Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

We do!? Not sure why that would be funny even if true. Perhaps you
were thinking of Kerry's meeting in Paris with North Vietnameses leaders
while the VN war was still going on, but I haven't heard him referred to
by the term "commie" even when that was being discussed in recent days.
I guess the funny thing is that the only 2 times I've seen or heard the
word "commie" probably in the last 5 years was right in this thread by
left-wingers. But what's funny about calling someone (i.e., China or
North Korea) who's a communist a commie? I mean, yeah Rush refers to
the Chinese as the Chi-Coms, but that's kind of catchy, and OK, maybe a
little funny. But the term commie being funny? I guess I don't
understand your point.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I appreciate that, Art. She's now married and has a son, and is the
picture of health.

I'll take your word for it. That is unfortunate. Again, not making
excuses for them, but you will find glaring examples of human
fallibility no matter what the system. I guess you have to ask which
system has the best balance of oversight and correction of problems, and
still get results at a reasonable cost. I would agree with you that we
are far from the ideal (similar to what Churchill said about Democracy
being "...the worst form of government except for all the others").

 

You are correct with regards to how I posted what I posted.

What my logic was that moron juries deciding the financial settlement
are the source of the problem. What I had intended was the notion
that although we should still retain the Jury system for the
guilt/innocence aspect, financial awards should be determined by
financial experts.
(to prevent the "grandma groin splash cash pay outs").

I don't think that most of us in this group would begrudge the old
lady some compensation. I just think that for most of us a "sorry
here's a free coffee" & we'll pay part of your medical bills should
have sufficed"

 

First of all, it's funny because it shows the user has no
understanding of what Communism really is. Secondly, it's extremely
funny because it's so "1950s Red Scare".

 

OK - so you and the only other person here who used the word "commie"
(before my post), according to you, apparetnly don't understand what
communism is. Fair enough. So what does that have to do with the fact
that rightwingers aren't using the term, but you are, and somehow that
reflects on a lack of understanding of rightwingers.

I guess I just don't get it, but then, that's OK.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Oy. Here we go with the "layers of the onion" routine again. Y'know how
onions, if you have 'em around long enough, shrivel up, turn black and
generally are no longer good for anything? This onion's done that.

Which is your way of noticing that society evolves. Very good. You'd
obviously prefer we picked an arbitrary year (or "layer of the onion") and
froze society's evolution at that point. So, which layer would it be,
Bill? Using your own "layers of the onion" argument:

-The strikedown of slavery was a layer of the onion peeled off by the
liberals.

-Allowing women to vote was a layer of the onion peeled off by the
liberals.

-The establishment of the Social Security system was a layer of the onion
peeled off by the liberals.

-Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus, eat at the same lunch
counters, drink at the same water fountains and attend the same schools as
whites, vote, and do other nifty stuff like that was a layer of the onion
peeled off by the liberals.

-Making it legal for a woman of one skin color to marry a man of a
different skin color was a layer of the onion peeled off by the liberals.

-The removal of lead from gasoline and the promulgation of antipollution
laws was a layer of the onion peeled off by the liberals.

So, Bill, which of these layers would you have preferred left unpeeled?

....None of them? Why, then, should we hold your opinion on any current or
future "layers of the onion" in any authority whatsoever?

 

And it's *not* funny because it discloses the utterly pathetic state of
many Americans' political and historical knowledge. It's depressing how
many Americans conflate Socialism and Communism, for instance.

 

Discrediting the analogy like that doesn't make the analogy any less
valid. You and others say similar things about "slippery slope"
arguments. That doesn't mean that certain social trends aren't indeed
slippery slopes.

The only onion I was referring to was the "Socialism" onion. That has
nothing to do with race, or women voting, or slavery, or interracial
marriage...

We were talking about socialism - *that* onion - in particular. The
socialized medicine layer has been peeled in other countries, and so we
don't need to run that irreversible experiment again to see that it will
fail. Just because a layer is there does not mean that it is imperative
that it be peeled, though the nature of mankind is to feel compelled to
peel all layers without regard to their benefit or harm - the opening of
the proverbial Pandora's Box, so to speak (add that to the 'peeling of
the onion' and the 'slippery slope' clichés). 8^)

As far as social security: I will have considered that a success if it
proves to be self sustaining and able to return to each generation at
least the same dollar worth (adjusted for inflation) as they put in (as
with any good investment, rather than a net loss). As far as I am
concerned, it is a very empty promise, and a fraudulent system,
especially the way it is routinely raided for unrelated government
obligations not related to paying back those who paid into it (i.e., it
is literally stolen from them). It is a corrupt system - and I fault
both parties for that. Add to that that the retirement age is creeping
up and up and up, and I am one pissed off puppy. The next generation
will be even more pissed off. There are some social scholars that
predict the possibility of severe retribution being taken out on our
generation by the next one when they realize what their future will be
as far as retirement, or perhaps by the generation after that on that
one. I forget what the predicted ratios of working supporting
non-working will be in not too many years - something like 1 working to
sustain 2 or 3 non-working (retired, disabled, etc.)? That's scary.
(And that wouldn't be the case if what that generation had put in had
not been literally stolen out from under them.) So much for the empty
promise of social security. But like a bad drug habit, society is
addicted to it (why I call such changes 'irreversible' - because they
are). Can't live with it, can't live without it.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I didn't know that Abe was a liberal...

And the first step down the road towards socialism. And this system is
only a handful of decades away from bankrupting us.


Matt

 

Yep, because they are logical fallacies. Always have been. It's
disingenuous and specious to argue based on what might occur at some point
in the future, unless you've got a crystal ball you're not telling us
about.

