OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more! [Archive]

Norfleet

July 26th, 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Yes, healthcare costs a lot, but it costs a lot regardless of whether the government collects taxes to pay for it, or the people pay for it individually.This may be the case, but paying for your healthcare individually does have one very large benefit, especially because health care costs a lot: If you are healthy, you don't need any!

As opposed to the Canadian system, where you end up paying for somebody ELSE's problems. If it's not contagious, it's not my problem!

And the real reason health care costs so much *IS* because of things like "health insurance": It abstracts the payment for healthcare from the individual, who likely doesn't have that much money, and therefore, one cannot charge more than the typical customer can afford to pay, to a monolithic corporate or government entity with loose accountability and nearly bottomless pockets. There's a REASON why the government seems to pay so ridiculously much for things: because nobody really cares. To the average man on the street, what the government or a corporation spends on something is a statistic with little or no personal impact on him. When I was young, buying "health insurance" was something you had to do if you lived in an area with a strong mob presence.

Insurance is a big sham: How else would it even be profitable, unless they were obviously charging you more than they were paying out? Unless the Mafia is trying to sell you insurance, don't bother. Keep your money, it'll do you more good in your hands than someone else's.

The fact of the matter is that the healthcare system in both countries sucks in the same way for different reasons. In Canada, it's government-funded healthcare. Everyone gets it, including people who rightly couldn't afford it, and therefore don't really need it, and as a result, in some places, it can be too crowded with people getting unnecessary treatment. In the US, it's because of insurance companies and frivolous lawsuits, which has jacked up costs to the point where people who SHOULD be able to afford it, CAN'T anymore. The system sucks. Pick your flavor of suckage.

NTJedi

July 26th, 2004, 09:47 PM

Graeme Dice

July 26th, 2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Higher Taxes is the point ! Many citizens as myself have a tough time making our house & utilities payments where we can't afford to give another $250.oo for some new healthcare plan which covers everyone in the USA. Why should we pay higher taxes for more government intervention.Most modern health care systems spend either less per person, or the same amount per person as the U.S. system, and achieve much better results. (The U.S. is 38th in the world for quality of health care.) While your taxes will increase to pay for a public health care system, your overall cost will only increase if you never contract a serious illness in your life.

Let us as citizens pay for healthcare when we need the care.And if you can't afford to pay, then we should just let you rot?
Not all hospitals are the same... and without a doubt the waiting time would increase no matter where you are. Do you have any evidence that the waiting time would increase? Since I doubt that you do, you can hardly say that it's "without a doubt".

Skolem

July 26th, 2004, 10:01 PM

As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?
As a society it is normal to help others when you aren't in need, as they will help you if you are, thats one of the most basic idea, and health or education belongs to this, why should someone not receive any help in such thing just because he hadn't the money? Sure they may be some who would profite of this but there aren't the majority, AND there are the others who had no chance in life, why punish them?
I never understand this point of view, but maybe it's just that I am a foolish european http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Skolem

Graeme Dice

July 26th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
This may be the case, but paying for your healthcare individually does have one very large benefit, especially because health care costs a lot: If you are healthy, you don't need any!Can you show me that a sizable portion of the population will remain healthy for their entire life?

In Canada, it's government-funded healthcare. Everyone gets it, including people who rightly couldn't afford it, and therefore don't really need it, and as a result, in some places, it can be too crowded with people getting unnecessary treatment.This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard you say. Do you seriously believe that a heart attack patient doesn't need treatment because they don't have tens of thousands of dollars in cash?

Norfleet

July 26th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Can you show me that a sizable portion of the population will remain healthy for their entire life?Nope. Nobody remains healthy their entire lives. That's why people die, you see? Living forever is incredibly boring, anyway.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard you say. Do you seriously believe that a heart attack patient doesn't need treatment because they don't have tens of thousands of dollars in cash? Well, excuse me if I don't come from the new, modern "must have it even if I can't afford it" culture that Zen informs me is increasingly pervasive. In *MY* day, if you couldn't afford something, you got a nice lesson in something we called "Learning To Do Without". Hell, in my day, people had heart attacks just *DIED* most of the time, even if you did try to blow a wad of cash on treatment. So you'll understand if I'm skeptical that somebody really *NEEDS* these things. We didn't have them in my day, and people managed anyway! Funny, how that works, yes? Sure, some of them died, but as you can clearly see, we managed. You're just spoiled and squeamish. Learn to accept that death is a natural part of life, and when stuff like this happens that you, obviously, couldn't be bothered to prepare for, you obviously didn't think it was important to do so, so you accept the consequences. What happened to personal responsibility? It's quite simple: If you can't be bothered to prepare for these things, you deserve it. If none of your friends will help you either, obviously, you're not important enough to the world, or even yourself, that somebody else should be shouldering what should have been YOUR responsibility. Learn to accept the consequences of your actions and inactions. Maybe if you hadn't blown all your cash on some useless doohickey or a new car, you wouldn't be too broke to afford medical treatment.

NTJedi

July 26th, 2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
While your taxes will increase to pay for a public health care system, your overall cost will only increase if you never contract a serious illness in your life.
That's wrong... take a look at how much switzerland is paying for this government healthcare. Another bad reason for government healthcare is we would never be able to go back.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Let us as citizens pay for healthcare when we need the care.And if you can't afford to pay, then we should just let you rot?
<hr /></blockquote>So what you're suggesting is why just stop at U.S citizens?? Lets provide a Universal HealthCare for all countries including illegal aliens within our own. We can't just let them rot either... right?

Do you have any evidence that the waiting time would increase? Since I doubt that you do, you can hardly say that it's "without a doubt". Lets see... there are millions without any healthcare which would be going to the hospitals if they could... whether or not its needed.
Currently X amount of people are going to the hospitals everyday.
With a government healthcare it would be X amount of people going to the hospitals PLUS Y amount of people also going which couldn't afford this before. Less beds/rooms available... less medical supplies... because of Y amount of people also going.

Example=
Will people start giving more blood with the new healthcare system to help provide the supplies needed for Y amount of people?? Take a guess!

Skolem

July 26th, 2004, 10:25 PM

Is it really relaxing, to be say 20 year old and working to put some money back for the case you have a leg broken , for the case you must go to the dentist, maybe because you want your children (say in ten years)to go do the university, or simply to be sure that even if he fellt ill you can afford a doctor, or etc... Is it really a feeling of freedom or is it just fear of the future because something could happen. I'm sure I don't want to live with that feeling, but as you seem to live with it, I just want you to ask if it enhance your happiness, your quality of life?

Graeme Dice

July 26th, 2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Nope. Nobody remains healthy their entire lives. That's why people die, you see? Living forever is incredibly boring, anyway.Thanks for admitting that your statement that you save money with private healthcare was incorrect.

In *MY* day, if you couldn't afford something, you got a nice lesson in something we called "Learning To Do Without".You're still alive, and I doubt that you are more than 20 years old given your demonstrated maturity level and amount of free time. The here and now is "*YOUR* day".

I've snipped the rest of your meandering bull**** where you demonstrate, once again, that you are barely a member of humanity thanks to your complete lack of empathy.

Graeme Dice

July 26th, 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
That's wrong... take a look at how much switzerland is paying for this government healthcare.Why don't you take a look at Canada, where better health care than what is available in the U.S. (30th in the world vs. 38th), costs 57% as much per person.

Another bad reason for government healthcare is we would never be able to go back.Why would you want to go back?

So what you're suggesting is why just stop at U.S citizens?? Lets provide a Universal HealthCare for all countries including illegal aliens within our own. We can't just let them rot either... right?If they pay American taxes, or are U.S. citizens, then the American government should support them. Your strawman about other countries is meaningless, since they are not U.S. taxpayers or citizens.

]Lets see... there are millions without any healthcare which would be going to the hospitals if they could... This is unarguably good.
whether or not its needed.This is complete and utter bull****. Doctors are perfectly capable of not spending money on people that don't need treatment. People, even the poor who you seem to despise, despite claiming to be a member of the lower class, have ethics. People don't purposefully

Currently X amount of people are going to the hospitals everyday.
With a government healthcare it would be X amount of people going to the hospitals PLUS Y amount of people also going which couldn't afford this before. Less beds/rooms available... less medical supplies... because of Y amount of people also going.I can't believe that you are seriously making an argument that it's a _good_ thing that people are going without medical treatment.

Example=
Will people start giving more blood with the new healthcare system to help provide the supplies needed for Y amount of people?? Take a guess! I don't have to guess. The blood supply in Canada is completely voluntary, Canadian Blood Services is a government agency that is responsible for collecting blood, and guess what, we have adequate, though sometimes low blood supplies just like the U.S.

PrinzMegaherz

July 26th, 2004, 10:40 PM

Even more importantly is John Kerry is going against his catholic religion which is a serious moral issue.
John Kerry is unapologetically pro-abortion... yet as a Catholic, he is required to be personally opposed to the idea. What does religion have to do with being a good president? You don't need to be religious to have decent moral values (in fact, many "bad" people tend to have some religious background. Suizide bombers who claim its for their god, paedophilic priests...).

I am a catholic, so I am not allowed to have an oppinion other than that of the pope?

Skolem

July 26th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
I am a catholic, so I am not allowed to have an oppinion other than that of the pope? You are catholic and from Mainz, you have no right to have an opinion that is different from the pope (sadly me to) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Demosthenes

July 26th, 2004, 11:00 PM

Alright everyone check out JibJab for their personal amusement.

Thread over.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

LintMan

July 26th, 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why don't you take a look at Canada, where better health care than what is available in the U.S. (30th in the world vs. 38th), costs 57% as much per person.
I'm curious: can you tell me where you got those statistics from (meaning the health care world ranking and cost stats). Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out.

Thanks!

Frosted Flake

July 26th, 2004, 11:09 PM

no hospital in the United States can turn away a patient in need. go to the emergency room in any hospital and the indigent poor receive treatment that the hospital knows will never be paid for- thats a fact. Yes the rich get better health care but if you think that isnt true everywhere ..well I have a bridge to sell you.
As for Mr. Kerry we have this thing called seperation of church and state and no religious group can tell there members how to vote. If Catholic leaders withhold the sacraments from politicians they dont like, which they can do, the government can take away their tax exempt status http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Frosted Flake

vigabrand

July 26th, 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Even more importantly is John Kerry is going against his catholic religion which is a serious moral issue.
John Kerry is unapologetically pro-abortion... yet as a Catholic, he is required to be personally opposed to the idea. What does religion have to do with being a good president? You don't need to be religious to have decent moral values (in fact, many "bad" people tend to have some religious background. Suizide bombers who claim its for their god, paedophilic priests...).

I am a catholic, so I am not allowed to have an oppinion other than that of the pope? <hr /></blockquote>The problem is not one of religion. What John Kerry is doing, is claiming that he is Catholic, in order to appeal to Catholics/Christians, but then votes for something that is very high on the Catholic no no list. He wants to have it both ways, and that is what people are taking issue with. Actually, John Kerry has been quoted as saying he is personally against abortion, but he would never push his personal views on anyone. So he votes in favor of abortion whenever it comes up. I'm not saying every Catholic has to believe in everything the church says, but don't pander for a congregations vote, then vote against them on one of their most heated issues.

Vig

Cainehill

July 26th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
What John Kerry is doing, is claiming that he is Catholic, in order to appeal to Catholics/Christians, but then votes for something that is very high on the Catholic no no list. He wants to have it both ways, and that is what people are taking issue with. Actually, John Kerry has been quoted as saying he is personally against abortion, but he would never push his personal views on anyone. So he votes in favor of abortion whenever it comes up. I'm not saying every Catholic has to believe in everything the church says, but don't pander for a congregations vote, then vote against them on one of their most heated issues.
Ever consider that what Kerry is doing is claiming that he's Catholic because ... he's bloody Catholic? Catholicism isn't exactly the ticket to getting elected in the USA - there's been exactly one Catholic president thus far. Percentage-wise, Catholics are one of the smallest Xian denominations in this country - if he was claiming a religion in order to get elected, he'd claim dumb-**** Southern Baptism, or whatever the current traitor to his country (Bush) is.

Remember, this is America, where the Catholics take what the Pope says with a grain of salt. In fact - this is true with a lot of the world. My girlfriend lives in a heavily Catholic country in South America and is Catholic. Much to my surprise - no, not even the latin american countries go along with the Pope on matters of birth control, pre-marital sex, or *gasp* abortions.

Graeme Dice

July 26th, 2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by LintMan:
I'm curious: can you tell me where you got those statistics from (meaning the health care world ranking and cost stats). Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out.The cost is from a CBC article:
Canadian health care quality comparable to other rich countries (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/04/sci-tech/compare040504)

It looks like the most recent ranking actually places the U.S. at 37th.

The report is very long, but a summary and a link to the rest of the information, can be found here:
The World Health Report 2004 (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html)

Cainehill

July 26th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?
It's because our government has had a recent (Last 30, 40 years) tendency to horribly waste the taxpayer money when it gets involved. At least - that's why the guy on the street distrusts government getting involved.

(This ignores the fact that big government in the USA has done some _GREAT_ things, if you go back to, say, Roosevelt's time.)

More importantly, right now the current administration believes that what's good for the rich, what's good for the corporations, is good for America. Baby Bush and the other Bushes never met a rich person they didn't like, except for Saddam and Democrats.

vigabrand

July 26th, 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Skolem:
As you are discussing this topics, can I ask the americans of this bord, a single thing: I never understand why things that are organized by the state are such a terrible thing?
As a society it is normal to help others when you aren't in need, as they will help you if you are, thats one of the most basic idea, and health or education belongs to this, why should someone not receive any help in such thing just because he hadn't the money? Sure they may be some who would profite of this but there aren't the majority, AND there are the others who had no chance in life, why punish them?
I never understand this point of view, but maybe it's just that I am a foolish european http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Skolem A lot of Americans don't like having to depend on the gov't for anything. While some things are necessary, like defense, people take issue with others. Americans don't like the gov't having too much power over them, and creating huge beurocracies that govern important things like healthcare or social security, is viewed by some as too much. The two idealogies are 1)the gov't should provide, and 2)the private sector can do better. The main difference to me is that if the gov't provides, your taxes are greater, and your service sub par. If the private sector provides, you are at the mercy of the current market, but you have more personal wealth to enrich yourself. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think. Keep in mind that we are still paying for socilized services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Securtiy, Welfare etc., but they aren't as broad or general as Europes. Instead the idea is that you have more to spend, and hopefully save or invest for the things you need. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Americans who want to be just like Europe, I'm just giving my personal perspective.

Personally, I think gov't empowering it's citizens economically is the best solution. I've never seen anyone happy with the return they get from Social Security, nor with the care they get from Medicare. The investments they made into these systems have horrible returns, usually nowhere near what you put into it.

Vig

Gandalf Parker

July 26th, 2004, 11:34 PM

I would think that US politics would be easy for space gamers to understand.
Under the democrats we would become the federation.
Under the republicans we would become the ferrengi.

[ July 26, 2004, 22:35: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Demosthenes

July 26th, 2004, 11:41 PM

It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach.

Arryn

July 26th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Skolem:
You are catholic ... you have no right to have an opinion that is different from the popePrecisely what is fundamentally wrong about being a Catholic (or Republican): having other people doing your thinking for you (be it the Pope, or in the case of Republicans, some self-appointed, demagogic, hypocritical arbiter of morality and social values).

Arryn

July 26th, 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Demosthenes:
It's important to note that the opposite of anti-abortion is not necessarily pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

One may disapprove of abortion but still believe that private citizens have a right to choose what's is best for them. Which I believe is Kerry's stance. And probably the most libertarian approach. Well said.

NTJedi

July 27th, 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why don't you take a look at Canada, where better health care than what is available in the U.S. (30th in the world vs. 38th), costs 57% as much per person.You or myself have no idea what method of complete healthcare will be placed and the overall outcome... Canadian style or something. Personally I view it as not worth the risk for raising my taxes on something which may be better for the USA. This gamble is not worth the risk.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Another bad reason for government healthcare is we would never be able to go back.Why would you want to go back?
<hr /></blockquote>Paying less taxes and giving people reasons for not being lazy. Like many others I choose to decide how my money is spent and give as little to the government as possible. And if our government makes a huge financial mistake with trying to provide healthcare for everyone it could easily do great damage to our economy and no way to go back.

If they pay American taxes, or are U.S. citizens, then the American government should support them. Your strawman about other countries is meaningless, since they are not U.S. taxpayers or citizens.Earlier you were saying the moral thing to do is help everyone... now you're saying only those which are american citizens. I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.

Lets see... there are millions without any healthcare which would be going to the hospitals if they could... Don't quote partial/incomplete sentences... which miss the main point. I could easily use the same quote for if the U.S. was to give a Universal Healthcare for all nations.

whether or not its needed.There are thousands which abuse the generosity from America and other governments. Example= My cousin helped a woman move groceries which used food stamps. The groceries were going into a shiny expensive BMW. Despite your mind reading beliefs... I have no ill thoughts to those less fortunate.

I can't believe that you are seriously making an argument that it's a _good_ thing that people are going without medical treatment.And thus I ask again... why not have the USA provide a Universal Healthcare for all nations!

Example=
Will people start giving more blood with the new healthcare system to help provide the supplies needed for Y amount of people?? Take a guess! I don't have to guess. The blood supply in Canada is completely voluntary, Canadian Blood Services is a government agency that is responsible for collecting blood, and guess what, we have adequate, though sometimes low blood supplies just like the U.S. It's not like the U.S. has doctors and nurses just sitting around bored. Heck it takes me 5 months before I can make my next doctors appointment after each visit... any cancelation means waiting another 5 months. The taxes could be as high as what switzerland is paying or may not be.... but not worth the gamble.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:47: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Thanks for admitting that your statement that you save money with private healthcare was incorrect.Untrue. I generally eschew unnecessary treatments. After all, I have to pay for this crap out of my own pocket, and if I feel fine, I don't need healthcare. The problem with even more nationalized healthcare is the extremely galling notion that somebody, somewhere, who I couldn't give a rat's *** about, is wasting my money on frivolous treatment for diseases and injuries that *I* would have simply ignored! Ignore it, and it will go away...one way or another. This saves me a lot of money! If you didn't live in a nanny-state, you could try this! Have some sort of problem? Ignore it! The human body is surprisingly resilient and often self-repairing, provided you allow it to do so, rather than crippling its ability to cope by seeking unnecessary treatment.

You're still alive, and I doubt that you are more than 20 years old given your demonstrated maturity level and amount of free time.You'd be surprised how much free-time you get once you're retired...which is, after all, the entire point of being retired.

I've snipped the rest of your meandering bull**** where you demonstrate, once again, that you are barely a member of humanity thanks to your complete lack of empathy. Barely, eh? So I still qualify. Good to hear. Complete lack of empathy, eh? Not so. I simply can't bring myself to feel sorry for miserable slackers who can't be bothered to take responsibility for even themselves. You don't see me expecting you to pay for MY healthcare, and I suspect I'll have need of this sooner than you will....but I planned this. If I can't afford it, well, I'll just die. Dying's cheaper, anyway. Why's this such a problem? People these days have such an annoying hang-up about the concept of dying, as if they were somehow entitled to live forever, long after you, yourself, are incapable of supporting your own existence. News for you: Nobody lives forever. If you can't afford to even support your own continued existence, why should I be compelled to do so? If you want charity, you can always take up e-begging. I hear electronic panhandling is all the rage these days. But you know what? Beggars at least earn their handouts honestly, taking them from the people who want to give to them. Can't fault them for that.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:24: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 12:23 AM

dp

[ July 26, 2004, 23:25: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.Since you are such a big supporter of all things Republican, I find it most hypocritical that you should cite the rising national debt, something that has traditionally exploded under Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) that are staunch believers in deficit spending and letting future generations worry about the problems caused by their populist policies of tax breaks (for rich people & corporations) and warmongering.

archaeolept

July 27th, 2004, 12:24 AM

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think lol vigabrand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

OECD figures for 1999, which measure total tax burden as a percentage of total economic output, have the US at 14.2%. Sweden is the second highest, at 21.7%, but Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Japan... all have lower overall tax burdens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

and yet, somehow, they all manage to have universal health care. who'd a thunk it.

http://www.taxpayer.com/Facts/International_Tax_Comparisons.pdf

Frosted Flake

July 27th, 2004, 12:35 AM

Your answer Arch is the US milatary. It consumes alot of money (not saying that its a good thing just a fact). As for Arryn thinking all Republicans thinking alike where did that come from? I am a conservative Republican...I believe in balanced budgets,conserving the environment,preserving our country's (and the world's) freedoms. I want to know how the biblethumping southern democrats took over my party? I also want to know how middle America can back Bush after Iraq. Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield and the idiots who authorized torture in iraq have sullied the honor of the world's finest milatary..in the name of expediency.

frosted flake

daesthai

July 27th, 2004, 12:52 AM

I'm not very adept at using the quote system here, so please be patient, but I've gotta step in on the Catholic stuff here. Without trying to pour gas on the fire, let me just point out a couple of misplaced arguments...

There is a sense in these postings that it is expected that Catholics are required to blindly follow and believe in exactly what the Holy See (ie - the Pope and Vatican City) says. I have to take exception to that. Yes, there is an expectation to follow scripture, tradition, and canon law. My exception is in the thought that it is happening "blindly". The church strongly encourages study to promote understading the "why's" and "how's" of the belief system. It's not the fault of the church if people jump on or off the bandwagon with no knowledge of why they're doing something.

But going on with the topic of following the Popes commands and teachings - a person either agrees with and follows the Catholic faith or they don't. No one is being FORCED to do anything. But if a person claims to be Catholic, they agree to follow its precepts. And there is concern in the Catholic church currently regarding people taking a "pick and choose" mentality toward which teachings they agree to follow and which they don't.

