It is impossible for an academic deified Queer ONE god to give birth to, or breast-feed a Baby. Bible fraud will destroy fools, and they will eat one another. Adam and Eve never existed. Without profit, there is no god. Believers will actually eat dung before they will ever measure their queer Godism for Cubic Creation Truth. Just the other Day in the NEWS, they were worshipping their god image
in Vomit.
slashdot comment boards is training grounds for real life?
i'm just arguing issues i care about. what are you doing? parenting? can i borrow the car keys dad?
you're 20 levels in in a comment thread on slashdot, and you think you're going to lecture me on what it takes to make it in real life
GOTCHA
this retarded thread is no substitute for a real life argument. AGREED
issue #2: on common sense approach to nationalized healthcare, your appeal to federalism is FUCKING STUPID
anything else i can help you with today? or do you want to make fun of someone's student movie as you concurrently lecture someone on being childish;-)
is not the guiding philosophy that is correct on the topic of nationalized medicine. within the range of the topic, then i call you monomaniacal for seeing only federalism as a valid concept
you accuse me of going beyond the subject matter. all of my criticisms fall naturally within the subject matter. so, when i call you an idiot, consider it shorthand for you being an idiot on the subject of nationalized healthcare
does that make you feel better?
you don't have to take the abuse you know. you obviously can't handle it
normally i'm accused of being too inflammatory and harsh in my language. i think the majority of slashdot would say to me at this point my language is too soft
go, moron, go sit with the creationists
ignorant retard
"So long as you're willing to help bear the load and cost of the impact of those vaccinations, you can support this position"
yes, that's called nationalized healthcare, which i'm arguing in support of
#1: it helps when criticising someone for being a child, to not engaging in the same behavior in the same post
#2: you have demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you besmirch the constitution and the founding fathers by thinking they share your insanity. this means i have no reason to respect you in a calm and rational tone, since you have already abandoned rationalism. demonstrate that you appreciate that there are more guiding principles than federalism in good governance, and my low opinion of you is reversed. demonstrate that you understand the constitution and the founding fathers don't support your monomania, and my name claling of you is undeserved. until then, my disrespect of you and name calling of you is completely warranted
organic human foibles that i have listed as examples are all you need as a precondition to validate my point
so the whole issue of government being the source of the problem that needs fixing is an absurdity. it simply isn't. its a lie or an ignorant misconception
federalism is a useful concept. it isn't the end all be all of guiding concepts in forming a valid and coherent government policy
you're a fundamentalist idiot. federalism is just one toy in your sandbox. but you apparently think its the only valid concept to consider. amazing!
this makes bizarre, alien, and stupid
and please do not think in any way the constitution or the founding fathers somehow support your megalomania. in historical, legal, moral, and logical terms, you are absolutely wrong on that count
please, use your mind critically, and stop using the constitution and the founding fathers as a (logically and historically invalid) crutch for your monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you have a one track mind. barking "federalism" to every question is stupid beyond belief
that makes you a constitutional fundamentalist: you adhere to the wording of a document, rather than the spirit of the document
you don't think that perhaps in 200 years the constitution needs some changes? that there were issues even when written with the document? (such as on the issue of slavery and women and voting)
societies change, in bad ways... and in GOOD ways. you don't see something like nationalized healthcare as a good development? you have to adhere to the constitution in kneejerk fashion without thinking independently and critically on your own?
the constitution is a stellar document, for its time, and most of it is still stellar. but its not perfect and unquestionable. your adherence to it like some sort of religious text makes you a fundamentalist
no, fundamentlaist assholes: the koran, the bible, the constitution: these are human docuements. useful, but imperfect. to not question them and use your mind critically, and see where these documents are imperfect, is to be an unthinking zombie, tools for interests and causes which violate the spirit in which these documents were written
with absolute certainty, if the founding fathers could here the argument going on in modern society about nationalized healthcare, i am certain they would side with nationalized healthcare, in the spirit of a more perfect union, defending the common good. all concepts they knew and understood well
and even if they didn't agree with nationalized healthcare, if they would hear you use your mindless unthinking adherence and devotion to their stale document from times long past as a reason to abandon nationalized healthcare, they would disapprove of you. they would ask you to think critically and use your mind independently. signs of the greatest americans who ever lived, our founding fathers. but not a sign of how you act and think. you're a zombie
the foundign fathers constantly broke the concept of federalism
and we continue to break the concept continually today as well
where? how? when?
