I know you're a troll but I will reply to you anyway...
Libya is about oil? Ghadaffi had no problem selling us oil. I see no way we benefit in the short term from supporting Libya. The long term benefit being that they become a democratic country.
The healthcare bill is terrible. I supported it because it is better than what we had, but I welcome improvements to it. Republicans had all whole year of dragging out the healthcare bill debate to figure out what they wanted to do. So, where are their ideas. I will not support a repeal until I see what they want to replace it with. But you will never see it repealed because they have no idea what to replace it with. That was just them lying to you so you would support the repeal.
Not 30,000 views. He is claiming it was re-posted (or linked to) 30,000 times. I saw one of the links in a forum and read the article myself. I would imagine 30,000 links would equate to many more views (possibly a million or more?... I am just guessing).
I base my morality on Christianity. The bible is just a series of stories. Jesus taught in parables (which were probably not true stories). Why do you think it is necessary for morality to be explained by facts? Facts get in the way. The message is what is important.
My physical world view, though, is based upon the things that I personally observe (which are facts) and the accounts that I get from other people of the facts that they observe. I also allow them to explain to me how those facts fit together.
Evolution is part of my physical world view, not my morality.
Why does it matter what the individual wants? As you have said, individuals want to live. If we were concerned with the affairs of individuals, then we would be creating as much life as possible. But, instead, we are concerned with the well-being of society. This is how we can ethically execute people or put them in jail. It is because the well-being of the individual is not as important as the well-being of society. Not that I am promoting communism or anything. A society is made up of individuals. I believe that the individualistic nature of the US creates a better and more stable society. Laws and moral culture should be created to protect society, not individuals. But, creating laws to protect individuals may also protect society.
So the question becomes, how does abortion make society better or worse. If abortions are allowed, does this cause the well-being of everyone (on average) in the society to get worse? Murder is definitely bad for society. It leads to the breakdown of civility within society. If murder is allowed then everyone is affected. My contributions to society would change. I would be less safe, less trusting of my neighbors, and spend more of my labor and resources protecting myself against the possibility of being murdered. But my contributions to society would be the same whether abortion is legal or not. The only negatives I can see for society are the mental anguish experienced by the mother and/or father.
I mentioned previously that the pro-life argument is inconsistent. The inconsistency is that it is generally accepted among pro-lifers that there should be an exception for rape and incest. For incest, the argument is a quality of life issue. The child is vastly more likely to have genetic disorders due to inbreeding. But, under your argument, the life is already created. So, why should an exception be made?
The other inconsistency that I have a bigger problem with is rape. It goes back to my original post. A woman who is raped did not make the decision (to have sex) that led to her pregnancy. If she does not want the child, she should not be punished with the consequences. But a woman who did make the decision (to have sex) that led to her pregnancy but does not want the child is punished with the consequences. I do not think any child should be a punishment.
You make a good point. It is a spectrum and a hard line to draw. How about the argument from the other extreme? What is the difference between using a condom and aborting a fetus. Or not having sex and aborting a fetus. Who are you to decide that a potential child should not come into this world? A lot of people every day make a choice not to have children. How is that different than terminating one already in progress? I choose not to have children right now because I am not yet in a position to responsibly take care of a child. I do not have the savings necessary or a stable enough relationship. Those arguments do not change when a sperm hits an egg. To me it seems like an arbitrary milestone.
Society obviously does value quality of life over life. If I started impregnating as many girls as possible at age 12 ( or whenever the earliest possible age for me would be ) and continue that for the rest of my life, would society encourage or discourage me? If my kids don't commit suicide, does that mean that I am vindicated in the eyes of society?
My personal belief is that until a child is able to survive without the mother it is part of her body and she should be able to do as she sees fit. After that, the child becomes society's problem. And, it is up to society where to draw the line. But, I do think that the pro-life argument is a little inconsistent.