True - Mankind has judgement and freewill (speaking on the whole, not politically) and not everyone agrees with everything the Pope says. But if a person does not follow the teachings of canon law and the Catholic faith, then, by the church's standards, that person is not living a Catholic life.

Before someone gets offended, I'm NOT making an arguement for whether or not Catholicism is "correct", I'm NOT saying non-Catholics are bad people, and I'm NOT equating morality with Catholicism. There are very good and moral people who disagree with certain Catholic teachings. But my point is that by claiming to be a Catholic, a person is saying that he follows Catholic teachings and holds Catholic values.

Sure, it's possible to disagree with the Holy See - that's how Protestantism and it's various denominations came about. Martin Luther was a Catholic who disagreed with some of the views so he created his own church to meet his value needs. John Calvin and Joseph Smith did the same thing. They didn't agree with what they were being taught, so they broke away on their own. The point being - if someone disagrees with the Catholic church, why would they WANT to associate themselves with it and continue to name themselves as Catholic? It's not possible to HONESTLY say "I'm a Catholic....except for the parts about abortion, sex, and marriage".

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game.

[ July 26, 2004, 23:56: Message edited by: daesthai ]

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by daesthai:
To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game. I concur. Isn't the entire point of being a member of said religion that you share that religion's beliefs? Because if you don't, obviously, you're not really a member....unless you somehow just like having the label for whatever benefit you can gain from it, without having to actually be bound by the obligations of said title. I suspect the only real claim some of them have to being "Catholic" is starting out born that way. For instance, I tend to completely disagree with many Catholic views. Thus, I am not a member, and do not claim to be one.

daesthai

July 27th, 2004, 01:05 AM

Thanks Norfleet. You were able to state a bit more concisely the point I was trying to make.

NTJedi

July 27th, 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Since you are such a big supporter of all things Republican, I find it most hypocritical that you should cite the rising national debt, something that has traditionally exploded under Republican administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) that are staunch believers in deficit spending and letting future generations worry about the problems caused by their populist policies of tax breaks (for rich people & corporations) and warmongering. Have I written anything about supporting Republicans??? NO ! So despite your vast mind reading abilities you are wrong here. I am not supporting either side... just don't want Kerry because he is trying to make huge changes which will give us HIGHER taxes, more government intervention and he is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.
None of the presidents have changed the national debt from increasing to decreasing.... when one of them can do this then I'd have enough faith to give him a shot at some national healthcare system which is also a huge financial task/responsibility.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Frosted Flake:
As for Arryn thinking all Republicans thinking alike where did that come from? I am a conservative Republican...I believe in balanced budgets,conserving the environment,preserving our country's (and the world's) freedoms. I want to know how the biblethumping southern democrats took over my party? I also want to know how middle America can back Bush after Iraq. Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield and the idiots who authorized torture in iraq have sullied the honor of the world's finest milatary..in the name of expediency.According to the current political scheme of things, you're a "moderate" Republican. IOW, you're a rational, thinking person, unlike the mainstream mindless drones in your party. As for how your party was hijacked, you must ask yourself what people of like-minded values such as yourself were doing since 1994 and Newt Gingrich's hostile takeover of the Congress, or during the election campaign of 2000? We'd be a helluva lot better off if McCain had won the primary battle back then. Instead of having to face a choice between Bush and Kerry now.

Vicious Love

July 27th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Overrated.

Update: If this was PWoT, I'da just said "Banned". It even rhymes with "Bland". Let hilarity ensue.

Updated update: Dude, it turns out Bush is actually stupid! Critique retracted, this is some brilliant and insightful political commentary.
How come nobody noticed this before?

Yet another update: For that matter, how come he'll still probably win the upcoming elections?

[ July 26, 2004, 12:55: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

djtool

July 27th, 2004, 02:32 AM

fogive me for not quoting you vigabrand.

I can't believe you would insinuate that a man not pushing his own personal values upon the country is a bad thing. I don't know kerry personally, but i do know that the president is not an elected king. It is not the presidents job to impose his values upon americans, but to manage comprimise with them.

djtool

July 27th, 2004, 02:36 AM

[/QUOTE]We'd be a helluva lot better off if McCain had won the primary battle back then. Instead of having to face a choice between Bush and Kerry now.[QUOTE]

I can't say I disagree.

The whole party thing is a real mess though. Its a shame we have to choose between to Groups of people who, by the nature of their organizations, have to put the american people third on their list of priorities...if that.

(yes i realize I don't have to vote rep or dem i'm sure you get the picture)

[ July 27, 2004, 01:36: Message edited by: djtool ]

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Personally I view it as not worth the risk for raising my taxes on something which may be better for the USA. This gamble is not worth the risk. What gamble? The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide universal health care, spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation in the world, and ranks a dismal 37th in the world.

Earlier you were saying the moral thing to do is help everyone... now you're saying only those which are american citizens.Yes, the moral thing is to help everyone, however, this is irrelevant to a _national_ health care system.

I don't believe our government has the wisdom to provide an effective healthcare system for everyone since it cannot even handle the growing national debt.What wisdom is required? You simply create a fee schedule for the various services that Dr.'s and the system will provide that is similar to the one currently in place. When someone uses a service, you pay the Dr. or hospital accordingly. The only difference between this and the current system is that the government sets the rates instead of the health insurers.

There are thousands which abuse the generosity from America and other governments. Example= My cousin helped a woman move groceries which used food stamps. The groceries were going into a shiny expensive BMW. Despite your mind reading beliefs... I have no ill thoughts to those less fortunate.This is an irrelevant example. If the person can afford a BMW, then they should not be on food stamps in the first place. That's an example of fraud. Please explain how someone is supposed to gain monetary benefit from a health care system that they've already paid for through taxes? Health care is no different than policing in that it's a public good, and I don't hear you suggesting that police forces should be privatized.

And thus I ask again... why not have the USA provide a Universal Healthcare for all nations!This is another strawman. If those nations were willing to pay taxes to the U.S. to gain healthcare services, then they should, of course, gain access to such services.

There is no reason why the U.S. shouldn't fix its own social problems before trying to fix those of the rest of the world anyways.

It's not like the U.S. has doctors and nurses just sitting around bored. Heck it takes me 5 months before I can make my next doctors appointment after each visit... any cancelation means waiting another 5 months. The taxes could be as high as what switzerland is paying or may not be.... but not worth the gamble.They could also be as low as the U.K's, where once they pay half as much per person once again. You must remember that the U.S. system costs more per person than every single other system in any industrialized nation in the entire world. All of which guarantee health care to everyone.

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Untrue. I generally eschew unnecessary treatments. After all, I have to pay for this crap out of my own pocket, and if I feel fine, I don't need healthcare.This is most likely completely incorrect. There are any number of illnesses that will kill you even though you "feel fine".

The human body is surprisingly resilient and often self-repairing, provided you allow it to do so, rather than crippling its ability to cope by seeking unnecessary treatment.You are making the fallacious assumption that unnecessary treatment will be given. You are also making the fallacious assumption that such treatment will hurt the body.

You'd be surprised how much free-time you get once you're retired...which is, after all, the entire point of being retired.Like I said, given your _maturity level_, you can't be much more than 20 at the most. Probably more like 12 - 15, since you've demonstrated the standard teenage "me first" mentality.

Complete lack of empathy, eh? Not so. I simply can't bring myself to feel sorry for miserable slackers who can't be bothered to take responsibility for even themselves.And the fact that there are people who are not _able_ to take care of themselves is completely lost on you. Like I said, that's a complete lack of empathy.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 03:19 AM

I find it amusing that for the first time, I'm on GD's side of an argument, rather than Norfleet's. Such a wonder. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

OTOH, if I'm ever on NT's side I may have a stroke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the average western European pays like 50 to 60 percent of his income in taxes, in order to pay for all the socialized services. In America, it's like 20 to 30 percent I think lol vigabrand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

OECD figures for 1999, which measure total tax burden as a percentage of total economic output, have the US at 14.2%. Sweden is the second highest, at 21.7%, but Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Japan... all have lower overall tax burdens http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

and yet, somehow, they all manage to have universal health care. who'd a thunk it.

http://www.taxpayer.com/Facts/International_Tax_Comparisons.pdf <hr /></blockquote>Those figures are based on income taxes as a percentage of GDP. That's not what we're talking about. Here is a more accurate picture.

http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_34897_30486387_1_1_1_1,00.html

I was pretty close, with Germany in the 50% of household income for a single worker.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by djtool:
fogive me for not quoting you vigabrand.

I can't believe you would insinuate that a man not pushing his own personal values upon the country is a bad thing. I don't know kerry personally, but i do know that the president is not an elected king. It is not the presidents job to impose his values upon americans, but to manage comprimise with them. His job as a senator and possibly president is to represent the beliefs of a certain group of people and govern by them. He is supposed to create legislation and administer based on those beliefs. That is his job. That is why someone would vote for him. Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill.

Cainehill

July 27th, 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
]Have I written anything about supporting Republicans??? NO ! So despite your vast mind reading abilities you are wrong here. I am not supporting either side... just don't want Kerry because he is trying to make huge changes which will give us HIGHER taxes, more government intervention and he is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.
He'll give us higher taxes? Than what we have now? Which are at near historical lows, at least and especially for the rich, since when income taxes were first put in effect in the USA.

Not to mention that we're _STILL_ getting more government intervention right now - you'd think that with the "war on terror", our government would have better things to do than ... crack down on strip joints and Online porn, on Online music sharing (Oh! The terrorists are financing their bombings via Online music sharing!), on legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, on abortion, on people having the state-legalized right to die with a little dignity.

Not to mention that the current administration has asked Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to delay the presidential election, "just in case". Delay, postpone, cancel - screw that.

We're not going away from big government - we're just watching our civil liberties being stripped away ("He better watch what he says" - White House Press Secretary, on camera, speaking about Bill Mahrer's Politically Incorrect TV show - what the F@# happened to free speech and the first amendment?) in the name of "national security" as done by the Three Studges (Baby Bush, Dick "What an *******" Cheny, and Big Biziness), and in the name of corporate profits.

Your morality is against abortion? Fine! Don't get an abortion. It isn't like Kerry is going to _FORCE_ your girlfriend/wife/sheep to get one.

I'm with Arryn - blood and bone, I wish McCain had gotten the nomination. Or Bradley. Or Charlie f-ing Manson even. I'd vote for McCain. I'd have voted for Bradley. And right now, I'd vote for Manson if I thought he could defeat Boy George.

None of the presidents have changed the national debt from increasing to decreasing.... when one of them can do this then I'd have enough faith to give him a shot at some national healthcare system which is also a huge financial task/responsibility. Gee - under Clinton (who only screwed a few women, and not the country) the national debt _DID_ decrease.

[ July 27, 2004, 02:49: Message edited by: Cainehill ]

Cainehill

July 27th, 2004, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
His job as a senator and possibly president is to represent the beliefs of a certain group of people and govern by them. He is supposed to create legislation and administer based on those beliefs. That is his job. That is why someone would vote for him. Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill. Oh, you mean like Dumb ****'s 49 percent - that was what made him say it didn't matter, he was 100% of the president.

No - _Dubya_'s job may be to create laws based on the beliefs of the far right fundamentalist Xians and the corporations, but that _isn't_ what a senator's job, or a president's job, is supposed to be.

We're not a bloody theocracy, nor a monarchy, and given that any particular group is going to represent at most maybe 20-25% of the population, you think that group's morals and standards should be imposed as law?

Swive me, and bugger you.

Heh. On the bright side - maybe Thomas Ricks was right in his book on the Marine Corps, and the Corps _will_ rebel against society as it finds society's mores and standards increasing divorced from its own.

Or maybe we'll wake up to guillotines on the White House and Senate steps, or a return to the "one bullet, one vote" philosophy.

Sheesh.

Boron

July 27th, 2004, 03:46 AM

thats what it is like in germany NTJedi :

everyone has to pay tax for healthcare . but once you break a border like 100000$ / year you may chose between these 3 options :
1. still pay tax for healthcare .
2. pay no tax anymore but pay instead to superior private healthcare insurance companies with better insurance quality than that one given by the state
3. chose to pay nothing and pay everything yourself if you need to .

this way healthcare for everyone is guaranted but you have still motivation to improve by not needing the state health care anymore but get the better private health care or pay all your own .
everybody has to pay a state healthcare insurance fee but if he is rich enough he may chose instead a private health care insurance which provides better treatment . if you go to the doctor e.g. patients with private health insurance are treated before that with state health care expect in emergency cases .
if you are multimillionaire you may even pay all yourself and need no insurance at all .

but i think the american health care system is superior because of the following reasons :

in young years in general most people are quite healthy . so you can invest that money which you would otherwise have to pay as health care taxes and so get interest . this way you have more money when you are older and it is hopefully enough to pay for most medical treatment .

because that's the next problem :
medicine has improved so much in the Last decades that the average life-span is increasing and increasing . but because more and more ultraexpensive technic devices are needed for that treatment it can't be paid much longer from the state for everyone and not only the few who can afford it .
germany is almost bankrupt because or huge social programs like health care , pensions and unemployment benefit become unpayable .

so conclusion NTJedi : you are totally right and wait 10 years and many nations like germany will have abolished national healthcare and have a system similiar to the USsystem .

the main "problem" is just : when you are very ill with the age of e.g. 75 years expensive medical measures will keep you alive for 5 additional years . but you won't have much life qualitiy in that additional years but it costs something like X00.000 $ . of course almost everybody would prefer to life that 5 years longer because at least i will live as long as possible but it is just impayable .

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Here is a more accurate picture.
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,2340,en_2649_34897_30486387_1_1_1_1,00.html

I was pretty close, with Germany in the 50% of household income for a single worker. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Not that the numbers either of you are citing are wrong. Per se. The problem is that statistics are subject to interpretation, and interpretation is often wrong. None of these numbers are truly meaningful because they fail to measure what is the crux of the issue being debated: cost vs. benefit. On average, workers in EU countries pay a higher % of income in taxes than those in the U.S. But do they get value for their extra expenditure? None of you have answered that question. Until you can, comparisons between the U.S. and elsewhere are meaningless. Does the U.S. have better healthcare? Depends on who you ask. Millionaire celebrities get better care than night shift janitorial workers. But this is true most everywhere in the world, not just the U.S. There are U.S. laws already in place that mandate that no one is turned away from hospitals, regardless of ability to pay. Whether they get the same level of service is a seperate argument. The proper question to ask is: whose citizen's pay more, per capita, for healthcare (after factoring taxes, out-of-pocket costs, etc.)? Once you have a table of how much each country's citizens pay, only then can you compare the quality of care between nations.

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
This is most likely completely incorrect. There are any number of illnesses that will kill you even though you "feel fine".That's a risk I'm willing to take. So far, it's paid off nicely.

You are making the fallacious assumption that unnecessary treatment will be given. You are also making the fallacious assumption that such treatment will hurt the body.A little bit of suffering and pain builds character and toughness. Toughness you won't have if you constantly over-medicate everything and become dependent on the stuff.

Like I said, given your _maturity level_, you can't be much more than 20 at the most. Probably more like 12 - 15, since you've demonstrated the standard teenage "me first" mentality.Oh, yes, the ever-subtle insult.

And the fact that there are people who are not _able_ to take care of themselves is completely lost on you. Like I said, that's a complete lack of empathy. I do not have a complete lack of empathy. I am, for instance, known by my friends as being one of their more generous and helpful friends. Why do I help them? Because they're my friends, and that's what friends are for. The same cannot be said for some random person who's predicament I am utterly unfamiliar with, and strongly suspect he brought upon himself. Like I said: I am, in no way, opposed to helping people. I do, however, find reprehensible, the idea that you should dictate that I *MUST* help people who I feel are utterly undeserving of help, at my expense, just so *YOU* can feel like you've done a good thing. This is worse than robbery. At least thieves are risking their own safety and security in their attempt to acquire what is mine. Should get manage they manage to succeed, I will certainly curse them, but it can't be denied that they stole it fair and square. Your attitude, however, is worse than thievery. You can't even bring yourself to steal honestly. Instead you resort to cowardly tricks like this.

Last but not least, I most certainly donate more money to charity than you probably even earn. You know what? I can do that. It's my choice. When you start trying to mandate it, it's no longer charity, it's worse than thievery.

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Boron:
the main "problem" is just : when you are very ill with the age of e.g. 75 years expensive medical measures will keep you alive for 5 additional years . but you won't have much life qualitiy in that additional years but it costs something like X00.000 $ . of course almost everybody would prefer to life that 5 years longer because at least i will live as long as possible but it is just impayable . You could just die. Your children will thank you for not wasting their inheritance on prolonging your own miserable existence because you were too cowardly to embrace death when it should have rightfully come for you. The problem is that people have this bizarre, unnatural hangup about embracing their own deaths that they're willing to spend ridiculous sums of money that they don't even have in an attempt to prolong their own sorry, misbegotten, miserable existence. In a few years I'm going to be at this crossroads...and you know what? Rather than being a miserable leech and spend way more than I actually have in a sorry attempt to stay alive as a pathetic loser, I'm just gonna bite it with some dignity, and maybe will my fortune off to some worthy cause, as I lack children. That worthy recipient will undoubtedly thank me for my choice of oblivion over fruitless misery.

LintMan

July 27th, 2004, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game. This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.

If we want to fit this into your baseball analogy, this is equivalent to Kerry having a religion that condemns 3rd base, and then with him saying that he agrees 3rd base is bad but the standard rules of baseball have it, and he won't make laws trying to change that to fit his religion's teachings.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same.

Cainehill

July 27th, 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by LintMan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daesthai:

To make what is probably a bad analogy - it's like saying "I'm a baseball player. But I don't like having three bases, so I just play with two and ignore the third one. And I disagree with three strikes being an out, so I'll just have the pitcher keep pitching until the batter get 7 strikes." At that point, you're not playing baseball, you're just playing your own game. This analogy is not apt to the circumstances. Kerry's stance is that he disagrees with abortion but will not force that opinion on others in the form of legislation.
<hr /></blockquote>Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people. Or, to make it a matter of life and death - a person who thinks that killing animals for food is heinous. Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat? I wouldn't. Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings. Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.

And why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't ... "slipping out" murder? Those sperm cells were alive, and just as sentient as a newly fertilized ova.

Can a politician uphold and enforce laws that are contrary to his own religious beliefs without rejecting those beliefs? John F. Kennedy swore to put the laws of his country above his own beliefs. Kerry swears the same. Sadly, Boy George only puts the laws that support his monomaniacal beliefs (that campaign contributors are good, and dissenters are Hitler/Bin Laden/Anti-Christ supporters) above his personal feelings, and pushes new laws that support his beliefs.

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet."

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Have I written anything about supporting Republicans???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.

Kerry ... is for abortion which goes against my moral beliefs.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. Personally, he's against abortion. But he won't cram his personal beliefs down other's throats, unlike the Bushies. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to choose someone else's path. That's tyranny of the worst sort. We Americans condemn the lack of freedom in many other countries, notably those in the mideast, yet if the Bushies have their way, they'd happily turn the U.S. into the same sort of theocracy/plutocracy that Saudi Arabia is.

Please spare us your moral indignation. It's hypocritical.

EDIT: typoes.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Rather like some people might think that alcohol is immoral, but wouldn't choose to outlaw it for all people.Actually, they tried that. It actually managed to become a constitutional amendment. Scary. Eventually it was repealed for being an awful idea.

Would you want a vegan, on the basis of hir personal morality, outlawing meat?That'd be awful. I'd start my own resistance movement right there. I mean, no meat? We'd all starve and die horribly of malnutrition.

Even though I do think there's something morally wrong, or at least logically lacking, in the thought that "All life is sacred, except animals". We _are_ animals, mammals. It's hard to morally justify killing cows, lambs, rabbits, and ducks as being any better than killing and eating cats, dogs, dolphins, and human beings.You can quickly reach logical coherency by discarding this premise as false. Graeme, however, would likely call me a horrible person for saying such a thing, as if I was some sort of serial killer or mass-murderer merely because I have logically discarded an internally inconsistent belief.

Certainly I think the animals dying in terror and fear, and even worse, living in pain and misery is morally unjustified, by any standard that a "pro-lifer" could propound.You mean like the people who oppose the right to die? There are people out there, trying to tell you that you're not allowed to die. In fact, they've managed to make it illegal to do so in many places! Fortunately, if you actually succeed, you'll be too dead to be brought to trial, so nobody really takes this one seriously.

Why is a fetus's life worth more than a dogs? Why is it okay to abort a child if it is the product of rape? Or if the mother's life is endangered? The _BABY_ didn't rape anyone; the baby's life isn't worth less than the mothers.Well, you could keep asking "why", but the logical answer is simply "It isn't."

Not to mention his hypocrisy - "People who do drugs should have their lives ruined - unless they're me, or another politically connected SOB, in which case DUIs and cocaine busts can be swept under the carpet." Meh, drugs. Didn't they learn that this didn't work back in the 20s? It's deja vu all over again.

Huzurdaddi

July 27th, 2004, 05:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
I guess you have never tried both services personally. They are not at all comparable. Canadian health care sucks.
No, it really doesn't "suck". If you'd look at the most basic of statistics, you'd see that our mortality statistics are comparable or better than that of the U.S.
<hr /></blockquote>No it SUCKS. Canada has the benefit of having a 2-tier health system. If you can afford it you go to the US. If you can not you get treated in Canada. No one with a right head and sufficient capital and the time will pick a location for treatment will stay in Canada for any important medical procedure. I would not mind getting my scraped knee taken care of in Canada but any serious procedure I would want done in the US.

