SkyDekker

Are you too young to remember Roman Catholics and Protestants killing eachother? Bush did mentioned God had spoken to him on the subject and he referred to it as a crusade. You also have to keep in mind that the western world has a long history of fucking with different religeous groups (specially in the middle east)

Yet another fundraising ploy by the NRA to extract $$$ from the fearful. "The UN Boogeyman is coming for your guns!" I thought Obama was coming for your guns?

Indeed, but no effective process in place to enforce it. Courtesy of the gun lobby, which emasculates any and every effort to establish an effective process. That's not true at all. You're saying they don;t do enuf checks before a felon can get a gun -- we're saying when a felon is CAUGHT WITH A GUN there damm sure is a way to enforce the the law -- PROSECUTE HIM! .. Nonsense! They aren't convicted felons UNTIL they've been prosecuted and found guilty. Then after getting released they can avoid any background check on gun purchases with trivial ease because the gun lobby opposes any effort to tighten the checks, most recently after the Newtown massacre. Nonsense! They were already convicted felons before they got caught applying to get a gun! Then when they got caught with a gun the gov't couldn't be bothered to prosecute them for it because they don't seem to have a problem with felons breaking the law! Is a felon applying for a gun illegal? Or is it illegal for a felon to possess a gun? Hard to prosecute a felon for applying to get a gun, if that is not specifically illegal. (Or did you just type that incorrectly?)

As far as I have read, the attack on the mall in Kenya was in response to Kenya's military involvement in Somalia. I don't think religion even plays a primary role in this attack, other than that they supposedly wanted to try and spare those of a similar religion. Are we even sure that report is 100% correct at this point? Hence, stating that they killed because of their religion appears to be unfounded in this case.

Brilliant marketing! It will get most right wingers frothing at the mouth about the liberal media and will further solidify in their minds that Fox is the only truely fair and balanced news outlet.

I agree that there is no easy answer and probably not a right answer either. But the discussions need to be had and at some point decisions need to be made. As a side note, but along these lines. I had a discussion on the weekend which was basically regarding the value of a human life. As health care ability increases and with it costs escalate to keep people alive, how far do we go with that? How much do we spend to get a 98 year old to 105? Obviously this is more predicated on a health care system where costs are born by society itself. But, this will eventually become a much larger discussion withni families as well. Yes there is indeed personal responsibility. However, I also believe that I have a responsibility to the larger society around me? They help shape me to who I am, they help entertain me, they help make my life worth living. If it was only me in the world, I would go even crazier much quicker. I believe that society does have an obligation to look after those less fortunate. As you mentioned above, people fall through the cracks in every system, which means that in every system people will take advantage. But, that is not a reason not to help others. There will never be a system that is perfect for all. But there certainly are systems that are better for most. I am willing to give up some perfection for me, to help others get a bit more. Without others, I don't have a society to live in, raise my children in, or envision my grand children excelling in.

Some girls feel their only chance at happiness is to beg, retrieve, fetch, rollover, and play dead. If they only knew how to make sandwiches....... You may want to "upgrade" from dogs

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ. I guess you are in the new world? I am now yes Improved both places then? LMAO absolutely

As an aside, held these views well before I married a doctor. My viewpoint hasn't changed much in that time. In the relationship between open access, affordability and quality, I'll go "War Games" here and say the only winning move is not to play. Here's what I mean: Health care is indeed a public concern. However, when government policy steps in, it necessarily means that whomever is running it gets his or her values placed on top. This limits individual choice. Look at places where, in the name of equity, people are not allowed to seek healthcare outside of the system unless they go overseas. I personally have a belief that I should have health care when I want it for all the quality I can afford. There are plastic surgeons out there doing some amazing and life saving procedures in burn centers. On the other hand, there are plastic surgeons out there who can do some things with my penis for the right price. Maybe I can increase to five inches for a few grand, but it's not worth it to me. There it goes. Is there a doctor out there that will give me a physical for 100 dollars - no insurance? When I get a sinus infection, is there are doctor that will see me for $60 cash and give me a script for some antibiotics? Can I pay cash for a generic? Where can I get the best price? Yes, I think that taking third parties out of payment can greatly increase the efficiency. It will result in massive layoffs as back office billing personnel are laid off, as well as adjusters for insurance and other parts of the private and governmental billing staffs are canned. Which is where we would have been but for third party involvement. Look at the Mayo Clinic. They stopped taking Medicare and Medicaid patients because the government reimbursement was so low. Government thinks it can lower "cost" by lowering "price." The easiest way, I think, to lower the cost and price of health care is to either: (1) decrease demand; or (2) increase supply. Also, it can be lowered by decreasing the transaction cost. By making healthcare a cash-centered system, several things would happen: (1) it would dramatically decrease transaction costs by making the care payable at point-of-service (not payment via intermediaries); (2) it would make patients add a cost/utility analysis to the treatment, thereby staying away from the doctor for the stubbed toe or case of the sniffles; (3) doctors would be in competition with each other, since patients are locked in to seeing doctors within the provider panel of the insurance, so service and price options would be more varied; (4) insurance would be there to cover high value losses (like homeowners insurance, auto insurance, etc); and (5) health insurance would, of course, increase in price for those with chronic illness, etc. This would, I think, give access on demand and leave options available for people. It allows the individual the choice of how they want the care to be. Want to go to the pediatrician with the gleaming office and indoor playground even though it will cost an extra $30 per visit? Or would you prefer the gal with the low-frills office, low cost and long waiting list? Or would you instead go to the gal who will see your child right now for low cost and do basic checkups but is a nurse practitioner and won't be providing your child with any procedures? Under central planning, those options aren't there. By eliminating central planning, individual choices create niches to be filled. In a sense, it leaves options open for everyone. Yes, there are problems with it. I understand that the system would leave many people very unhappy. But it's where I would balance things. Thanks for the reply! How does this deal with those who cannot afford care? If you identify health care as a public concern, but want it free of government policy, how will those who fall through the cracks get any care? And why would any doctor want to deal with those who cannot pay instantly? Does society as a whole have any obligation to look after the health of all of those in society? Or is one truly only responsible for oneself?