Don't think it is necessary to call me an idiot. Also, whether or not I get to abort something does not in any way detract from my post (just take out that, I admit, poorly worded sentence and the message of the post does not change). Maybe I should post a 5000 word essay on what exactly I would do if I got my girlfriend pregnant. Or, I could stick to what is actually of value in this discussion and say that I would not encourage or support an abortion of a child I beget. Now re-read my post and reply on the merits of what I was trying to say, not semantic mistakes. Also, Ad hominim attacks are not arguments.
Point made. What I should have said is that if I got my girlfriend pregnant I would encourage her not to have an abortion. Or, if it were up to me, the child would not be aborted.
I am confused by your post. You want to use the bible as your source? The bible is not a fact. It is a (possibly biased or untrue) account of the facts written by a human (or humans). If you want to use the bible as a source, do I get to use other works of literature?
This is in fact one essential pillar of pro-choice that people forget. one can be opposed to abortion itself and still be pro-choice. for example, if one believes that the individual, and not the state, is most qualified to wrestle with such fundamental philosophical questions.
I would argue that further. I do not know a single person who is "pro-abortion". That is why it is called "pro-choice". I am personally pro-choice, but if I got my girlfriend pregnant I would not have an abortion. An abortion is a terrible and traumatic thing, and all of the people I know who are pro-choice agree. But, I would not claim to be able to make that decision for someone else.
An abortion is not pro-choice, it's pro-regret. I am not forcing you to be pregnant no more than I am forcing you to be in prison after committing a crime.
That is the argument that I always have a problem with. I hate the idea of a child being a punishment. That is not concurrent with my religious beliefs at all. I hear so many stories on the news and internet about people who are just crappy parents. I would be more in favor of technologically locking people's gonads until they prove that they can be a good parent. To argue that we should punish people who have shown themselves to be irresponsible and poor decision makers by giving them the responsibility of looking after the precious life of a child seems illogical. I do not believe in life for the sake of life. I believe that quality of life is important. And, if you are brought into this world as a punishment for your parents, I do not believe you will have a high quality life (or at least a high quality childhood).
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
Entirely possible. Would you like to present some or is this just a purely hypothetical argument? I will be happy to debate anything you provide based on the facts. The fact that no one brings up other theories to debate with me does not make me closed-minded. It probably means that other people do not have enough FACTS to support their positions.
And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
I believe that parts of both are correct. I believe that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for how life on earth ended up where it is now. I also believe in God. It is only evolution-deniers who claim that they are mutually exclusive (my faith does not rely on the bible being completely factually accurate).
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant.
That is where you are wrong. I do not place my "faith" in a human being. The only faith that I place is in society. I assume that there is no conspiracy. Therefore, I trust that facts presented are accurate (not conclusions, those I don't trust as much. But facts I trust).
The problem is that the evolution-deniers do place their "faith" in one source. They do not argue a proposal based upon facts. They argue for one based upon a single story. Actually, that is untrue. In my experience, they argue AGAINST evolution and then say that if the theory of evolution is not 100% airtight then their proposal must be true. They never actually support their proposal with facts.
So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
This is true. I have not dug up any dinosaur bones myself, so I have to have faith that the reported facts are not distorted to fit a particular viewpoint (conspiracy). But, you have the same faith (unless you have actually talked to god, you are getting all of your beliefs second-hand). So, I think that this point is not relevant to the argument. Unless you are arguing that there is a global conspiracy against God.
So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?
No, it isn't (as far as we know). And they never claimed it was. Unless you are trying to claim that understanding nuclear interactions in neutron stars WILL NOT help with the understanding of other, more dense nuclear interactions (such as black holes).
You could also argue that a black hole might no longer have nuclear interactions and instead only have sub-atomic particle interactions.
PDF is designed as a display format. Which means that it should display the same on every device. This is very good if you are sending your term paper to your professor electronically, but not so good if you are trying to read it on a phone. There are some devices which can adjust the font on a PDF, but since the PDF format was not designed with this in mind I very much doubt that an e-reader has the horsepower to accomplish it.
