Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: No, Jesus was NOT a "liberal"
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 11:22:07 AM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o04u$cst$1...@dont-email.me...
Goodbye.
=====================================
Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
Goodbye.
=====================================
Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 11:25:34 AM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 9:18 AM, Dano wrote:
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
> abhorrent.
Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
What's the Canadian word for 'lousy care' by Jeremy Clarkson
While I was away, there was a big debate about how Barack Obama might
sort out America's healthcare system, which, say the critics, is
chronically awful and fantastically unfair.
It's also bonkers. I was once denied treatment at a Detroit hospital
because the receptionist's computer refused to acknowledge that the
United Kingdom existed. Even though I had a wad of cash, and a wallet
full of credit cards, she was prepared to let me explode all over her
desk because her stupid software only recognised addresses in the United
States.
Some say America should follow Canada's lead, where private care is
effectively banned. But having experienced their procedures while on
holiday in Quebec, I really don't think that's a good idea at all.
A friend's 13-year-old son tripped while climbing off a speedboat and
ripped his leg open. Things started well. The ambulance arrived
promptly, the wound was bandaged and off he went in a big, exciting van.
Now, we are all used to a bit of a wait at the hospital. God knows, I've
spent enough time in accident and emergency at Oxford's John Radcliffe
over the years, sitting with my sobbing children in a room full of
people with swords in their eyes and their feet on back to front. But
nothing can prepare you for the yawning chasm of time that passes in
Canada before the healthcare system actually does any healthcare.
It didn't seem desperately busy. One woman had lost her face somehow
probably a bear attack and one kid appeared to have taken rather too
much ecstasy, but there were no more than a dozen people in the waiting
room. And no one was gouting arterial blood all over the walls.
After a couple of hours, I asked the receptionist how long it might be
before a doctor came. In a Wal-Mart, it's quite quaint to be served by a
fat, gum-chewing teenager who claims not to understand what you're
saying, but in a hospital it's annoying. Resisting the temptation to
explain that the Marquis de Montcalm lost and that it's time to get over
it, I went back to the boy's cubicle, which he was sharing with a young
Muslim couple.
A doctor came in and said to them: "You've had a miscarriage," and then
turned to go. Understandably, the poor girl was very upset and asked if
the doctor was sure.
"Look, we've done a scan and there's nothing in there," she said, in
perhaps the worst example of a bedside manner I've ever seen.
"Is anyone coming to look at my son" asked my friend politely. "Quoi?"
said the haughty doctor, who had suddenly forgotten how to speak
English. "Je ne comprends pas." And with that, she was gone.
At midnight, a young man who had been brought up on a diet of American
music, American movies and very obviously American food, arrived to say,
in French, that the doctors were changing shift and a new one would be
along as soon as possible.
By then, it was one in the morning and my legs were becoming weary. This
is because the hospital had no chairs for relatives and friends. It's
not a lack of funds, plainly. Because they had enough money to paint a
yellow line on the road nine yards from the front door, beyond which you
were able to smoke.
And they also had the cash to employ an army of people to slam the door
in your face if you poked your head into the inner sanctum to ask how
much longer the wait might be. Sixteen hours is apparently the norm.
Unless you want a scan. Then it's 22 months.
At about 1.30am a doctor arrived. Boy, he was a piece of work. He
couldn't have been more rude if I'd been General Wolfe. He removed the
bandages like they were the packaging on a disposable razor, looked at
the wound, which was horrific, and said to my friend: "Is it cash or
credit card?"
This seemed odd in a country with no private care, but it turns out they
charge non-Canadians precisely what they would charge the government if
the patient were C?line Dion. The bill was C$300 (about ?170).
The doctor vanished, but he hadn't bothered to reapply the boy's
bandages, which meant the little lad was left with nothing to look at
except his own thigh bone. An hour later, the painkillers arrived.
What the doctor was doing in between was going to a desk and sitting
down. I watched him do it. He would go into a cubicle, be rude, cause
the patient a bit of pain and then sit down again on the hospital's only
chair.
Seven hours after the accident, in a country widely touted to be the
safest and best in the world, he applied 16 stitches that couldn't have
been less neat if he'd done them on a battlefield, with twigs. And then
the anaesthetist arrived to wake the boy up. In French. This didn't
work, so she went away to sit on the doctor's chair because he was in
another cubicle bring rude and causing pain to someone else.
Now, I appreciate that any doctor who ends up working the night shift at
a provincial hospital in Nowheresville is unlikely to be at the top of
his game, and you can't judge a country?s healthcare on his piss-poor
performance. And nor should all of Canada be judged on Quebec, which is
full of idealistic, language-Nazi lunatics.
But I can say this. If private treatment had been allowed, my friend
would have paid for it. He would have received better service and in
doing so, allowed Dr Useless to get to the woman with no face or ecstasy
boy more quickly. Though I suspect he would have used our absence to
spend more time sitting down.
The other thing I can say is that Britain's National Health Service is a
monster that we can barely afford. But in all the times I've ever used
the big, flawed giant, no one has ever pretended to be French, no one
has spent more time swiping my credit card than ordering painkillers and
there are many chairs.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6814702.ece
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
> abhorrent.
Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
What's the Canadian word for 'lousy care' by Jeremy Clarkson
While I was away, there was a big debate about how Barack Obama might
sort out America's healthcare system, which, say the critics, is
chronically awful and fantastically unfair.
It's also bonkers. I was once denied treatment at a Detroit hospital
because the receptionist's computer refused to acknowledge that the
United Kingdom existed. Even though I had a wad of cash, and a wallet
full of credit cards, she was prepared to let me explode all over her
desk because her stupid software only recognised addresses in the United
States.
Some say America should follow Canada's lead, where private care is
effectively banned. But having experienced their procedures while on
holiday in Quebec, I really don't think that's a good idea at all.
A friend's 13-year-old son tripped while climbing off a speedboat and
ripped his leg open. Things started well. The ambulance arrived
promptly, the wound was bandaged and off he went in a big, exciting van.
Now, we are all used to a bit of a wait at the hospital. God knows, I've
spent enough time in accident and emergency at Oxford's John Radcliffe
over the years, sitting with my sobbing children in a room full of
people with swords in their eyes and their feet on back to front. But
nothing can prepare you for the yawning chasm of time that passes in
Canada before the healthcare system actually does any healthcare.
It didn't seem desperately busy. One woman had lost her face somehow
probably a bear attack and one kid appeared to have taken rather too
much ecstasy, but there were no more than a dozen people in the waiting
room. And no one was gouting arterial blood all over the walls.
After a couple of hours, I asked the receptionist how long it might be
before a doctor came. In a Wal-Mart, it's quite quaint to be served by a
fat, gum-chewing teenager who claims not to understand what you're
saying, but in a hospital it's annoying. Resisting the temptation to
explain that the Marquis de Montcalm lost and that it's time to get over
it, I went back to the boy's cubicle, which he was sharing with a young
Muslim couple.
A doctor came in and said to them: "You've had a miscarriage," and then
turned to go. Understandably, the poor girl was very upset and asked if
the doctor was sure.
"Look, we've done a scan and there's nothing in there," she said, in
perhaps the worst example of a bedside manner I've ever seen.
"Is anyone coming to look at my son" asked my friend politely. "Quoi?"
said the haughty doctor, who had suddenly forgotten how to speak
English. "Je ne comprends pas." And with that, she was gone.
At midnight, a young man who had been brought up on a diet of American
music, American movies and very obviously American food, arrived to say,
in French, that the doctors were changing shift and a new one would be
along as soon as possible.
By then, it was one in the morning and my legs were becoming weary. This
is because the hospital had no chairs for relatives and friends. It's
not a lack of funds, plainly. Because they had enough money to paint a
yellow line on the road nine yards from the front door, beyond which you
were able to smoke.
And they also had the cash to employ an army of people to slam the door
in your face if you poked your head into the inner sanctum to ask how
much longer the wait might be. Sixteen hours is apparently the norm.
Unless you want a scan. Then it's 22 months.
At about 1.30am a doctor arrived. Boy, he was a piece of work. He
couldn't have been more rude if I'd been General Wolfe. He removed the
bandages like they were the packaging on a disposable razor, looked at
the wound, which was horrific, and said to my friend: "Is it cash or
credit card?"
This seemed odd in a country with no private care, but it turns out they
charge non-Canadians precisely what they would charge the government if
the patient were C?line Dion. The bill was C$300 (about ?170).
The doctor vanished, but he hadn't bothered to reapply the boy's
bandages, which meant the little lad was left with nothing to look at
except his own thigh bone. An hour later, the painkillers arrived.
What the doctor was doing in between was going to a desk and sitting
down. I watched him do it. He would go into a cubicle, be rude, cause
the patient a bit of pain and then sit down again on the hospital's only
chair.
Seven hours after the accident, in a country widely touted to be the
safest and best in the world, he applied 16 stitches that couldn't have
been less neat if he'd done them on a battlefield, with twigs. And then
the anaesthetist arrived to wake the boy up. In French. This didn't
work, so she went away to sit on the doctor's chair because he was in
another cubicle bring rude and causing pain to someone else.
Now, I appreciate that any doctor who ends up working the night shift at
a provincial hospital in Nowheresville is unlikely to be at the top of
his game, and you can't judge a country?s healthcare on his piss-poor
performance. And nor should all of Canada be judged on Quebec, which is
full of idealistic, language-Nazi lunatics.
But I can say this. If private treatment had been allowed, my friend
would have paid for it. He would have received better service and in
doing so, allowed Dr Useless to get to the woman with no face or ecstasy
boy more quickly. Though I suspect he would have used our absence to
spend more time sitting down.
The other thing I can say is that Britain's National Health Service is a
monster that we can barely afford. But in all the times I've ever used
the big, flawed giant, no one has ever pretended to be French, no one
has spent more time swiping my credit card than ordering painkillers and
there are many chairs.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6814702.ece
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 11:26:15 AM8/30/12
to
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 11:38:45 AM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0mf$e28$4...@dont-email.me...
=======================================
Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
moments ago.
Fucking hilarious!
Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
moments ago.
Fucking hilarious!
Jim T.
Aug 30, 2012, 11:49:10 AM8/30/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:25:34 -0600, skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 9:18 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>>
>>> ======================================
>>>
>>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>>> know how that works out for you.
>>>
>>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
>Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
>
>http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
>
>What's the Canadian word for 'lousy care' by Jeremy Clarkson
As far as health care horror stories go, this one's pretty mild.
>On 8/30/2012 9:18 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>>
>>> ======================================
>>>
>>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>>> know how that works out for you.
>>>
>>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
>Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
>
>http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
>
>What's the Canadian word for 'lousy care' by Jeremy Clarkson
Surely you can do better.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 11:43:49 AM8/30/12
to
"skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o0l7$e28$3...@dont-email.me...
>>
>
> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
> abhorrent.
Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
===========================================
Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
>>
>
> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
> abhorrent.
Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 11:47:27 AM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0aq$e28$1...@dont-email.me...
Which nation and culture are you from then?
================================
Who gives a flying fuck and why should we?
Which nation and culture are you from then?
================================
Who gives a flying fuck and why should we?
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 11:50:27 AM8/30/12
to
"Jim T." wrote in message
news:jp2v38h0l9qal7c9o...@4ax.com...
======================================
Awesome fucking source though you must admit. Bodybuilding.com forum. I
never would have thought to look there.
news:jp2v38h0l9qal7c9o...@4ax.com...
Awesome fucking source though you must admit. Bodybuilding.com forum. I
never would have thought to look there.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 12:24:41 PM8/30/12
to
Do you need a spanking of your own, libitard?
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 12:25:30 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 9:43 AM, Dano wrote:
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o0l7$e28$3...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
> Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o0l7$e28$3...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
> Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 12:26:57 PM8/30/12
to
relevant.
If the bait was simply using that to launch the typical intolerant
atheistic diatribe, then be on notice that the charade is now concluded
and the motivations of the respondent fully vetted.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 12:28:10 PM8/30/12
to
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html
I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized
healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have
never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our
government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The
following stories, told in second person and based on my personal
experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal
warning to Americans.
Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of
six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at
the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new
patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything
when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go
through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is
not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly
told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on
several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors� offices.
Finally, a receptionist tells you that, while the doctor is still
accepting new patients, he requires a full medical history and an
interview with each family member before you can be added to his roster
of patients. Based on the questions asked during the interviews, you
come to understand that he is screening out sick or potentially sick
people. You are all healthy, fortunately, so he takes you on as
patients. Others are just out of luck.
There is a chronic shortage of doctors in Canada because price controls
on doctors� salaries have resulted in a "brain drain" where the best and
brightest practice medicine in the U.S. and elsewhere, after being
educated in Canada. In addition, the Canadian government cut medical
school enrollment in half in the 1990s as a "cost-cutting measure,"
making the problem of doctor shortages much worse.
Next, imagine that all of a sudden your six-year-old begins showing what
seems to be signs of an appendicitis attack, shortly after recuperating
from chicken pox. You take him to a hospital emergency room and carry
him in because he is unable to walk. There is no one to help you as you
enter the building, so you must lumber along to the reception area. A
nurse interviews you for a couple of minutes, asks you for the reason
for your visit, and then takes your son�s government health card and
asks you to fill out paperwork while your son writhes in pain in your lap.
You tell the nurse that your son must be seen by a doctor immediately �
it�s an emergency! � as his condition is worsening by the minute. The
nurse tells you, stone-faced, to go and sit in the waiting room to wait
for a triage nurse. Having no choice, you do what you are told and join
twenty or so others in line in front of you. You are given nothing to
help make your son more comfortable � no damp facecloth, no bedpan for
the vomit, nothing.
When a triage nurse finally strolls in a half hour later your son is too
weak to respond to her and you begin to panic. Finally, a doctor appears
and says it�s just a "bug" and that you should not be playing "armchair
doctor" by "diagnosing" appendicitis. He orders some time-consuming
tests anyway, because you have shown him that you are very, very angry.
Six hours later the test results come back positive for appendicitis.
Your son is whisked away for an emergency appendectomy, after which the
surgeon tells you that, had the surgery been delayed by another few
minutes, he would probably have died. Your son�s appendix was gangrenous
and on the verge of bursting. It reminds you of reading in the local
news of three other people who were sent home from the emergency room,
only to have their appendices burst and die. You are grateful that you
were much more persistent and ornery than they apparently were.
Our Soviet-style emergency rooms have waiting rooms equipped with hard
metal chairs, vending machines that sell junk food, and maybe a
television in one corner. There is no access to any medical equipment,
beds, or even stretchers. In the emergency room everyone passes through
triage and is given a code based on a nurse�s cursory evaluation of
their affliction. If you are not satisfied with the "care" that is
provided there is nowhere else to go, except to an American hospital if
you are close enough to the border and can afford to pay cash. Canadians
know that if you call an ambulance you can bypass the 10�12 hour wait in
the emergency room, but this drives up the costs of healthcare even
further.
If there ever was a good fight, Americans, this is it. As we say in
Canada, "Youse guys just gotta give �er, eh!
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 12:30:30 PM8/30/12
to
But feel free to deny it was written by Clarkson, happened, etc.
that's what you pissant 'shoot the messenger' types revel in after all.
I think it was nice of tht forum to maintain the original item archived.
Now, on to some more:
Fred
Aug 30, 2012, 12:31:54 PM8/30/12
to
Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote:
>On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>> debate.
>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>> and gravity.
>> You LIED.
>It was going nowhere.
Because you're an idiot, Mike. No offense but you can't read a sentence
and understand it -- which is amusing since you're using Usenet which
doesn't have pretty pictures.
---
"Fred" is my Christian name.