Seriously every jackass who thinks he knows anything about health care talks endlessly about how the Canadian system is better. I am an Ex-Pat now living in the US so I know. I have experienced both systems 1st hand. The Canadian system *SUCKS*.

Yes, yes it is clear that the statistics for a country will be better if you have universal health care. That's so painfully clear it hurts. Since there are a great number of simple problems which can be solved by a simple application of medicine.

However if you have the choice between the two systems the choice is clear: the US. US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care. The compensation of doctors within the US insures that they have the best doctors on average ( I'm sure that every person "knows a great doctor in Canada", whatever ). The compensation of doctors in the US also insures that they have the best equipment available ( the tort law also reinforces this ).

It is simply better if you can afford it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
*IF* you can afford US health care it is far superior. Period.
That's the problem. You can't simply ignore the people who can't afford it and then state that the system is superior. If you want your sample to be at all indicative of the actual state, then you must include even those people that can't afford proper healthcare.
<hr /></blockquote>I sure can say it is better. I said it is better *IF* you can afford it, you are the jackass saying the Canadian system is simply better. I qualified my statement to make it correct. I'm all for a 2 tier system. Of course you can't sell a 2-tier system. Hell most Canadian�s will not admit that they have a 2 tier system even though they all have "rich friends" who get procedures done in the US.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:37: Message edited by: Huzurdaddi ]

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care. The compensation of doctors within the US insures that they have the best doctors on average ( I'm sure that every person "knows a great doctor in Canada", whatever ). The compensation of doctors in the US also insures that they have the best equipment available ( the tort law also reinforces this ).What's funny (that's funny as in "damned disgusting") is that the Republicans who so very much despise the concept of universal healthcare as destructive of America's present fine medical care system are also very busy trying to undo the very system of tort laws that you assert is the underpinning of why the U.S. has good health care. So, if things progress (devolve is actually a better term) the way they are going, the U.S. will end up with the worst of all possible systems: medical care that's expensive, covers only the rich, and with no system of protection against negligent/incompetent practicioners. Something to ponder ...

EDIT: OTOH, the present tort law system makes lawyers very rich, at the expense of EVERYONE else. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, with regards to healthcare/tort reform.

[ July 27, 2004, 04:50: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
You can quickly reach logical coherency by discarding this premise as false. Graeme, however, would likely call me a horrible person for saying such a thing, as if I was some sort of serial killer or mass-murderer merely because I have logically discarded an internally inconsistent belief.You're completely full of **** Norfleet. Please provide a link to where I've stated that "All life is sacred", as you seem to be implying that I've said. I expect you to either provide such a link, or apologize for lying about what I've stated. I've said that human always has value, but have said nothing about other, non-human anmals.

Cainehill

July 27th, 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
However if you have the choice between the two systems the choice is clear: the US. US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care. The compensation of doctors within the US insures that they have the best doctors on average ( I'm sure that every person "knows a great doctor in Canada", whatever ). The compensation of doctors in the US also insures that they have the best equipment available ( the tort law also reinforces this ).
Well, you've certainly found a doctor who prescribes good psychedelics if you think the compensation and system here ensure the best health care. The doctors here are, by and large, overpaid, and have such good insurance that many don't feel a need to pay attention to what they're doing. Where I just came from in Florida, the _best_ local hospital had doctors amputating the wrong limbs, performing surgeries on the wrong people, and killing people by prescribing the wrong drugs.

Tort law does nothing to prevent this. And under many health plans, people don't even get a chance to go to tort law anyway - it goes to mediation, said mediation being people who are on the health plans' payrolls, deciding whether the outfit that gives their paychecks was right. Guess how they decide most of the time?

It is simply better if you can afford it.
You know - I got better health care in Colombia South America this New Years Eve. No medical insurance for that country, 5 in the evening New Years Eve - I waited in the emergency room for less than half an hour, saw a good doctor, was out in less than 1.5 hours total, and spent somewhat under $100, including two medications prescribed.

It's pretty flaming sad when a country as ... internally mangled as Colombia has better health service than the USA - with the health plan my employer gave me, as a $65,000 employee, I would have had to pay more, for worse treatment, at home.

Sure - rich Colombians come here for fancy operations. So do the ultra rich Russians, Saudis, etc, because everyone knows - rich people can get the _best_ treatment in the USA.

Fifty years ago, the average doctor earned about 5 times the average person's pay. The average CEO made about 10 times his average employee's salary. Today, the doctor makes 50 times the average pay in his area; the CEO makes 500 times the average employee's pay.

Capitalism is broken, at least in this country. For blood's sake, some of the richest and smartest capitalists in the country say so - Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, George Soros, etc.

When corporations were originally given equal status to human beings / citizens in this country, no one imagined a day when the corporations sole responsibility was to itself, its executives, and even more so, to its stock holders. A corporations prime responsibility is ... fiduciary. It has to make money for the stock holders, and damn everything else. Not just make money - but make the _most_ money.

Otherwise, the companies can, and have been, sued, for not maximizing the shareholders wealth.

Glad you like a country that, with one of the largest gaps between poor and rich in the world, has gone back to giving the rich huge tax cuts.

Feh.

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
[QB]If you can afford it you go to the US. If you can not you get treated in Canada.[/QB}I assume you can provide statistics to back up this claim, and can also show that the portion of people who get their health care in the U.S. has even a statistically significant effect on the overall quality of out health care.

Yes, yes it is clear that the statistics for a country will be better if you have universal health care. That's so painfully clear it hurts. Since there are a great number of simple problems which can be solved by a simple application of medicine. The point of _any_ economic system is to create the most good for the most people. If your system doesn't do this, then there is a problem. That should also be the point of a health care system.

US tort law insures that doctors takes the greatest pains possible for care.Please outline the difference between U.S. and Canadian tort law that makes U.S. health care safer.

I sure can say it is better. I said it is better *IF* you can afford it, you are the jackass saying the Canadian system is simply better.Which is the point. Do you really like to build strawman arguments?

I qualified my statement to make it correct. I'm all for a 2 tier system. Of course you can't sell a 2-tier system. Hell most Canadian�s will not admit that they have a 2 tier system even though they all have "rich friends" who get procedures done in the US.I'm still waiting for something other than your unsupported assertion that this is the case.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You're completely full of **** Norfleet.It's a medical condition known as a "bowel obstruction". It happens when your head is stuck up your ***. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You're completely full of **** Norfleet. Please provide a link to where I've stated that "All life is sacred", as you seem to be implying that I've said. I expect you to either provide such a link, or apologize for lying about what I've stated. I never said you said anything. Where'd you get that idea?

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You're completely full of **** Norfleet.It's a medical condition known as a "bowel obstruction". It happens when one's head is stuck up one's ***. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>BTW, this painful, highly contagious, and potentially fatal malady (to others) is endemic amongst lawyers and politicans (the primary carriers of the disease), and it's severity is directly proportional to their strength of religious conviction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Huzurdaddi

July 27th, 2004, 07:44 AM

I assume you can provide statistics to back up this claim, and can also show that the portion of people who get their health care in the U.S. has even a statistically significant effect on the overall quality of out health care.
I guess I could google for such things if they exist. I mean who the heck would track such a thing. Perhaps it would be evident from the MRI scandal in Alberta about 10 years ago. Or it would be evident from what you see around you. I mean you do know people who go the the US for anything serious ... don't you? And they don't go there due to the FDA being quick to aprove treatments ... that's the reason some knuckelheads go to Canada.

The point of _any_ economic system is to create the most good for the most people. If your system doesn't do this, then there is a problem. That should also be the point of a health care system.
It seems that the point of capitalism is to create the most economic wealth. Pretty much period. As to how the wealth gets allocated that's how capitalism is messed up via some metrics.

Please outline the difference between U.S. and Canadian tort law that makes U.S. health care safer.
I guess you have not been involved with in a malpractice suit in Canada. The standards of proof are far greater on the defendant. The awards much lower. The end result is that malpractice suits are brought forward far fewer times in Canada. Call up a lawyer. He will be happy to tell you all about it. Or make up a case then call a lawyer in Canada and ask him what he thinks, then ask a US lawyer. You will be amazed at the difference.

Tort law does nothing to prevent this.
... right ...

Fifty years ago, the average doctor earned about 5 times the average person's pay. The average CEO made about 10 times his average employee's salary. Today, the doctor makes 50 times the average pay in his area; the CEO makes 500 times the average employee's pay.
Yep allocation of funds has gotten out of hand in the US I'll agree. Although I think that your numbers are slightly off. The average doctor does not make x50 times the pay of the average salary ( that would be over 1,000,000 USD. Which is quite high for a doctor ) and only the top small percentage of CEO's make x500 time average pay. However I do conceed that CEO pay has gotten really out of hand. We need some real reform in the US to stop CEO's from naming their own board. Arthur Levitt has some really good ideas on this topic. Too bad they kicked him out. Best SEC chairman 3var.

has gone back to giving the rich huge tax cuts.
Not at all happy about that. Let me tell you. Sure I benifited from it, but I think that the US works better with a proper functioning middle class. Which is why I made my donation to the DNC ( through my wife since I am not a citizen yet ), did you?

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
It seems that the point of capitalism is to create the most economic wealth. Pretty much period. As to how the wealth gets allocated that's how capitalism is messed up via some metrics.The point of capitalism is to create the most wealth for those with the capital, namely capitalists. That anyone else (such as workers) manages to benefit from this exercise in greed is incidental/accidental, and can be ascribed to democracy. Democracy is a tool that is beneficial to the capitalists only insofar as they can control it to better serve their goals. Thus you have what is seen in the U.S. today: a Congress that's a millionaire's club, beholden to corporate & wealthy donors, giving only lip service to the electorate's desires, and then only as much as is necessary to keep them in their positions of power and comfort. A Congress that is not subject to the same laws as the people who elect them.

There's a word for what we have: plutocracy. Or government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Not exactly what Abe had in mind in his famous Address.

BTW, speaking of the tools of democracy, and their usefulness to the plutocrats, you have only to look at Fox News. And anyone that ever doubted the propheticness of Orwell's 1984 only has to look at the Patriot Act, Echelon, Carnivore, John Ashcroft, (un)Justice Scalia, et cetera. I shudder to think what might come next. Truly scary.

Skolem

July 27th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Boron:
[QB] in young years in general most people are quite healthy . so you can invest that money which you would otherwise have to pay as health care taxes and so get interest . this way you have more money when you are older and it is hopefully enough to pay for most medical treatment .In young years you can't afford even a radiography if you broke your leg, so american system is quite supperior because you have to worrie it could happen and if it happens you can't afford a good treatment. Yes I see the point...

because that's the next problem :
medicine has improved so much in the Last decades that the average life-span is increasing and increasing . but because more and more ultraexpensive technic devices are needed for that treatment it can't be paid much longer from the state for everyone and not only the few who can afford it .
germany is almost bankrupt because or huge social programs like health care , pensions and unemployment benefit become unpayable .We aren't as bankrupt as the american state are. It is sure that our system isn't optimal, but it doesn't mean we have to desolidarized from our fellow but poorer countryman.

so conclusion NTJedi : you are totally right and wait 10 years and many nations like germany will have abolished national healthcare and have a system similiar to the US system .
Thats what a certain (rich) part of the population wan't for sure, but I don't think so, or we would have to erase the "social" in the constitution, now (and I hope that it will be so in ten years) we are a social "marktwirtschaft" (sorry guys someone has to translate this one I can't).
And the problem in Germany are really different, what we need is a change in the mentality of the customers, who can afford and do (yes its true!!!),see three specialist for an illness.
I' still believe the German system is far superior not only in pure facts, but indirectly to, what is the reason of healthcare, education, etc... it is not to make a better economy, it is not to create greater profit for corps, it is only to assure citizen of the country that they can afford a life qualitiy without to worrie about the future, to make they have time to spend on interresting things in life (at least more interresting than planning how much money they need in case of illness, accident etc.).

P.S. are you affilied to the party known as the FDP?

DLC

July 27th, 2004, 09:51 AM

we need a political forum methinkest.
S�tt p� e kol o skapa ett http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by DLC:
we need a political forum methinkest.That would make too much sense, and thus ruin the perfectly good chaos that's reining here.

Vicious Love

July 27th, 2004, 10:00 AM

Better than JibJab. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/163083)

Discuss.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Vicious Love:
Better than JibJab. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/163083)

Discuss. If you insist: the Toad short is stupid. It's not even funny, unless one considers as 'funny' things that are silly/senseless.

A far better short on the same site is here (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=7549).

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
If you insist: the Toad short is stupid. It's not even funny, unless one considers as 'funny' things that are silly/senseless.Well, if by "silly/senseless", you mean "nonfunctional", then yeah, I'd have to agree. I don't really see the humor in a badly written flash movie that consists entirely of a loading bar which runs from start to finish without having anything actually happen afterwards.

A far better short on the same site is here (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=7549). I didn't get it. Is this an obscure reference to some aspect of modern culture that I'm unfamiliar with? It seemed to be consist of some guy with a sword or something in the dark. I couldn't really see much. The music was obnoxious and hurt my ears. I tried watching again with my night-vision goggles on, but I still didn't see anything interesting. What's the deal?

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Well, if by "silly/senseless", you mean "nonfunctional", then yeah, I'd have to agree. I don't really see the humor in a badly written flash movie that consists entirely of a loading bar which runs from start to finish without having anything actually happen afterwards.You neglected to click on the skull above that loading bar, after the bar filled up. Guess that was too complicated/subtle.

Norfleet

July 27th, 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
You neglected to click on the skull above that loading bar, after the bar filled up. Guess that was too complicated/subtle. I didn't see a skull. The thing remained entirely black at all times. When does the skull normally appear?

And now it doesn't do anything at all, and just stays completely white when opened. Baffling. I think it might be broken.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
And now it doesn't do anything at all, and just stays completely white when opened. Baffling. I think it might be broken. I apologize for thinking you were simply being oblivious and/or dense. But it works for me no matter how many times I close the browser, restart it, and go back to the link. What browser & OS are you using? (I'm running XP pro & Mozilla 1.7.1, btw.)

EDIT: and do you have the latest Flash plug-in?

EDIT2: and what are your pop-up blocker settings, if any, as well as the Javascript settings for opening new windows?

[ July 27, 2004, 10:29: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
I guess I could google for such things if they exist. I mean who the heck would track such a thing.If you can't find even the most basic of statistics, then you certainly can't claim that your argument is correct.

Perhaps it would be evident from the MRI scandal in Alberta about 10 years ago. Or it would be evident from what you see around you. I mean you do know people who go the the US for anything serious ... don't you?No, I don't know _anyone_ who goes to the U.S. for any treatments whatsoever.

I guess you have not been involved with in a malpractice suit in Canada. The standards of proof are far greater on the defendant. The awards much lower. The end result is that malpractice suits are brought forward far fewer times in Canada.Oh, I thought you were saying that the tort system in the U.S. was a good thing, not that you were saying that it's so utterly broken that doctors are retiring rather than pay their insurance premiums even when they've never been sued.

djtool

July 27th, 2004, 03:30 PM

Compromise is only when you can't get the full support you need to push whatever adjenda you promised to fulfill. [/QB]And how often do you suppose that happens? Imagine how expeditiary our system of government would be if that were the norm? How many proposals look the same going out as they do coming in? Comprimise, scratching each others backs, whatever....is the name of the game.

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I never said you said anything. Where'd you get that idea? Of course you did.

Graeme, however, would likely call me a horrible person for saying such a thing, as if I was some sort of serial killer or mass-murderer merely because I have logically discarded an internally inconsistent belief.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 04:21 PM

Cainehill, your remark about tax cuts for the rich is BS. I am not rich, and I got a check in the mail. If you didn't get yours, you didn't check your mail. Everyone who paid taxes got a return, unless you owed the gov't money. I find it funny that you think it's wrong for the "rich" to get a tax cut since they're the ones paying most of the taxes. Here you go, the IRS's report:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

The top 50% of wage earners in the U.S. paid 96% of all taxes, and we all got money back. The top 5% of all wage earners pay something like 50% of all taxes. Incidentally, the gov't defines "rich" as making 90k/year. I'm pretty middle class and I was pretty damn happy to get some money back. Everyone got a tax cut, the "rich" just got a lot more back because they paid a lot more. I don't know why you don't like our economic system, it's not perfect and could definately be improved, but it's still the best in the world. You seem to think it's unfair somewhere but I'm telling you that 99% of peoples economic problems are their own doing. I still see people flocking to the U.S in droves, yet I don't see U.S. citizens flocking to other countries. Something good must be happening around this horrible country of ours.

[ July 27, 2004, 15:30: Message edited by: vigabrand ]

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:03 PM

Viga, your post about tax cuts to Cainehill is full of fecal matter. As someone who was making over $70k/yr., well up in that "top 50%" Category, my tax cut amounted to a whopping $300, which is less than 2% of my annual tax burden. For that, I can look forward to far more than $300 in *increased* taxes later, when it eventually comes time to pay the piper and compound interest gets factored in. Debt is bad. Period. I don't pay credit card interest, and I resent like hell being forced to pay interest on the massive debts the government foolishly incurs in order to please corporate entities and wacko economists. "Supply-side" economics was proven to be a bankrupt ideology (to steal a phrase from Reagan) during the rosy years of Reagan and Bush Sr., and it's just as silly today under Bush Jr.. It simply does not work in the real world. But, we all know that Bush Jr. & friends do not live in the real world ...

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 05:16 PM

I think you missed my point Arryn. The refund was not big, but everyone got one, not just the rich. It was our money to begin with and for the middle class, every little bit helps. You may not think so, so give it back. You dismiss my claims by claiming that you'll have to pay it all back and more later, then make opinions on whether certain economic plans work. I dunno, seems to be working to me. Seems we have the fastest economic growth in the Last 20 years. Seems Allen Greenspan agrees that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the growing economy. Greenspan doesn't like the debt, but tax cuts do not always mean high deficits. Let's try trimming some of the fat off of pork projects, and lets start balancing the budget. It is my opionion that there is plenty of money in the pot to pay for necessities. Simple fact, congress pays for too much crap.

Boron

July 27th, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
. For that, I can look forward to far more than $300 in *increased* taxes later, when it eventually comes time to pay the piper and compound interest gets factored in. Debt is bad. Period. I don't pay credit card interest, and I resent like hell being forced to pay interest on the massive debts the government foolishly incurs in order to please corporate entities and wacko economists. "Supply-side" economics was proven to be a bankrupt ideology (to steal a phrase from Reagan) during the rosy years of Reagan and Bush Sr., and it's just as silly today under Bush Jr.. It simply does not work in the real world. But, we all know that Bush Jr. & friends do not live in the real world ... first some questions cause i am quite unfamiliar with taxes in the usa unfortunately .
how much % of their income do "upper" ( 90k$+ ) , middle and low class have to pay in annual taxes ?

why are taxes increased in the future ? i don't understand that . lower taxes mean more consuming . the companies make even more profit and become even more competetive .
so with the lowered taxes expect in the very short run the tax income doesn't drop , most likely it even increases in the long run .

finally does the us government has some measures like tolls or political pressure which it can make if nothing else helps to keep the economy going .they are a bit immoral but this simply won't be necessary anyway as long as you keep republicans as presidents .
only bad thing is if you constantly switch between democrats and republicans and only thing they do is trying to abolish the things again which the former party did . but if there can be managed a constant policy from one party for 12 , 16 or 20 years this won't happen .

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
I still see people flocking to the U.S in droves, yet I don't see U.S. citizens flocking to other countries. Something good must be happening around this horrible country of ours. Perhaps US citizens are just fat, dumb, and oblivious?

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
I think you missed my point Arryn. The refund was not big, but everyone got one, not just the rich. It was our money to begin with and for the middle class, every little bit helps.It's utter foolishness that, when you are already in debt up to your eyeballs, you incur more debt just to make yourself feel good. Which is just what the tax cuts accomplished. The government owed money before the cuts; it had already been spent, and the money for the cuts has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is taxpayers, and the debt must eventually be paid. If not by us, then our children, or their children. And the longer you take to pay a debt, the more money it costs you.

BTW, if you look at the numbers, the Iraq war is costing taxpayers about the same amount of money as the tax cuts. So not only is the government borrowing money it doesn't have to pay back taxpayers, it's borrowing even more money to pay for a war that the pre-tax cut budget hadn't accounted for. IOW, the Bushies have dug the hole twice (or more) as deep. A hole that need not have been dug at all.

If you want a tax cut, get your Congresscritters to stop SPENDING our money.

Gandalf Parker

July 27th, 2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
I think you missed my point Arryn. The refund was not big, but everyone got one, not just the rich. It was our money to begin with and for the middle class, every little bit helps. You may not think so, so give it back.
I would gladly have given back mine if I thought it would give back what it killed. It sure didnt carry over to this year. As middle-class homeowner with kids they keep saying I should be getting wonderul improvements but this appears to be a horrible year.