That said, life expectancy and IMR are a decent starting point, but I think a better evaluation of healthcare systems would be to compare accessibility and quality of treatment.
I agree with you there. But, I think we disagree on the definition of "accessibility". I believe that you define it as the ability to be treated while I believe it is the proportion that do get treated. The difference is that most people will not seek healthcare (at least, non-emergency healthcare) if they cannot afford it. So, while they may have the ability to get healthcare, the fact that it would bankrupt them would make it inaccessible by my definition.
Also, I believe the US has a problem in quality of treatment. While I agree that we have most of the best doctors in the world, most of those doctors are specialized in curing very sick people. When it comes to primary care physicians, I believe that the US is not much better than the rest of the industrialized world and is probably worse due to doctors who would be good primary care physicians instead going for the higher paycheck of the specialist or hospital doctor. Our health system is skewed more toward making sick people better rather than keeping healthy people from becoming sick. Though, that is just an opinion I have been forming over the last few years.
When a media outlet puts out a statement saying the U.S.A has the worst healthcare in world, is when I make a statement like that.
I think that Glenn Beck might have exaggerated slightly. I honestly don't trust a single word that comes out of his mouth. Your point is therefore valid. The United States does not have the worst healthcare in the world.
The people that I know are mainly English, though I have heard similar sentiment from other Europeans (these others were conversations in passing so I cannot recall exactly which countries they were from).
Your story about the guy on the wait list is all well and good, but I know many stories of people in the US who didn't even get the chance to be on a wait list (and did die). There are flaws in every system. Someone always get screwed. I am not going to argue that socialized medicine doesn't usually means longer wait lists (especially for elective procedures). When no one can afford the procedure then it is pretty easy to find the time when the rare person comes in who can. But the statistics still stand. Europeans are more likely to actually live past childbirth and then they also live longer lives. And I am not going to argue their system is perfect. But is much better than ours.
Also, the US does not believe in a capitalist system. If they did then there would be people dying on the streets outside of hospitals when they can't afford to pay. Instead, we have a flat tax on hospital care. A certain percentage of your hospital bill goes to paying for people who cannot afford their stay. These people are not required to pay into the system, and yet they reap the benefits of that system. They have no incentive to get preventative care, which they have to pay for, when they can get emergency care for free. It is the most expensive way to run a system, but the conservatives are in favor of it. This is because the majority of the cost is borne by the middle class. If we went to a single payer system, which has been shown to be more efficient and effective, then it would get paid for by a progressive tax which means the rich would have to shoulder their fair share. They are willing to spend billions on buying Republican votes so that they can make sure they do not have to pay their fair share of taxes.
And yet the liberals who watch the Daily Show have been shown to be more informed on world events than people watching Fox News. I am not saying we should credit Jon Stewart with educating the liberal masses. It is probably correlation rather than causation. It is more likely that the people who watch the Daily Show are using their college degrees to independently verify the news that they hear from multiple sources, as opposed the conservatives who have faith in the Gospel according to Fox News.
Since when did Mexico, Haiti, or Cuba become the apex of socialized health care? What point are you trying to make?
Also, I have not traveled the world, but I know of many Europeans who were pissed off at how their healthcare systems were vilified in the US when they HAVE lived in the US and seen the advantages that their healthcare systems have over ours. I have also gone onto the internet and looked at the statistics that say that the US (with its supposed amazing healthcare) has one of the highest infant mortality rates and one of the lowest life expectancy's of any industrialized nation. I guess the US believes in the Darwin approach to healthcare. If you are rich, then you have the best healthcare in the world. If you are not rich, then we don't want you to survive anyway.
I have no problem with the Faux News entertainers. They make a lot of money what they are doing, and I cannot say for sure I would not do the same thing if I had the opportunity. The problem I have is that if I ignore them, then they will not go away. The problem I have is that there are millions of idiots in this country that watch/believe/trust what they are saying. Faux News entertainers cannot do much harm to this country. Faux News entertainers with millions of sheeple (teabaggers?) following them can.