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ. I guess you are in the new world? I am now yes

You replied to ME and avoided my question with some distraction about lawmakers. "For being a felon and getting caught using a firearm after being a felon... He was sent to a 'boot camp'. Why was this repeat offender ever let out into society again? A violent criminal should never be in a free society. If a violent criminal is caught with a firearm or committing another violent crime, they should never see the light of day again." Be honest and admit you made a mistake. wow. so, post #78 was by skypuppy. I responded with post #81. You responded to that with post #83. That would make the reply coming from you, to me. See, when you learn to count #78 comes before #81, which in turn comes before #83. Or you can just scroll up. (the repeat offender was let out into society so you can keep digging a bigger hole)

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

That is my understanding. The Brit doesn't seem to get it. Meh! I am a natural born, Canadian citizen. I have attended Ottawa U as a foreign student and have a canadian birth certificate and passport. Oh and non of the documents are fake, nor did I have to bribe anybody to get them.

Skypuppy posted about lawmakers. I asked him a question about lawmakers in return. You jumped in with a question that had nothing to do with lawmakers. So, I informed you of such. Your response: you didn't answer the question.

Lawmakers don't arrest and prosecute. The second part of your post would have them making more laws, which is something you don't want them to do.

In stead of "Tennessee" you meant to write "Tennessee Republican Senator" right?

The truth is probably in the middle. ***But while your average gangbanger probably doesn't have much training, he also probably doesn't have a permit, because he has his gun 'illegally'. So forcing in new laws for concealed carry won't effect your average gangbanger... No law is going to stop your average gangbanger. If you are creating laws for gangbangers, you are indeed looking at things the wrong way. Since most if not all politicians are indeed not making laws for gangbangers, it is also a bit of a strawman. Lawmakers are trying to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. That is not right when it is generally law-breakers who are at fault. There are laws on the books to stop felons from applying to buy guns - but very few get prosecuted even when caught. Prosecuting these people and having minimum sentences when convicted would make far more sense than making new laws to disallow law-abiding citizens from buying guns. And how do you propose Lawmakers do that?

And if that is what happened, that is absolutely true. Not up to debate. Nor is it really what is being debated.

Waaa? USA has a LOWER poverty count than Europe. I'm sure someone can find more recent (possibly accurate) statistics than those I linked below, but I think you'll find that they're pretty close. Also, given how easy it is to travel between countries on a schengen visa, I have trouble believing that people aren't moving between these countries a lot. Europe http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article99 USA http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ I was implying old Europe, as my father use to say. Sorry, i should have been more clear. France, Germany, Italy etc... those are usually the examples given when discussing how much better healthcare is in Europe and what i was referencing. I am well aware Romania is poor. We are not Europe and cannot solve our problems by simply mimicking their healthcare. we are a far more giant nation with far more giant problems. I am not pretending to have the answers nor bashing Obamacare. I'm simply stating we are not Europe and comparing us to them is not accurate. Simply following what they do is indeed not teh correct way to go. Simply discarding everything they do is also not the right way to go.

Yes, this is exactly the same as Sandy Hook especially. I completely agree that the difference in coverage is completely due to the weapon involved and has absolutely nothing to do with the location of the shooting, or the age of the majority of the victims. So, they fit the agenda Yes, you are right, exactly the same thing. You have uncovered a conspirancy at least as large as the one covering up nanothermite. If you can't get any journalist to believe you, it is because he is liberal/socialist scum. They are all in on it!!

The truth is probably in the middle. No law is going to stop your average gangbanger. If you are creating laws for gangbangers, you are indeed looking at things the wrong way. Since most if not all politicians are indeed not making laws for gangbangers, it is also a bit of a strawman.

Now, this is according to the Daily Mail. Do you normally believe everything they report? If not, do you have any other sources? Did he stop the mass shooting?

Yes, this is exactly the same as Sandy Hook especially. I completely agree that the difference in coverage is completely due to the weapon involved and has absolutely nothing to do with the location of the shooting, or the age of the majority of the victims.

Priceless. This would imply that you know exactly what happened and therefor it is a good example to use. I would love to hear more of the story now. Can you tell us exactly what happened?

It is a piss poor example, because IMHO his training was likely a bigger factor than the firearm. IE, the result is unlikely to be replicated by a non-military/LEO training individual with a firearm. I can sit and argue against the object (And I'm not pushing an agenda, I am not important enough to set an agenda regarding gun ownership in either Canada, the US, or any other country), because to me the training is a very important part. I have said before that banning guns in the US will not resolve anything. I am just happy I live in a country that didn't have founding father's like yours.