FOX "News," keeping rightards infromed since 1996
>On 2012-08-29, lib_duster <clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>> debate.
>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>> and gravity.
>> You LIED.
>It was going nowhere.
Because you're an idiot, Mike. No offense but you can't read a sentence
and understand it -- which is amusing since you're using Usenet which
doesn't have pretty pictures.
---
"Fred" is my Christian name.
FOX "News," keeping rightards infromed since 1996
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 12:36:47 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 10:31 AM, Fred wrote:
> Mike Lovell<dev....@b0h0.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>>> debate.
>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>> and gravity.
>>> You LIED.
>> It was going nowhere.
>
> Because you're an idiot, Mike. No offense but you can't read a sentence
> and understand it -- which is amusing since you're using Usenet which
> doesn't have pretty pictures.
I think you are giving him an easy out.
> Mike Lovell<dev....@b0h0.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-29, lib_duster<clea...@libs.out> wrote:
>>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>>> debate.
>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>> and gravity.
>>> You LIED.
>> It was going nowhere.
>
> Because you're an idiot, Mike. No offense but you can't read a sentence
> and understand it -- which is amusing since you're using Usenet which
> doesn't have pretty pictures.
He reads, he understands, he denies.
The "belief" structure of the typical atheist is so strong, so
unflinching, so intolerant, that they can not accept one word that
contradicts them.
As such he is duty-bound to delete, deny, snip, and generally behave
like a lying POS.
It's hard-coded in that lot.
He has the intellect to argue, but only to a point - the point at which
his intellect is challenged to explore things which it doe snot care for.
§pamßušter
Aug 29, 2012, 2:51:41 AM8/29/12
to
--
SPAMMED INTO IRRELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT
"skink on sink" <l...@ar.ds> wrote in message news:k1m2dm$bak$2...@dont-email.me...
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 12:50:19 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/29/2012 7:36 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:14:52 -0700 typed
> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>> Let us start with your "right" to life. Suppose you are felled by a
>>>> grave illness. One that IS curable...but is beyond your means.
>>>> I suppose in your world view then you also have the right to die. Does
>>>> that not void your "right" to your life?
>>>
>>> Of course not. Rights - the natural, negative rights that are the only
>>> true rights - are held *against* others, including the state. You
>>> cannot possibly have a valid, positive right that compels another to
>>> undertake some action on your behalf. Legitimate rights only enjoin
>>> others from doing things *to* you; they never compel others to do
>>> anything *for* you.
>>>
>>> It is immaterial if there is a cure for whatever ails you - you do not
>>> have a right to have that cure provided to you.
>
> Rights to not apply to "commodities" - goods and services. You
> have a right to access, but not for it to be provided. E.G., your
> right to free speech does not obligate anyone to print, publish, or
> otherwise disseminate your speech.
> You have a right to life, but you do not have a right to another's
> life or labor. But the progressives aren't to clear on that concept.
> They seem to believe that they have a right to another person stuff.
> Which makes them thieves, but they don't understand how that works
> out.
There can be *no* unconditional positive rights. To do so would
infringe on the natural rights of others, thereby depriving them of
them. For example, to say people have a "right" to health care or a
"right" to food or shelter or big-screen TVs means they have the power
to compel someone else to provide them those things at the other
person's expense. That obviously is slavery.
The stated right to a thing is actually saying that one person is
morally and legally empowered to compel someone else to provide the
thing. That can never be right - never.
A positive right to something can only make sense if it's a
*conditional* right - that is, certain conditions must be met for the
so-called right to be exercised. These can always be stated as IF-THEN,
or IF-THEN-ELSE, statements. For example:
IF the state is going to pay for schooling,
THEN children have a right to their paid enrollment
IF the state provides Section 8 housing vouchers for deadbeats
below a certain income threshold; and
IF Draino earns less than the threshold income
THEN Draino has a right to receive the voucher
> Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:14:52 -0700 typed
> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>> Let us start with your "right" to life. Suppose you are felled by a
>>>> grave illness. One that IS curable...but is beyond your means.
>>>> I suppose in your world view then you also have the right to die. Does
>>>> that not void your "right" to your life?
>>>
>>> Of course not. Rights - the natural, negative rights that are the only
>>> true rights - are held *against* others, including the state. You
>>> cannot possibly have a valid, positive right that compels another to
>>> undertake some action on your behalf. Legitimate rights only enjoin
>>> others from doing things *to* you; they never compel others to do
>>> anything *for* you.
>>>
>>> It is immaterial if there is a cure for whatever ails you - you do not
>>> have a right to have that cure provided to you.
>
> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> Correct.
> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>
> Rights to not apply to "commodities" - goods and services. You
> have a right to access, but not for it to be provided. E.G., your
> right to free speech does not obligate anyone to print, publish, or
> otherwise disseminate your speech.
> You have a right to life, but you do not have a right to another's
> life or labor. But the progressives aren't to clear on that concept.
> They seem to believe that they have a right to another person stuff.
> Which makes them thieves, but they don't understand how that works
> out.
There can be *no* unconditional positive rights. To do so would
infringe on the natural rights of others, thereby depriving them of
them. For example, to say people have a "right" to health care or a
"right" to food or shelter or big-screen TVs means they have the power
to compel someone else to provide them those things at the other
person's expense. That obviously is slavery.
The stated right to a thing is actually saying that one person is
morally and legally empowered to compel someone else to provide the
thing. That can never be right - never.
A positive right to something can only make sense if it's a
*conditional* right - that is, certain conditions must be met for the
so-called right to be exercised. These can always be stated as IF-THEN,
or IF-THEN-ELSE, statements. For example:
IF the state is going to pay for schooling,
THEN children have a right to their paid enrollment
IF the state provides Section 8 housing vouchers for deadbeats
below a certain income threshold; and
IF Draino earns less than the threshold income
THEN Draino has a right to receive the voucher
james g. keegan jr.
Aug 30, 2012, 12:51:09 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/29/2012 10:03 PM, Dano wrote:
> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>
> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>
> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>
> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>
> ======================================
>
> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let
> us know how that works out for you.
>
> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
> compared a "vacation" with health care.
You do not have a "right" to either. That is exactly his point.
>
> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let
> us know how that works out for you.
>
> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
> compared a "vacation" with health care.
Homer Stille Cummings
Aug 30, 2012, 12:52:01 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 8:18 AM, Dano wrote:
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1nv6b$vvk$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care
> completely.
That's why you're powerless, and will remain so.
>
> =========================================
>
> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care
> completely.
Jim T.
Aug 30, 2012, 12:59:26 PM8/30/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
treatment he needed, and the family was not out of pocket for one
cent. Next...
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 12:53:44 PM8/30/12
to
Jack Skolasky
Aug 30, 2012, 12:53:52 PM8/30/12
to
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o0l7$e28$3...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
> Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
>
>
> These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
No, that's not what that says. What it says, you goddamned
motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, is that there are 36
countries who have health care systems the authors like *politically*.
No one has a "right" to health care - it is impossible.
> "skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o0l7$e28$3...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Must be an Obamacare adherent...
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> Not really. It's far too little. I'd nationalize health care completely.
>> Take it out of the commercial application of medicine which I find to be
>> abhorrent.
>
> Nice...you fucking socialist twat, drop dead.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Read and weep you freaking imbecile.
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
>
>
> These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US
motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, is that there are 36
countries who have health care systems the authors like *politically*.
No one has a "right" to health care - it is impossible.
pyotr filipivich
Aug 30, 2012, 12:53:00 PM8/30/12
to
skink on sink <l...@ar.ds> on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:00:34 -0600 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:
expect me to neglect my mental well being, does he?
And my spiritual well being as well. I must make a pilgrimage as
well.
The major point is, though, that Dano seems to feel that he has a
right to be given medical care and having someone else pick up the tab
for the doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, clerical help,
janitors, bandages, sutures, testing supplies, etc, etc, etc; yet I
don't have a right to have him (specifically) pick up the tab for my
spiritual or mental healthcare.
And the detail missed is that while everybody has rights, those
rights to not include "stuff". I have a right to free speech, but no
one else has an obligation to provide me with paper, ink or a printing
press. I may have aright to access health care, but that does not
give me a right to bandages, blood tests, x-rays or a doctor's time.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.
misc.survivalism the following:
>On 8/29/2012 11:03 PM, Dano wrote:
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
>> "pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
>> news:7n6t38dj2q6hcbfru...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I need a vacation, I have a right to a vacation. I'll be sending
>> the bill for my vacation to Dano.
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> You do that. I'll take care of it for you. Absolutely. Those river
>> cruise through Europe are awesome I hear. Take the whole family. Let us
>> know how that works out for you.
>>
>> For those who tuned in late...this nimrod...this insane person has just
>> compared a "vacation" with health care.
>>
>
>Must be an Obamacare adherent...
But, but .. it is for my mental well being. Surely he doesn't
expect me to neglect my mental well being, does he?
And my spiritual well being as well. I must make a pilgrimage as
well.
The major point is, though, that Dano seems to feel that he has a
right to be given medical care and having someone else pick up the tab
for the doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators, clerical help,
janitors, bandages, sutures, testing supplies, etc, etc, etc; yet I
don't have a right to have him (specifically) pick up the tab for my
spiritual or mental healthcare.
And the detail missed is that while everybody has rights, those
rights to not include "stuff". I have a right to free speech, but no
one else has an obligation to provide me with paper, ink or a printing
press. I may have aright to access health care, but that does not
give me a right to bandages, blood tests, x-rays or a doctor's time.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 12:55:42 PM8/30/12
to
Need some more?
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/20/canadian-health-care-another-horror-story/
Can anyone imagine an American with a burst appendix going through this
kind of ordeal?
Thursday Oct. 11, 11 p.m. � Dany Bureau starts to feel pains in his
stomach. He goes to sleep thinking he just has a stomach ache.
Friday Oct. 12, 3 p.m. � Mr. Bureau and his mother go to the Wakefield
hospital. A doctor determines that there is a problem with Mr. Bureau�s
appendix. Calls are made to hospitals in Hull, Gatineau, Maniwaki,
Buckingham and Ottawa to find a surgeon. A surgeon cannot be found.
8:25 p.m. � Robert Bureau, Dany�s father, receives a call informing him
that a surgeon is available at the Montreal General Hospital.
8:30 p.m. � Mr. Bureau leaves his home in Aylmer for Montreal.
8:37 p.m. � The ambulance leaves Wakefield hospital with Mr. Bureau.
Saturday, Oct. 13, 12:15 a.m. � The ambulance with Dany Bureau arrives
at the Montreal General Hospital after missing the D�carie exit and then
mistakenly unloading him at the Montreal Children�s Hospital. The
surgeon who had been awaiting Dany Bureau�s arrival has since become
occupied with another trauma case.
9:50 p.m. � Dany Bureau is taken in for surgery
Sunday, Oct. 14, 12:10 a.m. � The surgeon who operated on Dany Bureau
tells his father that his appendix had burst and that he had developed
peritonitis. As a result, he is hospitalized for several days so his
recovery can be monitored.
I didn�t think so.
Jack Skolasky
Aug 30, 2012, 12:57:53 PM8/30/12
to
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
of bullshit collectivist dogma caused you to think your wrong thoughts.
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 1:03:32 PM8/30/12
to
socialized medicine. As a power-crazed leftist, you don't really care
if people get decent health care or not.
Mike Lovell
Aug 30, 2012, 1:04:26 PM8/30/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> If you're admitting to being of the Christian culture we can use that,
>>> Elohim, even Jehova with some interchangeability.
>>>
>>> It won't modify the role of the Creator, as names never do, but I'll be
>>> happy to go with the one you prefer.
>>
>> Surely the term you go with effects the definition.
>
> I chose the ones to match your culture.
No you didn't. You chose one that matches your own, which is exactly
what we needed.
>> If you look up one
>> God, his reported acts, rules, laws are different from another.
>>
>> Often completely different.
>
> So be glad I chose ones from your culture.
In my culture, there is no "God" defined. We're tailoring this for your
Abrahamic God.
>>>> Your dishonesty pushed aside, we can move forward.
>>>
>>> Your Christian culture confirmed I guess we must.
>>
>> My Christian culture? What Christian culture is that?
>
> Oh, are you not American?
Nope, I am not.
>>>> You assert there is a creator, you back it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the DOI, or even a Bible.
>>>>
>>>> :-) Good, again lifting the veil off who you are referring to.
>>>>
>>>> Yahweh
>>>
>>> Jehova, Elohim, God, etc...
>>>
>>> Or...nature's God....
>>
>> That's not everyones God.
>
> I agree, has to be really.
Progress maybe
>>>> That's fine, just list a few ;-)
>>>
>>> The Holy Bible.
>>>
>>> The Dead Sea Scrolls
>>>
>>> Novum Testamentum Graece
>>>
>>> ..and so on...
>>
>> These can be shown to come from God? How so?
>
> Read and research them, there is much out there.
That's not the answer to the question. I want to know how they can be
shown to come from God.
>> I noticed The Qur'an, Book or Mormom or the Iliad were not on there,
>> which is fine as I only asked for a few, but about those books...
>>
>> Do *they* come from God, or not?
>
> I'm not Mormon, Greek, or a huge mythology buff, so it's possible I suppose.
Or a Muslim I take it.
So is it fair to say that the Bible, Qur'an and Book or Mormon you would
all consider coming from God?
You say you're not a mythology buff but you've not demonstrated what
separates the Bible from mythology.
>>>> Enlighten with what? LOL
>>>
>>> Insight, even less likely.
>>
>> Into what?
>
> The Creator's omnipresence.
You cannot demonstrate there is such a creator. You might as well give
insight into fairies.
>>>>>>> "A God" implies the possibility of multiple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a theory, have you tested it?
>>>>
>>>> Tested what theory?
>>>
>>> Multiple "gods".
>>
>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>
> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
I never hid it.
>> But if you're asking are multiple Gods
>> defined, of course they are.
>
> Do you think "defined" = "tested"?
>
> No, it does not - try again.
We cannot test there are *any* Gods. Your "creator" is just a mere
definition.
One, two, ten, a million - It doesn't really matter. They have been
defined in many ways, no one definition carries more weight.
>>> The Zeuss is out, sorry.
>>
>> It was never "in" for me! :-)
>
> You brought it up, and Thor too.
It's not about me, I'm trying to find out why this creator of yours is,
although we now know who you are referring to.
>> So, long story short you cannot prove it. So basically this being
>> cannot give me anything.
>
> I gave you all a reasonable person would need.
No, you gave all a gullible person would need. It's a special pleading
fallacy, the same "proof" could be used for fairies, pixies, goblins,
leprechauns.
Basically "feel them in your heart, and they then exist".
>> We can't even determine it's out there.
>
> Do not presume to speak for me, I have made my own estimations.
Reason is not your strong point.
>>> Yes, rejection therefore is also a right.
>>
>> Rejection of what???
>
> The Creator, of course, don't be abstruse.
I don't reject a creator. Hence I'm confused as to why you think I do.
I just have no evidence there is one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/nRYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW50lAQAtznJoRntqPLQhOjNyFbBRpuR
A9jzHcTHCtz5UlwlyTPJC5u/iuVadYo1pFr2wDKfb4faNp6ijF0PzaIGNuxWx392
RotjiNp0+TJA0R2feZX5sy0ZpMqrosDJjEeT1RXXJ4wan9vRj1wDTnPg+TTjElSZ
ycCIhGTlzrFWKc5B2RY=
=4r25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> If you're admitting to being of the Christian culture we can use that,
>>> Elohim, even Jehova with some interchangeability.
>>>
>>> It won't modify the role of the Creator, as names never do, but I'll be
>>> happy to go with the one you prefer.
