Because the healthcare in the US isn't a system; it's designed for the individual. Why should someone else bust their butt to pay for my stuff? Why, if I can afford it, shouldn't I be able to get the best care money can buy?
Yeah, that's how private insurance works. But in that case, we're volunteers. I'm pretty sure you can't not have gov't health insurance.
I always wondered about Richard Reid myself. I'm surprised he was conscious and recognizable.
As for your sig, didn't well regulated mean well equipped and trained? Aren't we all in the militia? If it wasn't to guarantee individual rights, why does the rest of the Amendment start with "the right of the people?" How can it be a state right when states don't have rights, but powers and responsibilities?
Err, not every part of the Constitution. They still can't figure out which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights to support. Hint: the people in the Second Amendment mean the same as the People in the other ones.
Also, guns don't do anything without a person squeezing the trigger. When a person DOES squeeze the trigger, it simply projects the bullet out the barrel. The vast majority of bullets pierce paper. If they're supposed to kill people, can't target shooters sue manufacturers for product defects?
I'd also argue that guns (and the people behind them) did their damnedest to create the oldest, currently-function democracy around... the USA.
That site's pretty funny, but there's a bunch of technical errors in it. Like saying an amendment grants or gives someone the right to do something. I think we're all aware the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights.
I guess that's where my views appear to differ from that of Slashdot Nation. To me, the fact is just as you've said, that there were 53 executions. Whether or not the recipients were deserving or if it's inhumane isn't a fact, so therefore it's not something I would concern myself with.
>>What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"?
Because facts should stand on their own. I don't need someone else telling me how to interpret them.
>>Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything?
To me, opinions have less legitimacy because that's all they are. Facts are, by definition, irrefutable. Why would I need to opine the irrefutable?
Interestingly enough, in all my posts on this Slashdot story, nobody has yet asked me if I agree with Mr. Moore's films.
It may be inadequate for running a modern country (though I don't think so), but that's why it's so easy to change. Well, the method is very easy. All you have to get is a supermajority of the Congress and States to agree with you. Simple.
And, logically speaking, anyone over 18 that has anything bad happen to them is their own fault. They haven't taken the initiative to kill themselves and because of that, their healthcare problems are their own damn fault. WTF should they have to pay for me, or me for them?
Yes, that's what happens with private insurance. But in that case, we're all volunteers and not forced (taxes -> IRS -> police with guns) to be insured. Also, wouldn't that mean people could tell me I couldn't smoke because it's costing them money? Sounds like a great way to restrict freedoms to me.
You're thinking too short-sighted. Don't all the futurists and physicists and wicked smaht people think we need to colonize other planets/ areas/ moons/ etc. in the event that the Earth gets all screwed up, either from ourselves or something else? If all we've got is Earth and that goes away, we're hosed.
Oh, we made the Soviet Union spend more money than they had on space related programs, help shorten the Cold War a bit.
It prohibits it at a federal level, because the 10th says, "Anything we haven't listed here is up to the states." What specifically says the Congress can enact it?
That's why the MA plan is VERY Constitutional. It guarantees equal rights and doesn't have to worry about a USA-wide Constitutional muster test.
Though I bet if we did have a Const. amendment guaranteeing universal healthcare, it'd probably pass by the necessary 2/3 majority of states.
Slashdot Mirror
What the heck is CA doing spending money they don't have? You'd have to be a political newb to rely on the feds to fund your stuff.
Because the rest of y'all seem to have governments that suffer from a little less endo-rectal craniology, so for us we'd end up paying 2x or 3x.
Because the healthcare in the US isn't a system; it's designed for the individual. Why should someone else bust their butt to pay for my stuff? Why, if I can afford it, shouldn't I be able to get the best care money can buy?
Yeah, that's how private insurance works. But in that case, we're volunteers. I'm pretty sure you can't not have gov't health insurance.
Because Sweden and Canada have completely different demographics than the USA?
Besides, with the private sector, if you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their stuff. Try not paying taxes.
Why, because a ten year old kid can't have a bomb up their ass?
That said, profile EVERYONE or profile nobody. Not just easy targets.
I always wondered about Richard Reid myself. I'm surprised he was conscious and recognizable.