when common fucking sense demands it
such as with interstate commerce (where we have gone beyond the founding fathers)
or with a common military (where the founding fathers themselves broke the concept)
do you want more examples? there are dozens
healthcare is just another one of those no brainers where the federalist loses out on the common sense part of things
federalism is a fine idea. within a limited scope. what trumps federalism? gee, i dunno: common fucking sense maybe?
is federalism the only concept your mind can understand?
that's certainly not the case with the founding fathers
you need to actually juggle more than one concept in your mind at a time to come to a policy in this world which is fair and makes sense
you simply can't lockjaw grasp on a single concept like federalism with a pit bull's bite, and exclude all other guiding principles, and think you are ever going to say anything valuable, useful, or even sensical
the founding fathers understood that. every supreme court justice who ever served, living or dead (even scalia, the federalist fundamentalist), understands that
do you understand that? that there is more than federalism as a guiding principle on good governance?
(or rather, you're 1/100000th of a cent as a taxpayer), you are richer, because you live in a society that cares for its people
if you deny that you should pay for his healthcare, your entire society is filled with rot, moral, and financial rot. a guy who can't work here, an orphan on the stree there whose parents died of that preventable illness there.
do you understand that? you are poorer for your opinion, financially, and morally. you are not an island. you live in a society. you need to contribute to it. if you don't understnad or beleive that, you don't understand how being a memebr of a rich society enriches you as well. and we all suffer, for your poverty of the mind
right. got it. paying for all of our healthcare out of our pool (which we do now anyway in insurance) is EXTREME. like forced labor camps it is! please pull your head out your ass
but better an arrogant dick than a blind fundamentalist
if it makes sense, agree it makes sense. what is the point in wallowing in the mechanics of an amendment process?
do you have an opinion on nationalized healthcare or not? if you do, put it forth, if you don't, hide behind the mechanics of the amendment process. your point that it needs an amendment is pointless. what about the issue at hand? is it right or wrong? who cares about the legal mechanics needed to implement it? the legal mechanics are cut and dry
do you really think a discussion about the legal mechanics is any more useful than a discussion of the real issues?
like any other fundamentalist, you adhere to the wording of a revered document, rather than the spirit of it
the founding fathers did a great job, but they were not perfect. were the founding fathers privy to this little thread between us, they would be on my side. nationalized healthcare is a no brainer, and it is it stopped by those, like you, who are confused as to the whole purpose of a society and a nation and what its role is supposed to be in your life
something the founding fathers understood, better than you, and something they would understand about this debate about nationalized healthcare, better than you
he is suffering from a condition that can be treated with 50 cents worth of effort and 5 minutes of a doctor's time
if you let him die in the street, you are a true libertarian
if you won't let him die in the street, then you must accept nationalized healthcare. because every half-assed measure in between results in someone somewhere suffering needlessly due to the inablity of the selfish to accept the consequences of their selfishness
a healthy society is a society that takes care of itself. and a healthy society is also a rich society. in many large and small ways, it adds money in your pocket if the people in society around you are healthy
nationalized healthcare is a nobrainer. i don't even no why its a debated, its beyond obvious
there exist in this world people who are best described as free market fundamentalists. like any other fundamentalist, they only cause harm to their world in their adherence to simplistic ideas about how their world really works
it doesn't take government for people to have financial difficulties and be unable to take care of themselves and to be irresponsible. which is all you need to understand to understand why we are in this mess. nice try, but you have either a massive logic failure or are heavily propagandized
you think that everyone makes their choices in a vacuum, that the consequences of their action affects no one else. if someone makes a bad choice that has a negative consequence on those around them, then you have reached the limit of free choice
everyone has the right to make their own decisions, unless the decisions they make adversely affect others in society
