OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[vigabrand]

I'm seeing a lot of comments claiming Bush is extreme, or radical, self righteous etc. I just want to get an idea of what you guys consider as extreme and such. I'm assuming it's his religious convictions, but what I see from Bush is pretty republican status quo. He's anti abortion and against gay marriage. Most conservative replicans are anti abortion, and gay marriage has been illegal since the beginning of this country up until just recently. He's not pushing for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and he wants to keep the status quo for marriage. So what exactly is extreme? Specifically. When I hear the words extreme republican, I think of Pat Buchanan, he wanted to throw homeless people in jail for vagrancy. To be honest, Bush is pretty liberal when it comes to domestic social issues, for a republican. Is it because of his choice to go to war? Without the approval of the U.N.? Is it because he believed in the case against Iraq and still won't back down from it? I see a lot of hatred for Bush and I just don't get it. John Kerry himself made the exact same case for war with Iraq, and has even admitted to commiting war crimes in vietnam. Real war crimes, but he gets a pass every time, on every issue. I feel a whole lot safer with this guy in power than ANY democrat (except maybe Liebermann or Zell Miller), but a lot you feel exactly the opposite. I'm not trying to change anyones mind here, I just want to know where the hatred is coming from.

Vig

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:

quote:

---

Norfleet wrote:
Canada may have a system in which people who have money go to the US to seek health care....but this just underscores the point that Canada's healthcare system, while more ubiquitous, is still of inferior quality. You certainly can't deny that people do this: I've known several Canadians who do this exact thing: Travel to the US to get some operation performed....at their own expense.

I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment. But I am not sure whether this is proof for a general superiority of your system. It only shows that in certain regions of medicine one might be better of with your health system.

---

True. It is more or less established fact that the USA is the most advanced country in the world in the field of *surgery* in general, with few exceptions. The other medical fields here are not as advanced though.

[ July 28, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, I don't need to ignore this, since the aggregate health statistics of the population show that in general people are healthier in Canada.

And you can prove that this can be entirely attributed to the healthcare, rather than the more comfortable and healthy climate that pervades the entireity of Canada? Anyone can live longer and healthier when there's no festering hellhole for a good portion of the country to live in.

More importantly, how does this actually prove the superiority of the health care involved? Just because you can claim that people are healthier, whether or not it can be entirely attributed to the system, does not mean the system is better at dealing with things that actually MATTER. Besides, the Canadian system is based on what is essentially thievery. If crime didn't pay, why would anyone do it?

There is no need to ignore large segments of the population to arrive at this. You, on the other hand, would like to simply ignore the part of your population that can't afford health care.

The difference here is that the people who "can't afford" *ANY* health care whatsoever are clearly nonparticipants in the system. If they can't be bothered to actually scrape together the entry fee to participate, it's unreasonable to expect them to be counted. Take the Zaire example: Wealthy people living in Zaire leave the country for their treatment, because the health care system in Zaire is such that they cannot *GET* that treatment in Zaire, regardless of how much money they'd actually spend there.

Statistically significant means that the number of such cases is large enough that it has a noticeable effect on the health of the general population.

Why don't you name some frivolous treatments then.

I'd find you an example, but at the moment, google appears to be down. I'll get back to you on that if you remind me later. Then you, too, can be appalled that you actually paid for that.

And everyone benefits from a healthy population. A population with healthier people is a population that can be more productive.[QB]

You assume that this productivity comes for free, however, when, in fact, you're simply draining resources from the people who rightly earned it, to people who can't be bothered to get their own, so they can pay for their own needs.

[QB]Oh good grief. Keep on spreading that FUD Norfleet. I know that you are incredibly paranoid, but the violent crime rate is lower in Canada than the U.S.

I've heard this one before, but "lower" doesn't mean "doesn't happen", and rather have something I'm prepared to deal with happen more often, than to have something I'm not able to deal with happen less often, but still happen. The bottom line being that Canada is unsafe, whereas if someone tries to get me in the US, he'll have to come get some.

quote:

---

Oh, not at all. I don't believe people who fail are always lazy. Everyone has their own cause for failure, which can be summarized as consisting of some combination of apathy, incompetence, stupidity, and laziness.

You might want to avoid contradicting yourself when you write something.

---

I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that laziness is simply one possible contributing factor to being a failure, and is not necessarily the only one. You don't have to be lazy to be a failure. Incompetence, stupidity, or apathy can substitute nicely.

[Arryn]

Viga,

Hatred? For starters, his gutting of environmental protections. His misleading the nation (by all definitions of the word 'mislead'). His pandering to corporate special interests, especially energy. His smug, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude. And, of course, that detestable smirk/sneer he's fond of.

The above list is by no means complete. But it's more than enough.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
The other medical fields here are not as advanced though.

Wrong. The U.S. is also the world leader in cancer research and treatment. I cite this one example as enough to shoot down your blanket assertion that the U.S. is only good in surgery. There are other areas as well.

[Arryn]

Norfy, Google is working just fine.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
On the other hand, there is at most one distinct religious belief that is true. And many Groups (not just the Catholic church) claim that theirs is it. If anyone finds this offensive, they can count on being offended rather a lot.

Untrue - there are several religions (even major ones) whose belief system doesn't exclude the validity of others. Buddhism, Hinduism - blood and bone, even the Islamic faith originally had the view that Judaism and Christianity were true religions whose worhshippers could eventually get to heaven, but that Mohammed was the Last, most authoritative prophet.

---

It is true that ancient muslims were somewhat tolerant to two other "religionsof the Book", as they called Christianity and Jiudaism, mostly because of local geopolitics as well as because of shared theology.

However you can't judge any modern religion by what is written or not written in its Holy Books. You must judje it by the real facts on the ground and by actions of its followers. And I agree with previous posters, that as of today the Islam is by far the most intolerent and agressive major world religion.

[Stormbinder]

Edited

[ July 28, 2004, 20:08: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
rather have something I'm prepared to deal with happen more often, than to have something I'm not able to deal with happen less often, but still happen.

Let me understand this. You prefer a higher crime rate, so long as you get to be involved with it and shoot back? Taken to a logical extreme, you'd prefer LOTS of crime, and Old West-style vigilante justice to a (utopian) society of no crime and no gun ownership?

Yes, I know about the old adage "an armed society is a polite society", but we're already a heavily-armed society ... that's anything but polite, and getting less so by the day. Oh, and before you accuse me of something, I own a now-Banned assault weapon, and I'm a damn good shot (used to be an expert marksman in the Army). But I'd much rather not *have* to keep an arsenal at home for fear of my fellow citizens.

[ July 28, 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Norfy, I'm surprised you haven't made the Darwinian argument against the social safety net of universal healthcare: the weak, the lazy, and the inept die off, preferably before they breed, and the gene pool gets cleansed. Or were you working up to this?

He will come to it Arryn, don't give him hints to make it easer.