MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Joe Rogan props open the mouth of every Republican and shits down their throat

> That's an argument for political correctness

I think there is no "political correctness" anymore. It's just the left and right hate each other. Some corp dems are still trying to use manners as an argument point but they are sad failing morons of a time passed.

>and using a hypothetical "worst case
> scenario" to make his point...
>
>
> "Don't break the law."
>
> vs
>
> "Go ahead, break the law. But be prepared to deal with the consequences of entering a
> sovereign nation that has laws against entering it without going through the proper
> channels and procedures."
>

First off he is not picking anything. The separation disaster has been all over the news as if it was some children trapped in a Thai cave. It's simply going to come up on a podcast. Secondly it's the specifics of the consequences that is the issue, not whether or not you have to deal with any consequences.

> And whichever of the 2 examples of phrasing one would use - that's never going to
> change the outcome.
>

I don't understand what you mean here.

> I'm thinking he's upset about the callousness of such a remark as "Don't break the
> law" and the idea of it being used in some smug, pious way.
>

I'm thinking he's simply actually a decent human being so he cares about others and doesn't like seeing his country turn into a racist shithole and doesn't like idiots saying they can do absolutely anything as punishment, no matter how barbaric, to someone who commits a misdemeanor based on the fact that they are fleeing for their life out of a drug war ravaged, well, war.

> I'm not defending such remarks and attitudes, and he and anyone else is free to
> disassociate themselves with anyone that does.
>
>
> What about this?.... Is the momentary inconvenience of the separation of a mother and
> child worth the cost of leaving a shit-hole country?

You're missing the point completely and asserting that everyone leaving their country are just doing it because their country isn't as good as the US. Your question shouldn't be a question that has to be asked.

> Is it like the mother and child will never be united ever again? Of course not.
> Buuuut... I can't say I know how long they'll be separated for.

OK so first you're ignoring the cases where the kids are so young that after a month they no longer recognize their real parents, but even if that wasn't there, you're clearly a monster for in any way thinking it's ok to tell a mother you are going to give her kid a bath and then separate them as a scare tactic. Jeff Sessions is so inhumane that his own church voted to kick him out. He's just an absolutely terrible human.

> I suppose the real issue is the separation itself.

The real issue is Republicans are deep racists and hate immigration of any kind on account of it.

>
> So should exceptions be made for mothers with infants? Maybe there could should be.
> It is indeed tragic and unfortunate.

The exception that should be made is the Republican party should cease to exist.

> ----------
>
> And the part about healthcare....
>
> I'm absolutely certain Joe is a Libertarian. But what is "free" about compulsory
> health insurance?

Firstly you can't say he's a Libertarian so then you know x about how he feels about healthcare especially when he's right there telling you how he feels about it. The latter is probably more accurate than what you glean from a word. Whatever is the black and white extreme definition you are using for Libertarian is probably about as accurate as your view on "socialism". I'm not an expert but I don't think Libertarians want no government to the point where we don't have roads. Even right wings groups in countries other than the US believe in healthcare for all from the government.

> If it were all actually "free" that'd be fine... I guess. I mean, it might be shitty
> and you'd get what you pay for. But it's still needs a lot of work with the way it
> is. I don't have any answers.... I just know (or think) it's not the best of deals.
> Especially if you're going to be FINED for not having any... What are people that
> can't afford it supposed to do? The fine turns out to be more than it would be to
> have it, which is completely ridiculous, and goes against the very idea of "freedom"!

Or so the right wing talking point goes but Obamacare is really right wing Romnycare, is nothing remotely like Medicare for All and additionally is being ripped to shreds by ISIS (Republicans). By the time they are done with it it will fail the way they always said it would - because they destroyed it.

Medicare for All, if you want to know about it or assume it's going to be shitty I can tell you some info. First off you would save money per year even IF it raised your taxes because the system completely removes all CEOs, removes all advertising costs, it has the government on one end constantly fighting down ridiculous pricing, and by combining 1,000 plans into 1, brings down the cost of administering it. I can speak to all this because I worked in the healthcare industry for years and dealt directly with them. Who would you rather have fighting these ripoff artists in hospitals charging you 20 grand for a bottle of formula, the government or a corporate behind-closed-door deal tool?

The best way to pay for it is clearly by cutting "defense" spending in half and pulling out of 8 wars that no citizen wants so in addition to the fact that your coverage will cost less, you wouldn't necessarily pay a thing for it if we can get the government to pull their heads out of their ass, so in that case you'd save 100% of the cost, or in a worse case scenario of your taxes getting raised, you'd pay about half.

To answer your other assumption that it's "shitty", you could still buy your own insurance supplement from insurance companies to get the absolute tightest insurance out there, and supplement packages cost a tiny fraction of what base health insurance currently does. The way Medicare works (not talking about Medicaid BTW which is a different program) is it gives you a basic insurance of, for most things, you pay 20% and the government pays 80. From there you can add supplements for say covering the other 20 or for removing copays on prescriptions etc. It's not like Medicare for All would even be as good as some other countries have it, it's not like some Utopian wonderland. It's just a basic care package but with very good proven cost controls where they fight for you and additionally don't waste billions of your money on paying a CEO and so on.

As far as your argument of freedom, that is a criticism of Obamacare which is very flawed and simply better than nothing, but anyway you already don't have this "freedom" you mentioned if you are paying taxes at all, and you don't have freedom in your car if you have to pay for insurance on it, you don't have the freedom to own your house if you can lose it to the government if you don't pay property tax, and you don't have freedom to just walk around doing whatever you want if there are thousands of laws that dictate whether your "freedom" leads to you going to prison. That's just a bullshit talking point with nothing underneath it. Wow what a great "freedom" to have the right to break a limb and just have it heal at a 45 degree angle and look like a retard.