Steven Colbert plays a self-serving narcissistic douche on Comedy Central. His show is about making the news funny, not about portraying it accurately. He would be justified in not taking responsibility for anyone taking what he says seriously because his show is on a comedy channel.
Glenn Beck ?plays? a douche on Fox News. It claims to be a News channel. It is supposed to, and does not claim not to, have accurate and trustworthy information. As such, he is responsible for people taking what he says seriously (and they do). So, whether or not he tries to play a douche on TV, he is still a douche because he claims to be a pundit, not an actor.
He has not used signing statements. He promised this when he was elected and has upheld his promise. There is a clear precedent for using signing statements (George W. Bush) and it increases the power of the executive dramatically. So, based upon how you lambast "subverting the legal system", I assume that you must support Obama in choosing not to use a political maneuver which concentrates power in the executive.
Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress.
The problem is, though, that they are changing the "machinery" because the public overreacted so much too the "underwear bomber". They are now lowering their requirements for how people get on the watch list because they got yelled at so much when they got one tip on the underwear bomber (his father) and still let him on a plane to the US. I have no evidence that they were able to follow up on the tip and determine how "good" it was (just because the tip is from his father does not mean it is "good"; I can imagine instances where a father would put in a fake tip).
I do not blame the government for this, though. I remember thinking when I heard about the "underwear bomber" that he was a sign of our system being successful. He tried to force the plane to crash but all that happened was that a couple people got burned. That is basically what the government said at first, but the backlash from the American public was so big that the Obama administration took it back and said that they would make changes. The changes are here. They are not the fault of the government. They are because the American public is willing to give up their freedom for the illusion of security.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're a troll but I will reply to you anyway...
Libya is about oil? Ghadaffi had no problem selling us oil. I see no way we benefit in the short term from supporting Libya. The long term benefit being that they become a democratic country.
The healthcare bill is terrible. I supported it because it is better than what we had, but I welcome improvements to it. Republicans had all whole year of dragging out the healthcare bill debate to figure out what they wanted to do. So, where are their ideas. I will not support a repeal until I see what they want to replace it with. But you will never see it repealed because they have no idea what to replace it with. That was just them lying to you so you would support the repeal.
Parent is goatse troll.
Not 30,000 views. He is claiming it was re-posted (or linked to) 30,000 times. I saw one of the links in a forum and read the article myself. I would imagine 30,000 links would equate to many more views (possibly a million or more?... I am just guessing).
I base my morality on Christianity. The bible is just a series of stories. Jesus taught in parables (which were probably not true stories). Why do you think it is necessary for morality to be explained by facts? Facts get in the way. The message is what is important.
My physical world view, though, is based upon the things that I personally observe (which are facts) and the accounts that I get from other people of the facts that they observe. I also allow them to explain to me how those facts fit together.
Evolution is part of my physical world view, not my morality.
Why does it matter what the individual wants? As you have said, individuals want to live. If we were concerned with the affairs of individuals, then we would be creating as much life as possible. But, instead, we are concerned with the well-being of society. This is how we can ethically execute people or put them in jail. It is because the well-being of the individual is not as important as the well-being of society. Not that I am promoting communism or anything. A society is made up of individuals. I believe that the individualistic nature of the US creates a better and more stable society. Laws and moral culture should be created to protect society, not individuals. But, creating laws to protect individuals may also protect society.
So the question becomes, how does abortion make society better or worse. If abortions are allowed, does this cause the well-being of everyone (on average) in the society to get worse? Murder is definitely bad for society. It leads to the breakdown of civility within society. If murder is allowed then everyone is affected. My contributions to society would change. I would be less safe, less trusting of my neighbors, and spend more of my labor and resources protecting myself against the possibility of being murdered. But my contributions to society would be the same whether abortion is legal or not. The only negatives I can see for society are the mental anguish experienced by the mother and/or father.
