And you survived just fine. Whereas if people are given "free" treatment, it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars to have a doctor look at them for a "problem" that isn't serious at all. You just demonstrated exactly why a state-funded system is a bad idea. I see that sort of abuse all the time here in Canada. People going to the emergency room for a headache, and other such stupidity. It deffinitely doesn't happen when you're the one paying for it.
Really? Well then it should be no problem for you to list the names of a few Americans who needed such life-saving treatment and couldn't get it, right?
You're kidding, right? Listen, watch any 5 minute segment of any Michael Moore "documentary" and I guarantee you'll run across at least one lie, misquotation, or distortion. His films should be filed under "comedy".
For starters:
1) He lied about the oil pipe in Afghanistan. This should really be numbers 1-15 since he made multiple distinct lies concerning the same subject. 2) He lied about the ease of buying weapons and ammunition in Canada. 3) He lied about there being no terrorist threat. 4) He lied about 200,000 Americans dying from mad cow disease. 5) He lied about when and how the Saudi dignitaries were allowed to leave after 9/11. 6) He misused the quotations of multiple individuals to make them sound like they supported his opinions, including, but not limited to, the words of a US State trooper, an Iraqi veteran who lost both legs, the mother of a dead soldier, and several military recruiters.
And that's off the top of my head. If you're not aware that michael moore is a chronic liar, you must be living in a bubble.
I'm sure I'll get accused of being an insensitive clod, but if you have a pre-existing condition, tough luck. Society doesn't owe you a bloody thing. EVERYONE has some sort of limitations or deficiencies which negatively effect their lives. That's momma nature for you. If I happen to be smarter than you, should I be forced to pay some sort of tax so that you can earn the same amount of income as me? If you can't run as fast as an olympic athlete, should they be forced to run at your speed so that you can keep up? If you happen to have a 2 inch penis, should I be forced to pay for someone to sleep with you? Ofcourse not. People are different. Deal with it.
Why? If I'm a good driver and you're a shit driver, I'll pay less than you will. Why should health insurance be any different? Granted, some medical problems are genetic or birth defects, but the vast majority are the fault of the individual. So if you're accident-prone and I'm not, or you're stupid enough to smoke or do drugs while I maintain a healthy lifestyle, why should I pay to support your stupidity?
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this nanny-state mentality. Why should it be the states responsibility to protect you from everything? What the hell happened to being self-sufficient? Just because responsibility is no longer in style doesn't mean we should be encouraging people to act irresponsibly.
No, you need either the foresight to have bought medical insurance, or the povertyu level to get yourself on medicaid. That's about the only advantage that Canada has - you can be middle class and stupid and still be covered.
The other ironic thing is that Castros predecessors mainly clamped down on the freedoms of Cubans exactly for the reason stated by the GPP - because of attempts by Castro and his Guerrillas to overthrow THEIR government.
Huh? You can disagree all you want with Castro, you can't accuse him of having become anything like his predecessors.
Well you're right about that anyway. Under his predecessors, Cuba was a fairly safe, quite prosperous nation, well on it's way to becoming a major economic partner of the rest of the western world. Under Castro, after he finished executing tens of thousands of political prisoners, it turned into a communist shithole with repression of basic human freedoms being the norm, and a dysfunctional social structure on par with most other south american nations. It's interesting that you swallow so much of Castro's propaganda. You probably also think North Korea is a Workers Paradise, right?
In Canada it basicaly works like this: if you can afford it, you pay to use an American MRI machine, as well as paying your travel costs to get over the border. If you CAN'T afford it, you wait until a Canadian machine opens up, and pray you don't die in the meantime. I'm not sure how that's any better than the US system.
We should hold documentaries to the same factual accountability as we do journalists. But maybe we already do, these days, and I'm just behind the times.
That's exactly it: the new mantra of the mainstream media is "fake but accurate". We don't hold them to a particularly high standard any more, so it's no surprise that so manye are willing to ignore, or even justify, Moore's lies.
Nonsense. Putting on a badge doesn't mean you suddenly stop being human. The day that we can replace human police officers with androids, I will agree to your proposition. Until then, they have the same rights that we do.
