it's a necessity, I plan to go shopping at the commissary on base, where I'll save around 30% compared to the grocery store less than a mile from my house.

And the savings on Bertolli's is more like 40% to 50% (prices vary because of specials, etc). Bertolli's obviously isn't a necessity, but it's so much better than the meals I can cook for myself in less than half an hour.

Cost can be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. Other qualitative factors can also be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. The need is food - there's a lot of options on how to fulfill that need.

Same for health care, even if it's decided that it's a fundamental right and has to be provided in some form or another. You still have to weigh cost and quality when deciding how to provide the health care.

It's the options, having more than one way to fulfill a need, that make you wrong. Your statement is only correct for some essential item that can only be obtained one way (which is why people don't like monopolies).

Last edited:
mheslep
Gold Member
It's an absolute necessity that I need food to survive. In fact, I need to go grocery shopping today. Still, even though it's a necessity, I plan to go shopping at the commissary on base, where I'll save around 30% compared to the grocery store less than a mile from my house.

And the savings on Bertolli's is more like 40% to 50% (prices vary because of specials, etc). Bertolli's obviously isn't a necessity, but it's so much better than the meals I can cook for myself in less than half an hour.

Cost can be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. Other qualitative factors can also be a basis for decisions about how you fulfill needs. The need is food - there's a lot of options on how to fulfill that need.

Same for health care,
Yes, and for housing, clothing, any number of things. I assert that we don't have fundamental rights to any of them, as I understand the meaning.

even if it's decided that it's a fundamental right and has to be provided in some form or another.
My point is that a fundamental right can not be something that is provided by another. If so, it can (and will ) be taken away, hence the contradiction. This is not to say that there's anything wrong, per se, with a system that sets out to provide as many as possible with health care, but if that system comes into being with the assertion that health care is a fundamental right, versus a 'good' or an obligation, then it has built in self-contradictions and is hindered in making decisions. E.g. what lifetime caps should be spent on a single person? $1 million?$10m? \$1B? If the thing is a fundamental right, it can not be denied at any cost. Person X's fundamental right is no less than person Y's, and so on.

Gold Member
Health care is a prickly issue, that much is obvious. Would religion or abortion be a less... Heated argument, I wonder?

Just a joke, don't want to start THOSE arguments.

I guess I'm liberal-libertarian or liberal-moderate. Somewhere in between. Socially very liberal, anyway.

Anything that takes someone else to provide it cannot be a right, because then that means you must infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who provide that good or service.

For example, you have a right to go out and have sex with whomever you want, right? But are you entitled to sex from people? Are men entitled to sex from women? Or women from men?

Does the Second Amendment mean we need a federal program to provide people with weapons?

Rights are abstract things. You have a right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean government must provide you with a podium. You have a right to freedom of religion, that doesn't mean government must provide you a place of worship. You have a right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean government must provide you with arms.

And so forth.

Rand Paul doesn't seem too off kilter (granted he's technically running as a Republican, I think he can safely be viewed as a Libertarian).
Ron Paul has a history of being tied into conspiracy theories and also his campaign took money from a white supremacist organization, Stormfront. There is a picture somewhere on the Internet of him with the founder of Stormfront.

Paul likes to present himself as just a plain-spoken Texan who is against big-government and for a more isolationist foreign policy, but he is a lot more radical than that, at least from what I can tell, if you start looking into his background.

Last edited:
Al68
Anything that takes someone else to provide it cannot be a right, because then that means you must infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who provide that good or service.

For example, you have a right to go out and have sex with whomever you want, right? But are you entitled to sex from people? Are men entitled to sex from women? Or women from men?

Does the Second Amendment mean we need a federal program to provide people with weapons?

Rights are abstract things. You have a right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean government must provide you with a podium. You have a right to freedom of religion, that doesn't mean government must provide you a place of worship. You have a right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean government must provide you with arms.
I think the main confusion here is the current habit of using the word "right" to mean entitlement. An entitlement, as implied by the word's root, is the result of a contract or agreement between people. It's just a different concept than "rights", and although I never used the words interchangeably, many do, which just adds to the confusion.

I especially find it frustrating when people ask if one believes health care, for example, is a right. Of course it's a right, but that by no means suggests that any entitlement exists.

Like you say, no one is going to court demanding free guns because the second amendment guarantees the right. As with all rights guaranteed by the constitution, there is no implied entitlement whatsoever. And the U.S. founders didn't use the words interchangeably.

Gold Member
I want free guns!

Dang...
Why am I so certain that I've heard McCain call Obama a Muslim?

At least I'm 161.8% sure that McCain implied rather strongly of Obama's radicalism via Bill Ayers. That much I'm sure of.
I distinctly remember Obama stating that McCain had never made any comments about him being a muslim. I remember because Rush and the like were cranking it up as a gaffe. He said, paraphrasing... "he hasn't brought up my muslim heritage". It was rather obvious he meant "supposed muslim heritage", you could practically hear the finger quotes, but they made it sound as if he slipped up and admitted to being muslim.

Anyway, as far as I know and according to Obama, at that time, McCain never jumped on that bandwagon.

Gold Member
Thanks for the explanation, Statu.

I am right on the Bill Ayers thing, right?

Gold Member
Thank God I'm right at something, at least.

McCain went after Obama on Ayes, he wouldn't touch the Reverand Wright issue. As for him declaring Obama a Muslim, a woman asked McCain specifically if he thought Obama a Muslim, he said no and that he thought Obama was a good man.

Gold Member
McCain went after Obama on Ayes, he wouldn't touch the Reverand Wright issue. As for him declaring Obama a Muslim, a woman asked McCain specifically if he thought Obama a Muslim, he said no and that he thought Obama was a good man.
Wait, what?

Why would being a Muslim impede Obama's ability to be a good man?

In and of itself it wouldn't, but in conjunction with some of the other people in his background, if Obama was a Muslim, it probably would have raised some questions. Also I think McCain just was sort of "on-the-spot" with that question and just threw that in.

Ron Paul has a history of being tied into conspiracy theories and also his campaign took money from a white supremacist organization, Stormfront. There is a picture somewhere on the Internet of him with the founder of Stormfront.

Paul likes to present himself as just a plain-spoken Texan who is against big-government and for a more isolationist foreign policy, but he is a lot more radical than that, at least from what I can tell, if you start looking into his background.
Unfortunately, he does tend to go along with conspiracy theories a little more than I'm comfortable with in the background (he believes in the NAU), though I've never heard him support those claims outright outright while he's campaigning. Actually, he takes a formal position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60TWZNVgtk" multiple times. I think Don Black showed up to one of his campaign events and had a picture taken with him, which I can't really see how Mr. Paul could have avoided unless he knew what the guy looked like before he came, etc. The main reason for not returning the money was his staunch belief that you don't necessarily support every viewpoint from every supporter that gives you money over the internet. If you looked into every donation to the Obama campaign, I'd be completely surprised if you didn't find the occasional extremist liberal. Anyways, Ron Paul doesn't come off as crazy as most libertarians, and his son Rand even less so.

Last edited by a moderator:
Humanist.