>>
>> Surely the term you go with effects the definition.
>
> I chose the ones to match your culture.
No you didn't. You chose one that matches your own, which is exactly
what we needed.
>> If you look up one
>> God, his reported acts, rules, laws are different from another.
>>
>> Often completely different.
>
> So be glad I chose ones from your culture.
In my culture, there is no "God" defined. We're tailoring this for your
Abrahamic God.
>>>> Your dishonesty pushed aside, we can move forward.
>>>
>>> Your Christian culture confirmed I guess we must.
>>
>> My Christian culture? What Christian culture is that?
>
> Oh, are you not American?
Nope, I am not.
>>>> You assert there is a creator, you back it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the DOI, or even a Bible.
>>>>
>>>> :-) Good, again lifting the veil off who you are referring to.
>>>>
>>>> Yahweh
>>>
>>> Jehova, Elohim, God, etc...
>>>
>>> Or...nature's God....
>>
>> That's not everyones God.
>
> I agree, has to be really.
Progress maybe
>>>> That's fine, just list a few ;-)
>>>
>>> The Holy Bible.
>>>
>>> The Dead Sea Scrolls
>>>
>>> Novum Testamentum Graece
>>>
>>> ..and so on...
>>
>> These can be shown to come from God? How so?
>
> Read and research them, there is much out there.
That's not the answer to the question. I want to know how they can be
shown to come from God.
>> I noticed The Qur'an, Book or Mormom or the Iliad were not on there,
>> which is fine as I only asked for a few, but about those books...
>>
>> Do *they* come from God, or not?
>
> I'm not Mormon, Greek, or a huge mythology buff, so it's possible I suppose.
Or a Muslim I take it.
So is it fair to say that the Bible, Qur'an and Book or Mormon you would
all consider coming from God?
You say you're not a mythology buff but you've not demonstrated what
separates the Bible from mythology.
>>>> Enlighten with what? LOL
>>>
>>> Insight, even less likely.
>>
>> Into what?
>
> The Creator's omnipresence.
You cannot demonstrate there is such a creator. You might as well give
insight into fairies.
>>>>>>> "A God" implies the possibility of multiple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a theory, have you tested it?
>>>>
>>>> Tested what theory?
>>>
>>> Multiple "gods".
>>
>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>
> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
I never hid it.
>> But if you're asking are multiple Gods
>> defined, of course they are.
>
> Do you think "defined" = "tested"?
>
> No, it does not - try again.
We cannot test there are *any* Gods. Your "creator" is just a mere
definition.
One, two, ten, a million - It doesn't really matter. They have been
defined in many ways, no one definition carries more weight.
>>> The Zeuss is out, sorry.
>>
>> It was never "in" for me! :-)
>
> You brought it up, and Thor too.
It's not about me, I'm trying to find out why this creator of yours is,
although we now know who you are referring to.
>> So, long story short you cannot prove it. So basically this being
>> cannot give me anything.
>
> I gave you all a reasonable person would need.
No, you gave all a gullible person would need. It's a special pleading
fallacy, the same "proof" could be used for fairies, pixies, goblins,
leprechauns.
Basically "feel them in your heart, and they then exist".
>> We can't even determine it's out there.
>
> Do not presume to speak for me, I have made my own estimations.
Reason is not your strong point.
>>> Yes, rejection therefore is also a right.
>>
>> Rejection of what???
>
> The Creator, of course, don't be abstruse.
I don't reject a creator. Hence I'm confused as to why you think I do.
I just have no evidence there is one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/nRYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW50lAQAtznJoRntqPLQhOjNyFbBRpuR
A9jzHcTHCtz5UlwlyTPJC5u/iuVadYo1pFr2wDKfb4faNp6ijF0PzaIGNuxWx392
RotjiNp0+TJA0R2feZX5sy0ZpMqrosDJjEeT1RXXJ4wan9vRj1wDTnPg+TTjElSZ
ycCIhGTlzrFWKc5B2RY=
=4r25
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 1:10:05 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>
>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>
> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>
> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
Perhaps when you were a kid and force fed this god crap, but once you
reach the age where you can have independent, coherent thoughts, why
would any thinking person STILL believe?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Mike Lovell
Aug 30, 2012, 1:10:41 PM8/30/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>>
>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>> and gravity.
>>>
>>> You LIED.
>>
>> It was going nowhere.
>
> Is that your admission that you LIED?
>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>>
>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>> and gravity.
>>>
>>> You LIED.
>>
>> It was going nowhere.
>
Nope.
>> I said that they could describe these things they
>> knew about *before* they could explain them.
>
> And you were of course wrong.
No I was not. You see, here we go again.
I same I'm right, you say I'm wrong - You want to maintain a dozen pages
of "yes" - "no" style responses.
I could a description (albeit possibly vague) of gravity before it was
scientifically explained.
>> You disagreed, it wen ton like this.
>>
>> Pointless continuing.
>
> That is because you lie, just as it turned out you are NOT an American,
> despite your pretenses there.
When did I ever say I *was* an American??
Your assumptions are not my problem.
>>>> Although now we've got to the bottom of things, Yahweh.
>>>
>>> Or Jehova.
>>>
>>> And I remain surprised you admitted your christian culture. Precious few
>>> atheists ever would.
>>
>> Well I'm not sure where I did that?
>
> I don't doubt it for a moment.
>
> That's what happens when you act as an imposter, as you did in
> discussing and pretending to have American rights, then finally
> confessing you are not one.
Again, your assumption. You pigeon holed us into discussion Americans
rights.
I am asserting they come from the state -- Seeing as you agree that it's
relevant which state and culture I come from, you agree with me.
Obviously they come from the state, not your creator.
>> But I have clarified for you, I'm not from a Christian culture.
>
> Which nation and culture are you from then?
A secular one. You still have no established relevance.
> Which nation and culture are you from then?
If anything you continue to prove me point. If you need to know which
nation I'm from in order to work out my rights, obviously they do not
come from your creator.
Otherwise I'd have these rights everywhere, and you'd not need to ask.
QED.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/no0ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5q5gQAiKZsxh5jWGCNktJtxuQULiej
230F5HK3DkyyLDwkv4BTsjcsFlEDhMIIrbdhPBW1CtJd9a0cy4ftTNm0rsBlcPgy
ymx6FV6KN6/RVwaXjPh/i+/wyhbcQipLbdkaEboFsQmwUfwoDlAjOFM8hDEPaODB
yeitxEAYKaLa7I0oCN0=
=DiWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 1:13:51 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 10:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
"right" to health care?
It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
Jim T.
Aug 30, 2012, 1:21:41 PM8/30/12
to
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:24:09 PM8/30/12
to
"skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o45j$71l$2...@dont-email.me...
.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
Brilliant. Nice source you fucking loon.
.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=118743241&page=1
Brilliant. Nice source you fucking loon.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 1:25:32 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:04 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>> If you're admitting to being of the Christian culture we can use that,
>>>> Elohim, even Jehova with some interchangeability.
>>>>
>>>> It won't modify the role of the Creator, as names never do, but I'll be
>>>> happy to go with the one you prefer.
>>>
>>> Surely the term you go with effects the definition.
>>
>> I chose the ones to match your culture.
>
> No you didn't.
I did my best, sorry you intentionally misled me.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>> If you're admitting to being of the Christian culture we can use that,
>>>> Elohim, even Jehova with some interchangeability.
>>>>
>>>> It won't modify the role of the Creator, as names never do, but I'll be
>>>> happy to go with the one you prefer.
>>>
>>> Surely the term you go with effects the definition.
>>
>> I chose the ones to match your culture.
>
> No you didn't.
> You chose one that matches your own, which is exactly
> what we needed.
>>> If you look up one
>>> God, his reported acts, rules, laws are different from another.
>>>
>>> Often completely different.
>>
>> So be glad I chose ones from your culture.
>
> In my culture, there is no "God" defined. We're tailoring this for your
> Abrahamic God.
>>>>> Your dishonesty pushed aside, we can move forward.
>>>>
>>>> Your Christian culture confirmed I guess we must.
>>>
>>> My Christian culture? What Christian culture is that?
>>
>> Oh, are you not American?
>
> Nope, I am not.
>>>>> You assert there is a creator, you back it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the DOI, or even a Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-) Good, again lifting the veil off who you are referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahweh
>>>>
>>>> Jehova, Elohim, God, etc...
>>>>
>>>> Or...nature's God....
>>>
>>> That's not everyones God.
>>
>> I agree, has to be really.
>
> Progress maybe
involved.
Basic stuff, really.
>>>>> That's fine, just list a few ;-)
>>>>
>>>> The Holy Bible.
>>>>
>>>> The Dead Sea Scrolls
>>>>
>>>> Novum Testamentum Graece
>>>>
>>>> ..and so on...
>>>
>>> These can be shown to come from God? How so?
>>
>> Read and research them, there is much out there.
>
> That's not the answer to the question. I want to know how they can be
> shown to come from God.
knowledge you should progress down a scholarly philosophical or
scientific path that will satisfy you.
Of course I suspect your 'questions' are no more than leading rhetoric.
>>> I noticed The Qur'an, Book or Mormom or the Iliad were not on there,
>>> which is fine as I only asked for a few, but about those books...
>>>
>>> Do *they* come from God, or not?
>>
>> I'm not Mormon, Greek, or a huge mythology buff, so it's possible I suppose.
>
> Or a Muslim I take it.
> So is it fair to say that the Bible, Qur'an and Book or Mormon you would
> all consider coming from God?
Whether they are accurate or not is up to the Creator to parse.
I personally lack the omniscience to do so.
> You say you're not a mythology buff but you've not demonstrated what
> separates the Bible from mythology.
My personal research into epistemology has thus far satisfied my
particular queries.
>>>>> Enlighten with what? LOL
>>>>
>>>> Insight, even less likely.
>>>
>>> Into what?
>>
>> The Creator's omnipresence.
>
> You cannot demonstrate there is such a creator. You might as well give
> insight into fairies.
If you wish to believe in fairies it troubles me not one iota.
>>>>>>>> "A God" implies the possibility of multiple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a theory, have you tested it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested what theory?
>>>>
>>>> Multiple "gods".
>>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
> I never hid it.
>>> But if you're asking are multiple Gods
>>> defined, of course they are.
>>
>> Do you think "defined" = "tested"?
>>
>> No, it does not - try again.
>
> We cannot test there are *any* Gods.
I can and have made my own personal tests and to my satisfaction there
is a Creator.
> Your "creator" is just a mere definition.
> One, two, ten, a million - It doesn't really matter. They have been
> defined in many ways, no one definition carries more weight.
Your _dis_beliefs control what you perceive.
>>>> The Zeuss is out, sorry.
>>>
>>> It was never "in" for me! :-)
>>
>> You brought it up, and Thor too.
>
> It's not about me,
argumentation.
You are a deceitful person.
> I'm trying to find out why this creator of yours is,
> although we now know who you are referring to.
You have your disbelief.
And I have my belief.
Is your disbelief so weak it can not tolerate the presence of my belief?
That's telling.
>>> So, long story short you cannot prove it. So basically this being
>>> cannot give me anything.
>>
>> I gave you all a reasonable person would need.
>
> No, you gave all a gullible person would need.
> It's a special pleading fallacy, the same "proof" could be used for fairies, pixies, goblins,
> leprechauns.
>
> Basically "feel them in your heart, and they then exist".
>>> We can't even determine it's out there.
>>
>> Do not presume to speak for me, I have made my own estimations.
>
> Reason is not your strong point.
>>>> Yes, rejection therefore is also a right.
>>>
>>> Rejection of what???
>>
>> The Creator, of course, don't be abstruse.
>
> I don't reject a creator.
> Hence I'm confused as to why you think I do.
> I just have no evidence there is one.
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 1:25:43 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
>
> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
> "right" to health care?
>
> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>
>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
>
> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
> "right" to health care?
>
> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
*I* am not making that case, just playing devil's advocate.
Mike Lovell
Aug 30, 2012, 1:26:37 PM8/30/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>> I still don't see what it has to do with anything, I'm not from a
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>> Christian culture.
>
> Then what culture are you from?
A secular one.
> Are you American at least?
Nope.
>> I say by being an American, you have these rights. The other side of
>> the argument, that you are on, says that you have these automatically
>> (or in you case, granted by a creator).
>
> You have these rights under the precepts by which they were enumerated.
>
> Minus the Creator, you'd not have said rights.
Yet you cannot show a creator is there. And my rights are given and
protected by the state.
If the creator wasn't there, the laws of the land would be, and I'd still
have my rights.
So as you demonstrated above, they don't come from this creator.
>> Are you getting confused as to which side you're debating?
>
> No, I realize you are an atheist.
Good, that's a good start.
>>>> They exist everywhere, in every state. So it matters not.
>>>
>>> These states are established under the auspices of the Creator.
>>
>> Which as we've established cannot be determined to exist.
>
> Only by you.
We determined by your inability to do so without invoking an argument
that can be used to "prove" *everything*.
Invalidating it in the process.
>> So that's an empty assertion. You might as well say it was under the
>> auspices of Captain Crunch.
>
> That product is man-made, the Creator is not.
That's very anti-crunch-etic of you. How do we now Captain Crunch
wasn't based on a real person, who was actually a deity. Research this.
The point is, it doesn't follow.
You could say *anything* gave us those rights, in the absence of
evidence, any crackpot theory is as good as yours.
>>> It is relevant to how we handle _this_ example, the American one.
>>>
>>> I am saddened the DOI does not apply elsewhere, but such is life.
>>
>> I'm not interested in handling the "American one",
>
> Too bad - that is where this began and where it remains for those of us
> who _are_ Americans.
That's strange, because you are claiming I get my rights from the
creator, and not by being a citizen of a certain state.
You're arguing my side again and getting confused.
>> I'm interested in
>> these rights that I'm supposed to have at all times in history, in all
>> locations, in any state, basically always.
>
> They are, yes.
So why do you keep asking about culture and nation?
By your argument it should have zero to do with my rights, yet you keep
quoting US documents to back up your claims.
But actually they back mine up, that the state gives you these rights.
>> I already know about rights in the US. And I say they come from the
>> state.
>
> And you remain completely wrong.
>
> The state protects and shepherds rights, it does not hand them out.
If it didn't, you'd not have any. Try North Korea.
>>> I suspect you believe no Craetor exists, am I wrong?
>>
>> Yes, you are wrong.
>
> Oh, which Creator do you believe exists then?
None.
> Are you getting confused as to which side you are on, admitted atheist?
No, you're just getting confused as to what atheism is.
I don't believe a creator (God) exists, that doesn't mean I believe one
*doesn't* exist.
>>>> So basically no you cannot prove such a good exists. Good, more
>>>> progress.
>>>
>>> What I might say will always be submitted to your filters - in that
>>> respect you can reject anything I say.
>>
>> Of course it won't.
>
> "it"?
>
> That's non responsive.
I - typo.
>> But you won't even give any evidence that will
>> prove such a thing.
>
> Iow, my evidence does not get past your filters, ipso facto.
You've not presented any to test the filters.
>>>> But I can't, my rights come from Yahweh and not the state! Ha-ha
>>>
>>> Your rights are _protected_ by this state, if you are American, are you?
>>
>> Then I cannot surrender my rights. I'm not an American.
>
> Then why are you entering into an American-based discussion?
It's not! It's about rights coming from a creator (or evolution!).
You're the one that keeps hauling out US specific documents.
How do I surrender these rights that this creator gave me?
>>>> Stepped in your own bear trap there didn't you.
>>>
>>> Not in the slightest, your rights as an American are not uniformly
>>> protected globally.
>>
>> This is my point exactly. "Rights as an American", this sums it up.