In fact, the only "power" that the police have which YOU don't is the ability to affect an arrest based on testimony or inference, as opposed to your right to affect an arrest only if you have physically witnessed a crime taking place. Because of this one difference, you propose that we take away their human rights?
Not only that, in the meantime, and for a much lower cost, you could simply mount a camera on a Poseidon, hook it into a computer, and fly patrols over areas you're worried about.
Well, that's something we can agree on 100%. However, that's the price we pay for free will. People spend money on all sorts of useless and horrible things. A certain group of religious fanatics spent millions of dollars in order to hijack 4 airliners and slam them into office buildings, killing 3,000 people and creating billions of dollars in damage. Compared to that, the construction of this museum is peanuts.
Anyway, if there's one thing I value more than life, it's free will, or freedom. Personally I think that ALL organized religion is a waste of resources, but I also respect the freedom of others to chose how they spend their money. As such, it would be hypocritical of me to single out this particular groups for criticism. If nothing else, this will serve as a reminder that fanaticism exists in all nations. With the current focus on the "War-on-Terror", I think a lot of people are starting to forget the importance of fighting ignorance and indoctrination in our own societies. We've still got a ways to go when it comes to educating the citizens of our own nations. Like I said, it'll be a long and bloody road.
Funny, as I was responding to the original post I found myself thinking "you know, I should probably say something about education as a solution". I dismissed the idea because I figured that either you wouldn't be intelligent enough to consider it, or that if you were intelligent enough to think of it, you'd also probably be smart enough to realize why it's not really a solution. Unfortunately, while you are clearly intelligent, you're also idealistic:)
Yes, in the long term education can be a solution. Education creates wealth, which encourages people to pursue new goals, which tends to lower the birth rate. Unfortunately, education is also dependant on factors like wealth and societal structure. You need to raise the standard of living past a certain point before people will concern themselves with education, and we're not capable of doing that for the entire world.
Then there's issues of trust/paranoia. In some nations, western-funded programs are avoided by the local populace. Polio vaccines are said to be an plot to cause mass sterilization. Education programs are said to be US or "Zionist" brainwashing. Even contraceptive education is said to be an evil plot by the western world to cause a population decline in the nation so that they can be more easily beaten in some future war.
On top of all that, there's the issue of conflicting interests and perceptions. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have for the most part improved the standard of living in those nations, yet most of the world is opposed to those missions. How do you improve the living conditions in countries ruled by dictators, unless you're willing to fight wars to do it? Another example: Israel constantly get painted as inhuman warmongers, while Palestinians train their children to be suicide-bombers, and educate them with propaganda campaigns that would put Orwell to shame. How do you fight something like that? They have an "education" system in place, but what good is it when it's aimed at increasing hate and ignorance?
The world is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. We can't simply wave a magic wand, and make it all better. But we're trying. I sponsor a child in India through the World Vision program. I also work for the military, and have taken part in humanitarian missions. Many of us are making an effort to make the world a better place. But it's going to take time. The uplifting of human civilization has been a long and bloody struggle, as it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. If "God" wants to help the process along, he could do us a huge favor if he'd at least settle all these idiotic religious conflicts.
So what you're saying is that God is going to punish us for having children? But, didn't he say to "be fruitful and multiply"?
Seriously, if the mortality rate in the developing world weren't so high, we would have out-bred the food production capabilities of the planet ages ago. So, there's your dilemma - feed those 16,000 and, assuming an average of 5 births per family (which is considered low in many nations), they'll live to give birth to another 40,000 or so. Feed those 40,000, and they'll live to give birth to another 100,000. And we're talking about just the children which you want saved in one DAY. Imagine the rate of population growth we'd see! Over a year, 16,000 works out to 5.84 MILLION, who will give birth to 14.6 million, who will give birth to 36.5 million. Over the course of three generations you would end up with close to 100 million new children being born. Three more generations and it works out to 1 and a half BILLION. At that rate, by the year 2100 those 15,000 lives you saved would have pushed the earth's population to 8 or 9 billion.