for example: a drug addict. a drug addict, by making their own choices, has wound up in a situation where they place a drag on those around him, by becoming someone who cannot support himself and requiring others to support him. in this case, the drug addict has relinquished the right to make their own choices and must have treatment forced upon him against his will
likewise, if someone does not get their child innoculated against diseases, they become disease spreading vectors. not all innoculations work 100%. so even if you innoculate your child, that child can still get sick, and die, due to the irreponsibility of others. in which case, the healthcare of those aorund you becomes your business
you have an unsupportable assumption in your ideas, that you make decisions in a vacuum, and it affects no one else. this is obviously false, and you need to rethink your ideas about how the real world works. there are real and genuine limits on free will in this world. not because i say so, but out of simple logical consequence
Slashdot Mirror
read the story again, it links to virustools, which lists the 10 out of 35 vendors that made the detection. antivir did (mine, phew)
i didnt see that. ill file that under al qaeda for obama. endorsements no one wants
you don't believe Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human? don't tell me you are an academic deified Queer
<size 36 red font>
It is impossible for an academic
deified Queer ONE god to give
birth to, or breast-feed a Baby.
Bible fraud will destroy fools,
and they will eat one another.
Adam and Eve never existed.
Without profit, there is no god.
Believers will actually eat dung
before they will ever measure
their queer Godism for Cubic
Creation Truth. Just the other
Day in the NEWS, they were
worshipping their god image
in Vomit.
</size 36 red font>
<keanureevesvoice>
"whoa"
</keanureevesvoice>
get me far in real life
slashdot comment boards is training grounds for real life?
i'm just arguing issues i care about. what are you doing? parenting? can i borrow the car keys dad?
you're 20 levels in in a comment thread on slashdot, and you think you're going to lecture me on what it takes to make it in real life
GOTCHA
this retarded thread is no substitute for a real life argument. AGREED
issue #2: on common sense approach to nationalized healthcare, your appeal to federalism is FUCKING STUPID
anything else i can help you with today? or do you want to make fun of someone's student movie as you concurrently lecture someone on being childish ;-)
what a retard
is not the guiding philosophy that is correct on the topic of nationalized medicine. within the range of the topic, then i call you monomaniacal for seeing only federalism as a valid concept
you accuse me of going beyond the subject matter. all of my criticisms fall naturally within the subject matter. so, when i call you an idiot, consider it shorthand for you being an idiot on the subject of nationalized healthcare
does that make you feel better?
you don't have to take the abuse you know. you obviously can't handle it
(snicker)
"i argued incorrectly and using an incomplete understanding of the concepts, but why use that as a reason to disagree with me?"
pffffffffffft
you sir, are a fucking moron
normally i'm accused of being too inflammatory and harsh in my language. i think the majority of slashdot would say to me at this point my language is too soft
go, moron, go sit with the creationists
ignorant retard
"So long as you're willing to help bear the load and cost of the impact of those vaccinations, you can support this position"
yes, that's called nationalized healthcare, which i'm arguing in support of
FACEPALM
#1: it helps when criticising someone for being a child, to not engaging in the same behavior in the same post
#2: you have demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you besmirch the constitution and the founding fathers by thinking they share your insanity. this means i have no reason to respect you in a calm and rational tone, since you have already abandoned rationalism. demonstrate that you appreciate that there are more guiding principles than federalism in good governance, and my low opinion of you is reversed. demonstrate that you understand the constitution and the founding fathers don't support your monomania, and my name claling of you is undeserved. until then, my disrespect of you and name calling of you is completely warranted
oh sorry, almost forgot:
you fucking moron
organic human foibles that i have listed as examples are all you need as a precondition to validate my point
so the whole issue of government being the source of the problem that needs fixing is an absurdity. it simply isn't. its a lie or an ignorant misconception
federalism is a useful concept. it isn't the end all be all of guiding concepts in forming a valid and coherent government policy
you're a fundamentalist idiot. federalism is just one toy in your sandbox. but you apparently think its the only valid concept to consider. amazing!