I dunno, seems to be working to me. Seems we have the fastest economic growth in the Last 20 years. Really? I keep hearing that but all I see are lack of jobs, lack of services, and lack of feeling like things are going well. I dont tend to vote one way or the other but Im having trouble figuring out why this is supposed to be better than the Last guys term. I keep hearing it but personally it doesnt feel that way. And everyone I talk to seem to be in the same boat. Even the ones that agree with whats being said seem to not have any of those benefits in their own lives. They say things like "well of course personally things arent going well but the country is doing much better"

[ July 27, 2004, 16:54: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Boron:
why are taxes increased in the future ? i don't understand that.Because the money that the government borrows must be paid back with interest. Which means that if the government spends X dollars today for something (a war, tax cuts, whatever), then taxpayers must later pay taxes equal to X dollars + Y dollars of interest. X+Y > X

lower taxes mean more consuming.A flawed assumption. The extra money might be hoarded. Or it might be spent on items that do not lead to job growth, especially if producers retain profits rather than create jobs or if they spend the profits on paying shareholders. This Last item means you transfer wealth from the lower and middle classes (most consumers) to the upper class (most shareholders). And the upper class hoards money far more than they spend it, so it doesn't cycle back. It just concentrates at the top.

the companies make even more profit and become even more competetive.Companies are *less* competitive when profits are high because they aren't needing to work as hard at getting their customers to pay.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I dunno, seems to be working to me. Seems we have the fastest economic growth in the Last 20 years. Really? I keep hearing that but all I see are lack of jobs, lack of services, and lack of feeling like things are going well. I dont tend to vote one way or the other but Im having trouble figuring out why this is supposed to be better than the Last guys term. I keep hearing it but personally it doesnt feel that way. And everyone I talk to seem to be in the same boat. Even the ones that agree with whats being said seem to not have any of those benefits in their own lives. They say things like "well of course personally things arent going well but the country is doing much better" <hr /></blockquote>Under the "Last guy" I was employed. Now I'm not. Nor are several of my friends who also, like me, were employed at high-paying jobs. I see lots of low-paying service sector job openings. The jobs I used to do? Gone to India. If and when I do manage to find a job, it'll be for less money than I used to make. How is the country better off, when the best jobs have and are disappearing, and at the same time we're getting deeper into debt as a nation, our image globally is horribly tarnished, and we're systematically destroying the nation's ecology and educational system, not to mention becoming ever less secure ... and free?

Huzurdaddi

July 27th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Vigabrand you are a perfect example why everyone should not be allowed to vote.

Who cares if everyone got something. What matters is how much did everyone get back vs. how much did they lose in services. If you are at the federal 35% marginal rate ( or above ) you probably did well. Otherwise you did not.

If you can't find even the most basic of statistics, then you certainly can't claim that your argument is correct.
BWHAHAH! I stated some examples, friend. Sorry you could not counter them. The sad truth is that Canadian medical facilities are woefully under equiped vs. the US ones, further the Canadian staff members are simply inferior, on average, to the us staff members.

You should really go to a US hospital. It's amazing the difference.And you should do the lawyer thing I mention. It's amazing the difference.

Oh, I thought you were saying that the tort system in the U.S. was a good thing
You are quite comical. Indeed the US tort system PROTECTS those who get treatment here. I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I don't know _anyone_ who goes to the U.S. for any treatments whatsoever.
Wow. All I can say is that you are either willfully ignorant or I totally misjudged your SES. If it is the latter I am sorry.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 06:12 PM

Gandalf, what exactly did it kill? Taxes are no higher this year than Last. It's turning out to be a pretty good year for me. I think it's going to depend on where you live as to how well the economy is doing (I don't think the midwest is doing that much better). A million new jobs, record numbers in homeowner growth, a resurgence in the tech industry (at least in Atlanta), things definately look better than they did after 9/11, when I lost my job. At least from my perspective.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
Vigabrand you are a perfect example why everyone should not be allowed to vote.

Who cares if everyone got something. What matters is how much did everyone get back vs. how much did they lose in services. If you are at the federal 35% marginal rate ( or above ) you probably did well. Otherwise you did not.
I think the evidence is pretty poignant. The economy is surging, because people used the money to pay their bills or buy things. I don't see any reduction in services. Actually, I see private sector services dramatically increased. The gov't services are still status quo. Your argument is based on things that might happen in the future. You don't use facts to argue, instead you attack me personally by claiming I shouldn't be allowed to vote, and make predictions based on the democrat talking points. You don't have to listen to me about the tax cuts, listen to Allen Greenspan.

Gandalf Parker

July 27th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Gandalf, what exactly did it kill? Taxes are no higher this year than Last. It's turning out to be a pretty good year for me. I think it's going to depend on where you live as to how well the economy is doing (I don't think the midwest is doing that much better). A million new jobs, record numbers in homeowner growth, a resurgence in the tech industry (at least in Atlanta), things definately look better than they did after 9/11, when I lost my job. At least from my perspective. Maybe its a California thing, and me being in tech. We do have the additional help of Arnold. I see the same numbers you are quoting but Im wondering if you are getting them from the news or if you actually SEE those things around you. Ive had 2 sons job hunting and this seems an extremely low year for that. The unemployment place seemed swamped until that ran out. I see alot of people trying very hard to sell things like boats and cars they can no longer afford. We have been trying for a year to sell my Dads house on Corpus Christi lake in Texas (more retirement/vacation home than someplace to move to). I see my favorite companys going under, cutting back, canceling projects. Conventions being cancelled. Concerts and concert tours cancelled. Im seeing REAL lacks in police, fire, schools, highway (they always complained they wanted more but now Im seeing things not done that they obviously want to be able to do).

Im just as willing as the next guy to want to see the things I keep hearing on the news. I just am not seeing it so I wondered if you see it there or is it the news numbers you see.

[ July 27, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
BWHAHAH! I stated some examples, friend. Sorry you could not counter them.Anecdotal examples are not evidence, nor are they statistics.

The sad truth is that Canadian medical facilities are woefully under equiped vs. the US ones, further the Canadian staff members are simply inferior, on average, to the us staff members.Once again, please provide actual evidence that this is the case instead of simply stating it to be true.

You are quite comical. Indeed the US tort system PROTECTS those who get treatment here. I'm sorry to say that you have no idea what you are talking about.No, all you've shown is that the U.S. tort system is as litiguous and broken as ever. Lawsuits after the fact do not protect those people that experienced harm in the first place.

Wow. All I can say is that you are either willfully ignorant or I totally misjudged your SES. If it is the latter I am sorry.SES? Please don't use meaningless acronyms.

I am not willfully ignorant, I am telling you that I do not know anyone that has gone to the U.S. for treatment. I'm also still waiting for something other than your baseless assertion that this is anywhere near as prevalent as you seem to think it is.

Come on, I've provided my statistics, where are yours.

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
I think the evidence is pretty poignant. The economy is surging, because people used the money to pay their bills or buy things.I think that a much more likely reason for the economy to be surging is that the government has added over a hundred billion dollars into the economy through deficit spending.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I think that a much more likely reason for the economy to be surging is that the government has added over a hundred billion dollars into the economy through deficit spending. To add to this, for the sake of attempting to educate Viga, that deficit spending was/is the Iraq situation. And the surge is mainly in defense-related industries, and the local areas the plants are located in. Atlanta happens to be one of those fortunate areas. Houston isn't, hence I'm not reaping the alleged benefits of the government's (unsound) policy of mortgaging the future to cater to the present.

archaeolept

July 27th, 2004, 06:52 PM

yah, massive deficit spending is the traditional way to get the economy revving. spend now, pay later. the hundreds of billions in deficit spending this Last year quite dwarf the few billion in tax cuts.

as to canadians going down to the states for medical care, I can't say i've ever known anyone to do that either. I'm sure it happens, especially for rare procedures, but it doesn't seem to be statistically significant.

as to our doctors and nurses being inferior to american health care workers, that's just silly. If it were true, they wouldn't be in such demand down in the states.

statistics fairly consistently show Canadians as being healthier and having somewhat higher life expectancies than Americans.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 27, 2004, 17:58: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Huzurdaddi

July 27th, 2004, 07:04 PM

Anecdotal examples are not evidence, nor are they statistics.
They are indeed evidence. They are not statistics.

Once again, please provide actual evidence that this is the case instead of simply stating it to be true.
Google it yourself willfully ignorant boy.

Lawsuits after the fact do not protect those people that experienced harm in the first place.
Lawsuits ( a ) give compensation for damage , ( b ) provide a strong disincentive to perform malpractice and ( c ) remove people who commit malpractice from the medical system.

But, of course, you know this. Much like you know that Canada's health system is worthless compared to the US system *if* you can pay in the US.

SES? Please don't use meaningless acronyms
Ahh I see your definition of meaningless. If you do not understand something it is meaningless. If you disagee with something being evidence it is not. I think I start to understand.

Come on, I've provided my statistics, where are yours.
And I explained why the statistics you provided show that free medical coverage increases aggregate health figures. However that does not mean that the health system is "better." Of course as always you fail to realize this.

How lame.

archaeolept

July 27th, 2004, 07:08 PM

uh, huzurdaddi, your response is itself quite lame, as you still have provided no evidence for your claims. and i have no ****ing clue what SES stands for either. perhaps it is an americanism?

edit: the top google results for "ses" involve geosyncronous satellites, New South Wales State Emergency Service, school evaluation service, standards engineering society...

They are indeed evidence. yes, bad evidence

"Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." - Lionel Hutz

[ July 27, 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I think that a much more likely reason for the economy to be surging is that the government has added over a hundred billion dollars into the economy through deficit spending. To add to this, for the sake of attempting to educate Viga, that deficit spending was/is the Iraq situation. And the surge is mainly in defense-related industries, and the local areas the plants are located in. Atlanta happens to be one of those fortunate areas. Houston isn't, hence I'm not reaping the alleged benefits of the government's (unsound) policy of mortgaging the future to cater to the present. <hr /></blockquote>First off, you aren't educating anyone. These are the same arguments leftists made when Reagan did the same thing. Sorry to burst your bubble, but those policies led to the good economy of the 90's. That and a repulican controlled Congress. Iraq is not the only thing causing deficit spending, perhaps you were not paying attention when Bush aided Ted Kennedy in the largest education bill ever. Perhaps you were sleeping when Bush got the prescription drup program passed. Congressional spending is rampant and I'm not happy with a lot of Bushes domestic spending, but I whole heartedly support spending in Iraq and wherever we decide to kick butt. Iraq aside, spending has got to be curbed and the budget balanced, WITH tax cuts. There is plenty of room to trim the fat while leaving more money for us to fuel the economy. You guys might argue that the gov't is what fueled the economy, but again I say, ask the experts. All consumer product selling companies are reporting greater earnings since the tax cuts, as are consumer creditors, real esatate is on the rise, tech is slowly recovering, health care is on the rise (private). Not everyone is feeling the effects, but most Americans are.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
yah, massive deficit spending is the traditional way to get the economy revving. spend now, pay later. the hundreds of billions in deficit spending this Last year quite dwarf the few billion in tax cuts.The tax cut isn't a "few" billion. It's well over 300 billion over ten years. For more info, check out this link (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=1000661), and this link (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm), and this link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/29/tax_cuts/index_np.html).

To quote from the first article:

Economic Effects. Tax cuts have often been rationalized on the grounds that they would stimulate long-run economic growth, but that argument is implausible for this package. Relatively few taxpayers would see a reduction in their marginal tax rate beyond 2005 when the temporary AMT relief is set to expire. As a result, there would be negligible effect on incentives to work, save, or invest in unproductive tax shelters. Moreover, by adding to the burgeoning budget deficits, the tax cuts would raise interest rates and discourage investment by businesses and purchases of homes and cars by consumers. These responses would tend to stifle economic growth.

Graeme Dice

July 27th, 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
They are indeed evidence. They are not statistics. Sure they are evidence. They also happen to be useless in drawing conclusions about the actual state of something.

Google it yourself willfully ignorant boy. Failure to provide the evidence to support your own claims has very little difference from being unable to provide evidence to support your own claims. Failure to provide evidence indicates that the evidence doesn't even exist in the first place.

Lawsuits ( a ) give compensation for damage , ( b ) provide a strong disincentive to perform malpractice and ( c ) remove people who commit malpractice from the medical system.Yes, they do all of these things. In fact, they provide such a strong "disincentive to perform malpractice" that many doctors are leaving the profession.

But, of course, you know this. Much like you know that Canada's health system is worthless compared to the US system *if* you can pay in the US. No, I don't "know" that the U.S. system is superior if one has the money. Are you telling me that you would rather get treatment for Parkinson's disease in the U.S. instead of in Saskatchewan? After all, one of the leading Parkinson's researchers in the world works in Saskatoon. I also take it that you would ignore the Edmonton protocol for implanting pancreatic islets into diabetics. I can name numerous examples of areas where you would be better off receiving treatment in the Canadian health care system, which blows your claim that the Canadian system is "worthless" out of the water.

You've yet to do anything other than continually repeat the assertion that "Canadian Health Care sucks". You haven't made a useful argument until you can back up your statement with something more than "Because I say so".

Ahh I see your definition of meaningless. If you do not understand something it is meaningless. If you disagee with something being evidence it is not. I think I start to understand.Right, so the acronym doesn't actually mean anything. Thanks for clearing that up. If you aren't willing to define your terms, then your argument is worthless.

And I explained why the statistics you provided show that free medical coverage increases aggregate health figures.However that does not mean that the health system is "better." Of course as always you fail to realize this.Aggregate health statistics are the _only_ meaningful measurement of whether a health care is better at serving a population.

Arryn

July 27th, 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those policies led to the good economy of the 90's.You are massively clueless. If you think that deficit spending leads to a good economy you should talk to former Soviet economists. Deficit spending was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR. The US (along with NATO) bankrupted them by forcing them to spend more on their military than they could afford. Contrary to Khrushchev's famous line "we shall bury you", we buried them -- in debt.

EDIT: what led to the good economy of the 90s was the so-called "peace dividend" when we dramatically cut back on how much money we spent on defense after the USSR collapsed. IOW, when we quit deficit spending.

[ July 27, 2004, 18:52: Message edited by: Arryn ]

archaeolept

July 27th, 2004, 07:45 PM

The tax cut isn't a "few" billion. It's well over 300 billion over ten years. For more info, check out this link, and this link, and this link.
in the context in which i was speaking, that of a yearly 400 billion dollar deficit or so, the comparable tax cut for that year does qualify as a "few billion" and is still dwarfed by the deficit, which was my claim.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by vigabrand:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those policies led to the good economy of the 90's.You are massively clueless. If you think that deficit spending leads to a good economy you should talk to former Soviet economists. Deficit spending was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR. The US (along with NATO) bankrupted them by forcing them to spend more on their military than they could afford. Contrary to Khrushchev's famous line "we shall bury you", we buried them -- in debt.

EDIT: what led to the good economy of the 90s was the so-called "peace dividend" when we dramatically cut back on how much money we spent on defense after the USSR collapsed. IOW, when we quit deficit spending. <hr /></blockquote>Your argument is based on a comparison to the USSR? You obviously don't remember the economy during the Carter years. Reagans policies pulled us out of the worst and kept us afloat until the economy was able to create a wider tax base. More people employed + higher paying jobs = more tax dollars. Yes the money saved from defence helped, but you leave out other great things, like welfare reform, the first balanced budget in decades, cutbacks to almost all social programs. You could look at the defense return as a result of Reagans investment in the military. Looks like the deficit spending was eventually fixed when congress cut their spending. Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Gandalf Parker

July 27th, 2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil. Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole.

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 09:24 PM

No Gandalf, I was specifically talking about Reagan's economic policies enabling the 90's boom. Had the economy persisted as they were under Carter, Clinton and/or Bush Sr. would have been dealing with what Reagan had to. Whether you want to give credit to Clinton or the Republican Congress for jump starting it and keeping it going into 9/11, that's up to you, I won't argue. I don't really know what the heck Clinton did to help, but take a look at how much he wanted to spend, and then how much he spent. Look at the wars we were in like Somalia, Haiti, Serbia, bombing Baghdad. The debt was erased, but do you remember how much congress had to fight him, and override his vetoes, in order to get a balanced budget? He did act to have defense cut, but he wanted giant increases in almost all social programs. I guess the fact is, good things happened when he was president so he gets credit. Oops, I said I wasn't going to argue, sorry.

Stormbinder

July 27th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by vigabrand:
Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil. Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole. <hr /></blockquote>Well, actually USSR collapsed 1 year before Clinton took office Gandalf. But the rest of your comments are correct and I generally share your position. I am certanly not big fan of Kerry, but Bush irritates me too much with his self-righteuous attitude that he applys to each and every policy issue. "Consolidator" my arse! I mean, the guy who lost a popular vote should at least *try* to govern from the center and *try* to be somewhat moderate, as he humbly promised during his election compain. As it is, he is most radical USA president that I know since Nixon.

To be fair, I have to say that I do approve several of his major actions as a president, including even some controversial ones. However I disaprove significantly more of his deeds both in internal and external policies.

But what worries me most is that during his first term Bush had to always keep in mind the reelection year, and moderate his retoric and his urges somehow, to avoid alienating too many people with his policies. But it is scary to think what he may do during his 2nd term, if he gets reelected, since than he will likely to pull all breaks off, reshaping the America according to his vision during his future 4 years in the office. I mean, think about it - if during the Last 4 years we have seen "careful, compasionate, moderate" Bush, as he proclaimed himself, than what the hell he will do during his next 4 years, when he will no longer have any 2nd thoughts due to his need to be reelected?!? Frankly I think it is scary. This guy is loose cannon and I don't trust him and his extremely self-righteous attitude. I am not democrat. I share a lot of GOP's values. I don't like Kerry at all. But I think he is certanly a lesser of two evils here, and I don't want to live in the USA shaped acording to Bush's image for the next 4 years.

-Stormbinder

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 10:08 PM

So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

Stormbinder

July 27th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit? No, as I said I agree with certain Bush's decisions, including some controversial ones, such as his tax cuts program(mostly), invasion to Afganistan, several others. He deserve to take credit for it in my opinion. Hell, I even approve the invasion in IRAQ in principle (althouth I do NOT approve his reasons for it, no do I approve the way the occupation policy was conducted and his lying to the public about WMD, and I certanly don't approve him totally ruining USA image in the eyes of entire world because of his clumsy and very narrow-minded foreing policies) But I disagree with significantly more of his policies. And I simply do not trust him to lead USA for the next 4 years. The combination of extremely self-righteous attitude, with very low IQ(let's be frank about it) and with strong "religious right" positions would be very dangerious during 2nd term, when he will not longer have whatever little regard for public opinion he still had during his 1st term. As I said, this guy will be loose cannon if he gets reelected, and I think USA in its current position just can't afford it.

And Vigabrand, I have voted myself for the Bush in 2000, I think that should tell you something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

vigabrand

July 27th, 2004, 10:55 PM

Stormbinder, it's too bad we'll lose your support this go around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Cheezeninja

July 27th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

Frankly I think it is scary. This guy is loose cannon and I don't trust him and his extremely self-righteous attitude. I am not democrat. I share a lot of GOP's values. I don't like Kerry at all. But I think he is certanly a lesser of two evils here, and I don't want to live in the USA shaped acording to Bush's image for the next 4 years.

-Stormbinder I couldn't agree more. I tend to straddle the fence along political lines, Pro Death Penalty, Pro Choice, more into old school republican minimization of government influence on individuals (although thats decidedly not the republican party of nowadays). But I believe Bush is absolutely horrendous, his administration has consistently misinformed and misled the public, taken an extremely aggresive and negative stance in the re-election war, while blatantly pandering to the rich over the common man. I'm not voting Kerry in this election, not at all. Im voting best chance to get rid of Bush and get Mccain in 4 years.

Furthermore, while i think Kerry's proposed "health care for everyone" is a absolutely horrible idea, i'd much rather flush my money away into a healthcare nightmare than pony it up to the oil company's and inflation like we are doing now.

And on the issue of people calling themselves catholic while dissagreing with the church. Its possible to like, aspect, and be part of an organization while not agreeing with its every directive. Do all republicans think the Patriot Bill was a good thing? This becomes even more prominent when you have a single group or individual telling everyone what line they should be toeing, as is the case with the pope and the papal hiarchy. In point of fact, according to the strictest of sexual guidelines, any form of sex other than straight missionary is taboo. But im willing to bet more than a few very catholic people out there that enjoy a hummer now and again. In point of fact, almost nobody can follow all the guidelines all the time, thats why we are humans and there has only ever been 1 Jesus Christ. And yes i recognize that there is a difference between succumbing to temptation and conciously differing in policy from the guidelines of the church, but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

[ July 27, 2004, 22:39: Message edited by: Cheezeninja ]

daesthai

July 28th, 2004, 01:11 AM

Yay! It took several edits, but I think I understand the quote system better now.

Its possible to like, aspect, and be part of an organization while not agreeing with its every directive. Do all republicans think the Patriot Bill was a good thing? Keep in mind that the Catholic church is defined by a very specific set of beliefs and expectations. I think its a miscalculation to use the republican party as a parallel here. Republicanism is a broad Category with many subdivisions - not specific enough. Republicans can be subdivided into moderate and ultra-conservative beliefs just to name two - then there are special interests. Protestants could be Lutherans, Baptists, or any of several other belief systems (and yes, they're all Christian, but can be of very different dogmas - just compare Lutheranism to Mormonism.) Catholics, on the other hand have one set of beliefs. It's even recited at mass every week - "I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church." (Before someone gets upset - yes, there are Eastern and Western Rites Catholic churches, but the differences are in heirarchy of the bishops and the liturgy - not the beliefs and teachings. The dogma for both is the same.) So in answer to your question about if it's possible to respect and belong to a group but not hold all of its ideals (paraphrased), I have to say in the area of religion - no. You either believe in the religion's teachings, or you don't. Not good or bad, not right or wrong...just yes or no.

In point of fact, according to the strictest of sexual guidelines, any form of sex other than straight missionary is taboo. But im willing to bet more than a few very catholic people out there that enjoy a hummer now and again. I can't speak on this one too much because I'm not familiar with who's guidelines these are. Evidently someone stricter than the Catholic church. Humanae Vitae spells out that the only specifically physical requirement of sexual relations is that all encounters "must be open to the transmission of life" (plus the stress on the couple being husband/wife, of course). As long as that requirement is met, the hummer you refer to is perfectly allowable. An appetizer, so to speak.