There's a very simple solution to the problem of children starving - stop having so many god-damn kids. Unfortunately, people like you seem to think that the best course of action is to guilt-trip us into giving more food to people who are breeding like rabbits. Sorry, I might sound like a heartless bastard, but I know who is responsible for those deaths and it's certainly not me or my society. If your "god" has any common sense, he'll see it the same way.
Alex Jones may be an idjit, but Bush's government certainly gives ample reason for fear
To the ultra-paranoid, sure. Frankly, if there really WERE a good reason to be afraid, you'd have to be an "idjit" to post that comment. Lemme know when the secret police come to take you away, k?
The market sure is promoting innovation. He should feel proud of his great contributions and he has justly been rewarded.
Insightful my ass. This is like me looking at the Columbine shootings and saying:
"Well, the schools sure are educating our kids. They're picking up all sorts of useful skills and ideas, and should be proud of their accomplishments."
Seriously, there should be a minimum IQ requirement for the distribution of mod-points.
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are? You? Should we then make you dictator-supreme, so that you can determine all of our laws? Or should it be done on an individual basis? If a paedophile thinks the child-molestation laws are bad, should we get rid of them? If a carjacker thinks it's his right to steal cars, should that be ok? If a 16 year old kid thinks it's stupid that he's not allowed to spray-paint anarchy symbols all over his schools, should we abolish the anti-vandalism laws?
You see where I'm going with this? YOU don't get to determine which laws are good and which ones are bad. You get to have an OPINION on the matter, but your opinion is irrelevant. You obey the law or you're a criminal, it's as simple as that. The only "bad" laws which SHOULD be disobeyed are the ones which conflict with basic human rights, and/or the Constitution. Otherwise you're free to try and get the law changed, but don't you dare compare yourself to true victims of persecution.
For your assertion to be true, the US forces would have to have been nothing more than UN mercenaries. Sorry, but that just aint so. The invasion was carried out BY the US, with US soldiers, commanded by a US General, and overseen by the US Commander in Chief, aka POTUS. Pretending that they were nothing more than killers for hire is simply insulting.
Legitimate fear of their government? It's always legitimate.
Not really. Look, take for example idiots like Alex Jones and his 9/11 "truth" movement. These idiots are always complaining about how their rights are being violated, and they're being persecuted and oppressed. Yet they continue to spread their idiocy without difficulty, and even go so far as to accuse their government of cold-blooded mass murder. So no, these people DON'T have a legitimate fear of their government; if they did, they certainly wouldn't be acting the way they are.
A good rule of thumb is that if everyone is screaming about oppression, chances are it's not happening. It's the countries which all act like one big happy family (eg. North Korea) where the people face true oppression. And THOSE are the nations where privacy is truly important.
I certainly agree with the rest of your post though, and love the Reagan quote. I'm just pointing out that privacy isn't a huge concern until the state "erodes".
Slashdot Mirror
And you survived just fine. Whereas if people are given "free" treatment, it costs taxpayers thousands of dollars to have a doctor look at them for a "problem" that isn't serious at all. You just demonstrated exactly why a state-funded system is a bad idea. I see that sort of abuse all the time here in Canada. People going to the emergency room for a headache, and other such stupidity. It deffinitely doesn't happen when you're the one paying for it.
Really? Well then it should be no problem for you to list the names of a few Americans who needed such life-saving treatment and couldn't get it, right?
You're kidding, right? Listen, watch any 5 minute segment of any Michael Moore "documentary" and I guarantee you'll run across at least one lie, misquotation, or distortion. His films should be filed under "comedy".
For starters:
1) He lied about the oil pipe in Afghanistan. This should really be numbers 1-15 since he made multiple distinct lies concerning the same subject.
2) He lied about the ease of buying weapons and ammunition in Canada.
3) He lied about there being no terrorist threat.
4) He lied about 200,000 Americans dying from mad cow disease.
5) He lied about when and how the Saudi dignitaries were allowed to leave after 9/11.
6) He misused the quotations of multiple individuals to make them sound like they supported his opinions, including, but not limited to, the words of a US State trooper, an Iraqi veteran who lost both legs, the mother of a dead soldier, and several military recruiters.
And that's off the top of my head. If you're not aware that michael moore is a chronic liar, you must be living in a bubble.
