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

[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.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
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?

I don't need to attribute it solely to the Canadian system. I can attribute it to any of the 36 other nations in the world that have healthier populations than the U.S., and spend less per person to get there.

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.

People's health can be _directly_ attributed to the health care system that is in place. And yes, the measured health statistics listed in the WHO report are things that matter like infant mortality and life expectancy.

Besides, the Canadian system is based on what is essentially thievery.

Thievery? You certainly have little concept of the law.

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.

Are they citizens or residents of the country? Yes? Then they certainly are a member of the population of tha country, and are certainly participants in the system. I love how you've going to such great lengths to disguise the fact that you're saying "Oh, those people don't count because they are poor. Here, take a look at what you can buy if you're one of the wealthiest people."

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.

Thank you for proving my point. You've just included the part of the population that can't afford health care when determining the state of Zaire's system. How come these people don't matter when it comes to the U.S.?

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.

Why would I be appalled? My share of any such treatments would amount to tens of dollars at most over the course of a year.

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.

And here we see the continued usage of the "lazy people" argument.

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.

This is nothing more than paranoia on top of fear, uncertainty and doubt, coupled with your acceptance of spoonfed propaganda. You have no reason to be afraid of the vast majority of other humans.

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

Apathy is the same thing as laziness. That a person may be incompet and stupid is no reason to throw them to the wolves and let them die.

I'm always amazed at how many smokescreens and red herrings people will throw up to try and direct attention away from the fact that they are willing to be responsible for the deaths of others through easily preventable causes.

[vigabrand]

Originally posted by 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.

Environmental issues and the special interests are viable, debatable issues (normal party line issues), misleading the country is not true. The information he used to make his decision is the same information Clinton touted, Kerry touted, 74 other senators touted, Britain touted, Russia touted, do I need to go on? Misleading someone is a willful, knowing act, this is not the case, and the 9/11 commission and British commission report have concluded the same. The rest of your reasons are of a perceived attitude and facial gesture. Aside from standard party line issues, I find those to be a pretty weak arguments.

[Arryn]

.

[ July 28, 2004, 20:16: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by vigabrand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

Environmental issues and the special interests are viable, debatable issues (normal party line issues), misleading the country is not true. The information he used to make his decision is the same information Clinton touted, Kerry touted, 74 other senators touted, Britain touted, Russia touted, do I need to go on? Misleading someone is a willful, knowing act, this is not the case, and the 9/11 commission and British commission report have concluded the same. The rest of your reasons are of a perceived attitude and facial gesture. Aside from standard party line issues, I find those to be a pretty weak arguments.

---

Few other points:
Bush is severely hurting the most vital reseach in medical field for the Last several decades, that could lead to millions of lives being saved in USA and in the entire world in close future. This is nothing but the crime before humanity. His efforts will not prevent any of this reseach, since there are other countries with smarter leaders. But due to his efforts the advances are much slower that they could be, if USA, who is is clear leader in this field and with its powerful biotech industry, would take take the appropriate role in this reseach. And hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people will die or suffer from their conditions, because of this decisions. And do you think Bush will lose even one night sleep because of it? Nope, no chance in hell. Why? Because he knows that he is right, and the entire sciencific world is wrong. >;(

The various ecological protections that were in place for several decades are being disenmantled. Another thing is that Bush is just simply too crude and too unsubtle for the foreing relationships. What much worse is that unlike good leaders, Bush surrounded himself with people and cabinet in his own image, people who that instead of covering his weaknesses are multypling it. (With sole exception of Cohen Powell, who is serving the the sad role of "figus leaf" in this administration)

[ July 28, 2004, 20:27: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[NTJedi]

[quote]Originally posted by Arryn:

In a long-running flamefest that happened many months ago, and was eventually pruned by the Moderators, you did. Alas, since it was pruned, I cannot quote it back to you (throw it in your face). You very firmly bashed all things Democratic and favored all things Republican.

LIES !! You must be mixing your medication and drinking again. The presidents I have found worthwhile during the Last 25 years were very few from both sides. Despite what your drunken guessing I do not like either political party.

Kerry is for the right to choose an abortion. Which is not the same thing, and is a distinction that appears to be too subtle for you.

Because Kerry is claiming to be a Catholic it is his moral responsibility to be against abortion.

No one, and I mean no one, has the right to choose someone else's path.

When someone chooses to have an abortion they have DESTROYED the entire future of the child/human which could have been. They've chosen the path of everything that child could have become.

[ July 28, 2004, 20:25: Message edited by: NTJedi ]