So people who think "oh, I'm awesome at driving, so I can use my phone without fear" will not kill someone when their actually-not-awesome driving skills smash their car into someone.
Of course it can. Socialized health care means there is an incentive to develop and use preventative medicine, which is something that can greatly help obesity, and drug addicts can be treated regardless of whether they have insurance or not (because they do). In some countries heroin addicts, for example, can get free heroin. That saves the country money as these people no longer have to go robbing people to earn cash, saving police costs and distress.
Your evidence wasn't evidence, but a series of "how do magnets work"-esque ponderings on the nature of the universe, which have been answered many times over by people far more knowledgeable than you, which have stood up to the rigorous analysis of even more people far more knowledgeable than you. The only evidence you've cited is evidence of your hubris, which I'm sure we can all agree definitely exists, and is rather large.
Nazi Germany did not squelch the church. The Soviet Union and Mao's China replaced all religions with the religion of the state, manifested in the leadership. They are not examples of alternatives to religion, but merely other forms of religion. I can imagine a society which has officially renounced God - it would look a lot like the largely-Atheist countries of the world which have the highest standards of living the world has ever seen. Northern Europe, I'm looking at you.
So because Paul says there's evidence, there must be evidence, even if the evidence cited is not actually evidence? Brilliant. And people wonder why creationists are laughed at.
But what you posted isn't evidence of anything other than your ignorance of the universe. It doesn't point to a creator, but to a lacklustre education.
OK, that's 3 systems which are experiencing issues. No-one ever said that universal healthcare would be immune to any issues. As it is, there are countless other countries with universal healthcare who are doing just fine, who pay a lot less for the same or better coverage, who see precisely 0 bankruptcies due to someone having the misfortune to be born a human. "[M]ost of the rest of the industrialized world is abandoning it now" is utter rubbish. You know not of what you speak. I'm sure it makes you feel better to imagine these other countries suffering from poor healthcare, but it just isn't so, and you look ridiculous for claiming it.
Because they were against universal healthcare, which means that this site is only needed because of the Republicans lovely attitude that people must pay for healthcare on an individual basis, rather than be covered by the country (which means people pay less, and the entire sector of paper-pushing insurance people goes away). Sane countries don't have websites like this, as they are not needed. Sick? Go to the doctor. No paperwork or money required.
It's "free" in the very real sense that the cost difference between a person who gets ill and one who does not is 0 dollars/pounds/euros/roubles. That is a luxury Americans don't have, which means getting ill in the US can have terrible effects on one's ability to function in society, due to possible bankruptcy simply for being human. Plus they spend less in the UK on healthcare than the US does, and get comparable (or better) results. This terrible mess in the US is what you get when the healthcare industry is so powerful and mainly not involved in healthcare but insurance.
Don't forget that a bunch of pilots have had that exact "benefit" of being able to judge speed screw them over when they refused to believe the instruments and didn't take action to prevent their plane slamming into the ground. It does work both ways. Planes are getting better and better, and pilots simply are not.
He kinda pulled it off. Loads of people died in a fireball cartwheeling down a runway and through some corn fields. Some pilots flying over Iraq, on the other hand, did the same in a far more modern plane (a cargo jet), and landed safely.
There you go again. *You* didn't say anything in an official capacity, as you have none. Are you that insecure that you have to associate yourself with others in some vain attempt that their greatness reflects on you? I don't get it. You are you, and no-one else.
Don't bring clever to a stupid fight. You'll lose and get your clever all dirty and covered in dumb. The fact that the BBC is not a commercial entity is apparently lost on these folks, who are undoubtedly well-meaning yet woefully misinformed.
It can be more green without being entirely green. Not having massively-inefficient gasoline-burning engines running around crowded city centers is a good thing. It's far easier to apply new cleaning techniques at centralized locations than on every single car on the road. Green is a sliding scale, not a binary state.
You're looking at this from the wrong direction. Do we, today, look at the telegraph as ridiculous, or do we have ready knowledge of it and its operation? Granted, it's been around in the last 150 years, but the point still stands - once a technology is known, it is rarely forgotten to the level in question.
They changed the way they collected crime statistics (which makes the figures look larger), and the violent crime that has indeed risen is very rarely fatal, meaning people's lives aren't, literally and figuratively, torn apart. I'd rather be subjected to 100 muggings than be shot in the face once, as would any sane person.
Using a gun is the quickest way to commit suicide. Anything else requires time to reflect and think on one's actions, which saves countless lives, as most people, if given long enough, with decide against taking their own life. If you remove that barrier, someone can go from their first suicidal thought to dead within seconds. Just look at that nutter above who keeps a loaded gun with him in the office. If he had a suicidal thought at work, he could be dead within seconds with just a gentle pull of a finger.
