They were both violent.
You understand that "legal" isn't the opposite of "violent," right?
Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
They were both violent.
You understand that "legal" isn't the opposite of "violent," right?
Neither were violent. And I only mentioned out the legality of his actions to point out that the guy didn't even break a law, much less commit an act of violence.
Wrong. Not everyone wants health insurance (which seems weird to me, but whatever) and many people get medical benefits through their employer.
I don't believe that. I think you know as well as I do that an angry black man packing a firearm and waving a sign about spilling the blood of tyrants wouldn't be allowed anywhere near an Arizona Congressman.acid said:
Neither do the consequences of making terroristic threats. Carrying a gun to a rally and displaying it while waving a sign with Tim McVeigh's signature quote about "watering" with "the blood of tyrants" is not self defense.acid said:
They aren't violent and they don't spread hatred. That's why they don't "stand out" the way violent spreaders of hatred do.acid said:
The logic is as follows: Obama is socialist, socialism = fascism, Hitler was fascist, so Obama = Hitler.joe said:
Therefore people who blackshirt rallies and so forth, packing guns and making threats, are defending freedom. They themselves can't be fascists because their enemy, Obama, is. See?
That's because of their history, not because of the system of government they have. As to guns, I went to a New Year's celebration where my friend's friend shot his pistol into the air in the middle of town and no one cared. My friend's parents had plenty of hunting rifles.
Which really sucks because if you lose your job, your health suffers. If you had a medical condition appear while you were working, you may not even be able to get health care in the future thanks to your "pre-existing condition". How many people don't want to start their own business because they will lose their existing health care? It stifles innovation and competition with other countries who have universal health care.
Their taxes give Germans a high degree of financial freedom. They are only taxed in proportion to their income and if they want to go to college, it's free. College leads to better careers and higher incomes, so there is more social mobility.
Last edited:
Nope not wrong, everyone may not want insurance of that I am sure. Not everyone wants auto liability insurance either. But when you drive you take on a risk. As a living being you have a risk.
No one knows when they/we will encounter a severe medical problem an accident or disease but at some point it will happen. It is part of life, and when it happens will those people who don't want health insurance be able to pay their bill? Most will probably not be able to pay the bill. Do we then let them die? Before we send out rescue clues do we first have to verify insurance while critical seconds and minutes pass?
No the only sane way to manage the problem is to have everyone purchase healthcare insurance. So that they can be fiscally responsible and manage the risk we all incur by living, the risk of injury or catastrophic disease.
So you are saying all politicians are National Socialists?
More to the point, when you drive you impose a risk on everyone around you.
Hence the justification for forcing people to purchase insurance before driving: so that they can answer for the risks they are imposing on everyone else.
There is almost nobody who wouldn't want medical insurance, if they had to face the prospect of only getting what care they could personally afford when the time came. As it is, the alternative to having insurance is you wait until you're in serious trouble, and then go to the emergency room. This ends up costing much more, and being paid for by everyone else.
They are both obviously violent, and your repeated, unbacked denials of this plain fact establish only that you can't or won't deal honestly with the question.
Since when is breaking a law "much less than" committing an act of violence?
There's no rank-order here. The fact that he didn't break any laws that we know of has no bearing on his use of political violence.
medical plans are sold with stipulations for sole preoprietorship. the problem is penalizing sucess. work hard = pay more or pay like everyone else but on much more income. i see what hte issues are here but there are different ways to look at this. i am torn donw the middle here.
and SG, those things you listed about, being able to drive with a beer or showing breasts on t.v, were you serious?
(Insert Title Here)
Even into the 1990s, crime rates in predominantly minority neighborhoods were being held up by notorious figures like David Duke as evidence that blacks were inherently inferior to whites. The effects of poverty and discrimination in reducing educational and economic achievements had nothing to do with the analysis. In later years it would turn out that while the vast majority of crack users were white, the vast—overwhelming—majority of federal crack prosecutions were against blacks. As I asked in another thread a couple days ago, could the Tulia outrage have occurred if a black cop of similar stature had tried to take down the white population of a town with the same lack of useful evidence?
So part of what you're overlooking is the history of racism itself. And the result is that the only acceptable solution is to go forward and perpetuate the effects of injustice. At a hundred and forty-four years after the Civil War, the proposition of extending the recovery time for the black community even further is simply absurd.
We're in a period in which race issues are transforming into class issues. This is actually a positive development insofar as we can deal with the issue in terms of poverty and its effects. But you add to that a reality that we've all recognized since high school at least—some bright people just don't perform well under certain testing conditions—and the problem becomes even more apparent. With education, the only reason people object to variable standards is because blacks benefit more than whites. The only fair thing to do, then, is to keep in place the system that makes it harder for a traditionally disadvantaged demographic to demonstrate its merits.