...nobody can follow all the guidelines all the time, thats why we are humans and there has only ever been 1 Jesus Christ. And yes i recognize that there is a difference between succumbing to temptation and conciously differing in policy from the guidelines of the church... Agreed. It's impossible to be perfect. But as you stated, there is a difference between "slipping up" and outright defiance.

... but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before ... Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system?

[ July 28, 2004, 00:26: Message edited by: daesthai ]

Cheezeninja

July 28th, 2004, 02:06 AM

Because its not so much the belief system they are dissagreeing with as the way the issue has been interpreted by the pope. Catholisism was around way before abortion and already had all of its beliefs and rules defined and categorized. With the advent of abortion they had to go to a non-divine, humanly selected person to make the call (the pope), and its entirely possible he made the wrong call. Not being a catholic myself i dont know if divinity is attributed to the pope or not, so that entire argument might be moot.

In any event however, the person in question (John Kerry) does NOT believe in abortion. He simply believes other individuals (who may not be catholic) should have the ability to choose for themselves. I dont believe (but dont know for sure) the directive of the pope is that all Catholics should be required to restrict the rights of others by attempting to illegalize abortion. I believe they are only required to personally be against it, and he is. In any event, if the catholic church is indeed attempting to require its members to not only be against abortion, but see to it that others cannot do it either... well i think this would be yet another attempt of an organization (in this case a church) to interfere with state where i personally believe it has no business, and don't fault Kerry at all in that he doesnt think its his place to impose his beliefs on others. In the end it just gets right down to the bones of the abortion issue wherein Anti-Abortion people think you are killing a baby and should be stopped, and Pro-Choice people think you are destroying a zygote with the genetic complexity of a snail and feel the Anti-Abortion people are attempting to take away one of their rights.

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by daesthai:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />... but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before ... Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system? <hr /></blockquote>i think you quoted that a bit bad and left out the main point :
Originally posted by Cheezeninja
:

but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .

so even the catholic church recognizes severe mistakes and corrects them even if only slowly .
so if they change it themselfes it is good or what ?
while when luther did that 500 years ago he was a devil ?

and it is the best proof that the catholic church + the pope aren't inerrant as they always claim .
ihmo the catholic church is just hypocritical.
furthermore there is nothing in the bible that justifes the catholic worship of saints .
one of the 10 commandmends says you should have no other gods beside me .
but in the catholic church the worship for especially maria is more important than for jesus .
Originally posted by daesthai:
I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church.the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me . what about that :
the jews already believed in god thousands of years before the catholic church was founded . so their claiming to be the first true and only belief is historical legitimated .

furthermore jesus founded the catholic church but he has gotten pretty unimportant in the catholic belief .
luther had to recover that .

i am a protestant as you may have noticed perhaps http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i just think the catholic church is the most hypocritical in the world ( expect perhaps some sects ) . they are more intolerant than every one else though they always claim moslems and protestants are .

the catholic church is the church which broke the rules of the 10 commandments frequently very serious :
examples :
-the inquisition
-the crusades
-the 30 years war
-selling of indulgences
-quite modern one : the catholic pope supported hitler

in the middle ages the pope was also a ruler of the popal states and waged endless wars to conquer whole italy .

so the pope is just blasphemy .

finally one Last argument for the hypocrisy of the catholic church :
the first popes like petrus were marriaged .
so why may now priests + the pope not marriage anymore ?

protestants don't have a pope because he is really just blasphemy and the priests may marry .

i think even the muslim priests which are the most inferior belief in catholic eyes may marry .

in my eyes the catholic faith is just a misinterpretation of the christian belief .
the popes abused their believers just for their own profit . especially the selling of indulgences is a good example for that .

if you can name me one other belief in the world which has done as many evil things as frequent as the catholics then i will excuse but if you can't i think that is enough that i am proven to be right .

edit : i excuse if my tone is too harsh but i hope you see that the catholic church just tries to blind you and the from the catholic church damned protestant and moslem beliefs are 1000 times more christian than the catholic one .

[ July 28, 2004, 04:09: Message edited by: Boron ]

Huzurdaddi

July 28th, 2004, 05:48 AM

Sure they are evidence. They also happen to be useless in drawing conclusions about the actual state of something.
Geeze. Well no more empirical science. Graeme hath decreed that it is "useless." Too bad all sciences are emperical. Bummer for us.

So, like I said in one of my 1st Posts I'm an ex-pat and ths I have actually seen the health care on both sides of the fence. Since you are flapping your mouth off I have to assume that you are also an ex-pat with a differing experience. I mean, gosh I hope you have some actual experience in the matter. I mean, gosh I hope you are not just uselessly flapping your mouth off when you don't even have any idea what you are talking about. I *really* hope that is not the case.

Aggregate health statistics are the _only_ meaningful measurement
Phew. I am *so* glad that you continually define the terms of the argument to suit your purposes. Sadly it's not what I asserted. Which was *if* you can pay the US system is better. Sadly you seem incapable of understanding that.

You are a funny and sad at the same time. Congratulations!

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 06:21 AM

Oh goodie, a religious flamefest! Count me in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Originally posted by Boron:
the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me .
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.

It's better, I think, to understand that religious belief is, by its nature, exclusive. Religious tolerance is a good thing, of course, but largely out of reach of heavily committed religious people.

what about that :
the jews already believed in god thousands of years before the catholic church was founded . so their claiming to be the first true and only belief is historical legitimated .
Catholicism is not defined and distinguished by a belief in one god. Both Judaism and Islam share this belief. It's the Catholic interpretation of scripture, most particularly around the person of Jesus and his mother, that defines the Catholic faith. And all of that could be true, even if all Jewish belief prior to Jesus was also true. The first 5 books of the Bible are, after all, Jewish scripture.

furthermore jesus founded the catholic church but he has gotten pretty unimportant in the catholic belief .
Actually, I think Peter founded the Catholic Church as a vehicle to facilitate the worship of Jesus. But yes, it's interesting to note the emphasis that has been placed on Mary at the expense, some would say, to Jesus himself.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Oh goodie, a religious flamefest! Count me in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Me too!

Voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, numerology, Scientology, Unification, Judeo-Christianity-Islam, et cetera. It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk. Pablum for the masses and power/wealth for the clerics.

Have I offended *everyone*? If not, I need to try harder. All of you take the above nonsense far too seriously.

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk.
If you believe this, then you're not ...

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.
... you're a strong atheist. Agnostics believe that the question of the existence of god(s) is intrinsically unsolvable, as opposed to "bunk".

I classify myself as an "agnostic weak atheist", i.e. someone who regards the problem as unsolvable and, in addition, has not adopted a religious faith. Agnostic theists exist - people who know there's no way of proving it but choose to believe in a god anyway.

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 07:05 AM

I think there are really two fundamental questions about a "god" or other related being.

Firstly, does one exist? It has not been proved that one does, and it's obviously an impossibility to prove that such a thing cannot exist.

However, the real question is....assuming such a thing does exist, is it deserving of worship? This is a question we certainly CAN answer. Personally, I have to say that the answer is "no". I cannot attribute anything I'd actually be thankful about that has occurred in my life to anything other than my own efforts, so I can't say I'd find any such being deserving of my worship. I'd like to see some verifiable miracles before I start worshipping anyone. It should be noted that, technically, an evil miracle is still a miracle, and while highly effective at inducing belief, tends to produce more terror than actual worshipfulness. Which is probably more amusing anyway.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:06: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Boron:

but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .

Actually, I think most of the stories about people thinking the world is flat are apocryphal. Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

The issue there was whether the Sun or the Earth lay at the centre of the solar system. Catholic teaching demanded that it be the Earth, but Galileo knew otherwise.

And yes, official recognition of the error was only forthcoming from the Catholic church in recent times.

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
However, the real question is....assuming such a thing does exist, is it deserving of worship? You assume here a system of ethics, a judgement of who "deserves" what, independant of the god in a godfull universe. There's no agreement on that. Many people argue that if there is a god, then that god defines and dictates the only system of ethics that can be used for such judgements.

In other words, God deserves worship if He says He does.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk.
If you believe this, then you're not<hr /></blockquote>Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.

The question of whether a god may or may not exist is a question of philosophy and science. Only after you accept the existence of something does belief (or religion, if you prefer) enter into the picture. It's a fallacy to confuse belief with logic, and philosophy & science deal with logic, not dogma.

Atheism is no different than any other religion. They have come to conclusions (100% sure of things one way or another) about that for which no logical proof has be obtained. IOW, their minds are closed. Or if I want to be really nasty about it, they're drones, tools to be used for the gratification of religious leaders (be they seeking wealth, power, destruction, or whatever).

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
Geeze. Well no more empirical science. Graeme hath decreed that it is "useless." Too bad all sciences are emperical. Bummer for us.You are a complete idiot. That is the only word that can be used to describe someone as stupid as yourself. Please, why don't you outline the "empirical evidence" that you've provided. Note that an unsupported claim that "The U.S. system is better." is not empirical evidence. It is supposition.

You haven't supplied evidence, you've supplied anecdotes. In fact, you really haven't even done that. You've simply stated "This is true.", and expected me to believe it. Guess what, if you can't provide _actual evidence_ to support your point, then your point is nonsense.

I've provided the evidence to support my argument. Where's yours? I've also provided evidence that shows that your argument is wrong, that Canadian healthcare is obviously not worthless since it is the best in the world in certain areas. What's your response to this? You simply ignore what I've written and continue to spout your ignorance. I shouldn't have even had to provide any evidence to disprove your arguments at all, since you have yet to provide any to support them.

So, like I said in one of my 1st Posts I'm an ex-pat and ths I have actually seen the health care on both sides of the fence.Ahh yes, an appeal to authority. It's nice to see that you've started to trot out the fallacies. Please provide hard evidence to support your assertion. Note that your personal experience is irrelevant if you can't provide actual examples.

Since you are flapping your mouth off I have to assume that you are also an ex-pat with a differing experience.I don't need experience. I need you to provide some actual hard evidence other than your completely unsupported assertions about the health care system.

Phew. I am *so* glad that you continually define the terms of the argument to suit your purposes. Sadly it's not what I asserted. Which was *if* you can pay the US system is better. Sadly you seem incapable of understanding that. Oh go cry me a river. If you really believe that the valid way to measure a health care system is by what the wealthiest people can afford then your grip on reality is very poor indeed. I suppose that next you'll tell me that Zaire has a great health care system since the richest people there can afford to go to the U.S. for their treatment. I'm fully capable of understanding what your assertion means, which is why I can see that it would be a meaningless statement even if it were true. Since you haven't even been able to demonstrate that it's true, I can safely assume that it isn't.

You are a funny and sad at the same time. Congratulations!And you're a moron with all the logical skills of a rather stupid rock. An argument made without supporting evidence is one that can be ignored, as it contains no useful information.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:26: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.It was for heresy (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=heresy&x=23&y=10). The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy (http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp) has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.

EDIT: offending the pope is heresy, since it goes against Catholic dogma, and by definition, violating dogma is heresy.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I suppose that next you'll tell me that Zaire has a great health care system since the richest people there can afford to go to the U.S. for their treatment.That assertion makes no sense, because obviously, Zaire does not have a great health care system if people there are leaving the country to seek their health care. Nobody goes *TO* Zaire to get treatment. 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.

Now, whether you feel the ubiquity of the healthcare system compensates for the fact that, apparently, it is not as good, as people apparently *DO* leave the country for treatment on a not-uncommon basis, is something that can be subjected to debate. Healthcare, in whatever form, however, is not free, even in Canada. You STILL have to pay for it, but instead of paying for your OWN problems, you're ending up paying for someone ELSE's problems. I don't see this as a good thing, as it certainly provides a strong disincentive for people to deal with their own personal problems. Just observe the level of service you can get in Communist countries, where nobody is motivated to do anything because they gain little from their own actions. If people have to deal with their own problems, the ones that are willing to work to overcome their issues succeed, the slackers perish. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Skolem

July 28th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:You STILL have to pay for it, but instead of paying for your OWN problems, you're ending up paying for someone ELSE's problems. I don't see this as a good thing, as it certainly provides a strong disincentive for people to deal with their own personal problems. Just observe the level of service you can get in Communist countries, where nobody is motivated to do anything because they gain little from their own actions. If people have to deal with their own problems, the ones that are willing to work to overcome their issues succeed, the slackers perish. Good riddance to bad rubbish. That is really false, why are we living in society? It is not for the sake of the economist as it seem you are believing, nor it is to solve our own problems, with a good social system, you may at a time pay for another, but in the main time other are paying for you for other thing, it comes back!!!we aren't a pack of lonely bears in a forest as you seem to believe it we are HUMANS, it is normal to help each other (Oh and don't come up with your Christian charity bull****, that has no relevance and is only arrogant).
As for the communist countrys there are a lot people who think, it was better then, even if you hadn't such a high lifestile (at least in east germany), so this can't be the point. And the purpose discussed here isn't to make a the USA a communist State, no one want this, you should better make comparision with european lands like say Sweden, you would be surprised how good there lives,despite the fact of there high taxes and high social system.
The point is does feel people better with private health care or not. And it seems not.

spirokeat

July 28th, 2004, 09:15 AM

It was for heresy. The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.
I have to say, despite not having the energy to delve too deeply into defending one way or the other, pretty much anything spouted by catholic.com is about as suspect as it can get.

And if anyone read the article, did you get that feeling of zombification creeping over you as the reasonable tone of the words just dulled you into submission ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Spiro

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
And if anyone read the article, did you get that feeling of zombification creeping over you as the reasonable tone of the words just dulled you into submission ?"You are getting sleepy ... very sleepy. When I snap my fingers, you will awaken, refreshed and reborn, and believe everything I tell you to believe." hehe

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

spirokeat

July 28th, 2004, 09:29 AM

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique.
cackle, yup, couldn't agree more. But they sure as hell didn't see Darwinism coming did they.

Spiro

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.
I agree, and don't believe I said otherwise, nor confused religion with metaphysics. My comment was based on your usage of the term agnostic, which I continue to claim means a belief in the unsolvability of a question. Your usage of the word "bunk" implies that you know a particular belief set is wrong, and hence have gone some way towards solving the problem.

Zapmeister

July 28th, 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
It was for heresy (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=heresy&x=23&y=10). The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy (http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp) has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.
It mis-represents the facts. Galileo's hand-written confession, forced from him by the Inquisition, included these words:

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun was the centre of the universe and immovable, and that the earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution:...

PrinzMegaherz

July 28th, 2004, 10:37 AM

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.

[ July 28, 2004, 09:57: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
It mis-represents the facts.Of course it does, and should not come as a surprise, given that the Church took 500 years to even come up with as little admission of stupidity as it managed to. But, when I said it was an "excellent overview", my intent was that it stated the issues in dispute, and why. I could have also pointed out that the page is full to bursting with misleading statements and self-serving, obfuscatory excuses for the Church's behavior. But I didn't because I felt that such should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of open-mindedness and some ability to comprehend written English. In short, being able to determine for oneself whether to take things at face value, or needing to read between the lines. Which, having such capabilities yourself, you noted. For those lacking, nothing I might have added would help.

I don't feel it's my place, nor do I have the time (unlike Graeme), to try to enlighten the willfully ignorant. So I tend to not include caveats and warnings, or speak in simple language. I expect people to be educated to a minimal standard, and I have little patience for the semifunctionally-illiterate.

Thankfully, Zap, you are one of those rare folks that has a clue.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment.Coming to the US for special treatment does not mean that the US has a better system. All it shows is that there may be a doctor, team, or hospital here that is better at something than can be found somewhere else. The US does not have a monopoly on all the best doctors and medical technology on this planet. However, in many areas, we do. But it's a fallacy to generalize from specifics. Not to mention being impolitic and rude (arrogant) to the folks living somewhere other than the US.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Boron:
the main problem with the catholic church i have is that they are the most "aggressive" big world religion . they evangelise still intolerant .However, almost all "evangelical" Groups, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or even Hindu, are intolerant. Kinda makes you wish the world had only one faith: Buddhist. Ever seen an evangelical Buddhist monk? I haven't.

fanaticism is evil .Yes, it is. In any form. Especially PETA. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

just look at bin laden . but the muslim faith is in general more tolerant bin laden is only a sect which isn't even tolerated by the muslim leaders while the catholic church seems to me much more fanatic and they tolerate , even support extreme and almost violent catholic sects .Can you name an "extreme" Catholic sect that exists *today*? (And cite examples of what makes them "extreme" and "almost violent".)

Disregarding small Groups of disaffected people such as hard-core IRA, Orangemen, fanatical Israelis (the aforementioned three Groups mainly being about matters of tradition, vengeance, or land-ownership and not about religious differences), and the occasional sociopathic Christian anti-abortionist, can you name me any Judeo-Christians that go around blowing themselves up? Or brutally murdering hostages in the name of God? I don't think so. Not even Serbs and Croats commit their atrocities for the sake of their faith. Only practicioners of Islam have this reprehensible practice today. The rest of the world became, more or less, civilized and ceased such things as crusades, inquisitions (if we ignore the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security), and burnings-at-stakes. Despite all that you can say about Islam being a peaceful religion, a far larger percentage of its followers remain stuck in medieval barbarism than do the followers of any other religion. Please explain why this is so ...

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That assertion makes no sense, because obviously, Zaire does not have a great health care system if people there are leaving the country to seek their health care. Nobody goes *TO* Zaire to get treatment.No, it simply illustrates that you can't judge whether a system works by ignoring all the cases where it doesn't. After all, that's what hius argument really is.

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.I wasn't aware that the proper way to judge whether something was good was to ignore every single instance where that thing fails.

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 won't deny that some people do this. I will still ask to see that the number of people who do this is statistically significant.

Healthcare, in whatever form, however, is not free, even in Canada. You STILL have to pay for it, but instead of paying for your OWN problems, you're ending up paying for someone ELSE's problems.But so what really? When it comes down to it you pay less than if you weren't paying for everyone else's problems, and all of society benefits as a whole.

I don't see this as a good thing, as it certainly provides a strong disincentive for people to deal with their own personal problems.Yes, because people don't bother to work hard when that means that they will make more money. I suppose that you also support the privatization of police forces, since only people that require them should have to pay for them.

If people have to deal with their own problems, the ones that are willing to work to overcome their issues succeed, the slackers perish. Good riddance to bad rubbish.Yep. The standard "people who fail are always lazy" fallacy of false causes.

spirokeat

July 28th, 2004, 02:47 PM

posted by Boron

at least in europe the catholics are this way perhaps the american catholics are more moderate because they are not as dependent on the pope as the european ones and they are not the majority in the usa so they can't afford to be as arrogant as they are in europe .
Fan of the sweeping generalisation are we old bean ?

I think you will find that almost all major religions have a bloody past and to single out Catholics as having some kind of monopoly, past and present on attrocities is what's arrogant, never mind the MASSIVE insult you just curve ball'd at Europeans.

I think were I to be arsed digging up some information I would find that the US has had a fantastic record in crackpot religious cults slaughtering and generally making a nuisance of themselves in the name of God or Goverment. Lets face it, You have Bush right now, so that practically invalidates any arguement the US has for not being right at the top of psuedo-nutjob leaders list be they religious or not.

Spiro

[ July 28, 2004, 13:51: Message edited by: spirokeat ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 02:56 PM

Spirokeat,

Boron is from Germany, not the U.S., as you believe. Chastising him as if he were an American is hardly fair. He's arguably more European than you are.

spirokeat

July 28th, 2004, 03:00 PM

You have Bush right now, so that practically invalidates any arguement the US has for not being right at the top of psuedo-nutjob leaders list be they religious or not.
Best change that to

The US has bush right now, so that practically invalidates any arguement the US has for not being right at the top of pseudo-nutjob arrogant leaders list, be they religious or not.

Spiro.

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Fan of the sweeping generalisation are we old bean ?

Spiro i also posted that : Originally posted by Boron :
so my view of the catholics is perhaps a bit biased by own expierience and after that i declared that every group has its own black sheeps but that the catholic group has the longest and bloodiest history in doing crimes in the name of god .
my main disagree with the catholic church is the institution of the pope .
as i have stated before that is blasphemy nowhere in the bible can be found legitimation for the office of the pope .

i come from bavaria and we have here some maria worshipping sects that are really intolerant .
they are only one step away from suicide bombers . most bavarians are very intolerant .
catholic and csu-voters ( csu means christian social union , it is one of the 2 major german parties ) .
i am a confident protestant spd-voting bavarian .
with that attitude my attitude differs greatly towards the bavarian majority .
bavaria is germans most conservative country .
only with catholic csu-voters with high education you can discuss fairly but with 90% of the not so educated people discussion will follow that simple pattern :
if you say anything against csu ( they are almost like the SED in bavaria ruled from 1949 until now alone always with 50%+ majority ) they just say you are a public enemy and go to prussia if you wanna complain .
whether or not kohl is mainly responsible for our great state deficit doesn't interest them .
they simply neglect despite it is true .

Originally posted by Arryn :

Spirokeat,

Boron is from Germany, not the U.S., as you believe. Chastising him as if he were an American is hardly fair. He's arguably more European than you are. thnx arryn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

yeah britain is the sole major european country left that's not in the eu .

oh and ps : isn't britain protestant ?
henry VIII dissociated from the pope .
so i don't get why you attack me complaining about the pope ?

[ July 28, 2004, 14:12: Message edited by: Boron ]

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 03:20 PM

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.

(Keep in mind that even most Muslims expect some suffering in the afterlife before they get to their heaven, as each who didn't die a martyr has to cross a bridge that is razor thin / sharp, in bare feet.)