>> Rights I have being a citizen of a certain state.
>>
>> The state gave me those rights. If I'm not an American then I don't
>> have the "rights as an American".
>
> Since you just claimed not to be an American this discussion is over,
> next time don't play at being an imposter.
Your concession is noted an accepted.
You keep banging on about "rights as an American" yet claim they
actually came from God! LOL
Where's the "rights as a human" line? You're so confused.
>> Which is again my point. Rights are given by the state, if you happen
>> to live in a crappy one you have little to no rights.
>
> No, rights are _protected_ by the state.
>
> Which crappy one do you live in, say Canada perhaps?
Seeing as you haven't established where these rights came from then they
cannot therefore exist.
You cite a creator you cannot show exists.
>> How does that imply I came from a Christian culture? I did not.
>
> Identify your culture then, now.
A secular one.
>>>> Yes, it was. Excellent work there by the frame-ees (my little pet name
>>>> for them).
>>>
>>> Oh I see, you have a denigration for those enlightened men as well.
>>>
>>> I am unsurprised.
>>>
>>> No matter, enjoy their handiwork while in the same breath decrying it.
>>>
>>> It's that robust you know.
>>
>> That's what they would have wanted.
>
> It is what they wanted and achieved - a wonder in this world.
Great, so why chastise me for doing what they wanted?
I thought you were a patriot!
>> You kowtow them like they were kings.
>
> I laud their wisdom and foresight.
Hero worship.
>> This is exactly what they were
>> trying to get away from in Europe.
>
> No it's not.
>
> They were trying to get away from religious oppression and a corrupt
> feudal system of Kings.
One out of two isn't bad. The religious oppression unfortunately
continues to this day.
I don't see your problem with a system of Kings, surely God appoints
them! Ordained by God they used to say.
> Their efforts were a grand success.
>
> I will have no more discourse with you on this matter as you have at
> last admitted you are not American.
>
> In doing so you confirm how much time I wasted with you.
>
> Goodbye.
Of course, this is because you're xenophobic and a racist. Hate thy
neighbor, judge them and cast the first stone.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/okkACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5g4gQAx268tTg7ZFLz6hPQyMNCkl7u
IqPD8mx/RmYeNbK9xixEbMsmuIADZoYjF2rirNk1bqEjXG7ky0ynuO/32of89+6q
g/eb0H7+OYHLctPdB3gG7HcMVEuHjowiJkxw0znt5s9ficNPB02TszxWxPUV1Itn
InOm8desx02R7lqUs3o=
=SIGX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:27:05 PM8/30/12
to
"skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o5u7$f7g$4...@dont-email.me...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:28:21 PM8/30/12
to
"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
news:Z6idnf-eq82pB6LN...@giganews.com...
==================================
Not at all. I vote.
news:Z6idnf-eq82pB6LN...@giganews.com...
Not at all. I vote.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 1:29:28 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
> Perhaps when you were a kid and force fed this god crap,
> but once you reach the age where you can have independent, coherent thoughts, why
> would any thinking person STILL believe?
truths shared across the culturally diverse pallet of faith which
indicate the presence of a Creator.
It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are not
in effect.
Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:30:14 PM8/30/12
to
"Jack Skolasky" wrote in message
news:Z6idnf6eq80-B6LN...@giganews.com...
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
====================================
Another fine example of the right wing.
news:Z6idnf6eq80-B6LN...@giganews.com...
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
Another fine example of the right wing.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:32:58 PM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o442$71l$1...@dont-email.me...
On 8/30/2012 9:38 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0mf$e28$4...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o04u$cst$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Goodbye.
>>
>> =====================================
>>
>> Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
>
> Your intellectual intolerance more than adequately defines you.
>
> =======================================
>
> Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
> moments ago.
>
> Fucking hilarious!
>
Actually I plonked him for cutting in on Hol-head's spanking.
Do you need a spanking of your own, libitard?
===================================
Oh sure. I love when you morons run on at the mouth...failing to even wipe
the spittle from your slack jaws. The more you talk...the less likely your
kind will prevail in the coming election.
Who in their right mind would care to be associated with your insane
ravings?
On 8/30/2012 9:38 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0mf$e28$4...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o04u$cst$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Goodbye.
>>
>> =====================================
>>
>> Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
>
> Your intellectual intolerance more than adequately defines you.
>
> =======================================
>
> Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
> moments ago.
>
> Fucking hilarious!
>
Actually I plonked him for cutting in on Hol-head's spanking.
Do you need a spanking of your own, libitard?
===================================
Oh sure. I love when you morons run on at the mouth...failing to even wipe
the spittle from your slack jaws. The more you talk...the less likely your
kind will prevail in the coming election.
Who in their right mind would care to be associated with your insane
ravings?
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:37:19 PM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7m7$vbs$1...@dont-email.me...
The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
involved.
=========================================
Then why do religious fanatics who make up such names for their fantasy
figures kill one another in support those Names?
More wars fought in the name of these "gods" than for any other reason.
The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
involved.
Then why do religious fanatics who make up such names for their fantasy
figures kill one another in support those Names?
More wars fought in the name of these "gods" than for any other reason.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 1:38:46 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>>>
>>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>>> and gravity.
>>>>
>>>> You LIED.
>>>
>>> It was going nowhere.
>>
>> Is that your admission that you LIED?
>
> Nope.
Then you have lied upon lies.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>>>>> And you snip to pieces what you cannot face in
>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did the same in our discussion, you rank hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've answered all your "responses" if you'd call them that.
>>>>
>>>> You deleted an entire set of paragraphs I wrote on magnetism, radium,
>>>> and gravity.
>>>>
>>>> You LIED.
>>>
>>> It was going nowhere.
>>
>> Is that your admission that you LIED?
>
> Nope.
You deleted paragraphs of what I wrote, you dishonest deceiver.
>>> I said that they could describe these things they
>>> knew about *before* they could explain them.
>>
>> And you were of course wrong.
>
> No I was not. You see, here we go again.
> I same I'm right, you say I'm wrong - You want to maintain a dozen pages
> of "yes" - "no" style responses.
of that and deleted them.
> I could a description (albeit possibly vague) of gravity before it was
> scientifically explained.
You certainly couldn't have said much about radium or esoecially the
atom before their discovery.
>>> You disagreed, it wen ton like this.
>>>
>>> Pointless continuing.
>>
>> That is because you lie, just as it turned out you are NOT an American,
>> despite your pretenses there.
>
> When did I ever say I *was* an American??
>
> Your assumptions are not my problem.
rights was the charade you played to get this far.
Now it collapses upon the underlying lie you finally have fessed up to.
>>>>> Although now we've got to the bottom of things, Yahweh.
>>>>
>>>> Or Jehova.
>>>>
>>>> And I remain surprised you admitted your christian culture. Precious few
>>>> atheists ever would.
>>>
>>> Well I'm not sure where I did that?
>>
>> I don't doubt it for a moment.
>>
>> That's what happens when you act as an imposter, as you did in
>> discussing and pretending to have American rights, then finally
>> confessing you are not one.
>
> Again, your assumption. You pigeon holed us into discussion Americans
> rights.
My comments regarded the DOI, framers, and the Creator.
If you disliked that idiom, you ought not to have disingenuously baited
it onward.
> I am asserting they come from the state -- Seeing as you agree that it's
> relevant which state and culture I come from, you agree with me.
We are in not in agreement.
> Obviously they come from the state, not your creator.
I accept this construct.
You do not.
Game over.
>>> But I have clarified for you, I'm not from a Christian culture.
>>
>> Which nation and culture are you from then?
>
> A secular one.
why will you not say?
Are you ashamed of it?
> You still have no established relevance.
disassemble mine.
> If anything you continue to prove me point. If you need to know which
> nation I'm from in order to work out my rights, obviously they do not
> come from your creator.
If you're unwilling to contrast that with what your state's authors
described, then you are wither ashamed or afraid I'll find hole sin
their thinking.
Which is it?
> Otherwise I'd have these rights everywhere, and you'd not need to ask.
>
> QED.
QED.
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 1:38:37 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 10:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>>
>>
>> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
>> "right" to health care?
>>
>> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
>
>
> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
A negative right cannot lead to a positive one. Negative rights enjoin
> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>>
>>
>> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
>> "right" to health care?
>>
>> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
>
>
> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
other persons *from* actions; they never oblige others positively to
act. So, a sick person seeking to pursue his happiness might wish to
receiver the services of a doctor. What obligations does that create
for me? It cannot oblige me to pay for his doctor visit. At most, it
obliges me to refrain from interfering in his voluntary transaction with
a doctor.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 1:40:23 PM8/30/12
to
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage
IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux�a proven cancer drug that
targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies
that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body�and Aucoin
went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope,
Aucoin�s insurance didn�t: she received one inscrutable form letter
after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another
example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed
medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered
by insurance companies�in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario,
Canada.
When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government
claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an
unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and
her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic
hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin�s
favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new
trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need
in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often
suing) to get them to pick up the tab.
But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they
need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable
health-care model. There�s no question that American health care, a
mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess. Over the
last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than doubled,
leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy. Expensive
health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it�s one of the
reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005 (despite a
rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged past 16 percent
of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen, and even the
insured seem dissatisfied. So it�s not surprising that some Americans
think that solving the nation�s health-care woes may require adopting a
Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government finances and
provides the care. Canadians, the seductive single-payer tune goes, not
only spend less on health care; their health outcomes are better,
too�life expectancy is longer, infant mortality lower.
Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: �Does this mean that the
American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style
single-payer system? Well, yes.� Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on
board; Michael Moore�s new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues of
Canada�s socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care,
which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to
centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big
unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health
insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.
I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don�t want to overstate
my case: growing up in Canada, I didn�t spend much time contemplating
the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school�my
mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not
health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my
environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into
Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care
was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was
unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When
HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas
were right.
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way
to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital
emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging
open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with
elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned
out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right
then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about
Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well
beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any
diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from
a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic�with a three-year
wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed
like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast
cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the
standard of care was four weeks.
I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and
visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately,
statistics on Canadian health care�s weaknesses were hard to come by,
and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult,
such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend,
diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving
chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried
about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he
asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town.
Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.
My book�s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run
health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at
a time when Canada�s population was aging and needed more care, not
less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school
classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in
hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment�patients
who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only
solution, I concluded, was to move away from government
command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system.
To capture Canadian health care�s growing crisis, I called my book Code
Blue, the term used when a patient�s heart stops and hospital staff must
leap into action to save him. Though I had a hard time finding a
Canadian publisher, the book eventually came out in 1999 from a small
imprint; it struck a nerve, going through five printings.
Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada�they characterized
all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British
controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a
specialist, only to have it canceled�48 times. More than 1 million
Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer
than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington,
D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe.
The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner
than anything in his native England. In France, the supply of doctors is
so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave�when many doctors were
on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity�15,000 elderly
citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren�t available.
And so on.
But single-payer systems�confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting
lists, and substandard treatment�are starting to crack. Today my book
wouldn�t seem so provocative to Canadians, whose views on public health
care are much less rosy than they were even a few years ago. Canadian
newspapers are now filled with stories of people frustrated by long
delays for care:
vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail
to meet ottawa�s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out
As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care
system�s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government
researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting,
for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that
province�s population) can�t find family physicians. Health officials in
one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine
who�d get a doctor�s appointment.
Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health-care
scene. Standing at about five and a half feet and soft-spoken, he
doesn�t seem imposing. But this accidental revolutionary has turned
Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the growing
crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec
practice�patients called him, he made house calls, and then he directly
billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining
him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but
billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and
so was private insurance.
Chaoulli gave up his private practice but not the fight for private
medicine. Trying to draw attention to Canada�s need for an alternative
to government care, he began a hunger strike but quit after a month,
famished but not famous. He wrote a couple of books on the topic, which
sold dismally. He then came up with the idea of challenging the
government in court. Because the lawyers whom he consulted dismissed the
idea, he decided to make the legal case himself and enrolled in law
school. He flunked out after a term. Undeterred, he found a sponsor for
his legal fight (his father-in-law, who lives in Japan) and a patient to
represent. Chaoulli went to court and lost. He appealed and lost again.
He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And there�amazingly�he won.
Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced
to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and
taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient
should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get
treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent of
the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The
court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that
Quebec�s charter did implicitly recognize such a right.
It�s hard to overstate the shock of the ruling. It caught the government
completely off guard�officials had considered Chaoulli�s case so weak
that they hadn�t bothered to prepare briefing notes for the prime
minister in the event of his victory. The ruling wasn�t just shocking,
moreover; it was potentially monumental, opening the way to more private
medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private insurance
holds in the rest of the country for now, at least two people outside
Quebec, armed with Chaoulli�s case as precedent, are taking their demand
for private insurance to court.
Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes a
man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied
with the opinion�he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have
constant headaches and nausea, which aren�t usually seen in the
disorder�the man requested an MRI. The government told him that the wait
would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to
have the MRI done within 24 hours�and who, after the test discovered a
brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.
Baker isn�t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He�s a medical broker, one
member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the
inadequacies of Canada�s government care. Canadians pay him to set up
surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations,
privately and quickly. �I don�t have a medical background. I just have
some common sense,� he explains. �I don�t need to be a doctor for what I
do. I�m just expediting care.�
He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia�based
company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped�people like the elderly
woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and
was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the
government, who never called back. �Her doctor told her she�s going to
die,� Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in
Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a
procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get
bumped three times, her parents called Timely. She�s now back at school,
her hearing partly restored. �The father said, �Mr. Baker, my wife and I
are in agreement that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,� �
Baker recalls. �I told that story to a government official. He shrugged.
He couldn�t fucking care less.�
Not everyone has kind words for Baker. A woman from a union-sponsored
health coalition, writing in a local paper, denounced him for �profiting
from people�s misery.� When I bring up the comment, he snaps: �I�m
profiting from relieving misery.� Some of the services that Baker
brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but governments are
loath to stop him. �What I am doing could be construed as civil
disobedience,� he says. �There comes a time when people need to lead the
government.�
Baker isn�t alone: other private-sector health options are blossoming
across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to
them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics
are opening at a rate of about one a week. Companies like MedCan now
offer �corporate medicals� that include an array of diagnostic tests and
a referral to Johns Hopkins, if necessary. Insurance firms sell
critical-illness insurance, giving policyholders a lump-sum payment in
the event of a major diagnosis; since such policyholders could, in
theory, spend the money on anything they wanted, medical or not, the
system doesn�t count as health insurance and is therefore legal.
Testifying to the changing nature of Canadian health care, Baker
observes that securing prompt care used to mean a trip south. These
days, he says, he�s able to get 80 percent of his clients care in
Canada, via the private sector.
Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the
health-care system�s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August,
they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former
socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has
nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public
health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy
for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him
down. �This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in
under a week,� he fumed to the New York Times, �and in which humans can
wait two to three years.�
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to
shrink the waiting lists. Day�s clinic, for instance, handles
workers�-compensation cases for employees of both public and private
corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80
percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where
fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government
recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital�s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain�s government-run
health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party�which
originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at
the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as
�Americanization��now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a
senior British health official, recently said: �The big trouble with a
state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and
inward-looking culture.� Last year, the private sector provided about 5
percent of Britain�s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that
percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize
certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at
least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract
out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as
UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden�s government, after the completion of the latest round of
privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm�s
primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one
of the city�s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia
has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments
and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany:
increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state
enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority
of German hospitals will remain under state control). It�s important to
note that change in these countries is slow and gradual�market reforms
remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception
for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is
so no longer.
Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are percolating with the ideas of
Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent Americans are arguing that
socialized health care still provides better results for less money.
�Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in
the world,� writes Krugman in the New York Times. �But it isn�t true. We
spend far more per person on health care . . . yet rank near the bottom
among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant
mortality.�
One often hears variations on Krugman�s argument�that America lags
behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes
reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and
cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is
just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer
than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any
Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life
expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall,
or a car accident. Such factors aren�t academic�homicide rates in the
United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times
higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert
Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional
injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who
don�t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other
Western country.
And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick
citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear
this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent;
the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent
in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for
prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and
down to 44.3 percent in England�a striking variation.
Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that
the costs are just too high: �In 2002 . . . the United States spent
$5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.� Health-care
spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that.
Again, the picture isn�t quite as clear as he suggests; because the U.S.
is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn�t unreasonable for it
to spend more on health care. Take America�s high spending on research
and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center,
spends more on research than Canada does.
That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren�t
always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses
spiraling up, it will be easy for some�like the zealous legislators in
California�to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In
Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that
like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off, and promote:
expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering all
children in Medicaid.
But such initiatives would push the United States further down the path
to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True,
government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs�but only by shrinking
access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style
nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for
treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering good health
care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close
to home�in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From
telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have
driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long
overdue for the same prescription.
SaPeIsMa
Aug 30, 2012, 1:38:04 PM8/30/12
to
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:armt385ajsdsdiri3...@4ax.com...
> Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:20:54 -0700 typed
> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>
>>>> so Comrade...think you are going to ever get that pesky October
>>>> Revolution underway here in the good old USA?
>>>>
>>>> Good luck on that.
>>>>
>>>> Im curious..will you blow yourself up with a poorly made bomb, or
>>>> will some American blow your heart out while you are standing there
>>>> trying to figure out your device and then uses the bomb to scatter
>>>> your shit to the 4 winds?
>>>
>>>If my poor little body was scattered to the "4 winds" it would be a
>>>glorious moral victory for the cause. Are you trying to create a
>>>martyr?
>>
>>Im sure someone would be more than happy to assist you.
>>
>>Removing your head and hands really slows down that martyr ID thing
>>though.
>
> Do not forget, the last stage on the path of martyrdom is a
> canine's intestine. Finally, they will amount to dog poop.
>
Isn't that returning to their origin ?
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 1:41:19 PM8/30/12
to
The forum simply offered a repost.
Why are you so damned stupid?
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 1:41:56 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>>
>>
>> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
>> "right" to health care?
>>
>> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
>
>
> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
Unless one believes in an afterlife.
> On 8/30/2012 1:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>>
>>
>> How is it any more idiotic than believing in positive rights, e.g. a
>> "right" to health care?
>>
>> It *isn't* any more idiotic, is the correct answer.
>
>
> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
> *I* am not making that case, just playing devil's advocate.
Homer Stille Cummings
Aug 30, 2012, 1:43:22 PM8/30/12
to
never, ever have a chance to vote for nationalized health care. No one
for whom you vote to serve as your representative will ever have an
opportunity to vote for a nationalized health care bill. It will not
happen in your lifetime nor in the lifetime of any of your descendants
for at least 10 generations. It won't happen.
You're powerless. Generally, elections are going to be decided the way
you don't like. The direction of the country is going to be one that
you don't like. That's good. What you like and want are poison - bad
for America and Americans. Good, decent Americans celebrate your
impotence and anger.
Jack Skolasky
Aug 30, 2012, 1:44:31 PM8/30/12
to
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed,
admitted:
Mike Lovell
Aug 30, 2012, 1:45:19 PM8/30/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> I chose the ones to match your culture.
>>
>> No you didn't.
>
> I did my best, sorry you intentionally misled me.
Your assumption, your fuck up.
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> I chose the ones to match your culture.
>>
>> No you didn't.
>
> I did my best, sorry you intentionally misled me.
>> You chose one that matches your own, which is exactly
>> what we needed.
>
> I am an American and you are not, that closes this discussion point off now.
rights as you?
Thank you.
>>> So be glad I chose ones from your culture.
>>
>> In my culture, there is no "God" defined. We're tailoring this for your
>> Abrahamic God.
>
> Which is your culture, why will you not answer that?
>>>>> Your Christian culture confirmed I guess we must.
>>>>
>>>> My Christian culture? What Christian culture is that?
>>>
>>> Oh, are you not American?
>>
>> Nope, I am not.
>
> So what are you, name your nationality.
You said the state has nothing to do with giving me rights!
>>>> That's not everyones God.
>>>
>>> I agree, has to be really.
>>
>> Progress maybe
>
> The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
> involved.
>
> Basic stuff, really.
a completely different set of rules and laws. Often one of them
proclaiming that one is the *true* God and all others are lies.
You're invoking the creator as an explanation - You've at least now
determined who you were talking about.
I don't have this creator in my culture - So why do you assume I know
what you're talking about??
>> That's not the answer to the question. I want to know how they can be
>> shown to come from God.
>
> I am not here to educate you in such matters, if you _truly_ seek such
> knowledge you should progress down a scholarly philosophical or
> scientific path that will satisfy you.
there's a creator, and they you ask *me* to prove it for you?
Interesting.
> Of course I suspect your 'questions' are no more than leading rhetoric.
>>>> I noticed The Qur'an, Book or Mormom or the Iliad were not on there,
>>>> which is fine as I only asked for a few, but about those books...
>>>>
>>>> Do *they* come from God, or not?
>>>
>>> I'm not Mormon, Greek, or a huge mythology buff, so it's possible I suppose.
>>
>> Or a Muslim I take it.
>
> No, I'm not a Muslim either.
>> So is it fair to say that the Bible, Qur'an and Book or Mormon you would
>> all consider coming from God?
>
> It is fair to say all those cultures make that claim.
>
> Whether they are accurate or not is up to the Creator to parse.
>
> I personally lack the omniscience to do so.
Why not the Qu'ran or the book of Mormon?
You've *already* made a claim as to what came from God.
>> You say you're not a mythology buff but you've not demonstrated what
>> separates the Bible from mythology.
>
> I have no particular need to either.
>
> My personal research into epistemology has thus far satisfied my
> particular queries.
documents to be false I take it.
Strange that people of all religions tend to make that same conclusion -
Putting their own religion on the "true" list.
I'm sure the search was completely impartial!
>>> The Creator's omnipresence.
>>
>> You cannot demonstrate there is such a creator. You might as well give
>> insight into fairies.
>
> I need not satisfy your needs, only my own.
>
> If you wish to believe in fairies it troubles me not one iota.
expected to be called to back that up.
And I'm calling on you to back your claim up.
Just admit you have faith that this is true, nothing more and that it
does not apply to everyone - By virtue of not everyone believing in God.
>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>
>> I never hid it.
>
> That's a lie.
atheist I'd have answered "Yes".
It was blatantly obvious that I'm not a theist. Ergo I'm an atheist.
>>>> But if you're asking are multiple Gods
>>>> defined, of course they are.
>>>
>>> Do you think "defined" = "tested"?
>>>
>>> No, it does not - try again.
>>
>> We cannot test there are *any* Gods.
>
> Again, do not presume to speak for me.
> I can and have made my own personal tests and to my satisfaction there
> is a Creator.
*me* my rights, gave *everyone* their rights.
It may have passed your weak tests, but you're not the only person on
the planet.
And your assertion is no more valid in the real world than "a giant
hippo gives me my rights".
>> Your "creator" is just a mere definition.
>
> Not to me.
I don't doubt your belief and faith. But when you project them onto
other things and people that is the problem here.
>> One, two, ten, a million - It doesn't really matter. They have been
>> defined in many ways, no one definition carries more weight.
>
> To you, of course not.
>
> Your _dis_beliefs control what you perceive.
>>>>> The Zeuss is out, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> It was never "in" for me! :-)
>>>
>>> You brought it up, and Thor too.
>>
>> It's not about me,
>
> That's an artless dodge from taking responsibility for your own
> argumentation.
>
> You are a deceitful person.
they were the creator you referred to.
>> I'm trying to find out why this creator of yours is,
>> although we now know who you are referring to.
>
> Why would you care?
> You have your disbelief.
No I don't
> And I have my belief.
> Is your disbelief so weak it can not tolerate the presence of my belief?
> That's telling.
Could be, if it were the case.
>>>> So, long story short you cannot prove it. So basically this being
>>>> cannot give me anything.
>>>
>>> I gave you all a reasonable person would need.
>>
>> No, you gave all a gullible person would need.
>
> You confuse "gullibility" with having an open mind
an almost infinite amount of things, without evidence, that can be
suggested.
That's gullible.
And open mind is open to the possibility of a God - A gullible one
believes it's true without evidence.
>> It's a special pleading fallacy, the same "proof" could be used for fairies, pixies, goblins,
>> leprechauns.
>>
>> Basically "feel them in your heart, and they then exist".
>
> If you are comfortable doing so, I'm not damaged by that.
As it can be used to "prove" anything. It's that weak.
>>>> We can't even determine it's out there.
>>>
>>> Do not presume to speak for me, I have made my own estimations.
>>
>> Reason is not your strong point.
>
> Honesty is not in you.
>
>>>>> Yes, rejection therefore is also a right.
>>>>
>>>> Rejection of what???
>>>
>>> The Creator, of course, don't be abstruse.
>>
>> I don't reject a creator.
>
> Which one do you not reject - now you define the term for me.
>> Hence I'm confused as to why you think I do.
>
> Atheism is a rejection of the Creator.
>> I just have no evidence there is one.
>
> None that passes by your preconceived filters, obviously.
fool would use such reasoning??
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/pqoACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5vAQP/X9FutojMCvbw0908PaZIR1om
ILbfM1VMFFbcsbO46nJu5vDVNnaUIC6xPix9YeMwwQAISfXUv29u5JMXMJ7z3G+F
jBKbzmfnz1FqTksemCoH7ZQR8DkYCzOzprNsu9MEfSuOMgsgTJ9EAa+hxbNLN6iH
Vhg6oi3xqf9LpPpiblQ=
=yzWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
G=EMC^2
Aug 30, 2012, 1:52:08 PM8/30/12
to
them by nailing them to a stick. Today is a shot in back of the head.
Its just a case of then and now.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:54:12 PM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7ti$th$1...@dont-email.me...
On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
======================================
Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
--------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually
present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America.
The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice
that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the
United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government
(the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of
America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them.
The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no
longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the
lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their
summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical
document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before
the formation of our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author
aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on
a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are
created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about
our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are
instituted among men."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that
we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this
freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we
wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not
the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at
happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the
personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote
the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist
philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any
attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for
this reason alone. - http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no
man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of
the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have
not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion
in it." - John Adams
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst." - Thomas Paine
"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended
infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive
sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that
she kept up her temporal power." - Thomas Paine
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study
of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds
by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits
of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation
between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such
distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The
tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting
coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire
abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the
necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst.
trespasses on its legal rights by others."
James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited
by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
needs them not." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much more. Certainly SOME of our founders may have been religious.
But clearly you dramatically overstate your idiotic position. You are
seriously in need of some personal introspection. I would suggest you pray
to your "God" for forgiveness of your sins and seek out true spiritual
guidance before you are condemned to eternal damnation.
On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>
>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>
>
> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
--------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually
present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America.
The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice
that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the
United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government
(the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of
America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them.
The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the
thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no
longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the
lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their
summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical
document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before
the formation of our government.
Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author
aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on
a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are
created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about
our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are
instituted among men."
The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that
we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this
freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we
wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not
the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at
happiness.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the
personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote
the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist
philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any
attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for
this reason alone. - http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no
man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of
the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have
not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion
in it." - John Adams
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst." - Thomas Paine
"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended
infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive
sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that
she kept up her temporal power." - Thomas Paine
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study
of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds
by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits
of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation
between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such
distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The
tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting
coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire
abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the
necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst.
trespasses on its legal rights by others."
James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited
by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
needs them not." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much more. Certainly SOME of our founders may have been religious.
But clearly you dramatically overstate your idiotic position. You are
seriously in need of some personal introspection. I would suggest you pray
to your "God" for forgiveness of your sins and seek out true spiritual
guidance before you are condemned to eternal damnation.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:55:17 PM8/30/12
to
"Homer Stille Cummings" wrote in message
news:4oidncClOdiiO6LN...@giganews.com...
<yawn>
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:55:53 PM8/30/12
to
"Jack Skolasky" wrote in message
news:4oidncOlOdgeO6LN...@giganews.com...
Blood thirsty lunatics. Yes indeed.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:56:41 PM8/30/12
to
"skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1o8jo$4b5$3...@dont-email.me...
=======================================
Why are you searching for wisdom and guidance in a fucking weight room?
Why are you searching for wisdom and guidance in a fucking weight room?
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 1:58:50 PM8/30/12
to
"Jack Skolasky" wrote in message
news:Z6idnfmeq80IBqLN...@giganews.com...
Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
>
>
> Which nation and culture are you from then?
>
> ================================
>
> Which nation and culture are you from then?
>
>
> Who gives a flying fuck and why should we?
Because we want to know exactly which degraded and dysfunctional miasma
of bullshit collectivist dogma caused you to think your wrong thoughts.
===================================
Why should you care? You just got on board being down with murdering me.
You're nothing more than another murderous thug. You might be happier in
North Korea or Iran.
Homer Stille Cummings
Aug 30, 2012, 2:00:14 PM8/30/12
to
Jack Skolasky
Aug 30, 2012, 2:02:04 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 10:58 AM, Dano wrote:
> "Jack Skolasky" wrote in message
> news:Z6idnfmeq80IBqLN...@giganews.com...
>
> Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
>
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0aq$e28$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Which nation and culture are you from then?
>>
>> ================================
>>
>> Who gives a flying fuck and why should we?
>
> Because we want to know exactly which degraded and dysfunctional miasma
> of bullshit collectivist dogma caused you to think your wrong thoughts.
>
> ===================================
>
> Why should you care? You just got on board being down with murdering
> me.
It wouldn't be murder - it would be disinfection.
> "Jack Skolasky" wrote in message
> news:Z6idnfmeq80IBqLN...@giganews.com...
>
> Draino, a goddamned motherfucking looter who deserves to be killed, lied:
>
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0aq$e28$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> Which nation and culture are you from then?
>>
>> ================================
>>
>> Who gives a flying fuck and why should we?
>
> Because we want to know exactly which degraded and dysfunctional miasma
> of bullshit collectivist dogma caused you to think your wrong thoughts.
>
> ===================================
>
> Why should you care? You just got on board being down with murdering
> me.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:03:54 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:26 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> I still don't see what it has to do with anything, I'm not from a
>>> Christian culture.
>>
>> Then what culture are you from?
>
> A secular one.
Which one, name it please.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> I still don't see what it has to do with anything, I'm not from a
>>> Christian culture.
>>
>> Then what culture are you from?
>
> A secular one.
>> Are you American at least?
>
> Nope.
>>> I say by being an American, you have these rights. The other side of
>>> the argument, that you are on, says that you have these automatically
>>> (or in you case, granted by a creator).
>>
>> You have these rights under the precepts by which they were enumerated.
>>
>> Minus the Creator, you'd not have said rights.
>
> Yet you cannot show a creator is there.
> And my rights are given and
> protected by the state.
ward of the state and they can take away all your rights, even to breathe.
> If the creator wasn't there, the laws of the land would be, and I'd still
> have my rights.
> So as you demonstrated above, they don't come from this creator.
tightly controlled by the state.
Does that make you pleased?
>>> Are you getting confused as to which side you're debating?
>>
>> No, I realize you are an atheist.
>
> Good, that's a good start.
It's sad you felt you had to gloss it over and pretend to be American.
>>>>> They exist everywhere, in every state. So it matters not.
>>>>
>>>> These states are established under the auspices of the Creator.
>>>
>>> Which as we've established cannot be determined to exist.
>>
>> Only by you.
>
> We determined by your inability to do so without invoking an argument
> that can be used to "prove" *everything*.
>
> Invalidating it in the process.
I accept the wisdom of the framers and the global historical record
regarding the Creator.
I find the combination sound.
>>> So that's an empty assertion. You might as well say it was under the
>>> auspices of Captain Crunch.
>>
>> That product is man-made, the Creator is not.
>
> That's very anti-crunch-etic of you. How do we now Captain Crunch
> wasn't based on a real person, who was actually a deity. Research this.
> The point is, it doesn't follow.
>
> You could say *anything* gave us those rights, in the absence of
> evidence, any crackpot theory is as good as yours.
>>>> It is relevant to how we handle _this_ example, the American one.
>>>>
>>>> I am saddened the DOI does not apply elsewhere, but such is life.
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in handling the "American one",
>>
>> Too bad - that is where this began and where it remains for those of us
>> who _are_ Americans.
>
> That's strange, because you are claiming I get my rights from the
> creator, and not by being a citizen of a certain state.
> You're arguing my side again and getting confused.
>>> I'm interested in
>>> these rights that I'm supposed to have at all times in history, in all
>>> locations, in any state, basically always.
>>
>> They are, yes.
>
> So why do you keep asking about culture and nation?
> By your argument it should have zero to do with my rights, yet you keep
> quoting US documents to back up your claims.
You shrink from telling me what yours is - why?
> But actually they back mine up, that the state gives you these rights.
Do I need to repost the DOI yet again?
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
>>> I already know about rights in the US. And I say they come from the
>>> state.
>>
>> And you remain completely wrong.
>>
>> The state protects and shepherds rights, it does not hand them out.
>
> If it didn't, you'd not have any. Try North Korea.
Our framers said:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.
>>>> I suspect you believe no Craetor exists, am I wrong?
>>>
>>> Yes, you are wrong.
>>
>> Oh, which Creator do you believe exists then?
>
> None.
>> Are you getting confused as to which side you are on, admitted atheist?
>
> No, you're just getting confused as to what atheism is.
> I don't believe a creator (God) exists,
> that doesn't mean I believe one *doesn't* exist.
No point going on here.
>>>>> So basically no you cannot prove such a good exists. Good, more
>>>>> progress.
>>>>
>>>> What I might say will always be submitted to your filters - in that
>>>> respect you can reject anything I say.
>>>
>>> Of course it won't.
>>
>> "it"?
>>
>> That's non responsive.
>
> I - typo.
>
>>> But you won't even give any evidence that will
>>> prove such a thing.
>>
>> Iow, my evidence does not get past your filters, ipso facto.
>
> You've not presented any to test the filters.
>>>>> But I can't, my rights come from Yahweh and not the state! Ha-ha
>>>>
>>>> Your rights are _protected_ by this state, if you are American, are you?
>>>
>>> Then I cannot surrender my rights. I'm not an American.
>>
>> Then why are you entering into an American-based discussion?
>
> It's not!
> It's about rights coming from a creator (or evolution!).
> You're the one that keeps hauling out US specific documents.
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
> How do I surrender these rights that this creator gave me?
>>>>> Stepped in your own bear trap there didn't you.
>>>>
>>>> Not in the slightest, your rights as an American are not uniformly
>>>> protected globally.
>>>
>>> This is my point exactly. "Rights as an American", this sums it up.
>>> Rights I have being a citizen of a certain state.
>>>
>>> The state gave me those rights. If I'm not an American then I don't
>>> have the "rights as an American".
>>
>> Since you just claimed not to be an American this discussion is over,
>> next time don't play at being an imposter.
>
> Your concession is noted an accepted.
> You keep banging on about "rights as an American" yet claim they
> actually came from God! LOL
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
> Where's the "rights as a human" line? You're so confused.
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."
>>> Which is again my point. Rights are given by the state, if you happen
>>> to live in a crappy one you have little to no rights.
>>
>> No, rights are _protected_ by the state.
>>
>> Which crappy one do you live in, say Canada perhaps?
>
> Seeing as you haven't established where these rights came from then they
> cannot therefore exist.
Next.
> You cite a creator you cannot show exists.
>>> How does that imply I came from a Christian culture? I did not.
>>
>> Identify your culture then, now.
>
> A secular one.
Why are you so afraid to say that?
>>>>> Yes, it was. Excellent work there by the frame-ees (my little pet name
>>>>> for them).
>>>>
>>>> Oh I see, you have a denigration for those enlightened men as well.
>>>>
>>>> I am unsurprised.
>>>>
>>>> No matter, enjoy their handiwork while in the same breath decrying it.
>>>>
>>>> It's that robust you know.
>>>
>>> That's what they would have wanted.
>>
>> It is what they wanted and achieved - a wonder in this world.
>
> Great, so why chastise me for doing what they wanted?
Creator is protected.
What more can I say to a non-American?
If I knew which nation you were in I could address your right to reject
the Creator locally.
> I thought you were a patriot!
You are not in a position to judge as a non-American.
>>> You kowtow them like they were kings.
>>
>> I laud their wisdom and foresight.
>
> Hero worship.
>>> This is exactly what they were
>>> trying to get away from in Europe.
>>
>> No it's not.
>>
>> They were trying to get away from religious oppression and a corrupt
>> feudal system of Kings.
>
> One out of two isn't bad. The religious oppression unfortunately
> continues to this day.
> I don't see your problem with a system of Kings, surely God appoints
> them! Ordained by God they used to say.
the Creator which over time have been found to be corrupt.
>> Their efforts were a grand success.
>>
>> I will have no more discourse with you on this matter as you have at
>> last admitted you are not American.
>>
>> In doing so you confirm how much time I wasted with you.
>>
>> Goodbye.
>
> Of course, this is because you're xenophobic and a racist.
You melt faster than cheap chocolate..
As a "xenophobe" which nations do I hate?
As a "racist" which races do I hate?
Be specific, you silly atheist troll.
> Hate thy neighbor, judge them and cast the first stone.
You seem to be projecting.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:05:05 PM8/30/12
to
intervention in the British health care system.
■Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body
NICE
- April 29, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)]?
■Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed
shortage
- David Rose, April 23, 2009 [Times Online]?
■Number of children going to hospital to have teeth pulled soars by
66% since 1997
- Daniel Martin and Cher Thornhill, April 12, 2009 [Daily Mail (UK)]?
■NHS ‘failings’ over elderly falls
- March 25, 2009 [BBC]?
■Learning disabled ‘failed by NHS’
- Nick Triggle, March 24, 2009 [BBC]?
■Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait
- Lyndsay Moss, March 21, 2009 [The Scotsman]?
■Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients
- Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association, March 21, 2009
[Telegraph UK]?
■Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
- Sarah Boseley, March 21, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending
billions
- Jenny Hope, March 20, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Failing hospital ’caused deaths’
- March 17, 2009 [BBC]?
■Health gap drive ‘wasted money’
- Nick Triggle, March 14, 2009 [BBC]?
■Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful ‘PR exercise’ by doctors
- Lyndsay Moss, March 13, 2009 [The Scotsman]?
■“Political meddling” threatens general practice, warns GP leader
- March 13, 2009 [Management in Practice (UK)]?
■Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses,
report warns
- Rebecca Smith, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK]?
■Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are told
- Simon Johnson, March 13, 2009 [Telegraph UK]?
■1,000 villagers wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens
- March 10, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Study that proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer’s drug ban
- Jenny Hope, March 7, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■NHS charges to rise in England
- March 5, 2009 [BBC]?
■Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
- March 4, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■NHS under fire over waiting times
- February 25, 2009 [The Scotsman]?
■Government procrastination blamed for HIV-contaminated blood tragedy
- February 23, 2009 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Specialist nurses ‘vastly overworked’
- February 20, 2009 [Harwich & Manningtree Standard]?
■Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals
- Adam Morris, February 19, 2009 [The Scotsman]?
■Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government
tells patients
- Daniel Martin, February 17, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Stroke services are ‘UK’s worst’
- February 17, 2009 [BBC]?
■Hospitals curb caesarean births
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, February 15, 2009 [The Times]?
■Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors
- Sarah Boseley, November 24, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, August 24, 2008 [The Times]?
■Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report
- Sarah Boseley, June 8, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists’
contract
- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times]?
■Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS
hospitals
- Philip Webster, Political Editor, and David Rose, June 4, 2008 [The
Times]?
■Cancer patients ?betrayed? by NHS
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]?
■NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]?
■Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists
refuse to treat her
- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Dental patients face care lottery
- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)]?
■Lung patients ‘condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too
expensive drugs’
- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Women in labour turned away by maternity units
- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report
- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries
- John Carvel, March 7, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she’s ‘too old’ for ?5,000
life-saving heart surgery
- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Patient ‘removed’ from waiting list to meet target
- January 31, 2008 [The Scotsman]?
■NHS patients told to treat themselves
- James Kirkup, January 4, 2008 [Telegraph UK]?
■NHS is ‘failing patients’ despite record funding
- Rebecca Smith, October 4, 2007 [Telegraph UK]?
■NHS rationing rife, say doctors
- September 24, 2007 [BBC]?
■One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■Audit Office asked to investigate record ?500m NHS underspend
- John Carvel, May 30, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■The drugs the NHS won’t give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK]?
■UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]?
■One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards
- Daniel Martin, May 10, 2007 [Daily Mail(UK)]?
■Specialist stroke care ‘lottery’
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News]?
■Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News]?
■Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]?
■UK health service “harms 10 percent of patients”
- Kate Kelland, July 7, 2006 [Reuters]?
■5,000 elderly ‘killed each year’ by lack of care beds
- June 26, 2006 [Telegraph UK]?
■Dental Socialism in Britain
- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., May 9, 2006 [LewRockwell.com]?
■Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
- Beezy Marsh, Patrick Hennessy and Nina Goswami, April 23, 2006
[Telegraph UK]?
■The money addicts: it’s your cash they are gambling with
- Patience Wheatcroft, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK]?
■NHS chiefs get luxury car deals
- Daniel Foggo and Steven Swinford, April 9, 2006 [The Times]?
■Secret NHS plan to ration patient care
- Nigel Hawkes, April 7, 2006 [The Times]?
■British Healthcare To Be Rationed
- April 7, 2006 [United Press International]?
■British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients
- March 17, 2006 [Reuters]?
■National Health Service – Grappling with Deficits
- March 9, 2006 [Economist.com]?
■Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS
- Martin Williams, September 23, 2005 [The Herald (Scotland)]?
■Life-saving cancer drugs ‘kept from NHS patients by red tape’
- Sam Lister, September 20, 2005 [The Times]?
■NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care spending
- September 20, 2005 [Telegraph UK]?
■Alzheimer’s sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital
drugs
- Michael Day, September 18, 2005 [Telegraph UK]?
■We all pay a price for our ‘free’ NHS
- John Smith, August 19, 2005 [The Scotsman]?
■2,000 British doctors out of work
- August 14, 2005 [The Washington Times]?
■UK health ‘unsustainable’
- August 14, 2005 [Finance24]?
■NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims
- Ben Hall, August 8, 2005 [Financial Times]?
■British boy to go to India for operation
- August 5, 2005 [United Press International]?
■NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women
- Lois Rogers and Jonathon Carr-Brown, July 31, 2005 [The Times]?
■Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS
- Martyn Halle, July 8, 2005 [Telegraph UK]?
■Report says NHS is mired in huge debts
- David Simms, June 25, 2005 [ABC Money (UK)]?
■U.K. set to restrict smoking
- June 21, 2005 [The Associated Press]?
■NHS ?fund bias? against men may cost 2,500 lives a year
- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 19, 2005 [The Times]?
■Doubts on funding NHS ‘monuments’
- Nicholas Timmins, June 10, 2005 [Financial Times]?
■17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals
- June 7, 2005 [Cambridge Evening News]?
■Figures show more patients waiting for operations
- June 3, 2005 [Guardian UK]?
■Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed
- Celia Hall, May 19, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■Why NHS Opposes ‘Treatment by Demand’ for the Dying
- Stephen Howard and Jan Colley, PA, May 18, 2005 [Scotsman]?
■800 queue for NHS dentists
- May 5, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS
- Nic Fleming, April 25, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■British health service facing nurse exodus
- April 25, 2005 [United Press International]?
■About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA
- April 25, 2005 [Scotsman]?
■NHS debts soar to over ?1bn
- Karyn Miller, April 24, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists
- April 18, 2005 [Catholic World News]?
■U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care
- Reed Landberg, April 14, 2005 [Bloomberg]?
■Number of NHS Bureaucrats ‘Rising Faster Than Health Staff’
- Joe Churcher, March 22, 2005 [Scotsman]?
■‘?500m hole’ in hospital budgets
- Celia Hall, March 21, 2005 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■1,000 Scots desert NHS every week
- Murdo Macleod, March 5, 2005 [Scotsman]?
■British NHS facing financial crisis
- March 3, 2005 [Washington Times]?
■NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer’s treatment
- Nicholas Timmins, March 2, 2005 [FT.com - Financial Times]?
■NHS waiting list rises
- February 11, 2005 [Guardian UK]?
■Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages
- Jo Revill, February 6, 2005 [Guardian UK]?
■NHS financial crises set to outlast winter
- Mike Waites, February 4, 2005 [Yorkshire Post]?
■NHS 24 ‘priority’ callers wait four hours for advice
- Caroline Wilson, January 14, 2005 [Evening Times (UK)]?
■‘No strategy’ on NHS waiting time
- January 14, 2005 [BBC]?
■Output figures show NHS decline
- John Carvel, October 19, 2004 [Guardian UK]?
■Heart patients die on waiting lists
- Peter Sharples, October 18, 2004 [Manchester Online]?
■?25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network
- Karen Attwood, October 12, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■Gaps in care cost ?7bn, says charity
- John Carvel, October 4, 2004 [Guardian UK]?
■NHS excluding poor people, UK
- September 15, 2004 [Medical News Today]?
■Smokers ‘should not get NHS care’
- September 6, 2004 [BBC News]?
■Waiting list row blights Brighton
- John Carvel, September 4, 2004 [Guardian UK]?
■Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law
- Elizabeth Day, July 25, 2004 [telegraph.co.uk]?
■Shortage of dentists to double by 2011
- John Carvel, July 24, 2004 [Guardian UK]?
■Britain’s stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl
- Sarah Lyall, July 18, 2004 [The New York Times]?
■Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections
- John von Radowitz, July 1, 2004 [Scotsman.com]?
■Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels
- Lindsay Mcgarvie, May 23, 2004 [Glasgow Sunday Mail]?
■Study finds British hospitals are still austere, cold, smelly and
poorly maintained
- May 6, 2004 [News-Medical.net]?
■Hospital bathrooms and showers: a continuing saga of inadequacy
- Andy Monro, MRCP & Graham P Mulley, DM, FRCP, May 2004 [Journal of
the Royal Society of Medicine]?
■Majority back public smoking ban
- March 24, 2004 [BBC]?
■Discrimination Rampant In British Health Care
- Peter Moore, November 17, 2003 [365gay.com]?
■PERIPATETICS?To the Medical Socialists of All Parties
- Sheldon Richman, September 2003 [FEE.org]?
■Creeping Privatization?