this makes bizarre, alien, and stupid
and please do not think in any way the constitution or the founding fathers somehow support your megalomania. in historical, legal, moral, and logical terms, you are absolutely wrong on that count
please, use your mind critically, and stop using the constitution and the founding fathers as a (logically and historically invalid) crutch for your monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you have a one track mind. barking "federalism" to every question is stupid beyond belief
what an idiot
that the constitution can do no wrong?
that makes you a constitutional fundamentalist: you adhere to the wording of a document, rather than the spirit of the document
you don't think that perhaps in 200 years the constitution needs some changes? that there were issues even when written with the document? (such as on the issue of slavery and women and voting)
societies change, in bad ways... and in GOOD ways. you don't see something like nationalized healthcare as a good development? you have to adhere to the constitution in kneejerk fashion without thinking independently and critically on your own?
the constitution is a stellar document, for its time, and most of it is still stellar. but its not perfect and unquestionable. your adherence to it like some sort of religious text makes you a fundamentalist
no, fundamentlaist assholes: the koran, the bible, the constitution: these are human docuements. useful, but imperfect. to not question them and use your mind critically, and see where these documents are imperfect, is to be an unthinking zombie, tools for interests and causes which violate the spirit in which these documents were written
with absolute certainty, if the founding fathers could here the argument going on in modern society about nationalized healthcare, i am certain they would side with nationalized healthcare, in the spirit of a more perfect union, defending the common good. all concepts they knew and understood well
and even if they didn't agree with nationalized healthcare, if they would hear you use your mindless unthinking adherence and devotion to their stale document from times long past as a reason to abandon nationalized healthcare, they would disapprove of you. they would ask you to think critically and use your mind independently. signs of the greatest americans who ever lived, our founding fathers. but not a sign of how you act and think. you're a zombie
the foundign fathers constantly broke the concept of federalism
and we continue to break the concept continually today as well
where? how? when?
when common fucking sense demands it
such as with interstate commerce (where we have gone beyond the founding fathers)
or with a common military (where the founding fathers themselves broke the concept)
do you want more examples? there are dozens
healthcare is just another one of those no brainers where the federalist loses out on the common sense part of things
federalism is a fine idea. within a limited scope. what trumps federalism? gee, i dunno: common fucking sense maybe?
is federalism the only concept your mind can understand?
that's certainly not the case with the founding fathers
you need to actually juggle more than one concept in your mind at a time to come to a policy in this world which is fair and makes sense
you simply can't lockjaw grasp on a single concept like federalism with a pit bull's bite, and exclude all other guiding principles, and think you are ever going to say anything valuable, useful, or even sensical
the founding fathers understood that. every supreme court justice who ever served, living or dead (even scalia, the federalist fundamentalist), understands that
do you understand that? that there is more than federalism as a guiding principle on good governance?
and we continue to break the concept continually today as well
where? how? when?
when common fucking sense demands it
such as with interstate commerce (where we have gone beyond the founding fathers)
or with a common military (where the founding fathers themselves broke the concept)
do you want more examples? there are dozens
healthcare is just another one of those no brainers where the federalist loses out on the common sense part of things
federalism is a fine idea. within a limited scope. what trumps federalism? gee, i dunno: common fuckign sense maybe?
is federalism the only concept your mind can understand?
that's certainly not the case with the founding fathers
(or rather, you're 1/100000th of a cent as a taxpayer), you are richer, because you live in a society that cares for its people
if you deny that you should pay for his healthcare, your entire society is filled with rot, moral, and financial rot. a guy who can't work here, an orphan on the stree there whose parents died of that preventable illness there.