See, there's always a solution :)
I'm sure I'll get accused of being an insensitive clod, but if you have a pre-existing condition, tough luck. Society doesn't owe you a bloody thing. EVERYONE has some sort of limitations or deficiencies which negatively effect their lives. That's momma nature for you. If I happen to be smarter than you, should I be forced to pay some sort of tax so that you can earn the same amount of income as me? If you can't run as fast as an olympic athlete, should they be forced to run at your speed so that you can keep up? If you happen to have a 2 inch penis, should I be forced to pay for someone to sleep with you? Ofcourse not. People are different. Deal with it.
Why? If I'm a good driver and you're a shit driver, I'll pay less than you will. Why should health insurance be any different? Granted, some medical problems are genetic or birth defects, but the vast majority are the fault of the individual. So if you're accident-prone and I'm not, or you're stupid enough to smoke or do drugs while I maintain a healthy lifestyle, why should I pay to support your stupidity?
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this nanny-state mentality. Why should it be the states responsibility to protect you from everything? What the hell happened to being self-sufficient? Just because responsibility is no longer in style doesn't mean we should be encouraging people to act irresponsibly.
No, you need either the foresight to have bought medical insurance, or the povertyu level to get yourself on medicaid. That's about the only advantage that Canada has - you can be middle class and stupid and still be covered.
The other ironic thing is that Castros predecessors mainly clamped down on the freedoms of Cubans exactly for the reason stated by the GPP - because of attempts by Castro and his Guerrillas to overthrow THEIR government.
In Canada it basicaly works like this: if you can afford it, you pay to use an American MRI machine, as well as paying your travel costs to get over the border. If you CAN'T afford it, you wait until a Canadian machine opens up, and pray you don't die in the meantime. I'm not sure how that's any better than the US system.
Nonsense. Putting on a badge doesn't mean you suddenly stop being human. The day that we can replace human police officers with androids, I will agree to your proposition. Until then, they have the same rights that we do.
In fact, the only "power" that the police have which YOU don't is the ability to affect an arrest based on testimony or inference, as opposed to your right to affect an arrest only if you have physically witnessed a crime taking place. Because of this one difference, you propose that we take away their human rights?
I think not.
"Nice e-mail account you've got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it...."
I think he was referring to military subs.
Not only that, in the meantime, and for a much lower cost, you could simply mount a camera on a Poseidon, hook it into a computer, and fly patrols over areas you're worried about.
Well, that's something we can agree on 100%. However, that's the price we pay for free will. People spend money on all sorts of useless and horrible things. A certain group of religious fanatics spent millions of dollars in order to hijack 4 airliners and slam them into office buildings, killing 3,000 people and creating billions of dollars in damage. Compared to that, the construction of this museum is peanuts.
Anyway, if there's one thing I value more than life, it's free will, or freedom. Personally I think that ALL organized religion is a waste of resources, but I also respect the freedom of others to chose how they spend their money. As such, it would be hypocritical of me to single out this particular groups for criticism. If nothing else, this will serve as a reminder that fanaticism exists in all nations. With the current focus on the "War-on-Terror", I think a lot of people are starting to forget the importance of fighting ignorance and indoctrination in our own societies. We've still got a ways to go when it comes to educating the citizens of our own nations. Like I said, it'll be a long and bloody road.
Funny, as I was responding to the original post I found myself thinking "you know, I should probably say something about education as a solution". I dismissed the idea because I figured that either you wouldn't be intelligent enough to consider it, or that if you were intelligent enough to think of it, you'd also probably be smart enough to realize why it's not really a solution. Unfortunately, while you are clearly intelligent, you're also idealistic :)
Yes, in the long term education can be a solution. Education creates wealth, which encourages people to pursue new goals, which tends to lower the birth rate. Unfortunately, education is also dependant on factors like wealth and societal structure. You need to raise the standard of living past a certain point before people will concern themselves with education, and we're not capable of doing that for the entire world.
Then there's issues of trust/paranoia. In some nations, western-funded programs are avoided by the local populace. Polio vaccines are said to be an plot to cause mass sterilization. Education programs are said to be US or "Zionist" brainwashing. Even contraceptive education is said to be an evil plot by the western world to cause a population decline in the nation so that they can be more easily beaten in some future war.