Shortages of skilled workers, low morale, long queues for services,
crumbling facilities and corrupt practises. - Roland Watson, August 6,
2001 [LewRockwell.com]?
■The World’s Worst HMO
- Stephen D. Moore, November 24, 1999 [Random Thoughts]?
■Socialized Medicine in Great Britain: Lessons for the Oregon Health Plan
- Professor John Spiers, March 18, 1999 [Cascade Policy Institute]?
■The Sickbed Which is Socialized British Medicine
- December 23, 1997 [NCPA]?
■The British Way of Withholding Care
- Harry Schwarz, March 1989 [FEE.org]
Canada
Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and
established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To
ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian
provinces outlawed private health insurance.
•Surgery postponed indefinitely for 1,000 Kelowna patients
- Cathryn Atkinson, April 8, 2008 [Globe and Mail]?
•Majority of Que. dentists quit health-care system
- March 27, 2008 [CTV.ca]?
•Why Ontario keeps sending patients south
- Lisa Priest, February 22, 2008 [Globe and Mail]?
•Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?
- Don Surber, March 3, 2008 [Acton Institute]?
•Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
- October 15, 2007 [CBC News (Canada)]?
•The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
- David Gratzer, Summer 2007 [City Journal]?
•Cancer patients question why PET scan not covered
- May 28, 2007 [CBC News]?
•BC Medical Association: Waiting Too Long for Hip and Knee Surgery
Costs $10,000 Per Patient-Maximum Wait Times Should Be No Longer Than 6
Months
- June 28, 2006 [CCN Matthews]?
•Ont. physician turns away patient for being 55+
- March 17, 2006 [CTV.ca]?
•Canada inches toward private medicine
- Rebecca Cook Dube, August 8, 2005 [CS Monitor]?
•Doctor defends private cancer clinic
- Gillian Livingston, July 15, 2005 [Canadian Press]?
•Dogma trumps truth in health-care issues
- D?Arcy Jenish, July 7, 2005 [Ontario Business News]?
•Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance
- Walter Williams, June 20, 2005 [Capitalism Magazine]?
•Doctor welcomes health ruling
- June 9, 2005 [CBC Montreal]?
•Patients shouldn’t wait more than 8 weeks for cardiac defibrillator:
experts
- May 24, 2005 [Canadian Press]?
•Grads fail to slow doctor shortage
- Jennifer O’Brien, May 21, 2005 [London Free Press]?
•Free Canadian health care comes at cost
- April 10, 2005 [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]?
•Canada’s drug tab reaches $22 billion, report suggests
- Sheryl Ubelacker, CP, April 6, 2005 [London Free Press]?
•Canadian health care is free and first-class — if you can wait
- Beth Duff-Brown, March 19, 2005 [The Associated Press]?
•Pediatricians, parents warn of shortage of community-based care for
children
- Colin Perkel, March 4, 2005 [The Canadian Press]?
•Access to specialists difficult: study
- February 16, 2005 [CBC Calgary]?
•Doctor shortages, frustrations vary from region to region, survey shows
- February 15, 2005 [Canada.com]?
•Montreal leads the country in offering private health care
- Aaron Derfel, February 12, 2005 [Montreal Gazette]?
•Canada falling short on medical imaging
- February 9, 2005 [Macleans.ca]?
•Creative incentives required to retain older doctors
- Dr. Charles Shaver, January 20, 2005 [Toronto Star]?
•MRI gap defies cash fix
- Mark Kennedy, January 14, 2005 [National Post (Canada)]?
•A boy’s plight, a nation’s problem
- Lisa Priest, January 13, 2005 [The Globe and Mail]?
•Where’s proof private clinics cost more?
- Tom Brodbeck, December 4, 2004 [The Winnipeg Sun]?
•Surgery backlog tops 5,500 at kids’ hospitals; One-year waits common
- Aaron Derfel, December 3, 2004 [The Gazette (Montreal)]?
•Hospital wait lists to get worse, Carriere says
- Chris Traber, November 14, 2004 [Yorkregion.com]?
•Frustrated patients can’t handle ER waits
- Jennifer Stewart and Jeffrey Simpson, October 28, 2004 [The Halifax
Herald Limited]?
•Private medical clinic opens in Montreal
…it answers, “an ever-increasing demand from the public for greater
accessibility and quality of health services.” - October 13, 2004 [CTV.ca]?
•Canadians have higher death risk than Americans after heart attack: study
- Sheryl Ubelacker, September 20, 2004 [Canada.com]?
•Canadian medical tourists in India
- Jeremy Copeland, September 20, 2004 [CBC News]?
•Doctor shortage cripples Canada’s free health care
- Clifford Krauss, September 18, 2004 [Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune]?
•Canada’s Once-Proud Public Health System in Crisis
- David Ljunggren, September 14, 2004 [Reuters (Ottawa)]?
•Hospitals to cut, again
- September 5, 2004 [Toronto Star]?
•Canada’s Medical Nightmare
- Robert J. Cihak, M.D., September 1, 2004 [Health Care News]?
•Canada faces shortage of doctors
- August 19, 2004 [MSNBC]?
•Canadians losing faith in health system: poll
- August 16, 2004 [CTV.ca]?
•Ontario hospitals a health risk
- Michael Hurley, August 8, 2004 [Toronto Star]?
•Need surgery? Here’s how long you’ll wait
“It’s inhuman. The quality of my life is horrible and there’s
absolutely nothing I can do about it.” - Jason Fekete, July 28, 2004
[Calgary Herald]?
•Docs, nurses fed up
Canadian doctors and nurses are fed up with inter-governmental
“bickering” that is dragging out wait times and causing more pain and
suffering for patients. - July 28, 2004 [Winnipeg Sun]?
•Free Health Care?
…in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become
too sick to tolerate a procedure. - Walter E. Williams, July 24, 2004
[CATO]?
•The truth about Canada’s ailing health-care system
All the major candidates in Canada’s recent national election
acknowledged that the country’s health-care system is failing Canadians.
- Robert J. Cihak, July 13, 2004 [The Seattle Times]?
•Health-care crisis looms, even with new money
Canada’s health-care system is “five to 10 years” from the breaking
point — even with cash injections from government, says the new
president of the B.C. Medical Association. - Doug Alexander, July 5,
2004 [Vancouver Sun]?
•Emergency room delays a strong campaign factor
“Go into the emergency room ? it is the most pitiful piece of work you
ever seen in your life.” - David Bruser, June 22, 2004 [Toronto Star]?
•Canadian Health Care in Crisis
Analyst visits NC to describe how single-payer health care really
works in practice. - Donna Martinez, June 17, 2004 [Carolina Journal]?
•Quebec cancer patients sue over wait
Women waited months for radiation; lawsuit could cost system
$50-million. - Ingrid Peritz, March 11, 2004 [The Globe and Mail]?
•Health care: no waiting lists
‘You get knee surgery within two days … try and get that in human
hospitals.’ Canada’s [private] pet health-insurance industry is
projected to grow at roughly 50 per cent a year… - Robert Scalia,
November 30, 2003 [Montreal Gazette]?
•For some, surgery abroad a welcome answer
- Daniel Girard, November 29, 2003 [Toronto Star]?
•Canadian Doctors Eyeing United States
- Clifford Krauss, October 17, 2003 [The New York Times]?
•The Top Ten Things People Believe About Canadian Health Care, But
Shouldn?t
- Brian Lee Crowley, October 9, 2003 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]?
•Canadians’ health at risk, CMA says
- Valerie Lawton, September 26, 2003 [Toronto Star]?
•Burnout is now doctors’ ailment
Almost half of Canadian doctors say they’re burned out, emotionally
exhausted and blame medicine for putting a drain on their family life. -
Karen Palmer, August 20, 2003 [Toronto Star]?
•New MRI clinic in row over poaching
While she insists she’s not making any money off the venture, she says
it provides an income allowance for her and her husband, the other
principal in the company. - Theresa Boyle and Robert Benzie, July 28,
2003 [Toronto Star]?
•Price Controls and Overall Drug Spending
The Canadian system, however, tends to push up overall spending on
prescription drugs, despite the low prices for some brand name ones. -
John Melby, July 2, 2003 [Buckeye Institute]?
•Gore Endorses Canada’s Medical System
- William L. Anderson, November 29, 2002 [Mises]?
•How Good is Canadian Health Care?
- August 2002 [Fraser Institute]?
•Canadian Health-Care System Is No Model for Prescription Drug Reform
- May 1, 2001 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]?
•The Ghost of America’s Health Care Future Lives in Canada Today
- James Frogue and Robert Moffit, December 25, 2000 [Capitalism Magazine]?
•Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience
Explores several lessons that can be drawn from the Canadian
experience with socialized medicine:
■Socialized medicine, although of poor quality, is very expensive;
■Political compromise is the result;
■Socialized medicine is both a consequence and a great contributor to
the idea that economic conditions should be equalized by coercion. -
Pierre Lemieux [The Freeman]
•Canadian Health Care
…if Canadians knew as much as they think they do about the economic
and moral workings of Medicare, they might not be as enthusiastic as
they are about their cherished right to ‘free’ health care. - Andrei
Kreptul, August 30, 2000 [Mises]?
•When Patients Become Victims – The Crime of Government-Run Health Care
- Merrill Matthews Jr., Ph.D. and Kerri Houston, May 1, 2000 (PDF format)?
•Socialized Medicine Leaves a Bad Taste in Patients’ Mouths
- Lawrence W. Reed, February 23, 2000 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]?
•Canadians Dissatisfied With Socialized Medicine
- January 26, 2000 [NCPA]?
•Memo to Al Gore: Canadian Medicine Isn’t Cheap or Effective
- William McArthur, former chief coroner for British Columbia, January
28, 2000?
•Loved to Death: America’s Unresolved Health-Care Crisis
As Canada’s national government slashes spending on medical care in
order to reduce the deficit, local provinces are reducing medical staff.
In Ontario, pregnant women are being sent to Detroit because no
obstetricians are available. Specialists of all kinds are in short
supply. Patients have to wait eight weeks for an MRI, ten weeks for
referral to a specialist, and four months for heart bypass surgery. -
Michael J. Hurd, November 1997 [Liberty Haven]?
•Is Canadian Health care a Good Model for the U.S. to Follow?
- Michael Walker, August 1994 [Liberty Haven]
•Health of the State (commentary by a cancer survivor)
I tell you this not to alarm you, to elicit sympathy, or to bore you.
I tell you because the episode has been, for me, a salutary lesson (just
in case I needed one) in why the government should not be allowed
anywhere near a syringe, a dressing, a scalpel, an oxygen mask, a tissue
sample ? anything to do with health.?
•Michigan Shouldn’t Copy Canada’s Health System
- Lawrence W. Reed, July 29, 1991 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:05:22 PM8/30/12
to
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:06:06 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:32 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o442$71l$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 9:38 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0mf$e28$4...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Dano wrote:
>>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o04u$cst$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>>
>>> Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
>>
>> Your intellectual intolerance more than adequately defines you.
>>
>> =======================================
>>
>> Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
>> moments ago.
>>
>> Fucking hilarious!
>>
>
> Actually I plonked him for cutting in on Hol-head's spanking.
>
> Do you need a spanking of your own, libitard?
>
> ===================================
>
> Oh sure. I love
It seems you do,
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o442$71l$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 9:38 AM, Dano wrote:
>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o0mf$e28$4...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Dano wrote:
>>> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o04u$cst$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> Goodbye.
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>>
>>> Whew! FINALLY. Thought he'd NEVER leave.
>>
>> Your intellectual intolerance more than adequately defines you.
>>
>> =======================================
>>
>> Says the clown that JUST "plonked" someone who disagrees with him mere
>> moments ago.
>>
>> Fucking hilarious!
>>
>
> Actually I plonked him for cutting in on Hol-head's spanking.
>
> Do you need a spanking of your own, libitard?
>
> ===================================
>
> Oh sure. I love
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:06:51 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:37 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7m7$vbs$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
> involved.
>
> =========================================
>
> Then why do religious fanatics who make up such names for their fantasy
> figures kill one another in support those Names?
Oh easy answer - humans are imperfect and self-centered.
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7m7$vbs$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
> involved.
>
> =========================================
>
> Then why do religious fanatics who make up such names for their fantasy
> figures kill one another in support those Names?
> More wars fought in the name of these "gods" than for any other reason.
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:07:36 PM8/30/12
to
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 2:12:25 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>
> A negative right cannot lead to a positive one. Negative rights enjoin
> other persons *from* actions; they never oblige others positively to
> act. So, a sick person seeking to pursue his happiness might wish to
> receiver the services of a doctor. What obligations does that create for
> me? It cannot oblige me to pay for his doctor visit. At most, it obliges
> me to refrain from interfering in his voluntary transaction with a doctor.
And what about those poor individuals (some of them even post here) who
>
>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>
> A negative right cannot lead to a positive one. Negative rights enjoin
> other persons *from* actions; they never oblige others positively to
> act. So, a sick person seeking to pursue his happiness might wish to
> receiver the services of a doctor. What obligations does that create for
> me? It cannot oblige me to pay for his doctor visit. At most, it obliges
> me to refrain from interfering in his voluntary transaction with a doctor.
are mentally incapacitated? Would you just leave them to fend for
themselves?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 2:15:25 PM8/30/12
to
When you look at various national health care schemes around the world,
the ones that work best are those that do *NOT* have single-payer
schemes, but instead have an insurance mandate. Although there is much
to dislike and oppose in Obamacare, the mandate is one of its least
objectionable features. Far better we should do something more like
Switzerland or German or France, than to follow Canada or (even worse)
the UK.
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 2:17:04 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:41 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>
>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>
> Unless one believes in an afterlife.
Only a moron would believe that consciousness continues without brain
>
>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>
> Unless one believes in an afterlife.
activity. Possibly, under Obama care, anyone who believes in an
afterlife should be considered to be mentally defective and assigned to
a mental rehab facility. (Maybe I *do* favor Obama care)
>> *I* am not making that case, just playing devil's advocate.
>
> Aptly termed.
If you believe the bible stories, the devil got a bad deal from god.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:18:58 PM8/30/12
to
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:19:28 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:54 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7ti$th$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>>
>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>
>>
>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
> Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
>
> Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
>
> ======================================
>
> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
> --------------------------------------------------
Yes, and you seem to be living it in reverse.
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7ti$th$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>>
>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>
>>
>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
> Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
>
> Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
>
> ======================================
>
> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
> --------------------------------------------------
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:20:05 PM8/30/12
to
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:20:30 PM8/30/12
to
skink on sink
Aug 30, 2012, 2:20:53 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:58 AM, Dano wrote:
> You just got on board being down with murdering me.
I suspect he will not be the last either.
> You just got on board being down with murdering me.
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 2:22:10 PM8/30/12
to
liberals?" thread, doesn't it? Conservatives and libertarians are very
unhappy with the direction the country is headed under Obama, but
they're generally much happier in their personal lives. Leftists like
Draino just seem like wretchedly miserable people overall, and it has
nothing to do with their unhappiness with the direction of the country
or other people's conditions. They're just bitter, angry, dysfunctional
people.
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 2:27:22 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:29 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>
>> but once you reach the age where you can have independent, coherent
>> thoughts, why
>> would any thinking person STILL believe?
>
> It may be that continued scholarly examination has revealed some core
> truths shared across the culturally diverse pallet of faith which
> indicate the presence of a Creator.
And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe. What is your point?
I don't understand the whole idea of god worship. Who cares? Do you
think that a god who created the universe and everything in it cares
even one bit whether or not you bow and kneel at the correct times?
That you mumble some ancient words and make signs in the air? Stupid.
Live your life properly because it is the right thing to do, not because
of some fear of everlasting fire. Do the right thing simply
because it is the right thing to do.
