Let’s concede that it means Jews are evil

Still

You’d have to prove that

Because that just sounds like antisemetic hogwash

Not to be rude (as much as that’s possible) but just because a 2,000 year old book says to hate a certain group,maybe that’s a tad outdated

Or just wrong

The teachings of the Bible are not relative to the current "standards" of soceity, if that were true then Christ would have told one of his prophets this information.

I was trying to be polite

What I’m getting at

Is it’s just wrong

Completely incorrect and unjustified

How are jews evil tho

XD

Aye

‘Tis the million dollar question

Lololol

BIG OOHF

Yeah sorry most people around here only do ass fucking to men

Especially the cute little girly ones @Joywolf

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yhM5SCv4nc

Guys is Strasserism inherently authoritarian

Yes

Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp4oTkaAEUA

<@&583041176144445460> In light of the democratic debates, what do you guys think about policies like Universal basic income, free healthcare etc? Do you think they're practical/sustainable?

No

I certainly have doubts

@vespertilionineVigilante Do you think it's realistic?

UBI seems more realistic than free healthcare from the argumentation I've seen from Yang, but neither one seems to be an ideal solution to the problems they're designed to solve

Hi there

@vespertilionineVigilante Aren't they some of the most ideal solutions, they are almost utopian in nature. The main point of contention surrounding them seems to be about whether or not they are practical and if the nation can sustain it.

I don't think either is practical. Among other reasons regarding either policy individually, most of our positive developments in practicability have been towards decentralized control rather than centralized control of industries e.g. the Internet providing a platform for a greater diversity of companies. Many of our negative developments in practicability have been towards centralization e.g. monopolistic malpractice. Thus, the centralized elements of both of these policies concern me.
I also don't think it works on an idealogical level. As long as there is scarcity in any industry, the goods of that industry cannot be made free. If a good loses all of its scarcity, it would become a right and I would support making it free. For now, though, we are far from a post-scarcity economy in any respect, most certainly in regard to healthcare and money itself.

imagine not understanding what Synagogue of Satan implies
Zollern the chad with a intellect superiour to the gay Jew smashes em' with facts and logic.

Universal healthcare is certainly sustainable. Most countries do it with better success than the healthcare system we currently have

The business model of the insurance industry is to collect as much money as possible and pay out as little as it can. That is not conducive to peoples' health when your insurer makes their money by not helping you

Some countries that have tried universal healthcare have been moving towards privatization as of recently. Even the countries that have implemented government healthcare most successfully offer it alongside the private option e.g. Switzerland, Denmark. Even then, the private options remain very popular in those countries. I don't think the problems with healthcare in America are inherent to the privatized nature of our healthcare. Many of the expenses in our healthcare system derive from red-tape regulations and masses of paperwork. This problem will likely be alleviated by AI programs in the future. They also come from a lack of competitiveness in the industry. We can make policies that force hospitals to be more transparent about their prices and we can promote competition in the insurance industry by promoting co-op health insurance plans as a competitor to the traditional insurance companies. Finally, I believe we make it too difficult for foreign medical workers to be able to practice medicine here. Increasing the supply of medical workers could also help decrease healthcare costs. None of these problems are likely to be solved by universal healthcare. Meanwhile, we would lose the healthcare system that is credited with a very large amount of modern medical breakthroughs. While our healthcare system is definitely flawed in many ways, I don't believe making it universal is the solution to those problems. If one wishes to argue for universal healthcare, they will have to explain how it would keep the benefits of private healthcare, how it would solve the problems with our current system, how it would avoid the pitfalls many other countries have run into in their implementations of universal healthcare, why healthcare should be free even despite the presence of scarcity in that market, and why it should break the current trend of increased practicability being brought about by decentralization rather than centralization.

Only tall people should have human rights.

private healthcare in those countries must compete with public healthcare, which is why costs are so low. There are also heavy regulations and standards set by the government in those countries, like price caps on drugs. Given the infrastructure of american healthcare it is impossible to head to universal healthcare overnight.

oo oo aa aa

Everyone pays into public healthcare through taxes, so that would present unfair competition. Price caps may provide short term benefits for consumers, but they have negative long term effects on medical research and development funding. Market distortion as a result of price capping has led to a decrease in revenue of $18-27 billion per year for all medical providers in OECD countries. As a result, global medical research and development loses $5-8 billion per year, which causes 3-4 fewer new molecular entities (NMEs) to be invented per year. The estimated value of those NMEs' benefit to medical consumers is estimated at $4.9-7.5 billion. In short, unless price capping is being used to bring stability to a market (e.g. agriculture), distorting the market leads to adverse long term effects