And when you get that phone call that your wife is cheating on you, or you suffer a nice mental breakdown due to some dormant psychological issues or an undiagnosed frontal-lobe tumor, you'll have a gun and lots of ammo to shoot innocent people in the face with! Yaaay! You know you're more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love with that gun than bad people, right? Or exercise poor judgement and shoot an innocent person? Where you live must suck that you feel the need or desire to carry around a lethal weapon with you. You don't sound very free - quite the opposite, in fact.
Not really. The problems we see in the US are due to the complete lack of controls between areas of differing levels of gun control. Once can easily purchase a gun where they are readily available, and then travel to a place where they are strictly controlled, with no problem. The US could easily stop this gun crime if it wanted to, but this strange nonsense of "guns will protect me against the army" or "seventeenth-century laws are all applicable today without question" will cause that to never happen. Living in fear of a tomorrow which may never come, while at the same time ensuring your today will contain lots of shot people, seems rather strange to me, at least. When people have easier access to guns than mental health services, it's no wonder this happens. This is the US the American people want, apparently.
They weren't all prisoners of war, but prisoners of circumstance. They were not all fighting. Due to the American offer of "money for terrorists", many poor people simply pointed fingers at enemies or competition or strangers or whoever wandered by, said "terrorist!" and got paid. That's not how prisoners of war are discovered. Prisoners of war are discovered on the battlefield, first hand, by the country which takes them prisoner.
But tell yourself whatever you want to hear as if the US has any sort of moral high-ground in this farce of international conduct you seem so eager and willing to defend. You and those who think like you are doing more harm to your country than Al Qaeda ever could. I should point fingers at you and get you thrown in Gitmo and see how well you cope. But I wouldn't, even if I could, because I'm not a hate-filled, nationalist, knee-jerk reactionary like your good self, defending the repeatedly-abused husband who purports to love them. I feel sorry for you, and what must have happened in your life, for an obviously intelligent person to become so twisted and perverse in their outlook on morality, humanity, and justice.
It's worse than that - as they've had no trial, what they were doing is pure hearsay. They might have just been on holiday visiting relatives, or teaching, or delivering humanitarian aid. We simply don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
So people who think "oh, I'm awesome at driving, so I can use my phone without fear" will not kill someone when their actually-not-awesome driving skills smash their car into someone.
Of course it can. Socialized health care means there is an incentive to develop and use preventative medicine, which is something that can greatly help obesity, and drug addicts can be treated regardless of whether they have insurance or not (because they do). In some countries heroin addicts, for example, can get free heroin. That saves the country money as these people no longer have to go robbing people to earn cash, saving police costs and distress.
Your evidence wasn't evidence, but a series of "how do magnets work"-esque ponderings on the nature of the universe, which have been answered many times over by people far more knowledgeable than you, which have stood up to the rigorous analysis of even more people far more knowledgeable than you. The only evidence you've cited is evidence of your hubris, which I'm sure we can all agree definitely exists, and is rather large.
Nazi Germany did not squelch the church. The Soviet Union and Mao's China replaced all religions with the religion of the state, manifested in the leadership. They are not examples of alternatives to religion, but merely other forms of religion. I can imagine a society which has officially renounced God - it would look a lot like the largely-Atheist countries of the world which have the highest standards of living the world has ever seen. Northern Europe, I'm looking at you.
So because Paul says there's evidence, there must be evidence, even if the evidence cited is not actually evidence? Brilliant. And people wonder why creationists are laughed at.
But what you posted isn't evidence of anything other than your ignorance of the universe. It doesn't point to a creator, but to a lacklustre education.
Worse things? No evidence for that. Would do worse things? No evidence for that. Try again.
OK, that's 3 systems which are experiencing issues. No-one ever said that universal healthcare would be immune to any issues. As it is, there are countless other countries with universal healthcare who are doing just fine, who pay a lot less for the same or better coverage, who see precisely 0 bankruptcies due to someone having the misfortune to be born a human. "[M]ost of the rest of the industrialized world is abandoning it now" is utter rubbish. You know not of what you speak. I'm sure it makes you feel better to imagine these other countries suffering from poor healthcare, but it just isn't so, and you look ridiculous for claiming it.
Size doesn't matter. If a country is larger, it therefore has more people to pay in order to cover everyone. Your logic is ridiculous.
Because they were against universal healthcare, which means that this site is only needed because of the Republicans lovely attitude that people must pay for healthcare on an individual basis, rather than be covered by the country (which means people pay less, and the entire sector of paper-pushing insurance people goes away). Sane countries don't have websites like this, as they are not needed. Sick? Go to the doctor. No paperwork or money required.
