|
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs. Before you fret about what that reduction would do to the population, take a look at the rate at which Americans waste food. As well, consider the volume of produce from California that is exported (at a cost to the US taxpayer, due to subsidies to allow CA to compete with 3rd world countries on price). California's agricultural production could be reduced considerably with no negative effect on Americans, but that would free up water for other uses. And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the production is stopped. Let the desert go back to desert. Mike |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
You have it exactly backwards. All powers not *specifically* reserved to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people. Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate your claim that US states have more power. As far as US states having more power than EU countries. please identify which US states have their own seats in the UN, and on various international bodies reserved for countries. Your clueless rambling is getting tedious. Mike |
Weiser says:
================= The vast majority of workers (not non-producing indigents) in this country enjoy the finest health care in the world and are thus quite healthy as compared to many citizens in socialized medicine systems. That they have to pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy and take care of themselves. ========================= On this, I defer to Wilko and his previous comments -- Right On, Wilko! OK, I'm no specimen of healthy living. Canadians may not be the fittest people on earth. But, my god, do you Americans ever look at yourselves?! You guys are, collectively, HUGE! Collectively, you guys are UNFIT. I'm biggish. But when I get off the plane in the USA, the first thing I note is how absolutely slim I look. I'm thinking your bit about "That they have to pay for their health care only serves to stimulate them to remain healthy and take care of themselves." is NOT working for the USA. Another one of those free enterprise, libertarian notions that's works well in an economics textbook, but looks quite different in reality. Your statement leaves me ROTFL. frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
=============== Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force ================ And you actually believe this!!!??? Today you've really got me in stitches ROTFL. STOP! And your rant about taking out human and material targets -- PRICELESS! You are one funny guy. When you don't do humor, do you have a day job? frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
================ Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason for invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that fully justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant. ================ Or, because we choose to ignore Faux News where they've conveniently re-written history for the Bush propaganda machine. Those of you who have sipped from the Kool-Aid chalice now parrot this revisionist stuff like some kind of mantra. frtzw906 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the media would not get the story? ======================== So, you don't even believe the people that monitor your health care system now, eh? Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. ? http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. |
True the official recount was stopped. I view this as unfortunate because it
has led to this argument. Several major groups have done the complete recount and by using the laws as set forth in Florida at the time of the election, Bush maintained a very slight edge in each. That is not the same as if the court had ordered a statewide recount but it is what we are left with. One of the reasons the court ordered a stop to the count was because the request was only for targeted areas that would have favored Gore. If the request was for the entire state, the recount may have had a chance of going forward. In my view this should have been the course of action taken. Unfortunately the court answered yes or no on the question of a targeted recount. They should have sent it back to the lower court asking that the request be amended to include the whole state. "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php "Dave Manby" wrote in message ... I always loved coming into the states - especially through Miami Florida just after Bush stole his first presidency. You, a non American, are asked to fill in several forms with boxes to fill. I always feel like asking if they want a tick cross or Chad and who is going to count these and anyway they are a good reflection of the intelligence of the CIA terrorism controls and other forms of attempted control. Among the questions you are asked are 1 Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? 2 Are you addicted to Narcotics 3 Were you a member of the Nazi party between xxxx and xxxx. The rest are just as inane. Apparently the reason for asking you these questions is so that they can do you for lying if you are caught! It is no wonder the phrase dumb America has arisen! Surely the answer to all this is to look at the cause of the terrorism and attempt to answer the questions raised. Palestine has for too long been ignored and it was not till many years of terrorism that the rest of the world started looking at the plight of the refugees in Gaza and the other OCCUPIED by Israel territories. Al Quaeda has its own agenda and maybe looking at the reason why they have picked on the west in general and the USA in particular would help solve the threat for better than trying to impose Western ideals on reluctant people. I would argue that this has created more terrorism than it has prevented. In message , Scott Weiser writes A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to do with terrorism. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, and acting like refugees, so that they can move about freely and without scrutiny. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, You've never arrived in Toronto from anywhere, right? There is such a thing as customs and immigration. Canada's border is _not_ open. It's more open that it ought to be. and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US Which only proves that the US can't control its borders. Well, "will not" is more accurate. We can, we just choose not to. You wouldn't like it at all if we chose to. Neither would Mexico. That, however, is precisely what I (along with many others) are suggesting we need to do. You won't like it if we do. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm merely suggesting that if Canada doesn't do its part to prevent infiltration by terrorists, the US may have no choice but to close the border, which will wreck your economy. The 9/11 terrorists arrived in the US thru US ports of entry, not thru Canada. And yet other terrorists arrive through Canada. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. He was caught by an alert Border Patrol agent. Others have certainly slipped in from Canada as well. -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Doctors to the left of me, doctors to the right... and not one of them underpaid. Compared to US doctors? Please. That's one thing that socialized medicine absolutely cannot match. If a doctor is Canada is underpaid, he has no one to blame but himself. Doctors in Canada are not, as you seem to fantasize, employees of the state. They are self-employed. They do whatever work they please and send in their bills. Just like doctors in the US. There are also procedures and services that are not covered by medical insurance - just like in the US. The only difference is that in the US, insurance is for-profit, in Canada, it is not-for-profit and is run by the government. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. |
