..."skullfucked within an inch of their lives."
In short, if these so-called "doctors" really wanted to improve peoples' health, they would be lobbying to make it so that SNAP benefits could not be used to purchase foods with added sugars and cheap carbohydrates.
So your neighbors made the same mistake five different times, and you want me to pay for it?
I thought I wanted well regulated economic institutions, so we all can get on with our businesses without fearing undue risk with our protected money.
Regulation of the sort that "progressives" want allows those like Jon Corzine, who've made frequent use of the revolving door between regulator and regulated, to steal and piss away hundreds of millions of dollars of customer money. Even worse are the neo-Keynesian shenanigans that pass for fiscal and monetary policy, which have greatly devalued the purchasing power of ordinary Americans.
So if it was justified to kill innocent people in Japan, you're also implying that it would've been further justified to kill innocent people in the USA?
As the US was not the aggressor nation in that conflict, any attacks on the US for using the atomic bombs would be illegitimate.
You too deserve to be shot, for treason.
Sorry, but I'm not levying war against the US, nor am I giving aid and comfort to its enemies.
For example, the slippery slope of Federal gun control that existed for 70 years between 1934 and 2004 which is merely stalled for now, and the slippery-slope that currently exists in places like California and New York.
Only a total psychopath can conflate someone dying due to his own irresponsibility with someone being involuntarily euthanized in a hospital by hospital staff.
This is supported by reality, where socialized health care has demonstrably superior outcomes for lower cost than private healthcare.
"Superior outcomes" such as the Liverpool care pathway in Britain, under which 29 percent of hospital patients die under heavy sedation of otherwise treatable illnesses after being withheld food and water (in other words, they're murdered)? Or maybe they receive "superior outcomes" in the Netherlands, where ten percent of hospital patients die under similar circumstances?
So you prefer a government where the majority is disenfranchised? Like North Korea, or more like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Bahrain?
Strawman arguments make you look stupid. I would prefer that only property owning male heads of households be allowed to vote.
You can't get laid because you're a misogynist. Your defective sociapathy doesn't have much to do with the government, or with women having the choice to ignore your dumb, bigoted ass -- they're just reminded of how thankful they are to live in a relatively free country when you are around. I recommend a personality and a little bit of self introspection. It will get you further than those bizarre talking points.
Oh look; the rabbit person, confronted with a cold hard reality he can't deal with, launches into ad-hominem.
The fact of the matter is, civilization is built and maintained by men - either smart, wealthy, or both - and passed down from father to son. This requires patriarchy and the keeping of female sexuality in check.
But of course, all these social restraints have been destroyed. Enjoy the collapse of civil society and your Turd World governance.
The correct answer to ineffective government is effective government.
You can't have halfway decent government when the idiot majority is enfranchised, and when female emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal marriage means that men no longer have any incentive to invest in the future.
Things will also get worse for the families of these "law enforcement" agents: remember Dorner? Add to that the growing Hispanic population and we should expect to see more Latin American-style assassinations and terror directed at the lower-level cops. Some say this is already starting to happen in the Southwest.
And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.
Homosexuals already have all the natural rights that any other man has. What they are demanding goes far beyond that. They demand laws mandating that people be forced to associate with them. They demand laws mandating that elementary school students be taught about their "relationships" (and that's the best case scenario). They demand laws against speech and writings that make them "uncomfortable". All these laws are selectively enforced against heterosexual employed white males.
So yes, the rights of people like me are being trampled upon, and no, homosexuals aren't merely seeking "equal rights".
Everything I mentioned already deals with cost. As to outcome, is dying drugged up (with food and water withheld) on the Liverpool care pathway instead of being treated for the pneumonia "far better"? The Liverpool care pathway accounts for around 29 percent of all hospital deaths in the UK. In the Netherlands, around ten percent of all hospital deaths are similar deaths under deep sedation.
The reason the medical system is messed up is because of the laws, regulations and monopoly protections enforced on the entire sector by the government. Specifically, EMTALA, which forces the provision of emergency room care to people who have no ability to pay for it, the fact that federal laws and regulations prohibit the re-importation of drugs and medical devices, the fact that hospitals can get away with not quoting prices for common routine procedures, and so on and so forth.
There's reason Americans should fear socialized medicine: look at what the UK's NHS system does to inconvenient elderly people unfortunate enough to get sick (Liverpool care pathway).
Under New Testament marriage, the husband promises to "love, honor and cherish", and the wife promises to "love, honor and obey". Under homosexual "marriage", before everyone in attendance engages in group sodomy on the altar, who promises to cherish, and who promises to obey; the "pitcher" or the "catcher"?
We have had unregulated markets before, this is not new. They have always resulting in absolute concentration of wealth at the cost of the liberty, health and safety of the common man.
During the age of the so-called "robber barons" in America (what you would call "unregulated markets"), the standard of living for ordinary people underwent a rapid increase.
Many of the problems we currently face as the plutocrats grow in power are a result of deregulation
The only thing "deregulated" in America today are abortion mills.
Say that you were a member of a minority group in the USA today that still isn't fully protected. For example, if you were gay/lesbian. In many states you could be fired just for being who you are, with no recourse, if your boss found out.
So-called "christian businesses" whose function had nothing to do with religion could nevertheless refuse to serve you, refuse to admit you, kick you out if they realized who you were after the fact. And have done so.
Sounds good to me. I'm for total freedom of association, as protected by the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
America wasn't founded as a totalitarian socialist Hell-state.
Three major events destroyed America:
After the Civil War, America was no longer America politically.
After the New Deal, America was no longer America economically.
After the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, America was no longer America demographically.
Those of us with political leanings similar to those of the Koch brothers were not responsible for any of that. Your side was.
..."skullfucked within an inch of their lives."
In short, if these so-called "doctors" really wanted to improve peoples' health, they would be lobbying to make it so that SNAP benefits could not be used to purchase foods with added sugars and cheap carbohydrates.
My neighbors are Poor. 30 years old, 5 kids.
So your neighbors made the same mistake five different times, and you want me to pay for it?
I thought I wanted well regulated economic institutions, so we all can get on with our businesses without fearing undue risk with our protected money.
Regulation of the sort that "progressives" want allows those like Jon Corzine, who've made frequent use of the revolving door between regulator and regulated, to steal and piss away hundreds of millions of dollars of customer money. Even worse are the neo-Keynesian shenanigans that pass for fiscal and monetary policy, which have greatly devalued the purchasing power of ordinary Americans.
So if it was justified to kill innocent people in Japan, you're also implying that it would've been further justified to kill innocent people in the USA?
As the US was not the aggressor nation in that conflict, any attacks on the US for using the atomic bombs would be illegitimate.
You too deserve to be shot, for treason.
Sorry, but I'm not levying war against the US, nor am I giving aid and comfort to its enemies.
Actually, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justice for what was done in Nanking.
You deserve to be shot.
For example, the slippery slope of Federal gun control that existed for 70 years between 1934 and 2004 which is merely stalled for now, and the slippery-slope that currently exists in places like California and New York.
It's not a fallacy if the slippery slope has repeatedly been demonstrated to actually exist.
You produce an obscene amount of the carbon footprint of the planet, polluting the whole globe and doing a great deal to rush us all to oblivion.
So basically, you want Americans murdered for building and producing stuff - stuff that you use every fucking day.
You and your family ought to be killed.
Only a total psychopath can conflate someone dying due to his own irresponsibility with someone being involuntarily euthanized in a hospital by hospital staff.
This is supported by reality, where socialized health care has demonstrably superior outcomes for lower cost than private healthcare.
"Superior outcomes" such as the Liverpool care pathway in Britain, under which 29 percent of hospital patients die under heavy sedation of otherwise treatable illnesses after being withheld food and water (in other words, they're murdered)? Or maybe they receive "superior outcomes" in the Netherlands, where ten percent of hospital patients die under similar circumstances?
So you prefer a government where the majority is disenfranchised? Like North Korea, or more like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Bahrain?
Strawman arguments make you look stupid. I would prefer that only property owning male heads of households be allowed to vote.
You can't get laid because you're a misogynist. Your defective sociapathy doesn't have much to do with the government, or with women having the choice to ignore your dumb, bigoted ass -- they're just reminded of how thankful they are to live in a relatively free country when you are around. I recommend a personality and a little bit of self introspection. It will get you further than those bizarre talking points.
Oh look; the rabbit person, confronted with a cold hard reality he can't deal with, launches into ad-hominem.
The fact of the matter is, civilization is built and maintained by men - either smart, wealthy, or both - and passed down from father to son. This requires patriarchy and the keeping of female sexuality in check.
But of course, all these social restraints have been destroyed. Enjoy the collapse of civil society and your Turd World governance.
The correct answer to ineffective government is effective government.
You can't have halfway decent government when the idiot majority is enfranchised, and when female emancipation and the destruction of patriarchal marriage means that men no longer have any incentive to invest in the future.
Things will also get worse for the families of these "law enforcement" agents: remember Dorner? Add to that the growing Hispanic population and we should expect to see more Latin American-style assassinations and terror directed at the lower-level cops. Some say this is already starting to happen in the Southwest.
And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.
Homosexuals already have all the natural rights that any other man has. What they are demanding goes far beyond that. They demand laws mandating that people be forced to associate with them. They demand laws mandating that elementary school students be taught about their "relationships" (and that's the best case scenario). They demand laws against speech and writings that make them "uncomfortable". All these laws are selectively enforced against heterosexual employed white males.
So yes, the rights of people like me are being trampled upon, and no, homosexuals aren't merely seeking "equal rights".
Everything I mentioned already deals with cost. As to outcome, is dying drugged up (with food and water withheld) on the Liverpool care pathway instead of being treated for the pneumonia "far better"? The Liverpool care pathway accounts for around 29 percent of all hospital deaths in the UK. In the Netherlands, around ten percent of all hospital deaths are similar deaths under deep sedation.
The reason the medical system is messed up is because of the laws, regulations and monopoly protections enforced on the entire sector by the government. Specifically, EMTALA, which forces the provision of emergency room care to people who have no ability to pay for it, the fact that federal laws and regulations prohibit the re-importation of drugs and medical devices, the fact that hospitals can get away with not quoting prices for common routine procedures, and so on and so forth.
There's reason Americans should fear socialized medicine: look at what the UK's NHS system does to inconvenient elderly people unfortunate enough to get sick (Liverpool care pathway).
Under New Testament marriage, the husband promises to "love, honor and cherish", and the wife promises to "love, honor and obey". Under homosexual "marriage", before everyone in attendance engages in group sodomy on the altar, who promises to cherish, and who promises to obey; the "pitcher" or the "catcher"?
Hmm. Citation needed. That is not what I studied.
The problem is, the material you studied was written by fans of terror and slavery.
We have had unregulated markets before, this is not new. They have always resulting in absolute concentration of wealth at the cost of the liberty, health and safety of the common man.
During the age of the so-called "robber barons" in America (what you would call "unregulated markets"), the standard of living for ordinary people underwent a rapid increase.
Many of the problems we currently face as the plutocrats grow in power are a result of deregulation
The only thing "deregulated" in America today are abortion mills.
Say that you were a member of a minority group in the USA today that still isn't fully protected. For example, if you were gay/lesbian. In many states you could be fired just for being who you are, with no recourse, if your boss found out.
So-called "christian businesses" whose function had nothing to do with religion could nevertheless refuse to serve you, refuse to admit you, kick you out if they realized who you were after the fact. And have done so.
Sounds good to me. I'm for total freedom of association, as protected by the First Amendment.