Michael Moore put the site in his movie

I only know about the site being in the movie from this site. The title is missing in the movie. Maybe I’m wrong, please post a screengrab of the site in the movie.

err, the sites name in the movie.

The movie barely skims the site’s heading.

Too bad, I guess Sears will pas on advertising here. Such a shame since the fall fashions are about to be announced in the upcoming weeks. I guess Jim better not have any more financial/health woes.

/Maybe Jimmy Carter has some money laying around to help him out.

//This doesn’t mean he likes Carter, he just has no moral problems taking money from people he has deep moral conflicts with. Even if he suspects Carter sent him the money all along.

///Jim’s got his mind on his charity, and his charity on his mind.

What in the blue fuck are you prattling on about?  Keep making it personal about me and see how fast my patience for your bullshit lasts.

Your crap is barely a step above the hate mail I’m getting.  Proud of that, are you?

Nothing hateful in my post, just pointing out that you ‘suspected’ Michael Moore sent you the money and you said “what the hell.” You said you didn’t even need the money from your donation drive begging for cash yet had no qualms excepting it from the arch-nemesis of this site. You got played and very well played. your word will never come out in a public forum large enough to counter how owned you got. I know that’s hard truth but you have just been majorly owned starting on showtime june 29th. (Unless you went to your friends pirated website where you advocate slipping through the law since no country is able to prosecute you due to slippery laws)

/Feel free to ban me. I really am used to it from left and right forums.  So far Crooksandliars, freerepublic, littlegreenfootballs, dailykos and others I can’t remember from the moment. Both sides suck ass… and there is nothing we can do about this plutocracy.

But none the less you got owned, tattooed and given a free T_shirt (or a $12,000 free T-shirt) But who wouldn’t take a free 12 grand? lol

Once again, LL makes real libertarians look bad…

So sorry that I have a vested interest in living. Didn’t know you were so manly that you can forgo healthcare and possibly sprout a couple extra chesthairs in the process.

/If you don’t have your life you have absolutely nothing

//Literally

Don’t get me wrong—I hope JimK does not ban you.  I’m all for the marketplace of ideas, and I think some of your posts damage your cause. My only concern is that some readers may take your posts as representative of libertarian thought.

My only concern is that some readers may take your posts as representative of libertarian thought.

Or just thought in general.

I’m all for the marketplace of ideas, and I think some of your posts damage your cause.

Why? I am pro gun (second amendment) Pro death penalty and pro abortion. It’s their body leave them alone. I am nothing but a person that thinks people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want. Only thing I think government is beneficial for is maintaining the society they are overlooking. If they can’t even look out for our health then what is the benefit of government? Isn’t their primordial function to take care of me as a person? If they can’t maintain this simple social contract then why should I maintain any understanding with them? I mean, to them it doesn’t matter if I live or die, so what is their function in my soon to be expired life?

Posted by Libertarian Librarian on 06/20/2007 at 05:09 PM

I am pro gun (second amendment) Pro death penalty and pro abortion.

“Pro abortion.” That’s a funny term.

I am nothing but a person that thinks people have the right to do whatever the fuck they want. Only thing I think government is beneficial for is maintaining the society they are overlooking.

Okay on this point.

It’s their body leave them alone

If they can’t even look out for our health then what is the benefit of government?

???

Isn’t their primordial function to take care of me as a person?

For a socialist?  Yes.  From the libertarian standpoint...no.  Their function is to provide the infrastructure necessary to protect society as a whole and to allow you to take care of yourself as a person.

I mean, to them it doesn’t matter if I live or die, so what is their function in my soon to be expired life?

So you’re just going to die right away without the government taking care of your health for you?  Jeez…

The social contract as I understand it between me and the government is ‘I’ll give you x amount of dollars to look after my interests’ by ‘interest’ I mean my well being. the only thing I expect a well focused government to do is protect my property from invasion and take care of me when I am too sick to do so for myself. Government should do no more than that and regulate that. I don’t need special holidays commemorating this or that. That’s all well and good, but superfluous.

Again I ask, If a government cannot take care of it’s citizenry, why should any citizen remain loyal to the system that considers them expendable?

