GeorgiaDon

You mean Supply-side Jesus is the real deal? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just curious where you feel the "moral high ground" is? Say/do nothing until Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are smoking radioactive craters? I admit the problem has its complexities. Nations are sovereign entities, pretty much able to set their own rules. Yet, when they make it clear they are pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and make it abundantly clear through words and actions (supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups in this case) that they are least likely to act on their threats, do the threatened countries have no right whatsoever to mitigate the threat? Sure, sending in special forces to target highly selective elements of their nuclear weapons program is an invasion of their sovereignty. Compared to a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange, with millions dead and millions more displaced by fallout (as a minimum, assuming Russia and the US don't allow themselves to be drawn into a larger conflict), I'll take the surgical approach. Your principles may favor a different outcome, I suppose. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sorry to hear of that. I'm not going to argue that the Canadian system is perfect. On the US side, many people who can't afford insurance go without care until their condition gets to a life-threatening point, at which hospitals must treat them. Medical issues that could be treated in a straightforward manner early on are left to progress to the point where they are very expensive to treat, and patients may die or be left with life-long complications and will certainly be left with devastating debt. Even if you have good health insurance, deductibles and co-payments for a serious illness can easily cost you your house, your retirement savings, and then leave you bankrupt. Virtually all of my family is in Canada; quite a few cousins/aunts/uncles have dealt with cancer over the last decade or so, and not one has lost their house or gone bankrupt because of their illness. Not one has been denied future insurance coverage because they are cancer survivors. And, only one died, and she was 78 and a life-long smoker, severely overweight, and diabetic. The US system is without peer if you have great insurance, and the financial resources to weather hefty co-pays and deductibles. For the average person, and certainly for lower income people, the Canadian system delivers care as good as the US, without the threat of financial devastation and loss of health insurance coverage should you survive your illness. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think you'll need to substantiate that claim, Don. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity per 2006, minority population equals 20% of the population. 2011 population = 33M, or basically California with a much lower level of diversity. Cities like Vancouver have seen a major increase in Chinese and other Asian populations, particularly during the period leading up to the end of Hong Kong as a separate entity, but that's just San Francisco decades earlier. The comment was based only on my personal anecdotal experience/impression from visiting Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Nashville, Miami, Seattle, and San Diego (amongst other cities), all within the last 5 years or so. From what I have read, the US has a higher overall proportion of the population that is "minority", but two groups dominate that: "African-American" (13%) and Hispanic (15%). Obviously the proportion of the population that is of Asian origin is high in certain areas, such as San Francisco, but in those areas other ethnic/racial groups are less numerous. In Canadian cities, a somewhat smaller proportion of the population is composed of "visible minorities", but those people tend to be immigrants from origins more evenly distributed around the world. So, on an average day in Atlanta I may interact with people from 3 or 4 ethnic groups, whereas in Toronto or Ottawa or Vancouver I'll probably hear 8 or 10 different languages being spoken. I suspect San Francisco is more like the Canadian cities, but I think that is not typical of most American cities. Anyway, there is no question that Canada is still pursuing a liberal immigration policy, and much of the population growth is due to immigration, whereas the US is becoming more restrictive. Getting back to the point of this thread, I don't see any reason to link immigration to the fact that so many people do not have health insurance in this country. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your argument implies that immigrants are the main cause of the high number of uninsured people, and the high per capita cost of health care. Do you have any evidence to support this? Canada has a higher immigration rate than the US, and if you've been there in the last 20 years you will have observed that the population is much more diverse than the US. Somehow they have managed to ensure that everyone is covered, and by every measure of performance (lifespan, infant mortality, 5-year survival rate after cancer/heart attack, etc) the Canadian health care system performs at least as well as the US, and for less cost. Don I did not imply that. I gave one reason its not a fair comparison. Not the only reason. There are many. All I implied or more accuratelyl, all I stated, was its not an apples to apples comparison between tiny countries and our huge nation. Since immigration was the only difference you mentioned, and given that your posts are usually well written and your meaning is usually unambiguous, I assumed that you were attaching considerable importance to immigration as a factor in health care. If that wasn't your meaning I stand corrected. That being said, I can't see any reason at all why immigration would have anything to do with the low proportion of the US population with health insurance, compared to every other industrialized country. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your argument implies that immigrants are the main cause of the high number of uninsured people, and the high per capita cost of health care. Do you have any evidence to support this? Canada has a higher immigration rate than the US, and if you've been there in the last 20 years you will have observed that the population is much more diverse than the US. Somehow they have managed to ensure that everyone is covered, and by every measure of performance (lifespan, infant mortality, 5-year survival rate after cancer/heart attack, etc) the Canadian health care system performs at least as well as the US, and for less cost. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think that was when Clint Eastwood was talking to him, wasn't it? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Can you make mine a fat tire? Flat tire makes my mouth taste like rubber and asphalt. Thanks! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, let's consider the following: 1. The actors worked from a script that had nothing in it about Mohammed, or Islam; they thought the movie was a historical drama about warring tribes. After filming was complete, the audio was dubbed in to change the dialogue to one that makes the story about Mohammed, depicting him only as a bloodthirsty fornicator, pedophile, homosexual, and practitioner of other generally poorly regarded antisocial behaviors. 2. The producer from the beginning adopted a false identity and presented himself as an Israeli Jew. What possible reason could anyone have for carrying out these two deceptions? To me, it seems most parsimonious to assume that he was quite aware that the script was so offensive he would be unlikely to find actors willing to work on the film. The film was obviously intended to be offensive. Then when the all-to-predictable mindless rage was unleashed, where would the anger be directed? Well, the movie was made by those Israeli Jews! Perhaps that part wasn't so well thought out, as the anger was instead directed against another party who had nothing to do with it, the US. What other, legitimate artistic or political purpose, could have necessitated multiple deceptions? Of course, if the goal was to prove that there is a segment of the radical islamic population that can be counted on to exhibit the mental processing power of a rabid dog, then mission accomplished. It's a stupid experiment, though; we already knew such people were out there, so why put the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with the film on the line to prove a point we already knew? It's a more hopeful lesson to observe that the vast majority of Muslims did not riot, or were perhaps offended enough to protest peacefully but didn't resort to violence. But that, of course, won't be seen by those who don't allow reality to invade their tribal perception of the world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Have you renounced that social security and medicare yet, Ron? Don No, I paid for those through payroll deductions. Indeed you did, and so you are entitled to them. Nevertheless, it puts you in with the 47%. Which just goes to illustrate the clueless nature of Romney's comments; he obviously doesn't know you (or anyone like you) very well if he thinks you're voting for Obama just because you collect from a government entitlement plan. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Have you renounced that social security and medicare yet, Ron? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The attack on the embassy in Libya may or may not have been pre-planned (I haven't seen iron-clad evidence either way), but even if it was the video made it ridiculously easy to generate an angry mob to provide cover. However, are you saying that all the rioting in Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and even Australia, were all pre-planned by al Qaeda, each and every one of them? Where is your evidence that all those riots were coordinated by anyone? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No doubt one could ask some blunt questions. Here's a question for you. If Mr Nakoula in fact violated the terms of his parole to make and distribute this "work of art", should be immune from even being asked about it just because he has made himself notorious? Should stirring up enough shit be a "get out of jail free" card? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, the fellow is on probation after being convicted of, and serving jail time, for bank fraud. Part of his probation agreement is that he has to make restitution (totally over $700,000) to the people he defrauded. According to this article from CNN, the terms of his probation include no access to computers or the internet, and it is also not clear if he has made any restitution to his victims. It seems reasonable to me to make inquiries as to how the movie got made, and ended up on you tube. If he used any of his own money to make the movie instead of repaying his victims, and if he was responsible for it being placed on you tube, then it would seem he has violated his parole, and should be returned to jail to finish his sentence. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a political activist claimed "oppression" to escape being held accountable for unrelated criminal behavior. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I've long thought that civil forfeiture should be ruled unconstitutional. Property should be forfeited only after a criminal conviction, IMO. The practice of seizing property from people who have never even been charged with a crime, much less convicted, is nothing more than legalized theft. I also don't understand why we still have an ATF. Surely their legitimate enforcement/regulatory responsibilities could be delegated to the FBI and USDA, and much of the administrative redundancy eliminated? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Or maybe Montana? "There will never be another ewe." _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We don't actually have free speech if what you write here is how it is applied. Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie. ProLifers can gather outside abortion clinics. Saying Muslims are too fucking stupid to know better, so it's the writer/cartoonist/filmer's fault for anything that might happen means that we lower our standard of living to their 13th century state. No thanks. What would you say about the role of the wife in the analogy I gave? Not every impressionable kid will resort to murder under such circumstances, but she can move on to the next one, and the next, until she finds someone sufficiently malleable. Anyway, our judicial system would not hold her blameless for the consequences of her speech. The courts have also ruled that money = speech, at least in the political arena. If I were to advertize for a "hit man" (=speech), tell them that I wanted a certain person dead (=speech), tell them where that person could be found at various times of the day (=speech), and give them money to do the job (=speech), am I blameless for what subsequently happens because all I have done is exercise my right to speak? How about if I were to make a video depicting a certain religious prophet having sex with a dead pig, finish it up with a "credit" page that says "filmed by X" along with listing X's address, place of work, phone # etc and post it on you tube so the entire world could see it? If X ends up dead, would I have no share in the responsibility for that? Would it be any different if I had some specific motive for wanting X dead? Does it matter if I know that 99.9% of the followers of the prophet would be pissed off but 0.1% are fanatical enough to be provoked to action, so I post the video in a venue where it is accessible to 50 million followers knowing that 0.1% of 50 million is still a lot of people (50,000)? In the case of the "movie" that the asshats in Libya and Egypt were responding to, it seems informative that the person apparently responsible for making and posting the video is hiding behind a false identity. If they made the video as an artistic statement, a parody, or for any other legitimate purpose, it seems to me that they would stand behind it with their real identity. Adopting a pseudonym from the beginning of the process suggests they knew exactly what reaction it would provoke. van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and others who have been critical of Islam had the courage to stand behind their speech. Although it cost them greatly, no-one can argue that they were simply out to provoke violence. If it were to turn out that the film was actually made by radical jihadists so they could use it to provoke mobs to riot, would you say that's all OK? Anyway in the present case I'm not talking about legal responsibility (which would be almost impossible to prove), but about moral culpability. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I hold the vidiot responsible for his action - making an inflammatory video I hold the mob responsible for the violence and murder - that's their actions I refuse to excuse the mob for their actions by laying it on the vidiot the individuals of that mob are clearly not a part of 'humanity' as we know it For what it's worth, there are reports out now that the mob was effectively a smoke screen that a terrorist group used to intentionally get the ambassador moving so they could take him out. If true, than the mobs aren't really guilty of much more than our own 'occupy wall street' types. The murders themselves maybe have come from an entirely different element. Blues, Dave The problem here is that a particular religious belief has reduced its followers to a state where they have only two functioning neurons/ one synapse. They are completely binary creatures of stimulus/response, on/off. They can be easily manipulated, as their response to certain stimuli is 100% predictable. That doesn't mean that we excuse their behavior, or absolve them of blame, or say we won't hold them accountable. But, it does seem that someone intended to provoke this situation, knew just how to light the fire and what the all-but-certain consequences would be, and did it anyway. Is that person totally without any responsibility for what has happened? Not in my book. I have to wonder what the motive would be. There is more than one faction in the world who don't want to see peace in the region, or the emergence of democracies that are sympathetic to Western democracies. Some who hunger for the "second coming" believe that war in the Middle East, and the destruction of Israel, is required before that can happen. In a way the situation is akin to a situation where a woman seduces some young, insecure/immature kid, then once he's totally infatuated starts talking up how they could "be together forever" if only her husband could somehow be taken out of the picture. If the kid takes the hint and offs the husband, we hold him responsible for his actions but we don't excuse the wife on first amendment grounds. "Free speech" doesn't mean we are automatically immune from being held accountable for the predictable consequences of that speech. Blame is not a fixed quantity that gets divided by the number of participants, it's a quality that adheres to all the participants, be they the instigator or the tool. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I take it you mean, choice regarding political candidates/platforms? Surely there is some 3rd party candidate whose platform includes "Cancer survivor and can't find/afford insurance? Too bad so sad, not my problem". Is there no libertarian candidate this cycle? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It seems he likes all the consumer-friendly bits, which is to say the expensive bits (such as covering pre-existing conditions). He just doesn't like the parts that have to do with how to pay for it (such as the individual mandate). However, he has offered nothing about how to pay for the parts he likes. Maybe he thinks the moonbeam fairy will pay for it? Same old political ploy, making big promises without a word on how to make it work financially. I guess it's not too surprising, coming from a guy who thinks that cutting taxes even more will somehow create a huge increase in revenue. "Double down on trickle down" indeed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How do you know he got bumped "for his color"? Aren't you making a rather large assumption, based on nothing more than that the new guy "happens to be black", and that you (naturally enough) are disappointed for your friend? Maybe the new guy just knows somebody in the company who has more pull than you do? Maybe he has some specialized skills that make him more worth retaining, even though there may not be a specific need for those skills right at this instant. It's hard to know why your friend was let go, as "they didnt need him that" is missing some key information that leaves us to fill in the blank, which we could do in a way that's sympathetic or not. Didn't need him that day? Didn't need him badly enough to deal with scheduling around his other jobs? Didn't need him badly enough to overlook a drinking problem? Did your friend work for your company at all, even one day? Might he have done something to tick somebody off? Anyway, hope he finds something suitable soon; working two jobs sucks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Despite all of the above, in the interests of anti-tribalism I'd like to sincerely wish Ron, his family, and everybody else from the SC family a safe and happy Labor Day. (It is kind of funny, though, that Labor Day is sort of the ultimate socialist holiday in the US, what with celebrating the laboring classes and all). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You're right there is a major cultural difference between us, but you're completely wrong about the nature of the difference. I don't depend on "systems", I weigh facts, think about things logically, and then MAKE UP MY OWN MIND. I don't rely on friends or family to tell me what to believe, or how to vote. Unlike you, who by your own admission dare not deviate from the tribal "wisdom". I have to admit, social ostracism has always been a powerful tool to enforce rigid conformity. I'm sure I wouldn't be. That's because I stand on my own feet, support myself and my family, and don't let anyone else tell me what I should believe or how I should think. That makes me, and people like me, a threat to those who live as a cog in some tribal machine. And of course, the first step to attacking those who threaten is to dehumanize them. I've never been to a "cocktail party" in my life. I could not possibly care less about "social strata". I do value the ability to think for oneself. It seems to me that in many ways you exemplify everything that is wrong with politics in this country, and you don't even know it. You complain about "socialism" and the national debt, yet you selfishly partake of the the most socialist of government entitlement programs, arguing "you don't have a choice". You admit you robotically vote for one side, not because of any deep analysis of competing policies, but because that's what your tribe expects and it would damage your status if you were to do otherwise. You complain about the president being "divisive", yet you make it clear that there is nothing he could ever possibly do that would attract your support. Your own words tell us your opposition to all things Democratic is not based on considered thought, or logic, but on prejudice and tribalism. Unfortunately, there are many just like like you, on both sides of the political spectrum, leaving it to the 10% or so who actually make a considered decision to determine the direction of the country. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You certainly have an opportunity to write to the Social Security Administration to explain your opposition to "socialist programs" and ask that you no longer be sent your social security check, and you could cut up and mail back your medicare card. Or, you could be honest and say that those programs are useful to you, so you'll choose to bend your principles when it comes to your own benefit. Interesting. I have to say your slavish devotion to tribalism fits perfectly with the way you often describe your religious principles. I'm sorry for you that you choose to live in such a narrow "me and my family against the world" frame of reference. Do your friends and family choose your clothes for you too? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And of course, you have made it clear on many occasions that you care nothing for facts, but only for what reinforces your pre-existing prejudices. Given that medicare and social security are the two biggest "socialist" government programs in existence, I assume you have refused to accept both. If you actually "walk the walk", that is. When it comes to people who bitch and whine about socialism while pocketing the benefits thereof, well there's a word for that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)