mdk is a Contest Moderator.


Recent Statuses

2 yrs ago


User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

I will say though, that while I am more inclined to agree with the player's politics, I am also of the opinion that they shouldn't kneel. Not because I'm patriotic, but because kneeling solves no problems and is probably the least tactful thing they could do to try and attempt to get a message across. To the eyes of almost everyone that disagrees with them, they are literally protesting America.

And I'm on the opposite side -- like, I'm inclined to disagree with the players' politics in this case, but I think they're doing protest exactly right. It's nonviolent. It's not even that disrespectful. It hurts nobody but themselves (and the league owners, but they've always got that option to fire, so it goes right back on the player).

They're basically nailing it, in all areas except actually communicating their point. This was supposed to be about police brutality -- which again we could have a whole argument there -- but suddenly it's all about Trump. Kneeling during the anthem to protest justicial inequality? Brave. Kneeling to protest a president you don't like? Childish.

But it does bring up an interesting dilemma. Does the NFL, as an organization, have he right to define its own speech? On the one hand, players (assuming citizenship) have constitutional protections in place for their own speech. On the other, they're wearing an NFL uniform, they're employed by the NFL, they're representing the NFL. Does the NFL get to say "No, sorry, you can't do that or you're fired?"

I mean we've established that they can penalize players for celebrations that the NFL deems inappropriate. We've established that kneeling can lose you your job (see for reference: Tim Tebow). It seems a short leap to say the NFL can fire you for kneeling during the anthem -- just like they could presumably fire you for shouting during a moment of silence. We've established that certain political speech can be prohibited by the NFL (like a show-of-support for Dallas P.D. after the BLM shooters killed several officers at an otherwise peaceful protest, which the NFL deemed inappropriate and forbade). So.... where's the line, do you figure? Open-ended question to all.
This pretty much sums up how we all probably feel when Burning Kitty posts.

But for real though I don't care who says an idea. If it's a good idea then it's a good idea. If it's a bad idea I better be able to explain why. In that sense, there are no enemies in a political conversation but those who want to silence another voice.
According to @mdk it is a guarantee I will be disabled unless I die first, so not wrong spot.

We all get there eventually, to some degree or another. 100%. Get up for it.

EDIT: was gonna go for three in a row, but then I thought better of it. Plus I'm not tagging anyone.

<Snipped quote by mdk>That is why I have a Roth IRA, savings accounts, numerous certificate of deposits, and a separate investment account.

I won't need no stinking government "safety net."

Fantastic. That's exactly what you should be doing. Keep doing it (like you need me to say it). Everybody else should be doing this too. Save your goddamn money folks.

Anyway. That's very nice for you. It was very nice for me, too -- but the money did run out eventually. Luckily it turns out I'm fucking great at having a leg chopped off, and I was able to get back to work pretty quick. But if it wasn't for that, you can bet the money I saved in my early 20's wasn't gonna be enough to last me the rest of my life. And I don't wanna brag or nothing but I was earning a lot. It's pretty easy for me to picture my situation happening to someone else, and them getting totally and completely fucked. I don't think that taking care of that guy/girl is government theft.

Anywho. I could keep going but I get the distinct impression you're not entirely serious. Could be wrong. w/e.
Not my problem, tax money should never be used to benefit a single person, only things like infrastructure, military, stuff that benefits everyone. They shouldn't be getting any neetbux in the first place, nothing more than government theft.


You don't have to let them rot, but if you want to do something it should be done by you personally or by charities.

Now see, the latter part there gets argued a lot, but argued differently. The accurate argument is, person-to-person and/or charities (the smaller the better) are much more efficient at distributing I guess the word is neetbux? This is a true statement -- small groups are, by their very nature, more efficient, at just about anything.

However, big groups (like the federal government) are much more effective at distributing benefits. It might cost them ten bucks to make sure Lucy gets a dollar, but Lucy gets that dollar, on time, every time. That's the dichotomy. Where's the balance supposed to be, I mean, more on the private side probably than it is right now, but not overly so. And here's why.