I mentioned previously that the pro-life argument is inconsistent. The inconsistency is that it is generally accepted among pro-lifers that there should be an exception for rape and incest. For incest, the argument is a quality of life issue. The child is vastly more likely to have genetic disorders due to inbreeding. But, under your argument, the life is already created. So, why should an exception be made?
The other inconsistency that I have a bigger problem with is rape. It goes back to my original post. A woman who is raped did not make the decision (to have sex) that led to her pregnancy. If she does not want the child, she should not be punished with the consequences. But a woman who did make the decision (to have sex) that led to her pregnancy but does not want the child is punished with the consequences. I do not think any child should be a punishment.
You make a good point. It is a spectrum and a hard line to draw. How about the argument from the other extreme? What is the difference between using a condom and aborting a fetus. Or not having sex and aborting a fetus. Who are you to decide that a potential child should not come into this world? A lot of people every day make a choice not to have children. How is that different than terminating one already in progress? I choose not to have children right now because I am not yet in a position to responsibly take care of a child. I do not have the savings necessary or a stable enough relationship. Those arguments do not change when a sperm hits an egg. To me it seems like an arbitrary milestone.
Society obviously does value quality of life over life. If I started impregnating as many girls as possible at age 12 ( or whenever the earliest possible age for me would be ) and continue that for the rest of my life, would society encourage or discourage me? If my kids don't commit suicide, does that mean that I am vindicated in the eyes of society?
My personal belief is that until a child is able to survive without the mother it is part of her body and she should be able to do as she sees fit. After that, the child becomes society's problem. And, it is up to society where to draw the line. But, I do think that the pro-life argument is a little inconsistent.
Don't think it is necessary to call me an idiot. Also, whether or not I get to abort something does not in any way detract from my post (just take out that, I admit, poorly worded sentence and the message of the post does not change). Maybe I should post a 5000 word essay on what exactly I would do if I got my girlfriend pregnant. Or, I could stick to what is actually of value in this discussion and say that I would not encourage or support an abortion of a child I beget. Now re-read my post and reply on the merits of what I was trying to say, not semantic mistakes. Also, Ad hominim attacks are not arguments.
Point made. What I should have said is that if I got my girlfriend pregnant I would encourage her not to have an abortion. Or, if it were up to me, the child would not be aborted.
I am confused by your post. You want to use the bible as your source? The bible is not a fact. It is a (possibly biased or untrue) account of the facts written by a human (or humans). If you want to use the bible as a source, do I get to use other works of literature?
This is in fact one essential pillar of pro-choice that people forget. one can be opposed to abortion itself and still be pro-choice. for example, if one believes that the individual, and not the state, is most qualified to wrestle with such fundamental philosophical questions.
I would argue that further. I do not know a single person who is "pro-abortion". That is why it is called "pro-choice". I am personally pro-choice, but if I got my girlfriend pregnant I would not have an abortion. An abortion is a terrible and traumatic thing, and all of the people I know who are pro-choice agree. But, I would not claim to be able to make that decision for someone else.
An abortion is not pro-choice, it's pro-regret. I am not forcing you to be pregnant no more than I am forcing you to be in prison after committing a crime.
That is the argument that I always have a problem with. I hate the idea of a child being a punishment. That is not concurrent with my religious beliefs at all. I hear so many stories on the news and internet about people who are just crappy parents. I would be more in favor of technologically locking people's gonads until they prove that they can be a good parent. To argue that we should punish people who have shown themselves to be irresponsible and poor decision makers by giving them the responsibility of looking after the precious life of a child seems illogical. I do not believe in life for the sake of life. I believe that quality of life is important. And, if you are brought into this world as a punishment for your parents, I do not believe you will have a high quality life (or at least a high quality childhood).
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
Entirely possible. Would you like to present some or is this just a purely hypothetical argument? I will be happy to debate anything you provide based on the facts. The fact that no one brings up other theories to debate with me does not make me closed-minded. It probably means that other people do not have enough FACTS to support their positions.