One of the puzzling things about the Ricci decision, all else aside, is the majority's presumption that passing the test guaranteed promotion. That outcome was mathematically impossible. Period. Those who doubt the Court's wisdom in the decision have good reason to do so on that point alone.
Those who say they did it all on their own ... look, he got admitted to Yale, and he didn't need the state to help him out. Well, if I had a legacy connection, I could have gone to an Ivy League school despite the fact that I was a horrible student.
Screwing over "Person A"? This exemplifies the myopia of the argument. People get screwed over every day for really stupid reasons. Eliminating longstanding racial and ethnic disparities in our society will bring positive benefits in many ways, not the least of which are productivity and the crime rate. But this isn't important, is it? Sure, it's just fine if someone gets screwed over because their boss wants a summer house in the tropics. But possibly getting screwed over—e.g., was the job guaranteed to be yours aside from the fact that a black man got it?—by a system designed to bring broad benefits to society as a whole? That's just unacceptable, isn't it?
You're arguing to perpetuate a long social ill with broad impact for the short-term benefit of a limited number of people.
His name, incidentally, is William Kostric, and he is white. However, when asked why he brought a gun to the event, his response was that it wasn't even a relevant question.
So what was the purpose of packing heat at a presidential event? What does one expect to communicate when invoking Jefferson (refreshing the tree of liberty) and carrying a gun? That is, if you show up at a presidential event carrying a gun and advocating armed insurrection, what would you expect to communicate?
Mr. Kostric said that a firearm is a defensive tool. Against what was he defending himself?
And yes, one can certainly seek to deliberately intimidate and still be law abiding.
It should also be noted that the Philadelphia incident did not involve the Black Panthers, but rather an unaffiliated group called the New Black Panther Party. The NBPP is considered a black supremacist group, denounced by the actual Black Panthers, and listed by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. Even so, the NBPP suspended its Philadelphia chapter over the incident (Weich).
Lots of people have made the mistake of thinking the NBPP is the same as the Black Panthers; still, though, nobody seems to be doing much to correct the mistake in discussions such as these, and, as the source Ganymede (who also made the mistake) provided shows, some conservatives are perfectly willing to perpetuate the confusion.
People would have been alarmed and, as Challenger suggested, outraged. However, I understand if community standards mean little to you. Still, though, from an analytical standpoint, does the coincidental change of community standards (Obama becomes president, expectations for participating in public discourse decline) strike you as significant or even suggestive?
And what was he defending himself against while advocating armed insurrection?
In the past, the Secret Service confiscated things that weren't even weapons, but merely looked like one. Seriously, we've gone from confiscating combs to carrying a gun and advocating armed insurrection.
That's a pretty big change, and I would suggest it's a significant factor in many people's negative reactions to Mr. Kostric's behavior.
____________________
Notes:
Weich, Ronald. "Letter to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith". U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs. July 13, 2009. Republicans.Judiciary.House.gov. August 19, 2009. http://republicans.judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Smith 7.13.09 New Black Panthers.pdf
Acid Cowboy said:
Even into the 1990s, crime rates in predominantly minority neighborhoods were being held up by notorious figures like David Duke as evidence that blacks were inherently inferior to whites. The effects of poverty and discrimination in reducing educational and economic achievements had nothing to do with the analysis. In later years it would turn out that while the vast majority of crack users were white, the vast—overwhelming—majority of federal crack prosecutions were against blacks. As I asked in another thread a couple days ago, could the Tulia outrage have occurred if a black cop of similar stature had tried to take down the white population of a town with the same lack of useful evidence?
So part of what you're overlooking is the history of racism itself. And the result is that the only acceptable solution is to go forward and perpetuate the effects of injustice. At a hundred and forty-four years after the Civil War, the proposition of extending the recovery time for the black community even further is simply absurd.
We're in a period in which race issues are transforming into class issues. This is actually a positive development insofar as we can deal with the issue in terms of poverty and its effects. But you add to that a reality that we've all recognized since high school at least—some bright people just don't perform well under certain testing conditions—and the problem becomes even more apparent. With education, the only reason people object to variable standards is because blacks benefit more than whites. The only fair thing to do, then, is to keep in place the system that makes it harder for a traditionally disadvantaged demographic to demonstrate its merits.