rick wrote: Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Take a look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, the amount of children dying at birth, the state of health of the entire population, and you'll find that despite the huge medical cost to society, it's not up to par with most western countries with older populations that spend a lot less on medicine. Just repeating the "we don't have waiting lists" mantra doesn't prevent people from dying out on the street, or from going bancrupt because they can't pay all the high medical bills they were given because they couldn't afford health care insurance. Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. Which is exactly what is usual in the U.S., where you have the haves and have nots. There is a limit to how low the lowest incomes are, so that people don't need to resort to crime (even wonder why you have a murder rate several times higher than that of most western nations?) to survive. It's not the law of the jungle that makes a nation "civilised"... Also, there is a limit to how much people need to pay out of their own pocket (usually through income related health insurance premiums) to get normal medical attention, and there is a limit to how much people (ab-)use the system, because they do take personal responsibility for their own health. The few rare examples that are continuously brought up here of people dying while waiting for medical treatment is only true for certain medical treatments, such as transplants. Since there is a huge demand on donor organs, that will continue to be the case for a long time to come, even in the U.S.. Personally I find it disgusting that someone who has willfully abused his body through for example excessive drinking, eating or smoking but who has a lot of money can use up several donor organs that would have helped another less wealthy person last a lot longer. The same can of course be said for the excessive abuse of energy, pollution and what more. Just being able to afford something doesn't make it right to squander it. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
And we're making sure that they are directly tied to our interests by making them dependent on the teat of US consumerism. You do live in a fantasy world, don't you. The US is only 21% of China's market and 18% of the EU's. How does that directly tie them to US consumerism? We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. That is not even close to true. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. The invasion of Honduras was illegal. In fact, it is impossible to invade any country legally, since the only legal way to engage in war is to defend your own territory on your own territory. Mike |
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties, Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply post 1991. and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them. Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself? The obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a spider hole than fight back. They didn't exist - he was just an asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the arabs he was trying to influence. The US played to this, just as they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every claim about nuclear weapons. It is in the interests of a war monger to make sure that there is always an enemy. I imagine we'll find them eventually. Not likely, since America's given up looking. But then, you've never let facts interfere with your opinions. Mike |
On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Mike |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the media would not get the story? ======================== So, you don't even believe the people that monitor your health care system now, eh? Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. ? http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
in article , rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. ? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is? I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're willing to die in the process) If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier, you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man? Yeah, right. Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming firepower... If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S. government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla tactics, and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that happening. Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a professional army, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have 50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops. That would be probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-) They might cause more of an uproar if they all jumped at the same time. ;-) Cute imagery. ka-WHUMP! However, IF (and I stress the 'IF' part, in case any of the Secret Police are reading this) there ever was an overthrow of the US government by some sort of armed cililian militia, it would not be through conventional warfare, as the militants wouldn't stand a chance in an head-to-head. I suspect there would be much more unconventional methods: a bomb in the senate chamber, another in the House, and an assassination of the Executive Branch. This would probably be done simulataneously with the assassination of several governors, which might put the management of the US, especially the part with guns, into total disarray, followed by some high-ranking military officer taking charge 'to keep the peace'. Basically, a military coup supported by a grassroots militia on site in several sensitive places. Currently, the worst that these backwoods military types can do is become a serious burden to the local Criminal Justice system, as well as running up a line at the local K-Mart when they are buying beer and cigarettes for their retreats. They ain't taking on the US army, or the National