I’m not asking for the government to do a thing for me, but if I get sick I would like to know I am taken care of. Even at the expense of burning off my debt at sometime, in some way. But don’t bury me as I still breathe.I am a taxpayer, you wouldn’t exist without people like me. It’s in your interest to take care of me for the here and now.

/Is that a difficult concept?

So you’re just going to die right away without the government taking care of your health for you?  Jeez…

No.. I live in Germany and am well cared for. Might move back to America in a few years but not without making sure me and my wife have proper medical care. You really don’t want to get sick there. Costs you an arm and a leg

/A kidney if it happens on Tuesday

Posted by Libertarian Librarian on 06/20/2007 at 05:55 PM

The social contract as I understand it between me and the government is ‘I’ll give you x amount of dollars to look after my interests’ by ‘interest’ I mean my well being. the only thing I expect a well focused government to do is protect my property from invasion and take care of me when I am too sick to do so for myself. Government should do no more than that and regulate that. I don’t need special holidays commemorating this or that. That’s all well and good, but superfluous.

Again I ask, If a government cannot take care of it’s citizenry, why should any citizen remain loyal to the system that considers them expendable?

I’m not asking for the government to do a thing for me, but if I get sick I would like to know I am taken care of. Even at the expense of burning off my debt at sometime, in some way. But don’t bury me as I still breathe.I am a taxpayer, you wouldn’t exist without people like me. It’s in your interest to take care of me for the here and now.

Now we’re getting to something we can probably discuss.  Would you accept government coverage of catastrophic events, with private coverage for more routine illnesses?  Or do you believe that government should cover it all?

See, I’m not thrilled with our current system.  I see the argument that people can have an unavoidable accident through no fault of their own and are suddenly in debt for several $100k if there is no covering agency (public, private, or the at-fault participant).  It can happen to anyone, and probably with equal probability.  It’s the perfect kind of risk to spread among all residents.  I think there’s room for improvement here.

But I’m reluctant to subsidize other people’s unhealthy lifestyle choices.  If all healthcare becomes “free” (over-the-counter, anyway), than there is no difference in cost between me: a runner, non-smoker, light drinker, and fairly healthy eater who wears his seatbelt all the time, and a smoking, boozing, obese motorcyclist who doesn’t wear a helmet.  The government basically subsidizes their lifestyle by saying there are no financial costs to it, but I doubt they will buy my running shoes for me so I can stay healthy.  Lifestyle risks should be spread among the people who choose that lifestyle.

I just don’t see complete socialization of health care as the necessary reaction.  I fear it will be bungled like Social Security or Medicare in the US.  I’m trying to plan my life without having to rely on those services, because at my age, chances are fair they’ll be bankrupt by the time I qualify.  I can do without SS and Medicare, but if the whole health industry goes public, a similar failure would be absolutely catastrophic to everybody.  At least in the private world, risk is kind of diversified.  If my provider goes under, or slashes a plan, or whatever, I’ll have other options.

So I’m not married to any particular solution, and am open to hearing ideas.  I know I don’t like complete government control, and I’m not thrilled with our current situation, so I lean towards government covering catastrophic cases, but private industry covering the rest.  I think I’d even be okay with government covering or mandating coverage of certain routine stuff, like a periodic physical.  But for some unfathomable reason, critics of this site seem to setup the false dichotemy that it’s either socialized medicine, or jungle law...nothing else.

I hear you and I hear clear I think. Why shouldn’t the guy without the helmet get the same coverage as you? He lost his stipid life. Os his life less valuable than yours? I mean, he is a dipshit for going without s helmet. but he did buy into our socisal contract. He may be dropdead wrong but tell me why.

/I really like the flowof ideas hear

//So much better than other sites that ban me and are not sure if it helped them or hurt.

gawd that post was typo city, I apologize

But for some unfathomable reason, critics of this site seem to setup the false dichotemy that it’s either socialized medicine, or jungle law...nothing else.

It is nothing ike that in Europe. Why do you think it would be like that there? I am being as honest as I can be. I have zero vested interwst in anything. If the government cannot take care of me when I can no longer take care of myself, then why should I care about the concept of government?