One of the puzzling things about the Ricci decision, all else aside, is the majority's presumption that passing the test guaranteed promotion. That outcome was mathematically impossible. Period. Those who doubt the Court's wisdom in the decision have good reason to do so on that point alone.
Those who say they did it all on their own ... look, he got admitted to Yale, and he didn't need the state to help him out. Well, if I had a legacy connection, I could have gone to an Ivy League school despite the fact that I was a horrible student.
Screwing over "Person A"? This exemplifies the myopia of the argument. People get screwed over every day for really stupid reasons. Eliminating longstanding racial and ethnic disparities in our society will bring positive benefits in many ways, not the least of which are productivity and the crime rate. But this isn't important, is it? Sure, it's just fine if someone gets screwed over because their boss wants a summer house in the tropics. But possibly getting screwed over—e.g., was the job guaranteed to be yours aside from the fact that a black man got it?—by a system designed to bring broad benefits to society as a whole? That's just unacceptable, isn't it?
You're arguing to perpetuate a long social ill with broad impact for the short-term benefit of a limited number of people.
His name, incidentally, is William Kostric, and he is white. However, when asked why he brought a gun to the event, his response was that it wasn't even a relevant question.
So what was the purpose of packing heat at a presidential event? What does one expect to communicate when invoking Jefferson (refreshing the tree of liberty) and carrying a gun? That is, if you show up at a presidential event carrying a gun and advocating armed insurrection, what would you expect to communicate?
Mr. Kostric said that a firearm is a defensive tool. Against what was he defending himself?
And yes, one can certainly seek to deliberately intimidate and still be law abiding.
And it's true that I didn't think of that implications of my comment because I don't bother to worry about all the idiotic and irrational ways in which my posts could be twisted.
It should also be noted that the Philadelphia incident did not involve the Black Panthers, but rather an unaffiliated group called the New Black Panther Party. The NBPP is considered a black supremacist group, denounced by the actual Black Panthers, and listed by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. Even so, the NBPP suspended its Philadelphia chapter over the incident (Weich).
Lots of people have made the mistake of thinking the NBPP is the same as the Black Panthers; still, though, nobody seems to be doing much to correct the mistake in discussions such as these, and, as the source Ganymede (who also made the mistake) provided shows, some conservatives are perfectly willing to perpetuate the confusion.
People would have been alarmed and, as Challenger suggested, outraged. However, I understand if community standards mean little to you. Still, though, from an analytical standpoint, does the coincidental change of community standards (Obama becomes president, expectations for participating in public discourse decline) strike you as significant or even suggestive?
And what was he defending himself against while advocating armed insurrection?
In the past, the Secret Service confiscated things that weren't even weapons, but merely looked like one. Seriously, we've gone from confiscating combs to carrying a gun and advocating armed insurrection.
That's a pretty big change, and I would suggest it's a significant factor in many people's negative reactions to Mr. Kostric's behavior.
____________________
Notes:
Weich, Ronald. "Letter to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith". U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs. July 13, 2009. Republicans.Judiciary.House.gov. August 19, 2009. http://republicans.judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Smith 7.13.09 New Black Panthers.pdf
the crime rate is the crime rate so weather someone mentions them or not doesnt change the fact that someone WAS a victim.
ever been in a minority neighborhood in the '80s - '90s?
probably not.
no one wanted crack to go away more than minorities. so lets at least try and be honest here.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Report From North of the Border
Yes, public health care at it's finest, North of the Border, Canada the system in broke, both ways, it is out of money and it doesn't have the capability to service the people.
The Government doesn't have the capability of running a Health Care System, because it doesn't need to show a profit, when it runs out of money it just raises taxes, or cuts care, or both.
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper
By Darah Hansen, Vancouver SunAugust 18, 2009
VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.
“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.
Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”
“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.
According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.
The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.
As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.
“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.
Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.
--------------------------------
---------
Health Minister Kevin Falcon was unavailable for comment Monday on the proposed health-care cuts. A ministry spokesman said Falcon is away on his honeymoon until the end of August.
Elsewhere in British Columbia, the province will look to replace the head of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, after he announced he will step down at the end of the year.
Ramsden has said his decision to retire is not related to financial problems faced by the authority
Yes really, not related to financial problems faced by the authority.
Yes, public health care at it's finest, North of the Border, Canada the system in broke, both ways, it is out of money and it doesn't have the capability to service the people.
The Government doesn't have the capability of running a Health Care System, because it doesn't need to show a profit, when it runs out of money it just raises taxes, or cuts care, or both.
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper
By Darah Hansen, Vancouver SunAugust 18, 2009
VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.
“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.
Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”
“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.
According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.
The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.
As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.
“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.
Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.
--------------------------------
---------
Health Minister Kevin Falcon was unavailable for comment Monday on the proposed health-care cuts. A ministry spokesman said Falcon is away on his honeymoon until the end of August.
Elsewhere in British Columbia, the province will look to replace the head of the Interior Health Authority, Murray Ramsden, after he announced he will step down at the end of the year.
Ramsden has said his decision to retire is not related to financial problems faced by the authority
Yes really, not related to financial problems faced by the authority.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
They think quite well, GSE, Fannie, Freddy, USPS, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, on and on and on......
Well lets see, the USPS in the last quarter lost....$2.4 billion, has a debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion, and looking to lose another $7 billion in fiscal 2009, and you want the Government to Run Health Care?
Remember the Fannie and Freddy GSE FU? and you want the Government to sponsor a Health care system?
Just look at what the Fannie Freddy GSE FU did to the economy, and I ask yet again you want the Government any where near our Health Care?
One out of three ain't ... uh ... er ... yeah
Indeed. But I admit I fail to see the connection in this context. I'm referring to the history of racism, whether the disparate outcomes between ethnic groups indicts those people or history, and to what degree we should consider that history in proposing solutions to social conflicts treading on ethnic issues.
I went to school in Tacoma, Washington, and am familiar with both Hilltop and Eastside, where you could be riddled with bullets for waving to a friend.
Of course, being just behind Compton in terms of west coast crime might not count. I'll leave it up to you.
The relevance of this point, also, escapes me.
____________________
Notes:
UrbanDictionary.com. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tacoma+hilltop
Associated Press. "Drug-dealing gangs blamed for 35 killings in region". The Spokesman-Review. April 18, 1989. News.Google.com. August 19, 2009. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...gcSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zu8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7020,3026213
See Also:
Shatzkin, Kate. "Tacoma's Other Crime Area -- Eastside's Gang Activity Is Rivaling Hilltop's, City Police Say". The Seattle Times. February 23, 1990. SeattleTimes.NWsource.com. August 19, 2009. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900223&slug=1057657
John99 said:
Indeed. But I admit I fail to see the connection in this context. I'm referring to the history of racism, whether the disparate outcomes between ethnic groups indicts those people or history, and to what degree we should consider that history in proposing solutions to social conflicts treading on ethnic issues.
I went to school in Tacoma, Washington, and am familiar with both Hilltop and Eastside, where you could be riddled with bullets for waving to a friend.
Of course, being just behind Compton in terms of west coast crime might not count. I'll leave it up to you.
The relevance of this point, also, escapes me.
____________________
Notes:
UrbanDictionary.com. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tacoma+hilltop
Associated Press. "Drug-dealing gangs blamed for 35 killings in region". The Spokesman-Review. April 18, 1989. News.Google.com. August 19, 2009. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...gcSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zu8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7020,3026213
See Also:
Shatzkin, Kate. "Tacoma's Other Crime Area -- Eastside's Gang Activity Is Rivaling Hilltop's, City Police Say". The Seattle Times. February 23, 1990. SeattleTimes.NWsource.com. August 19, 2009. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900223&slug=1057657
I'm totally serious. Then my German friends come to America to be nannies, and the policy harrass them for just about everything. It's ironic, it's supposed to be the land of the free, but they are more free over there.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Another funny point:
http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15795795&ps=1010&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
CDC: Life expectancy in US up, fewer deaths
By MIKE STOBBE AP Medical Writer The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
ATLANTA (AP) — The government says life expectancy in the U.S. has risen to a new high. It now stands at nearly 78 years.
The increase is due mainly to falling death rates in almost all the leading causes of death. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2007 is nearly three months greater than for children born in 2006.
The new U.S. data released Wednesday is a preliminary report based on about 90 percent of the death certificates collected in 2007. It comes from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
U.S. life expectancy has grown nearly one and a half years in the past decade.
http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15795795&ps=1010&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
CDC: Life expectancy in US up, fewer deaths
By MIKE STOBBE AP Medical Writer The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
ATLANTA (AP) — The government says life expectancy in the U.S. has risen to a new high. It now stands at nearly 78 years.
The increase is due mainly to falling death rates in almost all the leading causes of death. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2007 is nearly three months greater than for children born in 2006.
The new U.S. data released Wednesday is a preliminary report based on about 90 percent of the death certificates collected in 2007. It comes from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
U.S. life expectancy has grown nearly one and a half years in the past decade.
What's even funnier is that you are a beneficiary of socialist health care yourself.