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:

Only practicioners of Islam have this reprehensible practice today. The rest of the world became, more or less, civilized and ceased such things as crusades, inquisitions (if we ignore the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security), and burnings-at-stakes. Despite all that you can say about Islam being a peaceful religion, a far larger percentage of its followers remain stuck in medieval barbarism than do the followers of any other religion. Please explain why this is so ... yeah that's a really interesting question .
i heard from moderate muslims with which i discussed myself and from many other sources that mohammed is often misunderstood too but if you look close to the koran you find nothing which legitimates suicide attacks and killing of nonmuslims .

a source is poverty .
the islam is a 700-800 year younger religion than the catholic one .
so you could say history repeats sometimes .
now the islam exists for about 1200-1300 years .
the catholic belief existed 1200-1300 years exactly in 1200-1300 . in that time they made some of their biggest crimes : the inquisition and the crusades .

now expect the hardcore ira as you mentioned before i agree that fortunately there is no other religious group that is that dangerous .
expect some muslim fanatics .

but in both cases poverty is a main cause :
irish people were ( perhaps still are i am not very informed on that topic ) the poor and disadvantaged group in northern ireland .

same with the muslim fanatics .

poverty is one of the things demagogists exploit most . in most extremist e.g. muslim splinter Groups the leader is not much more than a demagogist like saddam or hitler who just abuses the popularity of church for his own claims .

if you can't combat poverty and especially discrimination of certain Groups unfortunately i know no solution against demagogists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

spirokeat

July 28th, 2004, 03:50 PM

I'm not attacking you Boron, my apologies if you felt that. Aside of that, the point I wanted to make is that the US is no less culpable in its ownership of fringe extremists than most european countries, hence my sweeping generalisation comment.

And as for England being Protestant, well, the church of england may be (i have no idea), but to be honest standard christian religion plays very little role in many peoples lives here despite us hosting a highly multicultural populous, which I say with some experience having lived in Bradford for many years, probably the largest population of Musilms in the UK.

Though I wouldn't deny that many traits and traditions within English society were born of christian values.

Spiro

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Boron:
a source is poverty .
the islam is a 700-800 year younger religion than the catholic one .
so you could say history repeats sometimes.Well, given the level of destructiveness of today's technology, this planet, and we humans, cannot afford to wait another 500-600 years until Muslims mellow out, become civilized, and abandon the path of the sword. A martyr-wannabe with a gene-tailored virus, who cares not who or how many die with him, is the most scary thing imaginable. And it's all too possible. Forget stolen nukes or home-grown ones. They can, at most, kill a few million. Some psychopath, funded by Saudi oil money, with the help of any of the many ex-Soviet unemployed bioweapons scientists, could end all human life. And unlike nukes, there's no technology that can be invented to detect such a thing at a port/airport. Hell, they could release the doomsday bug in their own country and let their own people, totally unknowing civilians, spread it around the world.

Cheery thought, eh?

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
And as for England being Protestant, well, the church of england may be (i have no idea)The Anglican Church (the Church of England) is a Protestant Christian sect.

EDIT: quote formatting

[ July 28, 2004, 15:08: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 04:20 PM

Boron,

That all religious conflicts (wars) have 'poverty' as their root cause (if you use a very loose definition of the term 'poverty') is true. Religion is an excuse that people use to justify aggression used to achieve other goals. The Crusades weren't about faith. They were about land-grabbing abroad, and political maneuvering at home. The Holocaust wasn't about a difference of faith between Nazis and Jews. It was about a redistribution of wealth and the elimination of ideological threats. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about faith, but about controlling land and revenge.

If you eliminate greed, vengeance, and true poverty, then you remove the excuses used for religious intolerance. But you have to get rid of all three. Curing poverty is not enough. Though it would take care of 99% of the problem, probably making the rest manageable.

EDIT: typo

[ July 28, 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
I'm not attacking you Boron, my apologies if you felt that. Aside of that, the point I wanted to make is that the US is no less culpable in its ownership of fringe extremists than most european countries, hence my sweeping generalisation comment.

And as for England being Protestant, well, the church of england may be (i have no idea), but to be honest standard christian religion plays very little role in many peoples lives here despite us hosting a highly multicultural populous, which I say with some experience having lived in Bradford for many years, probably the largest population of Musilms in the UK.

Though I wouldn't deny that many traits and traditions within English society were born of christian values.

Spiro yeah i was a bit surprised that you thought i am an american . so i wasn't quite sure if you are attacking me thnx for the clarification http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
we share the same view about generalisation . i think i am a very tolerant person .
that was why i felt a bit attacked because i thought i had pointed it out clearly that i am in no way against the catholic church in general only against some popes which made faults and because of that against the office of the pope anyways .
perhaps it was impossible to understand because i wrote "black sheeps" . that is a well known german figure of speech i guessed that it is in english simply black sheeps .
is this correct ? because if that means something completely different in english or is even nonsense then half of my post where i wrote that may be very hard to understand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

church plays no great role here either at least not for the protestants in bavaria most catholics are a bit conservativer here though .
i think having a honorary office in the catholic church and beeing seen as a good catholic still would help you if you aim for becoming a politician here .

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Boron:
a source is poverty .
the islam is a 700-800 year younger religion than the catholic one .
so you could say history repeats sometimes.Well, given the level of destructiveness of today's technology, this planet, and we humans, cannot afford to wait another 500-600 years until Muslims mellow out, become civilized, and abandon the path of the sword. A martyr-wannabe with a gene-tailored virus, who cares not who or how many die with him, is the most scary thing imaginable. And it's all too possible. Forget stolen nukes or home-grown ones. They can, at most, kill a few million. Some psychopath, funded by Saudi oil money, with the help of any of the many ex-Soviet unemployed bioweapons scientists, could end all human life. And unlike nukes, there's no technology that can be invented to detect such a thing at a port/airport. Hell, they could release the doomsday bug in their own country and let their own people, totally unknowing civilians, spread it around the world.

Cheery thought, eh? <hr /></blockquote>very scary "visions" .
i carry them on how they could be too :
lets assume terrorists spread a very virulent disease as you described .
if it breaks out quite quick then perhaps the leaders of the countries of the world like bush , putin and so on will hide in sterile bunkers and nuke whole afrika , middle east and other "terrorist" countries .
perhaps a few of the leaders in the bunkers though survive because they didn't get infected yet or find a remedy .
but earth will be unlivable anyways for the next some thousand years because of the nukes .

a very scary variation too i think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Boron

July 28th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Boron,

If you eliminate greed, vengeance, and true poverty, then you remove the excuses used for religious intolerance. But you have to get rid of all three. Curing poverty is not enough. Though it would take care of 99% of the problem, probably making the rest manageable.

EDIT: typo yeah i had that in mind too . i think we need to add discrimination and grudge and fear .

it is a vicious circle :

poverty and discrimination of whole social classes / whole nations result first in 2 things . the lower class is jealous on the upper class and begins to hate them . the upper class begins to fear the lower class .
soon it escalates and they start to violate each other . if that point has been reached and continued for some years it is hard to ever stop it .
each group claims to only take vengeance for what the others started .

unfortunately i think it can't be overcome because the human nature at least of the great majority is egoistic and greedy .
some are quite moderate some not ( these become often the richest capitalists ) ,but the tendency to greedy and egoistic behaviour is in every human .

it seems though that men have this behaviour in a more dangerous / stronger form than women averagely . at least less women are willing to go to the next step to satisfy their greed and start wars .

if human nature wouldn't be egoistic the pure / idealistic communism marx and engels had in mind would work and most likely be the best type of government . but so far history has proven that human nature isn't ripe for communism or any similiar form of government where the aim is to provide everybody the best possible life .

perhaps it changes once we have a common enemy : aliens .
but i doubt if that is a preferable solution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

daesthai

July 28th, 2004, 06:51 PM

Wow! Go to bed for a few hours and look at the firestorm that ensues!

I didn't mean to spark a debate of the correctness or validity of Catholicism, I merely pointed out that I thought it was silly of Kerry to say he was Catholic in a seeming attempt to garner the Catholic vote when he also states that he does not share some of the basic beliefs/values of Catholicism.

I'm not skilled enough in apologetics to try to tackle all of the questions/issues presented in this thread, but I can clarify a couple of issues where I feel something is incorrect...

Cheezeninja & Boron - I appreciate your views. Everyone knows religion is a hot-button topic, and the Posts here show how vehementaly people feel.

Cheezeninja - In the end it just gets right down to the bones of the abortion issue wherein Anti-Abortion people think you are killing a baby and should be stopped, and Pro-Choice people think you are destroying a zygote with the genetic complexity of a snail and feel the Anti-Abortion people are attempting to take away one of their rights. I agree with your point here that it comes down to how certain information is viewed - is it a baby or is it a zygote? Is Kerry refraining from forcing his beliefs, or is he a hypocrit? It comes down to point of view. Because of this, I think its very rare that someone will change their position on the subject just because someone else talks with or tries to persuade them. The decision and veiwpoint come about because of experiences and values, not because of words and explinations.

Cheezeninja - Not being a catholic myself i dont know if divinity is attributed to the pope or not, so that entire argument might be moot. The point is, indeed, moot. Not because the pope is given a divine status, but because, in matters of church doctrine, he is considered infallable. Regardless of whether someone ELSE agrees with that or not, it is the teaching of the Catholic church.

Cheezeninja - Catholisism was around way before abortion and already had all of its beliefs and rules defined and categorized. With the advent of abortion they had to go to a non-divine, humanly selected person to make the call (the pope), and its entirely possible he made the wrong call I understand your point here, but as you also stated later in your post, "In the end it just gets right down to the bones of the abortion issue wherein Anti-Abortion people think you are killing a baby and should be stopped". If that is the case, and in the Catholic view it is, then that is murder. Which was addressed directly in the Ten Commandments.

Boron - so even the catholic church recognizes severe mistakes and corrects them even if only slowly . so if they change it themselfes it is good or what..and it is the best proof that the catholic church + the pope aren't inerrant as they always claim .
ihmo the catholic church is just hypocritical. If you notice my statement earlier in this post, the Pope is considered infallable in maters of doctrine. Even the Pope is not granted authority to change doctrine - only to interperet it. Practices can be altered (as in Vatican II), Liturgy can be changed, but the doctrine and beliefs are consistant.

Boron - furthermore there is nothing in the bible that justifes the catholic worship of saints .
one of the 10 commandmends says you should have no other gods beside me .
but in the catholic church the worship for especially maria is more important than for jesus .This statement is frequently made, and is just as frequently incorrect. Saints are by no means placed on a godly level, nor are they worshiped. They are elevated as role-models and examples of faithfulness. There is nothing wrong with asking others to pray with and for us, and that is what Catholics ask of the Saints - to pray for them. Their lives are used as examples of how to live a Catholic life and how to act/react in given situation. They are not given their own divinty, nor are they given the authority or powers of God. The same is true about Mary. Your statement that she has become more important than Jesus is an exaggeration to say the least. Just as the Saints have an elevated status, so does Mary. Even the scripture refers to her as "Blessed above all women". Does she hold a revered status? yes! Is she given the power and authority of God, himself? absolutely not.

Boron - the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me You are misinterpreting my quote. Whether or not the Catholic church believes it is the only faith is a matter of debate. But the quote "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" does not negate other beliefs. The quote (which interestingly enough appears in both the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds - both of which are part of the Lutheran liturgy as well) is making a statement about how the church defines and recognizes itself. Note that "catholic" is not capitalized here (I think in a previous post, out of habit, I capitalized it, which is incorrect.) This refers not to catholic as in the believe system, but rather the word "catholic" as it is derived from the greek word meaning universal. It basically states that only one catholic (universal) church is recognized, and it is granted its holiness and sanctity in the fact that the leadership is decended through the unbroken and successive line of the apostles, and thus retains its original beliefs(doctrine-wise). In effect, in terms of Christian faiths, the Catholic church views itself as the church, and all other Christian belief systems as sects, since they historically broke off from the Catholic church and branched off from there.

Boron - the main problem with the catholic church i have is that they are the most "aggressive" big world religion Could you please clarify what you mean here by aggressive? If you mean that the Catholic church is very vocal in it's opinions and is trying to constantly increase its influence, that's one thing - I would have to say you have a valid point. But if you're equating aggressiveness to violence and forcing itself on someone, I would have to disagree, and I think most of the news coming from the middle east would support me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 28, 2004, 20:53: Message edited by: daesthai ]

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I wasn't aware that the proper way to judge whether something was good was to ignore every single instance where that thing fails.I'm the one ignoring every instance where it fails? You seem to be doing that yourself. Every person who leaves the country to seek treatment represents a failure of the health care system. Yet you'd ignore this when claiming your system is better.

I won't deny that some people do this. I will still ask to see that the number of people who do this is statistically significant.That depends on how you define statistically significant. After all, people who are rich is a small slice of the population already, and smaller still is the population of rich people who are sufficiently sick to do this. They also don't exactly fill out a form indicating they're doing it.

But so what really? When it comes down to it you pay less than if you weren't paying for everyone else's problems, and all of society benefits as a whole.Err....if I wasn't paying for everyone else's problems, I'd pay less for healthcare. Far less for healthcare. Like, say, zilch. Because I'm not sick. I get to keep my money. Funny how that works. And I see no evidence to suggest that society benefits as a whole: These people are not contagious, and what they have isn't going to affect me, or anyone else. I fully support the idea that a publicly-funded program against infectious diseases is a good one. I don't believe that publicly-funded healthcare in general is, as there are an awful lot of really frivolous treatments that get funded at your expense.

Yes, because people don't bother to work hard when that means that they will make more money.They wouldn't have to try as hard. After all, they don't have to worry about saving money for if they get sick. They can just be totally useless slackers and expect somebody else to pay for them. I'm not saying everyone does this, but it's obvious that the people who end up becoming sick as a result, and couldn't have afforded to pay, are.

I suppose that you also support the privatization of police forces, since only people that require them should have to pay for them.Not at all: The police arguably provide a public service that is beneficial to all. Everyone benefits from them, mostly, unless you happen to be a criminal. I say "arguably", because many times, it's not really clear that they're actually providing this effectively, as they're overburdened with meaningless, frivolous things. However, the theory remains sound, even if present implementation is lacking in many areas. This doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't take care of themselves, though. We have the second amendment for a reason, insofar as certain politicians keep trying to hamstring it, something which is apparently sadly lacking in Canada and leaves you at the mercy of killers, rapists, robbers, and other hoodlums.

Yep. The standard "people who fail are always lazy" fallacy of false causes. 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. If you bothered to apply yourself and didn't just give up and whine when the going got though, you would succeed, or die trying. Either way, you have dealt with your personal problems personally, the way it should be.

[ July 28, 2004, 18:23: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 07:37 PM

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Skolem

July 28th, 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
[qb] just look at bin laden . but the muslim faith is in general more tolerant bin laden is only a sect which isn't even tolerated by the muslim leaders while the catholic church seems to me much more fanatic and they tolerate , even support extreme and almost violent catholic sects .Can you name an "extreme" Catholic sect that exists *today*? (And cite examples of what makes them "extreme" and "almost violent".)
I can G.W. B. and his follower!!!!!!!!!

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Skolem:
I can G.W. B. and his follower!!!!!!!!! Wrong. Bush isn't Catholic, though he is pretty extreme.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I'm the one ignoring every instance where it fails? You seem to be doing that yourself. Every person who leaves the country to seek treatment represents a failure of the health care system. Yet you'd ignore this when claiming your system is better.No, I'm not ignoring it. The aggregate health statistics of the population show that in general people are healthier in Canada. Nobody here has been able to show that these statistics are significantly altered by those wealthy people that might go to the U.S. for treatment.
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. That's called biased sampling, and you can be used to get such useless results as showing that there are no people living below the poverty line by refusing to count people that live below the poverty line.

That depends on how you define statistically significant.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.

I don't believe that publicly-funded healthcare in general is, as there are an awful lot of really frivolous treatments that get funded at your expense.Why don't you name some frivolous treatments then.

Not at all: The police arguably provide a public service that is beneficial to all. Everyone benefits from them, mostly, unless you happen to be a criminal.And everyone benefits from a healthy population. A population with healthier people is a population that can be more productive.

We have the second amendment for a reason, insofar as certain politicians keep trying to hamstring it, something which is apparently sadly lacking in Canada and leaves you at the mercy of killers, rapists, robbers, and other hoodlums.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.

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.

[ July 28, 2004, 19:33: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Stormbinder

July 28th, 2004, 08:32 PM

Wow. You are gone for less than a day, and there are 3 new full pages of flames on several none-related topics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Ok, here we go...

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
And you're a moron with all the logical skills of a rather stupid rock. An argument made without supporting evidence is one that can be ignored, as it contains no useful information. LOL. Well said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif It looks like I need to reclarify my collection of rocks into 2 new categories of smart and stupid. Sounds like facinating project. Do you think you can give me a hand with it Graeme? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 28, 2004, 19:56: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

July 28th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I suppose that next you'll tell me that Zaire has a great health care system since the richest people there can afford to go to the U.S. for their treatment.That assertion makes no sense, because obviously, Zaire does not have a great health care system if people there are leaving the country to seek their health care. Nobody goes *TO* Zaire to get treatment. <hr /></blockquote>You have missed the Graeme's point completely. He was saying that any healthcare system that gives most benefit only to the rich people is not a good one. The question what exactly they need to do to rip these benefits is irrelivent for the topic of this discussion.

vigabrand

July 28th, 2004, 08:41 PM

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

July 28th, 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 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. <hr /></blockquote>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

July 28th, 2004, 08:48 PM

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.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. <hr /></blockquote>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

July 28th, 2004, 08:48 PM

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

July 28th, 2004, 08:52 PM

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

July 28th, 2004, 08:54 PM

Norfy, Google is working just fine.

Stormbinder

July 28th, 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.

<hr /></blockquote>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

July 28th, 2004, 09:02 PM

Edited

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

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 09:03 PM

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

July 28th, 2004, 09:06 PM

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

He will come to it Arryn, don't give him hints to make it easer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 09:07 PM

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 nicelyApathy 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

July 28th, 2004, 09:08 PM

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 28th, 2004, 09:15 PM

.

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

Stormbinder

July 28th, 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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. <hr /></blockquote>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

July 28th, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
[QUOTE]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 ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 09:25 PM

Viga,

You've assumed that when I mentioned "mislead", I was referring to the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Not true. I refer to his concealed plans to go to war with Iraq *before* 9/11, and his reasons for the *timing* of when he took us to war. Also, he's the President and (as Harry Truman said), the buck stops at the Oval Office. He's the top guy, and thus ultimately responsible for what happens, and for the people who work for him. If Clinton was President, and we were in the situation the US is now in, rest assured the Republicans would be howling for blood. Clinton lied to the public and the Congress about having sex. Bush has lied about most everything else (the true costs of the tax cut, how the nation's energy policy was crafted, and a very long and dirty laundry list of other things), and he's gotten many of our soldiers killed.

vigabrand

July 28th, 2004, 09:35 PM

Arryn, sorry for assuming what you meant by mislead.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Bush was planning on going to war before 9/11. Thats pure speculation. As to Clinton lieing about sex, he was in trouble for obstructing justice, for lying under oath in a sexual harrassement case about him. He was impeached, found in contempt of court for lying to a judge and fined 90k. Enough about Clinton.

It seems to me that your biggest gripe about Bush, is that he is liar and a schemer, though there is no factual evidence to any of it. Do you really not like the guy because he "seems" to be a liar?

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Besides, the Canadian system is based on what is essentially thievery.Thievery? You certainly have little concept of the law.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I'm aware of it. In fact, it's worse than thievery. At least thievery is illegal and when thieves try to rob you, they risk their own health and well-being for their gains. Politicians are worse than thieves: They make it LEGAL to rob you.

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."

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 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.?<hr /></blockquote>I didn't say that: I was pointing out exactly the same thing: That the healthcare system in Zaire obviously sucks, because anyone who feels like spending actual money on their own health....LEAVES THE COUNTRY! Obviously, they can't get what they want in Zaire. What does this have to do with the fact that many people in Zaire can't afford to do this? It doesn't change the fact that the system sucks, because obviously, anyone who cares to afford to get out does so.

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.It's the principle of the matter! Give an inch, and they take a mile. Have you no sense of principle anymore? What is wrong with you people?!?

And here we see the continued usage of the "lazy people" argument.You still can't demonstrate what is *WRONG* with the lazy people argument. Clearly, by their own problems, they demonstrate that they are stupid, lazy, and/or incompetent. Otherwise they'd have dealt with this on their own!

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.The only difference between something that can go wrong, and something that can't possibly go wrong, is that when the latter goes wrong, it usually proves impossible to fix.

Apathy is the same thing as laziness.Not really. I'm normally an industrious person, but there are some things I just don't give a rat's *** about. If they go wrong, I don't care. I have things I actually care about, and that ain't one of them. If it goes wrong, I let it go wrong. And hey, it's only a problem if you make it a problem.

That a person may be incompet and stupid is no reason to throw them to the wolves and let them die.Throwing would imply that some sort of action was taken. This is not the case. If they make their own bed, let them lie in it. Maybe they'll reconsider. But that is not my problem.

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.You assume that we need every Last person we can get, and that the world is not overpopulated. We don't, and it is. If some people choose to voluntarily remove themselves from the herd through their own actions, why should I stop them? My resources are better bestowed upon those I feel are worthy of them. I'd rather give my money to somebody I feel is deserving of it, rather than some slacker who dug his own grave and deserves to lie in it.

Originally posted by Arryn:
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?Absolutely. Fight crime: Shoot back. It'd be nice to have a utopian society with "no crime" and no gun ownership, but I keep having nasty 1984 and Brave New World flashbacks whenever I think of that idea, and frankly, it gives me the willies. It's entirely contrary to human nature. Be real. At least life would be interesting.

