[quote=@SleepingSilence]
They're all out to lunch. And if it was 20 against one, it wouldn't be a discussion it be a circle jerk. They're enough echo chambers on the internet already. :P
[/quote]

Right, but I got shit to do, I can't do everything myself. Plus you've misunderstood what I've said a few times and I would like to know if I'm really screwing the pooch so badly. 

[quote] Even if I know you're not because I've yet to have about 6 ad hominem attacks against me. But it still makes me feel more like I'm just spamming the thread.[/quote]

This thread's already shit so we ain't gonna make it worse.

[quote]2. The problem is, all it did was show how much worse socialized medicine can get. Failing, does not mean more people will want to try it again. (but even more extreme because Obama didn't go far enough.) Or something along those lines. I mean do we really want something like Canada's system? I could go deeper into...but I suppose if we must go on, I'd like to ask you before I say anything, do you think we should in a direction similar to Canada?[/quote]

Yes, we do want something like Canada. It is rather rare to find people who like the old system even for how much Obama's isn't working. But first lets clear something up - we don't have socialized healthcare right now. What Obamacare is in its current form isn't socialized healthcare at all, except for the medicaid and medicare bits that were already in place. The main complaint about Obamacare, the almost universal complaint, is the price of health insurance. And that happened because the one thing Obamacare did in making it a requirement for insurance companies to accept people regardless of prior condition. Back in the old system, a person who wasn't healthy could be denied coverage and required to pay for healthcare out of pocket, and that was its biggest flaw, since the only way to get socialized healthcare was (and still is) to either be poor or be old. It reached the point that, before Obamacare, I just assumed my way of dealing with healthcare would have to be to join the growing trend of not purchasing health insurance and not paying my bills if I got sick (I knew assloads of people who handled it that way and they always seemed to come off rather well). That was a meaningful trend, and one of the practices signally that the insurance system wasn't sustainable.

That's why I say Obamacare has guaranteed we socialize. The thing people don't like (besides the prices) is how you get fined if you don't purchase a plan. If you got rid of the fine but still required companies to Insure people with prior conditions, the price of health insurance would skyrocket. The entire practice of insurance is rather medieval in that it's basically a company making a bet that you will pay more for the insurance than they will have to pay out, hence their unwillingness to bet on people who's existing conditions guarantee they will receive more money than they pay in. If they keep having to pay out for those people they wouldn't have accepted before Obamacare, it'll drive the price up. That was why the fine for not having insurance was put in place - so healthy people who normally wouldn't purchase a plan would be compelled by the government fine to pay for a plan and therefore balance out all those prior condition people who would otherwise make the insurance system untenable. What happened is that, by setting a fine instead of succeeding to pass a Public Option, Obamacare puts the Insurance companies in competition with the fine. All they have to do is make sure it is cheaper to get health insurance than get fined for not having it, and they'll keep raking in money from their captive consumer base. Whereas if the US had a public option, they'd have to compete with the usefulness of private insurance vs the cheap or free nature of the public option. 

What Obama tried to do in his complete plan is the German version of health insurance, or at least that is how I have heard it explained in the past and I don't want to google it right now. Since it still involves private insurance and it is relatively less total, I can see it eventually becoming the Republican answer to Democrat cries for a completely public system. This especially works because, like I have said before, Republicans can't get rid of Obamacare. To do so would either require getting rid of fines and watching prices skyrocket, or actively tearing health insurance away from all those people with prior conditions who got insurance through Obamacare. And since illness knows no political party, a lot of the people who would be negatively effected by the repeal of Obamacare would be Republican voters. You also have to add to that the open question of whether or not prices would actually drop, and how many people once Obamacare was repealed would simply drop their health insurance altogether and thus cause a complication for the companies themselves. 

So that's why I like the long-term effect of Obamacare despite dislking the cost of a plan under it. I like it when circumstances force the right to wander leftward on an issue. The dream situation for me would to see the right wing dragged as far to the left as where Sanders sits now before I die, so any work on that is going to impress me despite the short term annoyances involved. 