Guard, nohow, noway. --riverman Now, lets revisit this question in 20 years, when the US economy has caved in, the dollar is trading 1:1 against the Yen, debt holders have called in their chits, OPEC has decided to sell oil in Euros, and the EU and China are the world's economic giants. By then, a well aimed spitball might do the trick. And Americans will probably be a LOT less fat.... |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... rick wrote: Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Take a look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, the amount of children dying at birth, the state of health of the entire population, and you'll find that despite the huge medical cost to society, it's not up to par with most western countries with older populations that spend a lot less on medicine. ======================== Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. If the post wasn't snipped to shreds without annotation, and then replied to as you want it to be read, make a new post. Just repeating the "we don't have waiting lists" mantra doesn't prevent people from dying out on the street, or from going bancrupt because they can't pay all the high medical bills they were given because they couldn't afford health care insurance. ===================== Again, no where have you seen me say that, have you? Again, too bad all you can do is build these little strawmen by snipping out whole posts and then replying to things I haven't said. snip rest of spew... |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Weisr says: =============== In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one that isn't so busy, anywhere in the US ================ Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees to the malady. Weiser says: ================= It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and not infrequently die while waiting for the list =========================== You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line. People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But, would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line. Seems logical and fair to me. They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become* critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first. One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list. Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often doesn't happen. Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you, and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course is irreversible. Weiser says: =================== given a false high priority through political influence or other forms of corruption. ======================= Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public outrage is palpable. As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? Because the faults of socialized medicine are well known, the complaints many, and the impacts well documented. My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility. Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide emergency medical care to the indigent and poor. Why do you do that? I thought you believe in "personal responsibility" and "personal responsibility" means that if you don't have enough money to pay for medical care, then you should die. That's not what I said. The difference between the US system and socialized medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost. In the US system, the government lets private industry run the show, but provides some financial support for the care of the indigent. The government does NOT ration, control, schedule, organize or otherwise dictate to consumers who, when or how they get treatment. Big difference. Enormous. I also wonder why you have public schools, that doesn't seem to fit with your definition of personal responsibility either. I happen to agree. I think public schools are a big waste of money, and that people should seek out and pay for private school education for their children. However, given the fact that there are many people who cannot afford private school education, it is appropriate for local government (the "local" part is significant) to provide free public basic education, funded with taxes approved and collected from the local citizenry. I utterly disagree with the federal government (or even the state government) getting involved in controlling public education. It is acceptable, however, for the federal and state government to supply funds to local schools...if they have no control over the use of the funds or control over teaching. Likewise, if the federal or state government wants to make grants from tax money to local hospitals to help defray the costs of treating the indigent, that's acceptable because the government is not exercising control over the providing of health care. My goodness, that's billions and billions of dollars going to subsidize poor families who can't take responsibility for sending their kids to private schools. As well they should. Getting a better job so you can afford to send your kids to school is a great motivator. And for those who don't care to educate their children, well, *somebody* needs to pick up trash and dig ditches, so I guess those lazy parents will be raising the next generation of grunt-laborers. If I were one of their kids, I'd sue my parents for failing to properly provide for my education. Besides, public education is entirely different from health care. The costs of public education are easily calculable and controllable, and each student receives the same education as every other, so there aren't a lot of individual variables that make prioritization necessary. All kids progress through the system at the same speed (with some exceptions) and only a few have "special needs" that have to be dealt with. This is unlike medicine, where each person has a completely different complaint and requires individual treatment. Not only that, but a failure in the education system merely leaves a child less well educated than another child, while failure in the medical system can kill people. Thus, your analogy is completely inapplicable from the get-go. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did *understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and tyranny. The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk) comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an unarmed citizenry would be. They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed our system to prevent precisely that. And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the media would not get the story? ======================== So, you don't even believe the people that monitor your health care system now, eh? Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. ? http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits for the high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait is "less than ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one. ====================== LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment. You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. ================== LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an 'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following what you are being told... Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater risk that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor' in the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does? Where are you getting that information? ======================= Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada.... tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that other people can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people. ===================== Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care system for all, and equal for all. I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a higher standard of care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet. ====================== LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh? As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks better than the US, and both are in the 30s, from the top of best care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it? This means, logically, at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt to seek care elsewhere. ================ Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency' case. All it manages to do is promote a have vs have-not conflict. ? |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms, not because of the Constitution. They only have that right because of the constitution. Take that away and their "right" goes with it. Rights are accorded by those in power, whether by might or by vote. I've told you several times that you are incorrect. You are now willfully refusing to recognize reality. Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government, and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis. All the Constitution does is CONSTRAIN government power and authority. Nothing more. The 2nd Amendment forbids government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. That is all. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms does not cease to exist. The only thing that changes is to what degree the government might be authorized to infringe on that right. And the point of an armed citizenry is to ensure that even with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, government would be unable to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because the citizenry would view such an infringement as a usurpation of power and a tyrannical act, and would use the arms they have, in exercise of the right, to put down the rogue government that presumes to usurp power and infringe on our rights, thus restoring the 2nd Amendment and putting government back in its place. The right to keep and bear arms that each and every citizen on the face of the planet has CANNOT be removed by anyone, except as a result of some malfeasance on the part of a particular individual that makes him/her untrustworthy and a danger to society. No blanket infringement of the RKBA is permitted, and the use of force is authorized to prevent such infringements. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: After they've cleaned up their own mess, then we'll consider their requests. Kyoto was driven by people who waste far less and produce far less CO2 than Americans. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. And when their emissions are zero, then they can ask us to join them. Until then, we'll do what we think is best. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
rick wrote:
Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. Ah, strawmen talk... now I'm able to place the name again: Rick Etter, eh? This being usenet, it's the discussion *we* make out of it, you don't tell anyone what they can talk about. It so happens that this discussion is mostly about what a few U.S. posters refuse to acknowledge, that there is a way to get better results abroad. Whether that is about using violence instead of diplomacy to get what you want, using medical healthcare that is available to everyone instead of just a portion of the population or about using a free media displaying the facts instead of propaganda, religion intermixed with politics and terrorising your own population to get elected. He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. Looks like you overlooked a number of other areas there... Besides, you failed to come up with numbers backed by facts, so I'm curious to hear which in Fox news program you heard that little fable. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. ? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is? I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And actually, you have said nothing... that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. ===================== Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your information, aren't you? |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... rick wrote: Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. Ah, strawmen talk... now I'm able to place the name again: Rick Etter, eh? ====================== Yes, and too bad you haven't yet learned how to annotate your snipping of posts. Is that from ignorance, or a deliberate attempt at deception? Your choice... This being usenet, it's the discussion *we* make out of it, you don't tell anyone what they can talk about. It so happens that this discussion is mostly about what a few U.S. posters refuse to acknowledge, that there is a way to get better results abroad. Whether that is about using violence instead of diplomacy to get what you want, ======================== LOL Something that you have failed to use in your posting, eh? using medical healthcare that is available to everyone instead of just a portion of the population or about using a free media displaying the facts instead of propaganda, religion intermixed with politics and terrorising your own population to get elected. ================== Really? Nice spew, but when was I elected to anything, or even tried to be? He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. Looks like you overlooked a number of other areas there... Besides, you failed to come up with numbers backed by facts, so I'm curious to hear which in Fox news program you heard that little fable. ========================== Unfortunately for you and the chest thumping kman, I used mostly Canadian sources, and I can't find a Fox cananda.... As for facts, you have yet to post anything that even resembles one. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Do you have an alternate theory? You still didn't answer the request. But then, you can't. Quite right, because the question is unanswerable. Once again, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. No, it's because I disagree with you. Which simply dismisses intelligent design while touting evolution without explaining your version of evolution and without a rational analysis of my question as to why sharks are still sharks 400 million years down the evolutionary line. You haven't identified what _my_ version of evolution is Correct. I asked you for your theory above, and you chose not to answer. - in fact you haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the scientific community. I disagree. You understand nothing about evolution of any kind. That's a remarkably broad statement, given the fact that you don't know what I know. You don't understand sharks, either. I understand that they have not "evolved" noticeably in 400 million years. You have yet to explain why they have not. First of all, the only thing that remains constant in shark evolution is gross morphological characteristics. Well, it's not the only thing, but it is the most noticeable. In fact, over millions of years, many shark species have died out and have been replaced by new species. Does that constitute "evolution" in your dogma? And, how do you know this? Is the fossil record complete and unbroken for sharks? Can you say with absolute certainty that none of the species in evidence today never existed before? The fact is that DNA is changing all the time. We know that. However, we know that most DNA plays no apparent role in morphology, so a mutation is not always likely to result in a visible change. Agreed. In fact, many mutations produce no change at all. If you move beyond gross morphology, sharks have changed a lot over time; Compare a great white to a whale shark. But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human beings. Given that the emergence of identifiable humans dates back a bit over 1.5 million years, and that in that time we've "evolved" from simian-like proto-humans to creatures capable of flying to the moon, one has to wonder what the problem is with sharks, who have had 400 million years to become something other than what they are. They have shown no signs of substantial increases in intelligence, communication or technology. They don't even communicate as complexly as whales or dolphins. Changes to gross morphology do not prove the theory of evolution. What would prove the theory of evolution is documentation of an unbroken series of biological changes that result in not just gross morphological changes but enhancements in intelligence, communication and the ability to conciously and deliberately manipulate the organism's environment. No such continuum of change has yet been found, and no scientist can say with certainty how, for example, eohippus became modern horse. At best they can conjecture and extrapolate, but they cannot identify the actual mechanism or process of change, either gradual or sudden, that causes one species to become another. The same is true of sharks. While a "Mega-mouth shark" may be morphologically different from a white shark, there has been no demonstration of how, or even if one became the other. At best, you can say that over time, different gross morphological examples of sharks have existed. You cannot say, at this point, how they came into being. We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens. I disagree. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. And how do you link, for example, Homo Neandrathalsis to Homo Sapiens? Where are the intervening morphological changes that show that one became the other? Sorry, but that record simply does not exist. There is not just one "missing link," there are BILLIONS of missing links. If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes that result in the evolution of a species, one would expect to find a panoply of slightly different specimens in different geological strata that would show the evolution. Instead, what we see are a very, very few examples of fossil remains that are morphologically distinct from one another, with no evidence of the co-existence of different "Darwinian dead-end" variants. Some paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the overlap is speculative at this point. No favourable change means no lasting change. But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes. A minute morphological change, such as the number of fingers or the presence of an extra thumb ought to be in evidence, showing some proof of non-viable changes. But, there are no gross morphological changes to proto-humans or humans that show such shifts. We don't see fossil records of hominids with four arms or four legs, or no neck, or ten fingers to the hand. Even the earliest proto-humans all have the same gross morphological pattern. I believe this indicates that something other than gradual evolutionary change is at work. Changes do not necessarily result in morphological differences. Indeed. There is a single species of iguana that swims - all others are dry land creatures. The swimmer evolved as a result of a change in habitat from a change in ocean levels. It lost its food supply and survived by learning how to swim and feed on the bottom of the ocean. Only an expert can visually tell the difference between the swimming and dry land species, since the morphology is much the same. Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution. The marine iguana has not "de-evolved" into an aquatic form with gills, for example. Nor has the land iguana evolved intellectually to a tool-using species, despite millions of years of opportunity to do so. Can you explain this lack of evolution? In the Amazon, there are flowering plants that produce a toxin used by the Yanomami to hunt and fish (by putting the toxin on their spear and dart points). There are two species - one that produces a strong toxin and one that produces a weak one. There are _no_ morphological differences between the two. Evolution isn't just about morphology. True, but not really relevant. The question is how many millions of years does it take for a shark to evolve intelligence, communication and tool-using capacity? Evidently, 400 million years isn't enough for sharks, while 1.8 million years is enough for hominids. Please explain why evolution evidently doesn't apply to sharks, but does to hominids. As Rick has pointed out, Darwin did not observe constant change - he observed statis. He observed that when an environment changes, an organism _may_ change to match its new environment. This is due to DNA mutations or recombinations that produce a favourable result in the new environment. Once that match has established, there is not reason to change again and the organism retains its current characteristics. And yet there is a universe of "favorable change" out there for any organism to take advantage of that would provide a Darwinian leg up. For marine iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of whales and dolphins) and thus band together to obtain resources (food) ought to have occurred sometime in the 400 million years they've been "evolving." In both cases, the lack of evidence of evolution casts doubt on your theory, and indeed the entire theory of incremental evolution. And here's another little conundrum: Even if the theory of evolution is true, it does not preclude the possibility of intelligent design. What prevents such an intelligence from creating evolution? If, as some posit, that intelligence is capable of creating matter and formulating the physical properties of matter, creating DNA based evolution would hardly be a stretch. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weiser says:
================ The difference between the US system and socialized medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost. ================= OK, if that's your definition of socialized medicine, then Canada definitely does NOT qualify. Weiser says: ================== I think public schools are a big waste of money, and that people should seek out and pay for private school education for their children. =============== I might agree in those cases where football and cheerleading are the primary learning outcomes. Weiser says: =============== It is acceptable, however, for the federal and state government to supply funds to local schools...if they have no control over the use of the funds or control over teaching. =============== Yeah, and pigs might fly. What level of government is going to turn over huge wads of money only to let another level of government control that spending -- with no strings attached? This is NOT a matter of political conviction or a left-right thing. Your proposition is just not reality. In the long term, no government is going to dole out money with no accountabilty and without their finger in the pie. Weiser says: ================ Besides, public education is entirely different from health care. The costs of public education are easily calculable and controllable, ================== So, your point is what? That because figuring costs out in healthcare is difficult, we'll just not do healthcare. Wouldn't it be better to establish a metric for healthcare if that's an issue for you. Is that the Scott Weiser prescription: "If it's too hard to figure out, we won't do it." frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Science probably can either prove or disprove the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to the point that we can identify the concept. Religions define their gods quite well. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You're grasping at straws here. Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from science fiction. And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard. Nor does it disprove it. Thank you for restating what I keep on saying. You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your intellectual credibility somewhat. Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract concept than proof. This is weiser at his absurd best. Are you saying that evidence is equivalent to proof? Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to suspect some factor other than random chance is involved. Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible. No one suggested it was. Simple logic tells us that if it's improbable, it cannot therefore be impossible. What does your inaccurate statement have to do with anything? If it occurs, nothing changes. Another logical failure. If something "occurs," there is, ipso facto, "change." If you are overly focused on the probability, The question is whether I am overly focused or whether you are insufficiently focused. then you start searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding. Um...that's called "scientific inquiry." When one does not understand something, one examines evidence and uses reason to come to a better understanding. If there is a legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the "intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of the dice. Incorrect. Intelligent design does not posit a single roll of the dice. Nothing in the concept of "God" precludes active intervention in the process or a long, complex "programming period" before the experiment is left to run. The concept of Intelligent Design is little different than any science experiment where the preconditions are created, the process set in motion, and the results observed and tabulated. It merely posits that God works on a somewhat larger scale. less energy dense fuel than oil The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of transporting energy. It's both, technically. It doesn't address an energy problem, only a portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s) of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not a solution. That depends on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. If the problem is one of energy availability, I agree. If however the problem is one of pollution, then the energy expended in producing the fuel goes towards the pollution budget of the system. If one can create hydrogen by fracturing water with electricity produced by solar panels, then the pollution budget may be lessened, if the production of the panels can be kept "clean" too. Since the major concern is CO2 and hydrocarbon emissions, the use of hydrogen as a fuel, although less efficient than oil, provides substantial pollution budget reductions, though at not inconsiderable costs associated with producing the fuel. It all depends on what we're trying to accomplish. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself rick wrote:
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM: snippage.. Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why not just admit that? =========== Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur. http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the differences between the haves and the have-nots. http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states. snip... Thanks for doing the homework. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
rick says:
============= Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================ Rather, take a look at more meaningful statistics, like infant mortality. Rank Country Rate 1 Hong Kong 3.2 2 Sweden 3.5 3 Japan 3.6 4 Norway 4.0 5 Finland 4.1 6 Singapore 4.2 7 France 4.6 7 Germany 4.6 9 Denmark 4.7 10 Switzerland 4.8 11 Austria 4.9 12 Australia 5.0 13 Netherlands 5.2 13 Czech Republic 5.2 15 Canada 5.3 15 Italy 5.3 17 Scotland 5.5 17 New Zealand 5.5 19 Belgium 5.6 19 Northern Ireland 5.6 21 England and Wales 5.7 21 Greece 5.7 21 Israel 5.7 21 Spain 5.7 25 Portugal 5.9 26 Ireland 6.2 27 Cuba 7.1 28 UNITED STATES 7.2 29 Slovakia 8.8 30 Kuwait2 9.4 OK, given the wonders of privatized medicine, I'm curious why we don't find the USA at the top of this list. I don't know about Hong Kong, but the next 25 nations all have some form of "nationalized" medicine. What say you, rick? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases. No, they come looking like refugees, You're making this up as you go along. You still provide no proof. Don't blame anyone for your problems. I'm not blaming anyone, Then quit whining. You have a problem - fix it and get out of everyone else's face. But the whole point is that I want to get IN your face and force YOU to fix it by threatening your economy. It's so much cheaper and more economical to do it that way than to try to close the border. Case in point: the terrorist with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. One example vs the twenty plus that came into the US directly from Saudi Arabia. The problem is still yours. It's your problem too, which you will someday come to find out. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: =================== Which is fine so long as the government isn't artificially limiting wages, as it does in socialized medicine. =========================== The government, in theory, can artificially limit wages. The government, in theory, can murder all the Jews. Strawman. In practice, doctors in Canada know how clout they have. They act as anyone with power acts (they've learned well from trade unons): they withhold services. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. And they continue to withhold services until the fee schedule looks like they want it to look. And patients get sick and die as a result. So, it is the marketplace insifar as there is a marketplace when one party holds monopoly power. The doctors play a significant role in determining how much they get paid. Doctors can go on "strike" and they have done so -- because they're doctors, they never call it anything nearly so crass as a "strike", but the net effect is the same. Thanks for proving my point. Doctors in the US don't go on strike because they are not granted a government controlled monopoly. If one doctor locks his doors because he's unhappy with his income, patients just find another doctor. Up there, if the doctors get testy, everybody suffers. There's no need to hold any tag days for doctors up in Canada, Scott; they're doing just fine. While the patients get sick and die as a result. Weiser says: ==================== Compared to US doctors? Please. ======================= That begs the question: could it be that American doctors are overpaid? Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are worth. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs. Before you fret about what that reduction would do to the population, take a look at the rate at which Americans waste food. Why? It's our food, we can waste it if we want. Fact is that the US is the largest exporter of food aid to other nations on the planet, and has been for a long, long time. As well, consider the volume of produce from California that is exported (at a cost to the US taxpayer, due to subsidies to allow CA to compete with 3rd world countries on price). Which brings money to the US and stimulates the economy. California's agricultural production could be reduced considerably with no negative effect on Americans, but that would free up water for other uses. Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have in mind? Supporting your plastic boat? That's an inefficient use of a valuable resource. Your recreational desires are way down the priority list. And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the production is stopped. Let the desert go back to desert. Why? We have the capability to make it bloom, so why shouldn't we? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
rick says:
============= Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================ Again, I prefer to look at more meaningful statistics. Let's look at life expectancies. Out of 8 countries (USA, UK, Canada, Germany, Mexico, France, Italy, and Japan) the USA ranks 7th in both men and women's life expectancies. The USA does fare better than Mexico on this measure, however. Since you're comparing, Canada ranks 4th among these nations for women and 2nd place for men. What in hell is going on here, rick?! This is all wrong! The conventional wisdom just screams that the USA should be at the top of the list. Somebody must be ****ing around with the statistics, eh? frtzw906 ========== |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: You have it exactly backwards. All powers not *specifically* reserved to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people. Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate your claim that US states have more power. Look it up yourself. It's in the Amendments section. As far as US states having more power than EU countries. please identify which US states have their own seats in the UN, and on various international bodies reserved for countries. All 50 US states have seats, through the federal government. Frankly, I would just as soon the US had no seat (and nothing to do with) either the WTO or the UN. Your clueless rambling is getting tedious. And yet you just can't stop...Netwit. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: =============== Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force ================ And you actually believe this!!!??? Indeed. Care to identify this "secret police" force? The FBI? Nope...nothing "secret" about them. How about the CIA? Nope...not police at all, having no authority to arrest anyone. The NSA? Wrong again, they just collect intelligence data. The Secret Service? Sorry, you lose. They're not secret either. So, who, exactly, is the "US Secret Police?" Today you've really got me in stitches ROTFL. STOP! And your rant about taking out human and material targets -- PRICELESS! Why thank you. Please go on underestimating me, I'm much safer that way. You are one funny guy. When you don't do humor, do you have a day job? But of course. Several in fact. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
rick says:
================ Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US. ================= rick, you wanted to play a statistical game. Here's a tip, next time, before you try that tactic, know what the statistics say in advance (and don't use them if they make you out to be the fool). On healthcare spending: On a per capita basis (1998) USA - $4178 Canada - $2312, Sweden - $1746... Crissakes, rick, this can't be right!!! All that money, and the highly touted privatized medical system to boot, and the USA still can't beat Canada on any meaningful statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality. Playing this game with you, rick, is like Canada playing the USA in hockey: you lose before you've even laced up your skates. rick, I look forward to the next big load of health (Or education. Or crime. etc) statistics you want to bring up. At the risk of mixing my metaphors (hockey to baseball), I feel confident that I'll blast them out of the park as well. cheers, frtzw906 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com