On top of all that, there's the issue of conflicting interests and perceptions. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have for the most part improved the standard of living in those nations, yet most of the world is opposed to those missions. How do you improve the living conditions in countries ruled by dictators, unless you're willing to fight wars to do it? Another example: Israel constantly get painted as inhuman warmongers, while Palestinians train their children to be suicide-bombers, and educate them with propaganda campaigns that would put Orwell to shame. How do you fight something like that? They have an "education" system in place, but what good is it when it's aimed at increasing hate and ignorance?
The world is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. We can't simply wave a magic wand, and make it all better. But we're trying. I sponsor a child in India through the World Vision program. I also work for the military, and have taken part in humanitarian missions. Many of us are making an effort to make the world a better place. But it's going to take time. The uplifting of human civilization has been a long and bloody struggle, as it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. If "God" wants to help the process along, he could do us a huge favor if he'd at least settle all these idiotic religious conflicts.
So what you're saying is that God is going to punish us for having children? But, didn't he say to "be fruitful and multiply"?
Seriously, if the mortality rate in the developing world weren't so high, we would have out-bred the food production capabilities of the planet ages ago. So, there's your dilemma - feed those 16,000 and, assuming an average of 5 births per family (which is considered low in many nations), they'll live to give birth to another 40,000 or so. Feed those 40,000, and they'll live to give birth to another 100,000. And we're talking about just the children which you want saved in one DAY. Imagine the rate of population growth we'd see! Over a year, 16,000 works out to 5.84 MILLION, who will give birth to 14.6 million, who will give birth to 36.5 million. Over the course of three generations you would end up with close to 100 million new children being born. Three more generations and it works out to 1 and a half BILLION. At that rate, by the year 2100 those 15,000 lives you saved would have pushed the earth's population to 8 or 9 billion.
There's a very simple solution to the problem of children starving - stop having so many god-damn kids. Unfortunately, people like you seem to think that the best course of action is to guilt-trip us into giving more food to people who are breeding like rabbits. Sorry, I might sound like a heartless bastard, but I know who is responsible for those deaths and it's certainly not me or my society. If your "god" has any common sense, he'll see it the same way.
I'd love to see what bit of literature you pulled that idea from.
"Well, the schools sure are educating our kids. They're picking up all sorts of useful skills and ideas, and should be proud of their accomplishments."
Seriously, there should be a minimum IQ requirement for the distribution of mod-points.
Well if you want to be picky about terminology, EVERYTHING is bullet-resistant, including your skin.
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are? You? Should we then make you dictator-supreme, so that you can determine all of our laws? Or should it be done on an individual basis? If a paedophile thinks the child-molestation laws are bad, should we get rid of them? If a carjacker thinks it's his right to steal cars, should that be ok? If a 16 year old kid thinks it's stupid that he's not allowed to spray-paint anarchy symbols all over his schools, should we abolish the anti-vandalism laws?
You see where I'm going with this? YOU don't get to determine which laws are good and which ones are bad. You get to have an OPINION on the matter, but your opinion is irrelevant. You obey the law or you're a criminal, it's as simple as that. The only "bad" laws which SHOULD be disobeyed are the ones which conflict with basic human rights, and/or the Constitution. Otherwise you're free to try and get the law changed, but don't you dare compare yourself to true victims of persecution.
For your assertion to be true, the US forces would have to have been nothing more than UN mercenaries. Sorry, but that just aint so. The invasion was carried out BY the US, with US soldiers, commanded by a US General, and overseen by the US Commander in Chief, aka POTUS. Pretending that they were nothing more than killers for hire is simply insulting.
A good rule of thumb is that if everyone is screaming about oppression, chances are it's not happening. It's the countries which all act like one big happy family (eg. North Korea) where the people face true oppression. And THOSE are the nations where privacy is truly important.
I certainly agree with the rest of your post though, and love the Reagan quote. I'm just pointing out that privacy isn't a huge concern until the state "erodes".
Likening potheads to Rosa Parks is so silly that only someone who's smoked himself retarded would even attempt to make the comparison.