And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
I believe that parts of both are correct. I believe that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for how life on earth ended up where it is now. I also believe in God. It is only evolution-deniers who claim that they are mutually exclusive (my faith does not rely on the bible being completely factually accurate).
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant.
That is where you are wrong. I do not place my "faith" in a human being. The only faith that I place is in society. I assume that there is no conspiracy. Therefore, I trust that facts presented are accurate (not conclusions, those I don't trust as much. But facts I trust).
The problem is that the evolution-deniers do place their "faith" in one source. They do not argue a proposal based upon facts. They argue for one based upon a single story. Actually, that is untrue. In my experience, they argue AGAINST evolution and then say that if the theory of evolution is not 100% airtight then their proposal must be true. They never actually support their proposal with facts.
So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
This is true. I have not dug up any dinosaur bones myself, so I have to have faith that the reported facts are not distorted to fit a particular viewpoint (conspiracy). But, you have the same faith (unless you have actually talked to god, you are getting all of your beliefs second-hand). So, I think that this point is not relevant to the argument. Unless you are arguing that there is a global conspiracy against God.
So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?
No, it isn't (as far as we know). And they never claimed it was. Unless you are trying to claim that understanding nuclear interactions in neutron stars WILL NOT help with the understanding of other, more dense nuclear interactions (such as black holes).
You could also argue that a black hole might no longer have nuclear interactions and instead only have sub-atomic particle interactions.
iPAD
PDF is designed as a display format. Which means that it should display the same on every device. This is very good if you are sending your term paper to your professor electronically, but not so good if you are trying to read it on a phone. There are some devices which can adjust the font on a PDF, but since the PDF format was not designed with this in mind I very much doubt that an e-reader has the horsepower to accomplish it.
That said, life expectancy and IMR are a decent starting point, but I think a better evaluation of healthcare systems would be to compare accessibility and quality of treatment.
I agree with you there. But, I think we disagree on the definition of "accessibility". I believe that you define it as the ability to be treated while I believe it is the proportion that do get treated. The difference is that most people will not seek healthcare (at least, non-emergency healthcare) if they cannot afford it. So, while they may have the ability to get healthcare, the fact that it would bankrupt them would make it inaccessible by my definition.
Also, I believe the US has a problem in quality of treatment. While I agree that we have most of the best doctors in the world, most of those doctors are specialized in curing very sick people. When it comes to primary care physicians, I believe that the US is not much better than the rest of the industrialized world and is probably worse due to doctors who would be good primary care physicians instead going for the higher paycheck of the specialist or hospital doctor. Our health system is skewed more toward making sick people better rather than keeping healthy people from becoming sick. Though, that is just an opinion I have been forming over the last few years.
When a media outlet puts out a statement saying the U.S.A has the worst healthcare in world, is when I make a statement like that.
I think that Glenn Beck might have exaggerated slightly. I honestly don't trust a single word that comes out of his mouth. Your point is therefore valid. The United States does not have the worst healthcare in the world.
The people that I know are mainly English, though I have heard similar sentiment from other Europeans (these others were conversations in passing so I cannot recall exactly which countries they were from).
Your story about the guy on the wait list is all well and good, but I know many stories of people in the US who didn't even get the chance to be on a wait list (and did die). There are flaws in every system. Someone always get screwed. I am not going to argue that socialized medicine doesn't usually means longer wait lists (especially for elective procedures). When no one can afford the procedure then it is pretty easy to find the time when the rare person comes in who can. But the statistics still stand. Europeans are more likely to actually live past childbirth and then they also live longer lives. And I am not going to argue their system is perfect. But is much better than ours.
Also, the US does not believe in a capitalist system. If they did then there would be people dying on the streets outside of hospitals when they can't afford to pay. Instead, we have a flat tax on hospital care. A certain percentage of your hospital bill goes to paying for people who cannot afford their stay. These people are not required to pay into the system, and yet they reap the benefits of that system. They have no incentive to get preventative care, which they have to pay for, when they can get emergency care for free. It is the most expensive way to run a system, but the conservatives are in favor of it. This is because the majority of the cost is borne by the middle class. If we went to a single payer system, which has been shown to be more efficient and effective, then it would get paid for by a progressive tax which means the rich would have to shoulder their fair share. They are willing to spend billions on buying Republican votes so that they can make sure they do not have to pay their fair share of taxes.
And yet the liberals who watch the Daily Show have been shown to be more informed on world events than people watching Fox News. I am not saying we should credit Jon Stewart with educating the liberal masses. It is probably correlation rather than causation. It is more likely that the people who watch the Daily Show are using their college degrees to independently verify the news that they hear from multiple sources, as opposed the conservatives who have faith in the Gospel according to Fox News.
And the liberals sit down every night and drink up their spoon-fed propaganda just like at Fox News. Huh?
Public Broadcasting? Really? Is that the best you can come up with?
You are comparing defunding of a public service to "the muslims are gonna kill us".
You know us liberals, if we don't have public broadcasting then our life isn't worth anything. We might just all commit suicide.
Since when did Mexico, Haiti, or Cuba become the apex of socialized health care? What point are you trying to make?
Also, I have not traveled the world, but I know of many Europeans who were pissed off at how their healthcare systems were vilified in the US when they HAVE lived in the US and seen the advantages that their healthcare systems have over ours. I have also gone onto the internet and looked at the statistics that say that the US (with its supposed amazing healthcare) has one of the highest infant mortality rates and one of the lowest life expectancy's of any industrialized nation. I guess the US believes in the Darwin approach to healthcare. If you are rich, then you have the best healthcare in the world. If you are not rich, then we don't want you to survive anyway.
I have no problem with the Faux News entertainers. They make a lot of money what they are doing, and I cannot say for sure I would not do the same thing if I had the opportunity. The problem I have is that if I ignore them, then they will not go away. The problem I have is that there are millions of idiots in this country that watch/believe/trust what they are saying. Faux News entertainers cannot do much harm to this country. Faux News entertainers with millions of sheeple (teabaggers?) following them can.
Steven Colbert plays a self-serving narcissistic douche on Comedy Central. His show is about making the news funny, not about portraying it accurately. He would be justified in not taking responsibility for anyone taking what he says seriously because his show is on a comedy channel.
Glenn Beck ?plays? a douche on Fox News. It claims to be a News channel. It is supposed to, and does not claim not to, have accurate and trustworthy information. As such, he is responsible for people taking what he says seriously (and they do). So, whether or not he tries to play a douche on TV, he is still a douche because he claims to be a pundit, not an actor.
He has not used signing statements. He promised this when he was elected and has upheld his promise. There is a clear precedent for using signing statements (George W. Bush) and it increases the power of the executive dramatically. So, based upon how you lambast "subverting the legal system", I assume that you must support Obama in choosing not to use a political maneuver which concentrates power in the executive.
Obama has already started to do that since it became clear he lost Congress.
Cite please.
The problem is, though, that they are changing the "machinery" because the public overreacted so much too the "underwear bomber". They are now lowering their requirements for how people get on the watch list because they got yelled at so much when they got one tip on the underwear bomber (his father) and still let him on a plane to the US. I have no evidence that they were able to follow up on the tip and determine how "good" it was (just because the tip is from his father does not mean it is "good"; I can imagine instances where a father would put in a fake tip).
I do not blame the government for this, though. I remember thinking when I heard about the "underwear bomber" that he was a sign of our system being successful. He tried to force the plane to crash but all that happened was that a couple people got burned. That is basically what the government said at first, but the backlash from the American public was so big that the Obama administration took it back and said that they would make changes. The changes are here. They are not the fault of the government. They are because the American public is willing to give up their freedom for the illusion of security.