do you understand that? you are poorer for your opinion, financially, and morally. you are not an island. you live in a society. you need to contribute to it. if you don't understnad or beleive that, you don't understand how being a memebr of a rich society enriches you as well. and we all suffer, for your poverty of the mind
http://images.google.com/images?q=join%20or%20die
"extreme government intervention"
right. got it. paying for all of our healthcare out of our pool (which we do now anyway in insurance) is EXTREME. like forced labor camps it is! please pull your head out your ass
then there is legal and illegal
two different things
by all means, do something right if it is illegal
but don't do something wrong, legal or illegal
but better an arrogant dick than a blind fundamentalist
if it makes sense, agree it makes sense. what is the point in wallowing in the mechanics of an amendment process?
do you have an opinion on nationalized healthcare or not? if you do, put it forth, if you don't, hide behind the mechanics of the amendment process. your point that it needs an amendment is pointless. what about the issue at hand? is it right or wrong? who cares about the legal mechanics needed to implement it? the legal mechanics are cut and dry
do you really think a discussion about the legal mechanics is any more useful than a discussion of the real issues?
like any other fundamentalist, you adhere to the wording of a revered document, rather than the spirit of it
the founding fathers did a great job, but they were not perfect. were the founding fathers privy to this little thread between us, they would be on my side. nationalized healthcare is a no brainer, and it is it stopped by those, like you, who are confused as to the whole purpose of a society and a nation and what its role is supposed to be in your life
something the founding fathers understood, better than you, and something they would understand about this debate about nationalized healthcare, better than you
he is suffering from a condition that can be treated with 50 cents worth of effort and 5 minutes of a doctor's time
if you let him die in the street, you are a true libertarian
if you won't let him die in the street, then you must accept nationalized healthcare. because every half-assed measure in between results in someone somewhere suffering needlessly due to the inablity of the selfish to accept the consequences of their selfishness
a healthy society is a society that takes care of itself. and a healthy society is also a rich society. in many large and small ways, it adds money in your pocket if the people in society around you are healthy
nationalized healthcare is a nobrainer. i don't even no why its a debated, its beyond obvious
there exist in this world people who are best described as free market fundamentalists. like any other fundamentalist, they only cause harm to their world in their adherence to simplistic ideas about how their world really works
and that's because americans actually care about the health of other americans
which is why we need nationalized healthcare
can you walk by a guy dying in the street like in a third world country?
no?
well, you just told me health care should be optional. what do you think that really means? the real implications of that idiotic point of view?
so you go and work out the contradictions in your own idiotic point of view, and get back to us
if people didn't have health insurance
durrrrrrrrr
it doesn't take government for people to have financial difficulties and be unable to take care of themselves and to be irresponsible. which is all you need to understand to understand why we are in this mess. nice try, but you have either a massive logic failure or are heavily propagandized
you think that everyone makes their choices in a vacuum, that the consequences of their action affects no one else. if someone makes a bad choice that has a negative consequence on those around them, then you have reached the limit of free choice
everyone has the right to make their own decisions, unless the decisions they make adversely affect others in society
for example: a drug addict. a drug addict, by making their own choices, has wound up in a situation where they place a drag on those around him, by becoming someone who cannot support himself and requiring others to support him. in this case, the drug addict has relinquished the right to make their own choices and must have treatment forced upon him against his will
likewise, if someone does not get their child innoculated against diseases, they become disease spreading vectors. not all innoculations work 100%. so even if you innoculate your child, that child can still get sick, and die, due to the irreponsibility of others. in which case, the healthcare of those aorund you becomes your business
you have an unsupportable assumption in your ideas, that you make decisions in a vacuum, and it affects no one else. this is obviously false, and you need to rethink your ideas about how the real world works. there are real and genuine limits on free will in this world. not because i say so, but out of simple logical consequence
healthcare != health insurance
gee thanks, i had no idea
WHO PAYS FOR IT OH GREAT SWAMI
THUS THE ISSUE AT HAND