Quote:
|
So, call me what ever name you like.
|
If you insist, Jim. Socialist. Heir to the bankrupt ideological legacy of Marxism-Leninism. And you don't get to weasel out of it by saying your agenda is "People," what kind of impossibly vauge generalization is that? How do you propose to help "people" without simultaneously allowing "people" to carry on business? Or put more simply, where are you going to get the money to conscript to fund your agenda without "business?"
Quote:
But before we continue pretending to have a legitimate discussion, let's get a card on the table, face up. Here is your quote:
"But here's where the fallacy of causation comes in: does that mean we should IGNORE the "War on Terror?"
That's what you propose, isn't it?"
Is this what you think I'm suggesting?
|
No, Jim that's what you ARE suggesting. Don't try to back away from it now that I've called you on it. You said right here that you disagree with the administration's prioritization of crises, and that based on the relative morality rates of terror vs. other causes of death, you think that we should have other goals that are more important than fighting terrorism.
I am beginning to see the shadows of another common, and fallacious, ideological crutch here, and that is, the zero-sum game. In your world-view, our government can only focus on one thing at a time, and government is the sole engine of progress in society. Well, guess what? Who do you think is developing all the cancer research vaccines? Who put together the anti-HIV drugs? Who invented the drug-coated stent and the cardiology procedure to install it?
Was it the NIH? CDC? Some other government-funded organization? (NIH and CDC have done a GREAT job, by the way, of funding PRIVATE organizations with research grants to stimulate basic science in those areas, so this isn't a knock on those hard-working, white-lab-coated types) No, the majority of the progress that's working to extend YOUR life is, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be achieved by . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . B U S I N E S S!
But let's turn back to your other "priorities." WHY do we need to "save" the Social Security system? WHERE did people get the expectation that the government would care for them in their old age, and provide them with a check that could support them after retirement? FROM WHENCE was the idea derived that our benevolent guvmint would care for the elderly when they got sick?
. . .G O V E R N M E N T. Specifically, the "New Deal" programs that created the SSA in the first place. So this GREAT problem, this PORTENTOUS LOOMING PROBLEM that threatens to CRIPPLE our economy, who's fault is it? Who's oversight or ignorance has landed us in this pickle? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I get it now. Let's "de-emphazize" or "de-prioritize" the war on terror so we can focus our agenda on fixing a problem the government started.
Good luck generating the economic growth necessary to do THAT when you have smoking craters downtown. GOOD LUCK getting people to spend money on renewable resources, fuel cell technology, alternative energy investments and energy-efficient appliances when they're worried about whether to go to work that day.
YES, Jim, they really do worry about that. That's what terror does. In addition to maxing out their 401(k) so they don't HAVE to rely on the SSA, in addition to quitting smoking so they minimize cancer risk, in addition to practicing safe sex so they minimize the risk of AIDS, they worry about whether they'll suffer the same fate of the 3000 or so people whose only offense was to show up for work on time.
But YOU want to "de-prioritize" that.
Why? Why can't you agree that fighting terror is an important FIRST priority, that without security, everything else is a waste of time and effort?
Why must your hatred of the Bush Administration compel you to advocate something that is so obviously against the policy of both Republicans and Democrats? Do you hate EVERYTHING the Bush Administration stands for?
Do you hate the Bush Administration because they passed the Drug Improvement Modernization Act, that would extend Medicare benefits for prescription drugs to persons within 135% of the poverty line? Shall we "de-prioritize" that also?