Feeding the poor and destitute, creating a society in which the disabled and the elderly and the abject poor are allowed to exist and survive and do shit, is good for everyone. Nearly every single one of us, eventually, is going to become disabled. Most people, that doesn't happen until you're retired; some people die before they get a chance. But it's coming for you, period, dot. You can either live in perpetual dread of that Logan's Run scenario, or you and your employer can each drop 6.2% of your income into SSI and know that when it finally happens to you -- because it will -- you've paid your dues and you're covered.

Okay, so that's, like, broad-stroking the whole issue. Yeah, the system needs a lot of big-time reforms. It's gonna go bankrupt before long (partially because your SSI payments get raided for other government programs, including infrastructure and military and the like; partially because we're giving money to too many people), and you shouldn't count on it to take care of you if you've got other options (at a minimum, take your annual SSI contributions, double them, and put that much money into a ROTH IRA, you'll be glad you did). And that's not really addressing the folks who take advantage of the system -- they're a minority but they do a disproportionate amount of damage (just google "social security fraud billion" and look at the money sieve). Yes, some shit needs to hpapen to fix it.

My point is, a safety net -- even one you don't need right now -- is a good thing for everybody, within reason. If we have a problem in the US with our safety-net situation, it's because we're not allowed to reasonably look at it or try to fix it, because the people taking advantage get just as many votes as the people trying to fix it.
*nine-step plan* sure you're not a republican? That's eerily similar to the Koch Brothers plan. I say "eerily" only because that's honestly not the direction I expected you to go.

Most of what you're proposing is great, at least in concept. Some of the problems aren't your fault -- step three, for instance, couldn't be done without compulsory participation by private providers at the moment thanks to the VA and Choice (and Congress in general) and their track record. Let's assume step 4 clears that up over time and ignore it entirely. We have to start thinking about the costs at some point but hey, I'm rationally self-interested (plus I think those combat vets deserve it for SURE), so whatevs. Step 9 is a bit of old-VA thinking -- if this works, we don't need more VA hospitals, right? But again -- erring on the side of taking care of people. I'm not gonna make a fuss.

In short -- this here is a radical, big-concept reform. Even comes with instructions on how to pass it (I'm not sure those are sure-fire, because David Schulkin, Trump's pick for VA chief, was also Obama's pick -- but in fact Shulkin's about to propose something like this, if The Hill is to be believed, so I guess you're onto something).

Anyway. I'll take it.

Now for my end of the bargain. What are your thoughts on universal healthcare in the US?
<Snipped quote by mdk>

I hate to be dramatic but this whole thing is a national dishonor. And I say that without hyperbole. I hope they at least feel ashamed. At least.

I mean, not so sound like a broken record, but... they produce all the right soundbites, and that's all anybody's listening for.
2014 is the year the VA was caught falsifying reports to make it appear that the waiting times were better than they were. At least 120,000 veterans were affected and dozens may have died because of the delays.

And they're still doing it, but now they loop the Choice Act into the chain of events. They can drag their feet at the VA first, then kick you to Choice 30 and drag their feet there, then kick you into Choice 40. Each one registers as a new wait time so you stay off their books. If you try to fight it, they mark it down as "cancelled by the veteran" and then they're off the hook entirely. The whole thing is super-fucked-up.
I'm simply saying it's a huge, complicated process, and perhaps that while it's not good, it used to be even worse. And I think that affordable healthcare is a good thing.

Interestingly, to the first part (it used to be worse), the thing they did to lower wait times was toss a few billion into an entirely different fund called "VA Choice," which simply pays for the veteran to see a regular doctor. It didn't fix any part of what's broken at the VA, it just said "Well.... fuck it, idunno, here's regular insurance." But then the kicker is, the provider network is shrinking on account of the VA's track record for approvals and payments and all that (which is poor)

"Healthcare," "Affordable," and "Government." You can basically pick one-and-a-half of those things. The VA is affordable (free) and it's government, but you don't actually get healthcare. ACA is government healthcare, but it isn't actually affordable.
Private healthcare is healthcare and it's normally affordable for most people most of the time -- I mean it's better than the alternatives we've seen, so far as the US (in the real actual world) is concerned, so I'd say for now we should sorta roll with that.

You're not hearing me.

I didn't say "leave it alone."

I said, show me the policy that fixes it, and we'll talk. Show me. You're apparently a subject-matter expert. Fix it. And then we'll talk about universal healthcare.
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet