|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2009 14:03:46 -0400, Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledocom> wrote:
>In article <vetd859ck606o6toknp94lhicmg1c9kqud@4ax.com>,
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> and to criticise it is un-American.
>
>That's not so bad. When you really cross the border, you get called
>anti-American (or communist!).
>
It was at one time, re The House Committee on Un-American Activities.
>``When I was back there in seminary school...'' I used to laugh with
>friends by calling other people like this:
>
> HE'S A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!
>
We used to call people Tories. :) But then I'm from an area where we revelled in
the name "Red Clydesiders"
>Everyone who disagreed with us was a communist. I had a good friend
>who talked about socialist ideas. We always called him ``A
>COMMUNIST!!!'' --- sometimes very loud in the middle of the grocery
>store! It was so much fun. I had no idea in those days how
>effectively-horrible it was to call someone names like that.
>
Lucky he wasn't lynched.
>> OK that is a bit simplistic, I know but that is what I read.
>
>When things get complicated, it's either because you're writing
>povray, or Haskell, or C++, ... or defending the establishment!
I wouldn't know about the last three :D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Bastos wrote:
> In article <4a8572e9$1@news.povray.org>,
> Invisible wrote:
>
>>>> (I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes
>>>> sense...)
>>> While the pages are humoristic, the "pure capitalism" actually *does*
>>> make sense to me:
>>>
>>> "You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."
>>>
>>> That's rational behavior, looking towards the future and welfare.
>> Well, that's true I guess.
>
> It makes perfect sense. But we don't have free trade. The most
> capitalist countries intervene heavily on trades.
The key issue, which a lot of people who are pure Libertarian fail to
quite grasp, is that a) in a completely free system, you have no way of
knowing if what they are selling you is what they claim it is, and b)
intervention is only possible *after* they kill you with it. We see this
in the nearly 100% free and open system of altie medicines. 90% of it
doesn't do anything, 2% of it is being looked at semi-seriously as
possible new medicine, 3% is pure placebo, and thus ethically unusable,
and the other 5% is bought from other countries, or other untested,
unexamined, and unreliable sources, with the result that it can end up
with anything from copy cat pharmaceuticals (many *herbal suppliments*
from China had those in them), to actual poisons, including arsenic
levels, such as some "holy water" currently being sold, not here, but in
some parts of the Middle East, which are well above *safe* levels.
You can't have a free and 100% open system, for the same reason that
Communism is gibberish. People cheat, either by taking short cuts,
selling things that are not what they claim, or even by trying to make a
short term gain, while hoping that their poison will kill off anyone
that might otherwise report on their cheating. In a communist system
this means that some percentage will "need" things they can't have, and
therefor won't be able to innovate with them, while others will not
*produce* what is needed to maintain the rest. In a capitalist system,
it means people will sell you dog shit and call it donuts, if they think
they can get by with it, and without someone to stop them, they can just
move on before you can catch up with them, and they don't care, since
*they* made a profit, and you where a fool for not checking, while
others... will steal, lie, and bargain their way up the ladder, which is
"almost" as easy as just not bothering to do the work, and getting stuff
for free anyway, under the other system.
In either system, you end up having to have people, whose job is to make
sure that "other" people are doing their jobs. At that point, you no
longer have either a pure capitalist or pure communist system.
In the case of China.. They tried to run "both" government and economy
that way, and it failed, so they adjusted things to provide economy that
is capitalist (more or less), while keeping the government tightly
controlled within a limited set of interests, and equal to everyone. In
reality, this isn't true though, since they do elect which group is in
charge, making it a variation of a republic, and the only "major"
difference between them and other such republics is that their parties
tend to all fall on one side of the line, with respect to how they do
things. Sort of the way that, in the US, the Democrats are drifting more
and more right, in an attempt to find "common ground" with a party that
is being overrun by people that the founders would have considered
little better than the king we got rid of.
Heck, one of the wackos they "hired" as a leader of a US mercenary unit,
to fight in Iraq, has even gone so far as to claim, publicly, that
democracy is a failure, and that rich people are rich because they where
ordained by god to rule over poor people. [sarc]It sounds strangely
familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on where *that* idea was last
seen in the world...[/sarc] And, Chenney.. what can you possibly say
about a man that is writing a book in which he claims Bush "went soft on
him", in the last few years of the presidency, and stopped listening to
his advice on how to fight the evil Moslems, who some foreign power will
on day "give" a nuke too. Yikes!
But, no. China is communist only in the sense that their parties
"currently" have a very narrow set of ideas they subscribe to, a limited
number of opinions, and still have a strong stance on certain things
that have been traditionally the key factors that such "communist"
systems have both apposed, and failed to rid themselves of, a) religion,
b) non-conformity, and c) what ever they define as "morally
questionable". In China's case this tends to be, well.. religions,
speaking against the government, and porn.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain _to_national_health_care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 15:23:41
Message: <4a870b3d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.
No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is
happening.
1. Right wing republicans showing up at townhalls to "lie" about both
being republicans (and in one case the leader of the local republican
party), and what the bill says.
2. Certain politicians, like Palin, making shit up, like the death
panels. Ironically while having refused to fund health care in her own
state, while under a budget surplus, resulting in the death of 224
people, who died *waiting* for reassessment of whether or not they even
needed more medical help. Part of the Alaskan system is **still** not
funded by government money any more, because they placed a moratorium on
*any* funding at all from the fed, until they fixed the problems, and
part of the Alaskan system is still failing to meet the standards
required to reinstate such federal programs.
3. An odd sort of political mess in the party at the moment, which has
left even people that Obama stated, on national TV, as "working to find
a solution", popping up less than 24 hours later to *repeat* the same
death panel lie.
4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which
was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich,
powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince
that runs Blackwater, and currently under investigation for war crimes
(including shooting Iraqi women and children because they where Muslims,
instead of Christians), are putting out "fake" reports on what the bill
actually says, all of it carefully crafted to look like its designed to
rob people of health care, kill their grandparents, and steal their money.
Truth is, the current "leadership" of the Republican party doesn't want
*any* reform. They have no proposals of their own, they made no attempt
while in the majority to make reforms at all, and when confronted with
the possibility of being seen siding with Obama, they immediately
reverse their apparent positions, and start repeating the lies and
idiocy of the party line. Worse, we have no way of knowing how many are
like the people in #4, but we know Cheney likely hand picked Blackwater
(or took someone else's suggestion to do so), and that at least *some*
unknown number of senators belong to the C Street church, whose views
are *basically* the same as Eric Prince's, that they are ordained to
rule, their religion is the only right one, there is a strict social
order, which includes the poor, non-whites, and women, below everyone
else, and that democracy actually doesn't work, because more of *them*
are not in power.
Not sure which is worse, that the entire Republican leadership might be
these people at this point, or that the ones that are not can't tell the
difference between a cobra and a rattlesnake, of which these wackos are
the former, while the other right wingers are of the *slightly* less
dangerous rattlesnake variety.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain _to_national_health_care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 15:30:20
Message: <4a870ccc$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.
I think there are some unspoken fears that do not come out in the media
'debate', and may provide a clue to the mystery. One fear is that with
anything 'government-run' the government must be especially
non-descriminatory in the hiring and manangement of its workforce. So
there is the fear that somehow the *dispensation* of healthcare would
become similar to the US Post Office euphanistically speaking. It is
interesting how this racist fear ends up getting directed at the
President directly.
I offer this after I assume you are aware of the known 'currents' in the
opposition: the money trail linking the organised protests and TV adds
directly to the Heath Insurance Industry, the evidence of purely
political posturing, the pure racist indignation for some that a black
man was elected, and the ideological indignation for others that the
'liberals' won the election.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: andrel
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 16:28:22
Message: <4A871A68.5090505@hotmail.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-8-2009 18:16, somebody wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4a8640a2$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> If it didn't push people back, then yes (i.e. if there's a separate
>> system of doctors who get paid directly, and who don't deal with the
>> people normally in the line).
>>
>> The real problem may be the line. However, her jumping it likely caused
>> problems for others. How can that not be negative?
>
> Indeed. One problem with waiting lines of any sort is that it's an open
> invitation for bribery, nepotism, favouritism, racism, sexism... any any
> other kind of ism. Not to mention "class" differences (athletes get special
> treatment, zero wait times, for instance, especially in countries with
> "social" medicine). I have no doubt that the waiting times in Canada of
> poor, obese, aboriginal men for diagnosis and surgeries would on average be
> rather noticably longer than that of upper class, white, fit females, for
> instance, even if no explicit foul play is involved and when it's all
> completely subconscious.
To both of you: sure, some people get faster treatment even in systems
where they officially would be equal to other. Indeed there are lots or
ways to jump the line (a little). But why on earth should that be a
reason to reject such a system in favour of one where the less lucky
don't get treated at all?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America’s opposition to national health care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 17:02:59
Message: <4a872283@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:30:16 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> One fear is that with
> anything 'government-run' the government must be especially
> non-descriminatory in the hiring and manangement of its workforce.
This is not a bad thing, so long as it is *truly* non-discriminatory.
Unfortunately, most "non-discriminatory" policies are inherently
discriminatory themselves because they don't say "hire on the merits" but
get implemented as a quota system.
Having worked for a company that implemented this (years ago) and having
seen the particular storefront I worked in suffer because the minorities
who applied were completely unqualified for the positions, so positions
like "assistant manager" didn't get filled and the manager (a good friend
of mine to this day) had to make do with a staff of high school students
who couldn't work during the day....I can understand this concern.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 17:45:17
Message: <4a872c6d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/15/09 12:52, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:42 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>
>> Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or
>> private means).
>
> So to summarise, some Americans do not want a universal health service because
> all Americans would benefit. Even those Americans who cannot afford to pay for
Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they don't
want to be the ones left out.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain _to_national_health_care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 17:50:22
Message: <4a872d9e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/15/09 14:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the
>> majority of
>> vocal ones do.
>
>
> No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is
> happening.
Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)
The actions you describe are typical of any controversial political
issue. I'm not sure I see your point.
> 4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which
> was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich,
> powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince
Prince wasn't the founder of Focus on the Family.
I fail to see why you're bringing him into this. Has he made comments
about health care?
And just because he's a radical extremist doesn't mean he's wrong on
health care. ;-)
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition to national health care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 18:41:50
Message: <4a8739ae$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:45:21 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/15/09 12:52, Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:42 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or
>>> private means).
>>
>> So to summarise, some Americans do not want a universal health service
>> because all Americans would benefit. Even those Americans who cannot
>> afford to pay for
>
> Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they
don't
> want to be the ones left out.
I don't think Rush Limbaugh is afraid he'll be left out.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Can anyone explain America's opposition tonational health care?
Date: 15 Aug 2009 19:30:02
Message: <4a8744fa@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> It's a "punishment" in practice, even if it isn't technically one.
> If you earn more, you get taxed with a higher percentage. That discourages
> earning more in that country, especially if in a neighbouring country you
> could earn the same amount and get taxed less, in which case you get to
> keep more. Guess what happens.
Let's see...
I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with
8000 quids.
Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with
15000 quids.
So is there any incentive for me to make more money? Seems to me like
there is indeed...
> 60% in Finland.
Of the whole income? That would be an awful lot indeed, and makes more
understandable why you're talking about "punishment".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|