|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com