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.That's because things have been downhill ever since duelling was Banned. Besides, the Swiss are well-armed. They don't have any problems. Clearly, there are other factors at work which promote the violence in America, and given that it exists, apparently independently of how heavily armed we are....would you rather be heavily armed, or would you rather that only criminals be heavily armed?

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).I approve.

But I'd much rather not *have* to keep an arsenal at home for fear of my fellow citizens. What's wrong with having an arsenal at home? It never hurts to be prepared for when the revolution comes. A good gun is like a pair of comfortable pants. Never leave home without it.

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif What, I haven't implied this sufficiently? How direct do you need me to be?

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
You must be mixing your medication and drinking again.I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Because Kerry is claiming to be a Catholic it is his moral responsibility to be against abortion.As an American, it's his moral and LEGAL responsibility to support the Constitutionally-guaranteed FREEDOM to choose for oneself what one does with one's own body. Perhaps you cannot be Catholic and American at the same time, if as a Catholic you must give up some of your basic human rights.

BTW, there's also a Constitutionally-mandated seperation of Church and State, which Bush and the far right-wing elements in the US conveniently try to ignore.

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. Doesn't God forgive all? Isn't it God's place to judge, and not Man's? So shut up and quit telling others how to live their lives. It's blasphemy in your own faith. Sinner.

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
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. When someone chooses to have an abortion, they're removing an unwanted parasitic organism from their own bodies. I guarantee you that if YOU had been aborted as a child, you'd have had no objections about it. Being nonsentient at the time, and being subsequently nonexistent, makes for a very convenient package.

NTJedi

July 28th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Boron:
germany is almost bankrupt because or huge social programs like health care , pensions and unemployment benefit become unpayable .

so conclusion NTJedi : you are totally right and wait 10 years and many nations like germany will have abolished national healthcare and have a system similiar to the USsystem .

That's so true... and there's no reason to send the USA down a dark path which includes higher taxes.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by vigabrand:
There is absolutely zero evidence that Bush was planning on going to war before 9/11. Thats pure speculation.Not so, but I don't recall offhand the name of the Bush admin. insider who not long ago leaked this. May have been Clarke (not the General, the other one).

It seems to me that your biggest gripe about Bush, is that he is liar and a schemer, though there is no factual evidence to any of it. Do you really not like the guy because he "seems" to be a liar? I have several books, written by investigative reporters, that document (and I do mean document, in verifiable detail) a very long history of his lying and scheming, from before he was even Governor of my state. I've disliked the man for many, many years. His whole family, for that matter.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Oh, I'm aware of it. In fact, it's worse than thievery.Right. I think it's now quite clear that you have no interest in developing a functioning society, so there's little point in continuing this.

It doesn't change the fact that the system sucks, because obviously, anyone who cares to afford to get out does soWhich doesn't change the fact that the U.S. system sucks because people who need treatment can't afford to get it.

It's the principle of the matter! Give an inch, and they take a mile. Have you no sense of principle anymore? What is wrong with you people?!?Your statement here is a textbook slippery slope fallacy.

You still can't demonstrate what is *WRONG* with the lazy people argument.What's wrong with it is that whether the person is lazy or not is irrelevant. They still deserve a standard of living that is better than the poverty line. They deserve this because they are _human_.

The only difference between something that can go wrong, and something that can't possibly go wrong, is that when the latter goes wrong, it usually proves impossible to fix.This statement has nothing to do with your paranoid fear of human beings that you don't have personal dealings with.

You assume that we need every Last person we can get, and that the world is not overpopulated. We don't, and it is.The U.S. is hardly overpopulated. Like I said, you are willing to throw up any amount of red herrings and smokescreens to disguise the fact that you don't care about those people simply because you don't personally know them.

At least life would be interesting.I think the only thing to say here is: May you live in interesting times.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
That's so true... and there's no reason to send the USA down a dark path which includes higher taxes. It's nice to see that you _completely_ ignored all the evidence I presented to you in my earlier Posts. Of course, that's really par for the course with yourself, since you've always argued in this way on the forum.

NTJedi

July 28th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
When someone chooses to have an abortion, they're removing an unwanted parasitic organism from their own bodies. I guarantee you that if YOU had been aborted as a child, you'd have had no objections about it. Being nonsentient at the time, and being subsequently nonexistent, makes for a very convenient package. I believe it's important to give a voice to the child which will exist. Once conception has occurred only God truly knows when the entity/organism has a soul... lets play it safe and stay away from abortion.

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Your statement here is a textbook slippery slope fallacy.You say that, but it's still true: Every time some politician tacks some more crap onto your tax bill, they're hoping you won't notice, or will shrug it off as minor. It never ends. The fact of the matter remains is that everytime something like this is added, yet more of your money is siphoned away, not to support a public service that everyone can benefit from, like roads, the army, or libraries, but to support some worthless slacker who can't be bothered to support his own bloated carcass: Somebody who everyone would be better off without.

What's wrong with it is that whether the person is lazy or not is irrelevant. They still deserve a standard of living that is better than the poverty line. They deserve this because they are _human_.What are you, a Communist? Nobody *DESERVES* anything. If you want something, you have to *EARN* it. There's no free lunch, pal. If you can't afford something, you get a nice lesson in "learning to do without". I mean, hell, look at me: I spent many years living out of a used Army-surplus jeep. Why? Because houses cost money! I didn't HAVE that money yet, so guess what? I LEARNED TO DO WITHOUT. When I couldn't afford an extended hospital bill and stay to treat an injury incurred in the field, I patched it with duct tape! It's all about LEARNING TO DO WITHOUT. If you can't afford it, that's what you gotta do, not go piss and moan a handout from total strangers. Can't you at least panhandle honestly, rather than try to get the government to do your panhandling for you? Sheesh.

Today, I have lots of money. I can now afford things. So when I feel like I really want them, I do so. I have no pity for somebody who expects a free handout because they CAN'T AFFORD IT. Cry me a river. Boo frickety hoo.

You ALSO forget that trying to give everyone a standard of living ABOVE the poverty line simply redefines the poverty line! No matter what you do, there will always be people who are sufficiently "below average" to constitute poverty.

The U.S. is hardly overpopulated.I disagree with this assertion. You merely need to try to go through a supermarket checkout to see that there are clearly too many people.

Like I said, you are willing to throw up any amount of red herrings and smokescreens to disguise the fact that you don't care about those people simply because you don't personally know them.Disguise? Where have I tried to disguise this?

I think the only thing to say here is: May you live in interesting times. Amen. Boredom is a horrible way to die.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:11: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
I believe it's important to give a voice to the child which will exist. Once conception has occurred only God truly knows when the entity/organism has a soul... lets play it safe and stay away from abortion. I have no evidence that supports the existence of God, or souls. Assuming that God exists, there's no reason why I should place any real value in what he says, given that he has a known record of hypocrisy. Certainly he makes no effort to actually enforce any of this, and even if he did, he'd be nothing more than a bully. As for souls, well, as you said yourself, only God truly knows when an entity or organism has a soul, right? Let's stay away from eating animals, too, right? Yeah. I love animals. They taste great.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
What are you, a Communist? Nobody *DESERVES* anything.I was wondering when the standard American insults were going to start showing up.

I suggest you read your own constitution. People have a right to _life_ in the U.S.

I've snipped the rest of your pointless tirade.

I disagree with this assertion. You merely need to try to go through a supermarket checkout to see that there are clearly too many people.Another meaningless anecdote demonstrating the uselessness of your arguments.

Disguise? Where have I tried to disguise this?You freely admit that you don't care about people that you don't know personally? Good. It's nice to see that you're demonstrating just why you're a social parasite.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
What's wrong with it is that whether the person is lazy or not is irrelevant. They still deserve a standard of living that is better than the poverty line. They deserve this because they are _human_.Why? It removes the important concept of personal responsibility.

What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned. You and I have the right to have the opportunity to become wealthy. We do not have a right to be wealthy. Note the distinction. In the former, you can work towards your goals. In the latter, you are given what you seek without having earned it. I have the right to try to become a U.S. senator. I do not have a right to be one. Society owes me the opportunity to succeed, not the success itself. Society owes me the right to be able to find good medical care, not the care itself.

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness? Please recall the United States Declaration of Independence says "pursuit of happiness", not "happiness".

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
lets play it safe and stay away from abortion. Let's, instead, not inflict one's beliefs on others.

"Judge not ..."

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I suggest you read your own constitution. People have a right to _life_ in the U.S.That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be.

You freely admit that you don't care about people that you don't know personally? Good. It's nice to see that you're demonstrating just why you're a social parasite. Parasite? I happen to be a taxpaying citizen who owes no money. I'm quite self-supporting, thank-you-very-much.

PrinzMegaherz

July 28th, 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be. Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe I was wrong here.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe we are wrong here. You falsely assume that humans are not animals. This is untrue, humans are simply a more sophisticated animal. If you truly believe humans are somehow a superior form of life, never forget that this is the process which made you. Don't turn your back on it so easily.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:25: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned.And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.

Society owes me the opportunity to succeed, not the success itself.I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.

Society owes me the right to be able to find good medical care, not the care itself.I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.

If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness?You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum.

LintMan

July 28th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
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.
The cost estimates I heard for providing healthcare for the 42 million uninsured people in the US are around $42 billion, which would work out to just over $140 per capita in the US (but there are a lot less taxpayers than people, so likely it'd be more than that per taxpayer). That would allocate just $1000 per uninsured person, which seems quite inadequate considering that standard health insurance here can cost $2000-$7000 (or quite a lot more!) for a person. I'm guessing that any plan that provides better than a bare minimum health care would also need to cost around the same amounts, so $80-300 billion is more likely the true cost for a good system. And of course this is not "universal health care" - it would provide zero benefit at all to anyone who already was paying for any level of coverage.

Is it worth it if it'll cost $300 billion? I'm not sure. My point is just that even just covering the uninsured and leaving everyone else to still pay as now will cost us a fair bit more than tens of dollars per year.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That just means it's illegal to kill them.Which you are doing by refusing to provide proper health care.

If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be.Really? Somebody always has to be poor? I wasn't aware that the shortage of resources in the U.S. was so acute that there was not enough food for every person.

Parasite? I happen to be a taxpaying citizen who owes no money. I'm quite self-supporting, thank-you-very-much.You aren't nearly as self-supporting as you think you are.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by LintMan:
Is it worth it if it'll cost $300 billion? I'm not sure. My point is just that even just covering the uninsured and leaving everyone else to still pay as now will cost us a fair bit more than tens of dollars per year.That tens of dollars per year is in reference to unnecessary treatments, not to the total cost. My total cost for heatlth care is probably around $600-700 (30% of $2000 in taxes) per year since I happen to be in a lower tax bracket.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.Why? This encourages people to become leeches.

The compassionate part of me has sympathy for the elderly and the unfortunate. But the rational side of me thinks: if these folks had been less inept and/or foolish they'd not be in a situation now where they need help from others. Why should I reward the poor decisions they made in their lives? Example: if someone decides to have 8 children, and cannot afford to feed/clothe/care for more than 1, why must I (in the form of taxes) pay for their stupidity/irresponsibility? If you smoke, and get cancer, why should I have to pay a share (in the form of higher insurance costs) for the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars it'll cost to deal with your foolishness? If you eat like a pig all your life, blimp out, and then get heart disease or colon cancer, why must everyone else be burdened by you?

Sorry, but people need to be responsible for themselves. The alternative is, eventually, a nonfunctional society in which very few support very many. A bankrupt society. We have too many people feeding at the public trough now, as is.

LintMan

July 28th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Nobody *DESERVES* anything. If you want something, you have to *EARN* it. There's no free lunch, pal. If you can't afford something, you get a nice lesson in "learning to do without". Norfleet, are you a R.A. Heinlein fan by any chance? If you haven't read any of his SF, you might want to check him out.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by LintMan:
Norfleet, are you a R.A. Heinlein fan by any chance? If you haven't read any of his SF, you might want to check him out. Speaking for myself, and not Norfy, I'm a big fan of the type of society expoused by RAH in Starship Troopers (the book, not the crappy movie). Citizen is a privilege, not a right, and must be earned. Citizenship has obligations.

EDIT: I also have almost all his books. Started reading him around 1966.

[ July 28, 2004, 21:54: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You freely admit that you don't care about people that you don't know personally? Good. It's nice to see that you're demonstrating just why you're a social parasite. Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?

I'm not sure if you really are living in a world so out of touch with reality, or if it's just your venom for Norfleet getting the better of your common sense.

(And no - I'm not saying Norfleet is any of those things I said. But I know people who are like that; all they care about is their family and friends, and maybe some of them try to make a difference in their neighborhood. They for damn sure ain't parasites, social or otherwise.)

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 10:59 PM

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by LintMan:
Norfleet, are you a R.A. Heinlein fan by any chance? If you haven't read any of his SF, you might want to check him out. Speaking for myself, and not Norfy, I'm a big fan of the type of society expoused by RAH in Starship Troopers (the book, not the crappy movie). Citizen is a privilege, not a right, and must be earned. Citizenship has obligations.

EDIT: I also have almost all his books. Started reading him around 1966. <hr /></blockquote>Which ... makes you a big Heinlein fan, I would say? Myself, I thought some of his books were great - Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land especially; others were enjoyable diVersions (Glory Road, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, Starship Troopers), and others were okay, with some interesting good facets. Some very good short stories as well (The Interesting Case of Mr Johnathan Hoag or some such).

His concepts of citizenship, personal responsibility being more important than laws, etc, were always a refreshing ongoing refrain throughout his works.

Towards the end, though, I thought his work was ... tripe. Pushed out en masse to pay bills or provide for his kids, or simply the product of dementia - who knows? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Towards the end, though, I thought his work was ... tripe. Pushed out en masse to pay bills or provide for his kids, or simply the product of dementia - who knows? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Same as Herbert. Anderson. Pohl. Bova. Niven. And Clarke. Clarke hasn't written anything but 'tripe' in years, but he keeps churning the ... stuff out. Even Haldeman's Last sequel to 'Forever Wars' was junk. Seems none of the old authors can write anymore. And yes, this includes McAffery and Bradley.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Why? This encourages people to become leeches.If it actually encouraged people to become "leeches", as you've called them, then the majority of the industrialized world would be populated by these leeches. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of people _want_ to make it by themselves, and would rather that other people don't support them too much.

The compassionate part of me has sympathy for the elderly and the unfortunate. But the rational side of me thinks: if these folks had been less inept and/or foolish they'd not be in a situation now where they need help from others.A person can easily be in such a situation through no fault of their own. A person should be allowed to fail, but this failure shouldn't bring them down to the point where they can't maintain the most basic level of care for themselves.

Why should I reward the poor decisions they made in their lives? Example: if someone decides to have 8 children, and cannot afford to feed/clothe/care for more than 1, why must I (in the form of taxes) pay for their stupidity/irresponsibility?Why isn't compassion for them reason enough?

If you smoke, and get cancer, why should I have to pay a share (in the form of higher insurance costs) for the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars it'll cost to deal with your foolishness? If you eat like a pig all your life, blimp out, and then get heart disease or colon cancer, why must everyone else be burdened by you?Everyone else is already burdened by these people, so moving it into a more visible place would probably be a good thing.

Sorry, but people need to be responsible for themselves.And they still are responsible for themselves. They are not completely responsible for themselves, but no person ever can be.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
They are not completely responsible for themselves, but no person ever can be. That's a piece of Roman Catholic dogma I don't happen to agree with. Citing it proves nothing at all, except that you've been tainted by the indoctrination of the Church, and can no longer be trusted to be objective on the subject.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?Well, since this person clearly cares about people that he doesn't personally know, I'm not sure what your argument is. He obviously helps people he hasn't met before. Or would this person actually not care at all if a few billion people they haven't met yet suddenly died?

I'm not sure if you really are living in a world so out of touch with reality, or if it's just your venom for Norfleet getting the better of your common sense.Yes, it is my personal venom for Norfleet coming through. He's continually claimed to be the kind of person who would be quite happy about the deaths of 4 or 5 billion people since it would make him better off.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
That's a piece of Roman Catholic dogma I don't happen to agree with. Citing it proves nothing at all, except that you've been tainted by the indoctrination of the Church, and can no longer be trusted to be objective on the subject. What on earth are you talking about? I've never even read catholic dogma, so I have no idea where you got this particular notion.

I stated that no person can ever be completely responsible for themselves because no person is responsible for every aspect of their lives. There are always other people involved who make decisions that will either negatively or positively affect themselves.

Is one of those 8 children you mentioned responsible for being born? No, they aren't. Is an employee who's job is outsourced responsible for this? Nope.

Stormbinder

July 28th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Originally posted by Norfleet:
That just means it's illegal to kill them. Not that I'm required to help them if they can't be bothered to help themselves and obviously seem to enjoy being poor, as they can't be bothered to make the effort to end this. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity: If you can't be bothered to do something about it, you deserve to be poor. Somebody's gotta be. Indeed, this is how the animal world works. The unfitting die, the suited replicate. However, I assumed that you are a human and not an animal. Maybe I was wrong here. <hr /></blockquote>You were Primz. Norfleet is not a real "human", from believes and intellectual points of view. One only need to read few dozens of his Posts to reilize this sad fact. Fortunately for the rest of us, his ideas and dilusions are only shared by few similar nutcase individuals, and have no influence on the outside world. Just ignore him and his nonsense, he is always trolling for the attention.

[ July 28, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
What humans deserve is "the chance for a better life", not the better life itself. The latter should be earned.And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.
<hr /></blockquote>When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I'm all for there being more jobs for people. I think that, for instance, jobless people could be put to work cleaning streets and vacant lots, doing manual labor in our municipal, state, and national parks. Doing things that the country would benefit from, at least at the local level.

Others could be paid for cooking food for the others working, or for doing laundry for them, or watching over the others kids. The ones who did good work, who showed responsibility, could be promoted to better positions.

But frankly - in this country there are a bunch of people who don't think they should _have_ to work. People with "Will Work for Food" signs - who spit and curse at you if you offer them some work.

Again - let 'em starve. If they get hungry enough, maybe they'll do some work.

I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.Lots of people who have been homeless and jobless can tell you that it's not hard to avoid starvation in this country. Soup kitchens, church Groups giving out food - even scavenging behind restaurants.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.

I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.
Again - what world are you living in? The sewage in the river would hurt _everyone_.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If humans have an innate right to be taken care of by our society, then why must we pay for rent, food, or anything else we might want in our ordained right to happiness?You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum. <hr /></blockquote>[/QUOTE]

Who determines the bare minimum? The people who chose to live at the bare minimum? What happens when someone says, "It isn't right - they have food and shelter, but it's inhumane that they don't have cable television, and can't eat at McDonald's every day."

If enough people decide that the bare minimum is enough - what then? Let's say 50% of the population (all the men) decide, hey screw it - they got a sofa, a TV to watch the game, and enough money for beer at $8.99 a case, that's good enough. What then? Oh, and _then_ they vote that their standard of living should be higher.

Like I said - it'd be real nice if government were helping to provide jobs, which it isn't anymore. Looking after those who can't look after themselves - instead of dumping people from insane asylums (thank you Reagan and Bush). Providing at least child health care, instead of subsidies for corporations.

But to say that government has to ensure that the people have an _adequate_ life when they could get off their lazy arses and work???

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
What on earth are you talking about? I've never even read catholic dogma, so I have no idea where you got this particular notion.Coincidence, then, that you parrot one of their notions. Bound to happen, alas, since they've influenced (infected?) much of Western civilization.

Is an employee who's job is outsourced responsible for this? Nope. Yes and no. Speaking as someone whose job was outsourced, and am presently unemployed, I can state that I'm not living on the street, nor am I depending on the goodness of others for my support. Unlike many, I prepared for the possibility. IOW, I was practicing personal responsibility.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.I am unable to understand how people can feel this way.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.Which is why I didn't want to even bring it up in the first place. The social safety net in the U.S. is adequate in most ways.

Again - what world are you living in? The sewage in the river would hurt _everyone_.As long as you have a nearby river your sewage only hurts people other than yourself. At the very least, universal medical coverage would help to keep people healthy and on the work force.

Who determines the bare minimum? The people who chose to live at the bare minimum?The bare minimum is the point where a person has enough food to eat without being malnourished, shelter to prevent them from freezing to death, and medical care so that the simple preventable and treatable illnesses can be dealt with. The only one there that's hard to define is the medical care one.

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh - so someone who works 60 hours a week, takes good care of his family, looks after his friends, and volunteers to help people in his neighborhood find jobs, become literate, etc, is "a social parasite" because they don't care about the billions of people they don't personally know?Well, since this person clearly cares about people that he doesn't personally know, I'm not sure what your argument is. He obviously helps people he hasn't met before. Or would this person actually not care at all if a few billion people they haven't met yet suddenly died?
<hr /></blockquote>He's not "caring about people he doesn't personally know" - he's helping people, in his neighborhood, whom he does get to know. Perhaps more importantly, he's helping people who are willing to help themselves.

He's _not_ sending money to Gloria Struthers to feed the starving kids in the Philipines, and he doesn't much care about the well being of the trailer park trash single mother with 8 kids.

You don't have to care about the faceless billions in order to not be a "social parasite". Arguably, anyone with a decent productive job (as opposed to CEOs, politicians, ambulance chasers and used car salesmen) is a productive member of society, paying taxes, providing for their family, and not a social parasite. Even if they don't do a damn thing for the homeless, jobless, spineless, etc.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.I am unable to understand how people can feel this way.<hr /></blockquote>Which one? The ones refusing to work, or those not caring if the lazy sods die?