/Government’s first principle is to shelter the people

//I can check out a library book as i call the police while I’m being robbed in a burning orphanage and no one will scream socialism. Socialism is fine as long as there are limits put on it much like capitalism and the right to make money has limits. No one(at least here) is arguing about it. I think making money is fines and dandy. But that is beside the point. I want something that guarantees I will be taken care of if I am unable to do so for myself.

/Why is this a ridiculous demand?

//??

Isn’t their primordial function to take care of me as a person?

This is where the disconnect lies; you advertise yourself as libertarian, but no libertarian would even think this.  In any case, the answer to your question “no.” Government’s primary function is to protect the country.  First.  Always.

Why shouldn’t the guy without the helmet get the same coverage as you?

Why should I be responsible for his stupidity?  After all, my taxes would be used as a safety net for his stupidity.  And if you think I should be responsible for his stupidity, then why shouldn’t I be rewarded for my non-stupidity?

Posted by Libertarian Librarian on 06/20/2007 at 07:34 PM

I hear you and I hear clear I think. Why shouldn’t the guy without the helmet get the same coverage as you? He lost his stipid life. Os his life less valuable than yours? I mean, he is a dipshit for going without s helmet. but he did buy into our socisal contract. He may be dropdead wrong but tell me why.

This is circular reasoning.  You’re using the idea that he bought into the social contract to justify why he should be treated the same, but we’re debating just what that social contract really should be.  You’re presuming it already exists and I’m asking for justification for why it should be comprehensive.

The point I am getting at in that post, but looking back was maybe too subtle, is that many, probably most, of the things that affect our health are personal choices.  Diet, exercise, sunscreen, safety restraints, driving habits, etc. are all things that we choose whether or not to take unnecessary risks.  Those risks have costs.  It’s not the governments responsibility to mitigate all the personal health risks we choose to undertake.

Even so, I’m not arguing that a guy who breaks his back because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in an accident that he otherwise would have walked away from should be left to die.  I’m agreeing the government should cover catastrophic cases.  But I also feel that the guy should have to take at least some financial responsibility for an injury of his own doing.  Our government is not supposed to be like a parent of a four-year-old.  That’s a nanny-state.

Posted by Libertarian Librarian on 06/20/2007 at 07:52 PM

But for some unfathomable reason, critics of this site seem to setup the false dichotemy that it’s either socialized medicine, or jungle law...nothing else.

It is nothing ike that in Europe. Why do you think it would be like that there? I am being as honest as I can be. I have zero vested interwst in anything. If the government cannot take care of me when I can no longer take care of myself, then why should I care about the concept of government?

Buh?  Where the heck did Europe come in?  I was talking about the critics of this site (Moorewatch).  They nigh-universally come here and act like our denial of Moore means we want the sick and elderly to die on the floor.  I was contrasting them with my position that there is some legit role for government in healthcare that is less than comprehensive.

//I can check out a library book as i call the police while I’m being robbed in a burning orphanage and no one will scream socialism.

Of course no one will scream “socialism”.  Reasons:

/You can get books in more than just libraries.  Most people do. (Sorry, librarian.)

//Sometimese you need police, but often you have to take care of yourself until they get there.  They also don’t replace anything stolen or broken.

///There are non-state-run orphanages.

Nope, I don’t care for the “///////////////” thing.

I want something that guarantees I will be taken care of if I am unable to do so for myself.

So you’re not necessarily demanding comprehensive coverage.  You’re demanding at least catastropic coverage.

Lee,

You call Moore a “shitbag”? Except what qualities does someone need to have to make them one, and can you name some more examples?

Truth, let’s not get pretentious.  There are other better ways to start a conversation or debate, not something quite so adolescent.  You know what he’s saying, you understand his opinion, and you can read the previous posts on this blog.

Priceless:
“I feel we the “muendige Buerger” should be able to do whatever, whenever, however we please, but: Free health care needs to be in place when we, say, hit the bullseye emptying our nuts into drunken lushes and the resulting brat would only cramp our lifestyles - and deplete our ozone.
On the other hand, we need to give free money to Africans so their kids won’t die and can someday empty their nuts into whatever, whomever, whenever.”