[quote]3. No, I mean Reagan, was constantly falsely represented by saying he "invented the term" When it was a democratic term, made up to make him look stupid. It has never been actually used, in serious discussion besides misinformed people that don't know it has never existed or has ever legitimately been spoken. [/quote]

A lot of things get lost in the wash. Like I said before, I've heard Republicans defend the term as if it were uttered by Reagan himself. Humanity is sometimes like a big game of telephone. 

[quote]4. I will argue with the analogy because it's VERY wrong. Cap'N'Trade is a very legit excuse why government reach can go to far and make a problem much worse. Slavery existed before capitalism was even a f**king thing. So it's like comparing apples to orange poltergeists. (aka very unsimilar.) I'm posting links because instead of making up a random story about evil bigmart polluting in a lake. I want evidence to back up my case.[/quote]

That's missing the forest for the trees though. Your still focusing too hard on the details of the analogy and not on what it actually means. I've explained it a few times and I don't want to have to write basically the same paragraphs over and over again each time I post. 

And the idea that I'd have to post links to show that large companies pollute... how on earth would that have to happen? Do I need to post links to show the world is round? 

[quote]5. I'm just going to stop you there, your argument (Reaganomics/trickle down) is completely for something THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED. It is satire you've believed as truth. Stop bringing it up like an actual thing, please.[/quote]

You've posted links showing that the term itself is a joke. What it is used in modern parlance to make fun of though, supply side economics, does exist. It'd be like me saying Obamacare doesn't exist because the word itself was invented to make fun of Obama. 

[quote]You told me, small businesses getting hurt with regulations was a myth. Or that high taxes don't hurt small businesses. It's almost common sense how wrong that is. Now you can argue, the damage is overblown? Or not as serious as the opposition lets on? Maybe...Now you're going to say, "well I don't agree" but you have nothing to prove those statements wrong so how can I even reply?[/quote]

I said, and where this even started, is that the idea that [u]large businesses[/u] support regulation and taxation to destroy small businesses is a myth because it doesn't make sense, and I outlined why several times. Again, you're misunderstanding what I am saying here. What I've argued for beyond that isn't that taxation or regulation does nothing to small business, but rather it is necessary to keep society honest. 

[quote]Like that...Well doesn't help me much, not even saying where you work, or how much you make Approx. Makes it very hard to believe you.[/quote]

Dammit, you aren't going play with this one. Okay, I work for the IRS.

[quote]And you want me to not provide facts and evidence...I don't think you should take things at face value and just "believe".[/quote]

If you make an extraordinary claim, and you can't argue for its efficacy using general knowledge, then you can cite things, but that isn't the same as link-spamming. To cite something, you read it, break it down and present its information yourself in a way that fits the conversation, so that the link is more a formality. What I take exception to is listing a bunch of links and saying nothing about them so your reader has to go and read them all. I go into these things more like verbal discussions because that means I can write them stream of conscious and it doesn't take too much time. If you want to write yours like an essay with citations that's your choice, but don't just toss links at me and get mad when I didn't take an hour to read and dissect everything. I'd also argue that editorials and blogposts don't count as citations since you can find any number of those that support anything you could ever want. 

[quote]I don't want to have a debate on Moby dick story, and have neither of us read any passage of the book...[/quote]

i read the Wishbone version when i was a kid, but since it was a kids version i think they censored the dick

[quote]This is not exactly what I describe as fun. XD Well, my roommate's grandapa and someone like my one sister, a bleeding heart liberals, probably never voted replubican in their fuckin lives. And they both like and probably will vote trump...So, I don't exactly know what to say anymore.[/quote]

I've voted in one Republican Primary and one Democratic primary in my life, and the two Presidential elections I've been old enough to vote in I've voted third party. Trump's popularity is wild. I'd never vote for the guy, but between him and Sanders, this election has been some of the best TV in recent memory. It's fun as hell watching everyone squirm. The one thing I can say about Trump is, he seems to be helping to make the right-wing disreputable. My father, a life-long Reagan Republican, dropped the party and promised never to vote again after that penis-debate.