It's "free" in the very real sense that the cost difference between a person who gets ill and one who does not is 0 dollars/pounds/euros/roubles. That is a luxury Americans don't have, which means getting ill in the US can have terrible effects on one's ability to function in society, due to possible bankruptcy simply for being human. Plus they spend less in the UK on healthcare than the US does, and get comparable (or better) results. This terrible mess in the US is what you get when the healthcare industry is so powerful and mainly not involved in healthcare but insurance.
Don't forget that a bunch of pilots have had that exact "benefit" of being able to judge speed screw them over when they refused to believe the instruments and didn't take action to prevent their plane slamming into the ground. It does work both ways. Planes are getting better and better, and pilots simply are not.
He kinda pulled it off. Loads of people died in a fireball cartwheeling down a runway and through some corn fields. Some pilots flying over Iraq, on the other hand, did the same in a far more modern plane (a cargo jet), and landed safely.
There you go again. *You* didn't say anything in an official capacity, as you have none. Are you that insecure that you have to associate yourself with others in some vain attempt that their greatness reflects on you? I don't get it. You are you, and no-one else.
"Us"? "We"? I think you might be confusing people of greatness with yourself.
Don't bring clever to a stupid fight. You'll lose and get your clever all dirty and covered in dumb. The fact that the BBC is not a commercial entity is apparently lost on these folks, who are undoubtedly well-meaning yet woefully misinformed.
It can be more green without being entirely green. Not having massively-inefficient gasoline-burning engines running around crowded city centers is a good thing. It's far easier to apply new cleaning techniques at centralized locations than on every single car on the road. Green is a sliding scale, not a binary state.
Why isn't cold fjord in here blaming Snowden for all this?
You're looking at this from the wrong direction. Do we, today, look at the telegraph as ridiculous, or do we have ready knowledge of it and its operation? Granted, it's been around in the last 150 years, but the point still stands - once a technology is known, it is rarely forgotten to the level in question.
They changed the way they collected crime statistics (which makes the figures look larger), and the violent crime that has indeed risen is very rarely fatal, meaning people's lives aren't, literally and figuratively, torn apart. I'd rather be subjected to 100 muggings than be shot in the face once, as would any sane person.
Using a gun is the quickest way to commit suicide. Anything else requires time to reflect and think on one's actions, which saves countless lives, as most people, if given long enough, with decide against taking their own life. If you remove that barrier, someone can go from their first suicidal thought to dead within seconds. Just look at that nutter above who keeps a loaded gun with him in the office. If he had a suicidal thought at work, he could be dead within seconds with just a gentle pull of a finger.
And when you get that phone call that your wife is cheating on you, or you suffer a nice mental breakdown due to some dormant psychological issues or an undiagnosed frontal-lobe tumor, you'll have a gun and lots of ammo to shoot innocent people in the face with! Yaaay! You know you're more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love with that gun than bad people, right? Or exercise poor judgement and shoot an innocent person? Where you live must suck that you feel the need or desire to carry around a lethal weapon with you. You don't sound very free - quite the opposite, in fact.
Not really. The problems we see in the US are due to the complete lack of controls between areas of differing levels of gun control. Once can easily purchase a gun where they are readily available, and then travel to a place where they are strictly controlled, with no problem. The US could easily stop this gun crime if it wanted to, but this strange nonsense of "guns will protect me against the army" or "seventeenth-century laws are all applicable today without question" will cause that to never happen. Living in fear of a tomorrow which may never come, while at the same time ensuring your today will contain lots of shot people, seems rather strange to me, at least. When people have easier access to guns than mental health services, it's no wonder this happens. This is the US the American people want, apparently.
They weren't all prisoners of war, but prisoners of circumstance. They were not all fighting. Due to the American offer of "money for terrorists", many poor people simply pointed fingers at enemies or competition or strangers or whoever wandered by, said "terrorist!" and got paid. That's not how prisoners of war are discovered. Prisoners of war are discovered on the battlefield, first hand, by the country which takes them prisoner.
But tell yourself whatever you want to hear as if the US has any sort of moral high-ground in this farce of international conduct you seem so eager and willing to defend. You and those who think like you are doing more harm to your country than Al Qaeda ever could. I should point fingers at you and get you thrown in Gitmo and see how well you cope. But I wouldn't, even if I could, because I'm not a hate-filled, nationalist, knee-jerk reactionary like your good self, defending the repeatedly-abused husband who purports to love them. I feel sorry for you, and what must have happened in your life, for an obviously intelligent person to become so twisted and perverse in their outlook on morality, humanity, and justice.
It's worse than that - as they've had no trial, what they were doing is pure hearsay. They might have just been on holiday visiting relatives, or teaching, or delivering humanitarian aid. We simply don't know.