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Coincidence, then, that you parrot one of their notions. Bound to happen, alas, since they've influenced (infected?) much of Western civilization.Or perhaps it's because the notion happens to be correct.

IOW, I was practicing personal responsibility.Yet you still are not completely responsible for everything that happens in your life. After all, it wasn't your decisions that led to outsourcing.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Or perhaps it's because the notion happens to be correct.Nope. It's a value judgment you (and others) have made. It's not an immutable law of the universe.

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Which you are doing by refusing to provide proper health care.No. Perhaps I need that health care for myself. It's my money. Don't they have their own money? If they think it's really that bad, I can lend them some duct tape. Duct tape has worked for me when I couldn't afford to seek medical treatment. They can make it work for them.

Really? Somebody always has to be poor? I wasn't aware that the shortage of resources in the U.S. was so acute that there was not enough food for every person.You seem to think that resources are unlimited and that everyone can be rich. That is not the case. If everyone were rich, we'd simply have inflation. Some people will always be of below average means. And there's plenty of food....provided you are not picky. Not everyone can afford wine and caviar, but rats are free. Hell, people will pay you to be rid of them.

You aren't nearly as self-supporting as you think you are. That which I cannot take care of myself, I can pay someone to do it. The key here is that I pay for what I consume: I don't expect a handout. When I didn't have enough money for it, I learned to do without. If I become sick, I can pay a doctor. If I can't afford to pay a doctor, I'll learn to do without. What an amazing concept.

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
And it still would be. Providing a hard bottom that people cannot fall below that allows them to avoid starving and suffering from poor health does not mean that they are experiencing a life of luxury.Being starving and suffering is a great motivation to succeed. I certainly wouldn't have been motivated to succeed in life if I thought living out of a jeep between jobs was all that. Some people, however, seem to want nothing more than that: For them, if this is provided FOR FREE, they have no incentive to do anything more than be a leech. Since they have no income, they won't be paying anything back. Why support this?

A hard bottom is a cardboard box in an alley and a tasty "you kill it, you grill it" rat-on-a-stick. The means to survive always exists. People have survived for millenia. They can do so again.

I never said that society owes you success. I said that society owes you protection from starving to death and abject poverty.No, society owes you the opportunity to avoid starving to death and remaining in abject poverty. If you choose to simply be a leech, you deserve to starve and remain in poverty.

I can never understand why basic medical care isn't considered to be something that society should pay for. After all, people don't seem to have a problem with the sewer system being paid for by taxes, and that's the single most important part of your health care. That's because without a sewer system, somebody, upstream, is dumping his crap into my drinking water. And I'd be dumping my crap into somebody downstream. I think it's worth paying up to avoid dealing with this.

After all, you as an individual wouldn't be hurt by dumping your own personal sewage into the river.No, but if you don't support the sewer system, you're doing this dumping at somebody else's expense....and somebody else is dumping at yours.

You would pay for them because you want better than the bare minimum. The minimum is a cardboard box in an alley. This costs you nothing. Somebody will surely have a cardboard box they'll let you have. If you're lucky, you might even be arrested for vagrancy and get to spend the night in a cell with Bubba.

Originally posted by LintMan:
Norfleet, are you a R.A. Heinlein fan by any chance? If you haven't read any of his SF, you might want to check him out. I've read some of his work, and rather enjoyed it. My memory is slightly fuzzy about details at the moment, so don't ask me for specifics.

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Lots of people who have been homeless and jobless can tell you that it's not hard to avoid starvation in this country. Soup kitchens, church Groups giving out food - even scavenging behind restaurants.

Starvation isn't much of an issue in the USA, at least not in urban areas.It's hard to starve in ANY urban area. Between particularly bad jobs, I often didn't have any cash on me. I couldn't afford to pay food, and even if I could, I certainly couldn't afford to be noticed. You know what? I learned to do without. Have I mentioned how tasty rats are?

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
If it actually encouraged people to become "leeches", as you've called them, then the majority of the industrialized world would be populated by these leeches. The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of people _want_ to make it by themselves, and would rather that other people don't support them too much.No, that's the excuse that is used to justify the system. These people have family. Friends. Church Groups. Why can't they ask THESE people for help? These people surely care about them. Why can they not get help there?

A person can easily be in such a situation through no fault of their own. A person should be allowed to fail, but this failure shouldn't bring them down to the point where they can't maintain the most basic level of care for themselves.A little bit of suffering and hardship builds character. It *IS* their fault, for not having anticipated this, and not being willing to DEAL.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why should I reward the poor decisions they made in their lives? Example: if someone decides to have 8 children, and cannot afford to feed/clothe/care for more than 1, why must I (in the form of taxes) pay for their stupidity/irresponsibility?Why isn't compassion for them reason enough?<hr /></blockquote>Because compassion costs money. I have a finite amount of money. Therefore, I have a finite amount of compassion. My compassion is first reserved for those people who I think are genuinely deserving of my help. People who I think will someday perhaps be able to pay me BACK. Not people who are complete idiots and will spend my money on digging themselves a deeper hole.

Everyone else is already burdened by these people, so moving it into a more visible place would probably be a good thing.There you have it. Let them suffer in public. Let them serve as an object lesson to others. When they die horribly in a pool of their own blood and vomit, I'll gladly pony up the tax money to hire someone to have their stinking carcass removed.

Cainehill

July 28th, 2004, 11:43 PM

Oh, wait a second! I've been out of work for over four months (laid off, Marine and programmer always employed for 22 years straight), I should be supporting Graeme and the welfare state! Yes! Someone should subsidize me for life - after all, if I can't find another tech job, god forbid I should get a job as a rentacop, prison guard, short order cook, or anything else that would be beneath me - it'd be a waste of my talents! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
He's not "caring about people he doesn't personally know" - he's helping people, in his neighborhood, whom he does get to know. Perhaps more importantly, he's helping people who are willing to help themselves.Then good for him. This just means that he cares more for those people he knows than doesn't know. This is normal.

He's _not_ sending money to Gloria Struthers to feed the starving kids in the Philipines, and he doesn't much care about the well being of the trailer park trash single mother with 8 kids.And he wouldn't be upset if they were murdered in their sleep? After all, Norfleet's argument would be that they deserved to be killed, since they must not have protected themselves well enough.

You don't have to care about the faceless billions in order to not be a "social parasite".No, you don't need to care very much about them. Since Norfleet has demonstrated that his fictional characterization of himself is a parasite for many other reasons, this is simply another demonstration of that.

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Nope. It's a value judgment you (and others) have made. It's not an immutable law of the universe. It is not a value judgement at all. No person can be completely responsible for their life because no person can completely control all factors that influence their life. You might argue about the relative amounts of responsibility, but there are _always_ factors that cannot be controlled, even if their effects are not significant enough to be measured.

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
rat-on-a-stickIs this going to replace FO/FO2's iguana-on-a-stick?

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Then good for him. This just means that he cares more for those people he knows than doesn't know. This is normal.Hey, if I had an unlimited supply of cash, I wouldn't mind helping everyone. But I don't! So you know what? I have to set priorities: Who deserves my help, who dug their own grave and should learn to dig themselves out of it.

And he wouldn't be upset if they were murdered in their sleep? After all, Norfleet's argument would be that they deserved to be killed, since they must not have protected themselves well enough.Hey, life's hard. I fully agree that it would be tragic, but hey, times are tough. **** happens, people die every day. Life goes on. As tragic and unfortunate as this must be to the friends and family of the deceased, to me, it has no impact. To you, it also has no impact. Do you donate money to the families of every single murder victim in the world? I don't think so. So don't criticize me for being honest about it. I didn't see you donating any money to the family of my friend's nephew who was killed 8 years ago in a drive-by shooting.

Since Norfleet has demonstrated that his fictional characterization of himself is a parasite for many other reasons, this is simply another demonstration of that. I am not a "fictional characterization". I pay my bills on time. I don't owe money. I donate more money to charity than you even earn. I am veteran. So don't go calling *ME* a parasite, you hypocrite. How much blood have you shed for YOUR country?

[ July 28, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Arryn

July 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It is not a value judgement at all. No person can be completely responsible for their life because no person can completely control all factors that influence their life.Nope. You've confused being responsible for everything that happens in your life with accepting responsibility for your own life. In the latter case, you do not make excuses as to "why am I in this mess?" You deal with it. No crying and whining, no looking for others to bail you out.

If everyone did this, we would not have:

* pollution
* crime
* high divorce rates
* wars

and damned near every other problem we have.

[ July 28, 2004, 22:58: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Graeme Dice

July 28th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
No. Perhaps I need that health care for myself.Well, since other people are also paying for your health care, that wouldn't be a problem.

You seem to think that resources are unlimited and that everyone can be rich. That is not the case. If everyone were rich, we'd simply have inflation. Some people will always be of below average means.This is a strawman. I have not stated that everyone should be rich, or even that everyone should be well off. I have stated that everyone should be not starving, and not diseased. You can still be well below average and fall into these two categories. Your continual use of logical fallacies indicates that you are not able to actually make an argument. I suggest that you learn to debate before continuing.

I've snipped the rest of your garbage here where you demonstrate that you actually enjoy in the suffering of others.

No, but if you don't support the sewer system, you're doing this dumping at somebody else's expense....and somebody else is dumping at yours.Why should the person who is upstream of everyone else pay for the sewer system? That's what your argument about health care is after all.

The minimum is a cardboard box in an alley.A cardboad box in an alley will not prevent you from freezing to death for eight months of the year.

No, that's the excuse that is used to justify the system. These people have family. Friends. Church Groups. Why can't they ask THESE people for help? These people surely care about them. Why can they not get help there?You are making the fallacious assumption that all people have such support Groups. Your continual use of logical fallacies indicates that you are not able to actually make an argument. I suggest that you learn to debate before continuing.

I've also snipped the remanider of your statements where you continue to do nothing more than parrot your immature "I'm the only one who actually matters" spiel.

Norfleet

July 28th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
It is not a value judgement at all. No person can be completely responsible for their life because no person can completely control all factors that influence their life. You might argue about the relative amounts of responsibility, but there are _always_ factors that cannot be controlled, even if their effects are not significant enough to be measured. No person can be responsible for everything that happens in his life, but every person is responsible for coping with his own life. You made your choices, and so you must take the good with the bad. When times are good, you save for when times are bad. If you squander your resources when times are good on pampered luxury, and are broken when **** happens, well, that was your decision. I don't see why I should have to suffer because you couldn't accept the fundamental truth that **** happens, and squandered all your resources on beer.

In Dominions II, when a plague hits your capitol on turn 3 because you took Death and Misfortune, well, tough. You deal. Did you expect your opponents to give you a handout to cover you in your time of need? I don't think so.

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Nope. You've confused being responsible for everything that happens in your life with accepting responsibility for your own life.No, I haven't. The only reason that a person should have to accept responsibility for things that they haven't personally caused is that you are too greedy to help them.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Why should the person who is upstream of everyone else pay for the sewer system? That's what your argument about health care is after all.He's still dumping at everyone else's expense. It's not unfair to ask him to pay up for that. Health care is NOT the same. My being a healthy person, or paying for my own damn treatment, does not, in any way, detract from anyone else's health and well-being.

A cardboad box in an alley will not prevent you from freezing to death for eight months of the year.Shows how little you know about professional homeless people. They don't freeze for 8 months of the year. They hitchhike to Florida and ride out the winter in warmth, and relative comfort. It's not as if they have moving expenses, cardboard boxes being what they are. I used to be homeless. I lived out of a car. Don't lecture me about how to survive.

You are making the fallacious assumption that all people have such support Groups. Your continual use of logical fallacies indicates that you are not able to actually make an argument. I suggest that you learn to debate before continuing.So. You have no friends. No family. You can't take care of yourself. You can't be bothered to save for a rainy day, nor get a job. Exactly what is your value, your worth? What do you contribute to society, anyway? If everyone hates you and you can't take care of yourself, maybe you deserve to die. Why do you somehow deserve more than what others are willing to give you of their own free will? Maybe if you had been more involved with the people in your lives, you'd actually HAVE people in your lives. Funny how you should be hearing this from ME, of all people. Maybe if you can't be more independent, you should try to be more social, you know? I feel no pity for someone who can't be bothered to take the steps needed to survive. If someone cannot be bothered to care even for himself, why should I care for him?

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I am not a "fictional characterization".Of course you are. You're nothing more than a teenager living in your parents house.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, I haven't. The only reason that a person should have to accept responsibility for things that they haven't personally caused is that you are too greedy to help them. Or perhaps because *I* am saving my resources so that I do not end up like him. Perhaps because *I* happen to have foresight, and know that all good things come to an end, and someday, I might be just like him....if I do not prepare and save for it. Life is like a sandwich. Some days you eat the sandwich, other days the sandwich eats you.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Of course you are. You're nothing more than a teenager living in your parents house. Meh, you say that, yet I don't see you doing much better. I think this is what we call "projection". Get a job, Graeme. Move out. Once you move out of the pampered world of being a student living in your parents' come, and try going hungry for a bit, you'll understand what I mean.

[ July 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Health care is NOT the same. My being a healthy person, or paying for my own damn treatment, does not, in any way, detract from anyone else's health and well-being.You don't have much of an understanding of economics, do you. If you are not healthy, then you cannot produce economic output.

Shows how little you know about professional homeless people. They don't freeze for 8 months of the year.No, it shows how ignorant you are of weather in any parts of the world outside of your own narrow little worldview.

If someone cannot be bothered to care even for himself, why should I care for him?Because a person's life has value simply because of the fact that they are human. If you can't understand this basic fact, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Oh, wait a second! I've been out of work for over four months (laid off, Marine and programmer always employed for 22 years straight), I should be supporting Graeme and the welfare state! Yes! Someone should subsidize me for life - after all, if I can't find another tech job, god forbid I should get a job as a rentacop, prison guard, short order cook, or anything else that would be beneath me - it'd be a waste of my talents! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Amen. What a tragedy that would be. Because there's no worse fate than being a rent-a-cop or prison guard, eh? At least it beats "Would You Like Fries With That?". Look, Graeme. Another fictional characterization belonging to a teenager living in his parents' basement is disagreeing with you. Amazing! Or maybe we aren't all like you, you see?

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
[QB]Meh, you say that, yet I don't see you doing much better. I think this is what we call "projection". No, it's called observation. You haven't demonstrated a great deal of maturity, have no time committments, and have demonstrated that you are still stuck at the ethical level of a child. If you aren't actually a teenager then you definetly lead a sad existence.

Get a job, Graeme. Move out. Once you move out of the pampered world of being a student living in your parents' come, and try going hungry for a bit, you'll understand what I mean.Why would I go hungry? I'm a graduate engineering student who hasn't lived with or depended on my parents for over six years. I have no debts, pay my bills every month, and could get any number of well-paying jobs if I decided to quit grad school.

PrinzMegaherz

July 29th, 2004, 12:34 AM

Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else?

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
I've been out of work for over four months (laid off, Marine and programmer always employed for 22 years straight), I should be supporting Graeme and the welfare state!What welfare state? I wasn't aware that the equivalent of making health insurance mandatory and universal was the equivalent of a welfare state. I'm not supporting a comfortable lifestyle for those people who don't want to work, and suggesting that I am is nothing more than a strawman. I am suggesting that a person should be guaranteed enough resources so that they aren't malnourished, as long as they don't waste those resources on anything that is unnecssary. If they want to waste that money, then yes, let them starve, but at least try and help their children so that they don't end up like their parents.

This is all really beside the real point though, which is that a universal health care system would do a great deal to help people. Many other industrialized nations manage to both spend less per person on health care, while maintaining a better overall quality of care, and still requiring people to cover the majority of the cost themselves in some way.

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else? I'm writing programs that take several minutes to compile, while running simulations that take several hours/days to finish, so I have a fair amount of downtime.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You don't have much of an understanding of economics, do you. If you are not healthy, then you cannot produce economic output.Tough. Think of it as incentive to get better. Never underestimate the power of positive thinking, after all. Besides, you can produce output even while not healthy. It'll just require that you suffer. But you know what? No pain, no gain.

No, it shows how ignorant you are of weather in any parts of the world outside of your own narrow little worldview.I have travelled far more of the world than you likely have. I am aware that people have legs for a reason: So that when conditions do not suit them, they can get off their fat asses and MOVE. It's not like yours were shot off in the war, like some people I know. Those people deserve my compassion. Those who simply can't be bothered to do something on their own, even though they certainly CAN, don't.

Because a person's life has value simply because of the fact that they are human. If you can't understand this basic fact, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I do not see why I should place more value on someone's own life than they place on it themselves. Your life is not worth more to a total stranger than it is to you. People should run their own lives. If somebody feels that running his own life is too burdensome and would rather be someone else's responsibility, maybe he should sell himself into slavery. At least then he will have an owner who will be obligated to protect his investment.

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, it's called observation. You haven't demonstrated a great deal of maturity, have no time committments, and have demonstrated that you are still stuck at the ethical level of a child. If you aren't actually a teenager then you definetly lead a sad existence.I have no time commitments because I am comfortably and independently retired. Something YOU might wish to aspire to. I have the ethical level of a child? Maybe my ethics don't agree with yours, but I have a clear and consistent code by which I live, and am not a psychotic axe murderer.

Why would I go hungry? I'm a graduate engineering student who hasn't lived with or depended on my parents for over six years. I have no debts, pay my bills every month, and could get any number of well-paying jobs if I decided to quit grad school. So you've been fortunate your entire life. That puts you in a great position to comment on the misfortunes of others, now doesn't it? I, on the other hand, have been in the position of being UNABLE TO AFFORD said healthcare, food, and lodging. You know what? I SURVIVED. Oddly, you don't see me advocating that this stuff be made available to all at somebody else's expense.

NTJedi

July 29th, 2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I have no evidence that supports the existence of God, or souls. Assuming that God exists, there's no reason why I should place any real value in what he says, .... Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Certainly he makes no effort to actually enforce any of this, and even if he did, he'd be nothing more than a bully.God doesn't stop mankind from doing Evil actions such as killing, suicide or abortion, however mankind is expected to stop Evil. Just because the United States could make prostitution, abortion, suicide and using addictive drugs legal doesn't mean we should accept them as some pro-choice decision for our family and children.

Originally posted by Norfleet:
As for souls, well, as you said yourself, only God truly knows when an entity or organism has a soul, right? Let's stay away from eating animals, too, right? Yeah. I love animals. They taste great. That's where you turn to the Bible and read where only mankind is referred to as having a soul. When that soul is created is only known by God therefore saying abortion is okay could get someone into big trouble during judgment day.

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Look, Graeme. Another fictional characterization belonging to a teenager living in his parents' basement is disagreeing with you.Yes, you are obviously telling the truth when you describe your life.

Apparently you:
Drive a tank throughout the town you live in.
Don't sleep for days at a time.
You'be been shot in the back by people before while not at war.
Believe that if a person can do something that they must have actually done that thing.
You live as a hermit, wear kevlar, and travel while heavily armed.

That such a person exists anywhere outside of a mad max movie strains believability.

rabelais

July 29th, 2004, 12:56 AM

I just read as much of this thread as I could stand, which while not impressive on a percentage basis, leads me to make the following comment:

I think there is a unifying theme to the objections of the conservatives, "lazy sods for rejecting opportunity and economic empowerment" and the horror of the liberals, regarding lassiez-faire social services (up to "nature red in tooth and claw") aka some primtivist Hobbesian nightmare.

The difference is one that plays out quite strkingly in the differences between the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations.

The conservatives (both on this board, and the ones running the show from the White House) like to work from expedient *principles* and have faith that everything will turn out swimmingly, or at least as well as can be expected in an imperfect world.

Liberals on the other hand, tend to attempt a more complex optimization where the *consequences* of a policy or behavior is paramount, and believe the amelioration of crippling economic conditions (which lead to antisocial behavior fairly consistently) is a necessary step in maintaining the society in the civilized sense of the word.

I tend to favor the latter view, since I'm not sure that a very small percentage of the population having a very large proportion of the assets in a democracy (a natural, indeed *inevitable* result of unbridled capitalism) is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of life of the population at the median.

Take gun control for example. Repulicans are in favor of free gun ownership, because people have a right to self-defense.

This is plausible enough. In principle it seems like it should elegantly self-equilibriate.

The actual data shows, however, that the effect of widespead gun possession, is that people use the guns, on each other and themselves, in a way that exacerbates the effects of their innate aggression.

This is why liberals everywhere attempt to restict freedom of access, not something they

If the most advanced easily available weapon technology was a particularly foul-smelling wet herring, fatal outcomes in violent situations would be far less common.

Note that in most first world republics, personal firearms are much harder to obtain, with a very pronounced effect of murder and even suicide rates, even where improvements on herring have been made. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Bush, in my view, has a problem in that he appears to be immune to negative reinforcement.

The inabilty to admit error is not a useful quality in an ruler. This is compounded by his confusion on the concept of leadership.

Leaders require followers, which further mandates, in the long term, both well thought out policy and flexibility in implementing it.

I almost hope he wins so he has to clean up his own mess. Almost.

But overall, I agree with the person who was shuddering uncontrollably in fear of what 4 more years of this administration, with no election at the end to keep them constrained, would be like.

My issue with the Republicans isn't that they aren't Democrats, (who are it must be admitted enslaved to a much more diverse group of special interests! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) but that they aren't even democrats.

I expect the voter fraud we saw in 2000 is going to seem minor compared to what is coming, even ignoring the probable (dogwagging) October surprise.

Plutocracy, corporate feudalism and Christian Fascism are not pretty ideologies, particularly when employed running the alpha superpower on the highly militarized planet.

Human beings are just monkeys with hypertrophic cerebral cortices. The thalamic reptile brain is still down there, and appears to be running the show.

Lord help us.

Rabe the Political Nutjob