As for your sig, didn't well regulated mean well equipped and trained? Aren't we all in the militia? If it wasn't to guarantee individual rights, why does the rest of the Amendment start with "the right of the people?" How can it be a state right when states don't have rights, but powers and responsibilities?
Err, not every part of the Constitution. They still can't figure out which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights to support. Hint: the people in the Second Amendment mean the same as the People in the other ones.
Aircraft cannot hold territory.
Just ask those dudes in Iraq.
Why do we always insist on banning things we don't agree with?
Also, guns don't do anything without a person squeezing the trigger. When a person DOES squeeze the trigger, it simply projects the bullet out the barrel. The vast majority of bullets pierce paper. If they're supposed to kill people, can't target shooters sue manufacturers for product defects?
I'd also argue that guns (and the people behind them) did their damnedest to create the oldest, currently-function democracy around... the USA.
What's to stop the government from removing the power of the people to remove them?
Yeah, 'cause Uncle Sam always spends our tax money to wisely and efficiently.
So people who get too car sick for public transportation have to pay extra to not ralph on their way to work? Awesome!
That site's pretty funny, but there's a bunch of technical errors in it. Like saying an amendment grants or gives someone the right to do something. I think we're all aware the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights.
Apples to oranges. Those are all local regulations, at the town or county level, not the state level.
I guess that's where my views appear to differ from that of Slashdot Nation. To me, the fact is just as you've said, that there were 53 executions. Whether or not the recipients were deserving or if it's inhumane isn't a fact, so therefore it's not something I would concern myself with.
>>What we take for "fact" is often later disproved.
:-)
Then it's not a fact, is it?
Why in the world would I want to hear what someone else has to say about facts? Don't facts, by definition, speak for themselves?
>>What's your motivation in wanting only those films which show "just the facts" and no opinion to qualify as "documentary"?
Because facts should stand on their own. I don't need someone else telling me how to interpret them.
>>Is it because you want to somehow say there is less legitimacy to producing a film with an opinion than there is to producing one that doesn't say anything?
To me, opinions have less legitimacy because that's all they are. Facts are, by definition, irrefutable. Why would I need to opine the irrefutable?
Interestingly enough, in all my posts on this Slashdot story, nobody has yet asked me if I agree with Mr. Moore's films.
It may be inadequate for running a modern country (though I don't think so), but that's why it's so easy to change. Well, the method is very easy. All you have to get is a supermajority of the Congress and States to agree with you. Simple.
And, logically speaking, anyone over 18 that has anything bad happen to them is their own fault. They haven't taken the initiative to kill themselves and because of that, their healthcare problems are their own damn fault. WTF should they have to pay for me, or me for them?
Yes, that's what happens with private insurance. But in that case, we're all volunteers and not forced (taxes -> IRS -> police with guns) to be insured. Also, wouldn't that mean people could tell me I couldn't smoke because it's costing them money? Sounds like a great way to restrict freedoms to me.
You're thinking too short-sighted. Don't all the futurists and physicists and wicked smaht people think we need to colonize other planets/ areas/ moons/ etc. in the event that the Earth gets all screwed up, either from ourselves or something else? If all we've got is Earth and that goes away, we're hosed.
Oh, we made the Soviet Union spend more money than they had on space related programs, help shorten the Cold War a bit.
Interesting view.
:-)
Of course, in this story, nobody has even asked me if I think the Amendment for UHC is a good idea
As for the moon and defense, if you don't have access to space or items and people in space, you've already lost.
It prohibits it at a federal level, because the 10th says, "Anything we haven't listed here is up to the states." What specifically says the Congress can enact it?
That's why the MA plan is VERY Constitutional. It guarantees equal rights and doesn't have to worry about a USA-wide Constitutional muster test.
Though I bet if we did have a Const. amendment guaranteeing universal healthcare, it'd probably pass by the necessary 2/3 majority of states.
Most of the things the Congress does now bust the 10th Amendment.
I'd argue that a good 75% of the non-defense budget is made of up things that the Const. doesn't enumerate as federal powers.
NASA can be viewed as a defense expenditure, which the gov't is required to do.