This time. You used the same "onion" analogy with regards to gay marriage
not long ago in this same forum. It appears to be your catch-all.

 

California peeled the onion of deregulation of electrical energy. Ended up
being one hell of a slippery slope. LOL.

 

The entire country is near bankruptcy due to Bush policies.

 

The article indicates it was closed. Perhaps they just delayed outfitting
it. Anyway, who cares.

 

Two issues here. 1) Social Security won't bankrupt the system. They
will just remove coverage just like any insurance system. Kiss the
notion of age based retirement and medical coverage good bye.

2) Bush & Putin's policies aren't focused on money. It's power.

Do you really think that Putin would have his power if Chechen
fighters were negotiated into a peaceful settlement years ago?

Likewise, would most Americans stand for "Homeland Security" and other
power grabs by the Bush Whitehouse if 9/11 hadn't happened?

American's boast about a "free democracy" but given the right
motivation they'll vote in a dictator in a heartbeat with the support
of the senate & congress. As for the Media? Fifth estate my ass,
they're aiding & abetting the jokers 100%

Putin recently said:
"We showed weakness, and weak people are beaten."
He's basically saying that he's going to grab more power and do what
he needs to do to keep it.

Odd that the US, once a champion of human rights hasn't said squat
about what's happening there and what is about to happen.

Lets see... "Dirty Jews in Nazi German".... Kurds in Iraq,....
Chechen's in Russia..... "Persons of interest (AKA muslims)" in the
USA....... Same process... different labels....

For those that think I support Kerry, think again. Kerry has yet to
come out against "homeland security" world abuse of power etc.

Want to do something for fun?
Google "Prescott Bush Nazi bank" Then:
Google: "Bush Bin Laden Texas"

Are you now happy that the USA is the worlds remaining Super Power?

 

Well, deregulating wasn't the only variable they messed with. Tney also
forbid new power generation plants being built. Throw those two factors
(one a serious indepenedent variable, the other a dependent variable)
into the loop, and the results that they obtained in an otherwise free
market system was inevitable. Yet they acted surprised, hurt, and
victimized when the inevitable, caused by their own actions, happened.

So - yes - opening the loop of an otherwise self-regulating closed loop
system without anticipating or compensating for the inevitable
consequences is, as you put it, "one hell of a slippery slope". Can
you say "Duh!".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Nah! Not even close.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Oh yes - those over-100 mean ol' school children in Russia deserved what
those wonderful freedom-loving Chechen Islamists did to them. You gotta
be kidding! (except I suspect you're not) That wasn't collateral
damage. That was out-and-out deliberate murder.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I don't think that the children/teachers/parents deserved it at all.

I believe that my point is that unless we look to the past and demand
better foresighted leadership from our political leaders we will see
more, and more vicious examples of this barbarity propagated upon the
innocent populations.

The historical context is to show you what is going on now is hardly
new or original

"Money is power." Money in your hands is power in you. In the hands of
the Government, it gives the Government power OVER you. Governments
never use unlimited money for good. They quickly convert it to
unlimited power. And unlimited power in Government is oppression for
all.
ANDREWS, T. COLEMAN "

 

Watching the evening news and came across this which made me think of
your posting. Thought you might enjoy:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094345351321_7/?hub=Canada
Sat. Sep. 4 2004 11:15 PM ET

Hospital didn't help ill people enter facility
CTV.ca News Staff

A British.Columbia Canadian. family believes their daughter died
because of hospital bureaucracy.
Two weeks ago, Jessica Peace -- a mother of one -- had a drug
reaction, stopped breathing and died in hospital.
Her uncle, Jim Roberts, took her to the Peace Arch hospital in White
Rock -- but not into the hospital. And he thinks she'd still be alive
if not for the delay in getting her emergency care.
"I honestly don't know why I didn't carry her in, but I thought when
you went to a hospital they helped you," he said.
When he arrived at the hospital, he left her in the car, ran inside
and begged for help.
"'My niece is in the car. She's not breathing. I need help,'" was his
recollection. "She says, 'I'm sorry sir, you'll have to call an
ambulance.'"
Roberts was handed a phone and the desk clerk dialed 9-1-1. "I said,
'that's crazy.' She said, 'that's our policy, sir.'"
The Peace Arch hospital insists it's not a policy, but that having
paramedics to assist is necessary sometimes. "Removing somebody from
an automobile and putting them on a stretcher, you need at least two
people to do that," said Don Bower of the Fraser Health Authority.

The hospital said a nurse eventually did go out and give Jessica CPR
while she was still in the car.

It agrees Roberts shouldn't have had to call for an ambulance himself
and it is investigating the matter -- the second such investigation in
just over a year.

In May 2003, an 88-year-old man died of cardiac arrest just outside
the hospital's doors. Even the RCMP complained it took to long to get
the victim help.

"It can't go on like this. More people are going to die," Roberts
said, adding, "it's not the first time something like this has
happened."

Lisa Trewern can vouch for that, saying, "the same thing happened to
me when I took my mom to the hospital on April 3."

She said her mother had severe abdominal pains. While her mother
survived, Trewern said she now regrets not having formally reported
the matter: "They weren't willing to help me until I got through the
doors."
Jessica Peace's family is considering legal action while they take
care of her son.
With a report from CTV's Sarah Galashan

If a Lawyer was called in April 3, would the two subsequent deaths
have been as likely?

 

Oh and I suppose crooks running Enron had nothing to do with their energy
problems. Give me a break.