> It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
> experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
> indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
Wow! That's a mouthful of bullshit.
> It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are not
> in effect.
>
> Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
Are you on drugs?
>
>> but once you reach the age where you can have independent, coherent
>> thoughts, why
>> would any thinking person STILL believe?
>
> It may be that continued scholarly examination has revealed some core
> truths shared across the culturally diverse pallet of faith which
> indicate the presence of a Creator.
And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe. What is your point?
I don't understand the whole idea of god worship. Who cares? Do you
think that a god who created the universe and everything in it cares
even one bit whether or not you bow and kneel at the correct times?
That you mumble some ancient words and make signs in the air? Stupid.
Live your life properly because it is the right thing to do, not because
of some fear of everlasting fire. Do the right thing simply
because it is the right thing to do.
> It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
> experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
> indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
Wow! That's a mouthful of bullshit.
> It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are not
> in effect.
>
> Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
Are you on drugs?
Message has been deleted
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 2:29:39 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:12 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>>
>> A negative right cannot lead to a positive one. Negative rights enjoin
>> other persons *from* actions; they never oblige others positively to
>> act. So, a sick person seeking to pursue his happiness might wish to
>> receiver the services of a doctor. What obligations does that create for
>> me? It cannot oblige me to pay for his doctor visit. At most, it obliges
>> me to refrain from interfering in his voluntary transaction with a
>> doctor.
>
>
> And what about those poor individuals (some of them even post here) who
> are mentally incapacitated? Would you just leave them to fend for
> themselves?
I wouldn't, and I think many other people wouldn't, but any action I
> On 8/30/2012 1:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose a case could be made under the aegis of 'Life, Liberty and the
>>> pursuit of happiness'. One could possibly successfully argue that it's
>>> difficult to pursue happiness if you're sick or dead.
>>
>> A negative right cannot lead to a positive one. Negative rights enjoin
>> other persons *from* actions; they never oblige others positively to
>> act. So, a sick person seeking to pursue his happiness might wish to
>> receiver the services of a doctor. What obligations does that create for
>> me? It cannot oblige me to pay for his doctor visit. At most, it obliges
>> me to refrain from interfering in his voluntary transaction with a
>> doctor.
>
>
> And what about those poor individuals (some of them even post here) who
> are mentally incapacitated? Would you just leave them to fend for
> themselves?
undertake on their behalf must be entirely voluntary on my part, not
coerced. As hard-hearted as it may sound, mental defectives and others
who can't fend for themselves do not have an enforceable right to
anything that leads to a moral or legal involuntary obligation that
falls on me or anyone else.
Jack Skolasky
Aug 30, 2012, 2:31:07 PM8/30/12
to
George Plimpton
Aug 30, 2012, 2:32:59 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:29 AM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>
> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not the same
> things.
Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
Get rid of your fuckwitted nym theme. It blew even when you first
started it, and now it's stale - it blows and it's stale. Drop it.
> In article <k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>
> No.
>
>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>
>
> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not the same
> things.
Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
Get rid of your fuckwitted nym theme. It blew even when you first
started it, and now it's stale - it blows and it's stale. Drop it.
Message has been deleted
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:39:26 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 11:45 AM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>> I chose the ones to match your culture.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>>
>>> No you didn't.
>>
>> I did my best, sorry you intentionally misled me.
>
> Your assumption, your fuck up.
Your allusion, my response.
>>> You chose one that matches your own, which is exactly
>>> what we needed.
>>
>> I am an American and you are not, that closes this discussion point off now.
>
> Because your rights come from the state, and I don't have the same
> rights as you?
No, because was discussing rights with an American context.
> Thank you.
If you want your nation's context - say which nation it is.
>>>> So be glad I chose ones from your culture.
>>>
>>> In my culture, there is no "God" defined. We're tailoring this for your
>>> Abrahamic God.
>>
>> Which is your culture, why will you not answer that?
>
> A secular one.
Why will you not specify?
Why are you afraid?
>>>>>> Your Christian culture confirmed I guess we must.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Christian culture? What Christian culture is that?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, are you not American?
>>>
>>> Nope, I am not.
>>
>> So what are you, name your nationality.
>
> How does this help you determine my rights???
Why are you afraid to do so?
> You said the state has nothing to do with giving me rights!
True - "giving".
>>>>> That's not everyones God.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, has to be really.
>>>
>>> Progress maybe
>>
>> The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
>> involved.
>>
>> Basic stuff, really.
>> The Creator is called by many differing names dependent on the culture
>> involved.
>>
>
> It's also often a completely different agent depending on culture. With
> a completely different set of rules and laws. Often one of them
> proclaiming that one is the *true* God and all others are lies.
Does happen, yes.
> You're invoking the creator as an explanation - You've at least now
> determined who you were talking about.
I was never ambiguous from the get go.
> I don't have this creator in my culture - So why do you assume I know
> what you're talking about??
You chose to pretend to be American and goad me, don't blame me for not
guessing which culture yours is.
>>> That's not the answer to the question. I want to know how they can be
>>> shown to come from God.
>>
>> I am not here to educate you in such matters, if you _truly_ seek such
>> knowledge you should progress down a scholarly philosophical or
>> scientific path that will satisfy you.
>
> This is what you could say about any crackpot theory.
Or any new science as well.
> You propose there's a creator, and they you ask *me* to prove it for you?
>
> Interesting.
Might be if it ever happened, but it has not.
You see, I do not require _your_ proof.
>> Of course I suspect your 'questions' are no more than leading rhetoric.
>
> He-he, can't argue with that ;-)
Of course not - a rare bit of candor there.
>>>>> I noticed The Qur'an, Book or Mormom or the Iliad were not on there,
>>>>> which is fine as I only asked for a few, but about those books...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do *they* come from God, or not?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not Mormon, Greek, or a huge mythology buff, so it's possible I suppose.
>>>
>>> Or a Muslim I take it.
>>
>> No, I'm not a Muslim either.
>
> Any particular reason why?
Born and raised as an American.
>>> So is it fair to say that the Bible, Qur'an and Book or Mormon you would
>>> all consider coming from God?
>>
>> It is fair to say all those cultures make that claim.
>>
>> Whether they are accurate or not is up to the Creator to parse.
>>
>> I personally lack the omniscience to do so.
>
> They either came from God or they didn't. You've stated the Bible did.
>
> Why not the Qu'ran or the book of Mormon?
>
> You've *already* made a claim as to what came from God.
I make claims based on my cultural context and my nation's framers.
All others are up for debate.
>>> You say you're not a mythology buff but you've not demonstrated what
>>> separates the Bible from mythology.
>>
>> I have no particular need to either.
>>
>> My personal research into epistemology has thus far satisfied my
>> particular queries.
>
> One that appears to have shown the Bible to be true and other religious
> documents to be false I take it.
You may take that as another error in your judgment.
> Strange that people of all religions tend to make that same conclusion -
> Putting their own religion on the "true" list.
Many do, yes.
> I'm sure the search was completely impartial!
Not at first really, but it later became so.
Core truths are like that.
>>>> The Creator's omnipresence.
>>>
>>> You cannot demonstrate there is such a creator. You might as well give
>>> insight into fairies.
>>
>> I need not satisfy your needs, only my own.
>>
>> If you wish to believe in fairies it troubles me not one iota.
>
> Indeed. Yet if I assert that fairies gave us our rights - I can be
> expected to be called to back that up.
Sure, why not?
> And I'm calling on you to back your claim up.
I did.
> Just admit you have faith that this is true, nothing more and that it
> does not apply to everyone - By virtue of not everyone believing in God.
Belief in the Creator is not necessary to be created.
>>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>>
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
> Of course it's not. If you had asked me on the first post if I was an
> atheist I'd have answered "Yes".
I doubt that.
In fact you were regularly quite coy as to what you were.
You still are, refusing to list your nation or specific culture.
> It was blatantly obvious that I'm not a theist. Ergo I'm an atheist.
Not an a:b equation in my book.
You left out agnosticism.
>>>>> But if you're asking are multiple Gods
>>>>> defined, of course they are.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think "defined" = "tested"?
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not - try again.
>>>
>>> We cannot test there are *any* Gods.
>>
>> Again, do not presume to speak for me.
>
> If you have a test you've been very quiet about it.
I have, correct.
>> I can and have made my own personal tests and to my satisfaction there
>> is a Creator.
>
> Yet you don't keep it a personal matter. You say that this God gave
> *me* my rights, gave *everyone* their rights.
I do.
> It may have passed your weak tests, but you're not the only person on
> the planet.
I can see that.
> And your assertion is no more valid in the real world than "a giant
> hippo gives me my rights".
Until your state begins removing your rights...
>>> Your "creator" is just a mere definition.
>>
>> Not to me.
>
> You cannot demonstrate it's more than that.
Only to you.
> I don't doubt your belief and faith. But when you project them onto
> other things and people that is the problem here.
I also leave you ample room to reject, so there is no problem.
You demand that I agree with all your "beliefs".
I, otoh, say only what mine are and let you do as you please.
Big difference.
>>> One, two, ten, a million - It doesn't really matter. They have been
>>> defined in many ways, no one definition carries more weight.
>>
>> To you, of course not.
>>
>> Your _dis_beliefs control what you perceive.
>
> What disbeliefs??
In a Creator, of course.
>>>>>> The Zeuss is out, sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never "in" for me! :-)
>>>>
>>>> You brought it up, and Thor too.
>>>
>>> It's not about me,
>>
>> That's an artless dodge from taking responsibility for your own
>> argumentation.
>>
>> You are a deceitful person.
>
> I never argued that Thor or Zeus were in for me, or real. I asked if
> they were the creator you referred to.
A disingenuous parry, and one intended to demean simultaneously.
This sort of rubbish defines you.
>>> I'm trying to find out why this creator of yours is,
>>> although we now know who you are referring to.
>>
>> Why would you care?
>
> Because apparently it gives me all my rights.
And that troubles you?
Why not just nestle in with your state and be unconcerned?
>> You have your disbelief.
>
> No I don't
Sure you do.
Stop lying.
>> And I have my belief.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Is your disbelief so weak it can not tolerate the presence of my belief?
>
> Of course not, I don't have disbelief.
Yes you do, stop lying.
>> That's telling.
>
> Could be, if it were the case.
It is.
>>>>> So, long story short you cannot prove it. So basically this being
>>>>> cannot give me anything.
>>>>
>>>> I gave you all a reasonable person would need.
>>>
>>> No, you gave all a gullible person would need.
>>
>> You confuse "gullibility" with having an open mind
>
> Your version of an open mind would believe *everything*, because there's
> an almost infinite amount of things, without evidence, that can be
> suggested.
Nope.
I test and refine to core truths.
> That's gullible.
Nope.
> And open mind is open to the possibility of a God - A gullible one
> believes it's true without evidence.
I have the evidence to satisfy me.
>>> It's a special pleading fallacy, the same "proof" could be used for fairies, pixies, goblins,
>>> leprechauns.
>>>
>>> Basically "feel them in your heart, and they then exist".
>>
>> If you are comfortable doing so, I'm not damaged by that.
>
> It's spurious logic, it proves nothing at all. As you should realize.
>
> As it can be used to "prove" anything. It's that weak.
But I allow you whatever makes you pleased in that realm.
Your beliefs, no matter how "spurious" do not impact me unless you come
to take my rights away.
>>>>> We can't even determine it's out there.
>>>>
>>>> Do not presume to speak for me, I have made my own estimations.
>>>
>>> Reason is not your strong point.
>>
>> Honesty is not in you.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, rejection therefore is also a right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rejection of what???
>>>>
>>>> The Creator, of course, don't be abstruse.
>>>
>>> I don't reject a creator.
>>
>> Which one do you not reject - now you define the term for me.
>
> Any.
Not a definition.
Which specific Creator do you "not reject".
Name names.
>>> Hence I'm confused as to why you think I do.
>>
>> Atheism is a rejection of the Creator.
>
> No, it's the absence of belief in deities.
The Creator is synonymous with The Deity.
>>> I just have no evidence there is one.
>>
>> None that passes by your preconceived filters, obviously.
>
> None that cannot be use to prove *anything*.
To you.
> And what kind of gullible fool would use such reasoning??
One like yourself who relies on disbelief?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:46:45 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:27 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 1:29 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> but once you reach the age where you can have independent, coherent
>>> thoughts, why
>>> would any thinking person STILL believe?
>>
>> It may be that continued scholarly examination has revealed some core
>> truths shared across the culturally diverse pallet of faith which
>> indicate the presence of a Creator.
>
> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
Highly unlikely, but mathematically possible I suppose.
> On 8/30/2012 1:29 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> but once you reach the age where you can have independent, coherent
>>> thoughts, why
>>> would any thinking person STILL believe?
>>
>> It may be that continued scholarly examination has revealed some core
>> truths shared across the culturally diverse pallet of faith which
>> indicate the presence of a Creator.
>
> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
> What is your point?
If you haven't got it yet, what more could I say?
> I don't understand the whole idea of god worship. Who cares?
> Do you
> think that a god who created the universe and everything in it cares
> even one bit whether or not you bow and kneel at the correct times? That
> you mumble some ancient words and make signs in the air? Stupid.
> Live your life properly because it is the right thing to do, not because
> of some fear of everlasting fire. Do the right thing simply
> because it is the right thing to do.
>> It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
>> experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
>> indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
>
>
> Wow! That's a mouthful of bullshit.
>> It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are not
>> in effect.
>>
>> Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
>
>
> Are you on drugs?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:49:17 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:29 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> In article<k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"<janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>
> No.
Oh dear oh dear...
> In article<k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"<janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>
> No.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" Exodus 20:16
> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not the same
> things.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:49:51 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:32 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 11:29 AM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>> In article <k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"
>> <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not
>> the same
>> things.
>
> Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
Indeed.
> On 8/30/2012 11:29 AM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>> In article <k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"
>> <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not
>> the same
>> things.
>
> Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
> Get rid of your fuckwitted nym theme. It blew even when you first
> started it, and now it's stale - it blows and it's stale. Drop it.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:50:43 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:36 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> Jesus was a trouble maker.
Oh cripes, not another one...
> In the christian narrative the Jewish priesthood was
> going in the completely wrong direction and needed someone to shake them up and
> set them in the right direction. In the priests's narrative Jesus was an
> unnecessary political risk who could be removed; as a result the priests were
> removed and the temple razed some thirty years later.
>
> We could use more trouble makers. They keep us honest.
You sound like a Palesimian.
Oh cripes, not another one...
> In the christian narrative the Jewish priesthood was
> going in the completely wrong direction and needed someone to shake them up and
> set them in the right direction. In the priests's narrative Jesus was an
> unnecessary political risk who could be removed; as a result the priests were
> removed and the temple razed some thirty years later.
>
> We could use more trouble makers. They keep us honest.
You sound like a Palesimian.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:51:16 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:42 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> Your decision is
> what you assume and how you live with your assumption.
Until it impacts someone else's existence...
> Your decision is
> what you assume and how you live with your assumption.
Until it impacts someone else's existence...
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 2:52:17 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:45 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
> In article<2tSdnUMyFpJCLKLN...@giganews.com>,
Irrelevant.
> Perjury is.
Higher stakes.
> People constantly to
> themselves and others without being struck by lightenning.
Golf is but a game.
>> Get rid of your fuckwitted nym theme. It blew even when you first
>> started it, and now it's stale - it blows and it's stale. Drop it.
>
> Like pretending to be a dead professional amateur.
Or being a wanton cat lady...
> In article<2tSdnUMyFpJCLKLN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 11:29 AM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>>> In article<k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"<janea...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not the
>>> same
>>> things.
>>
>> Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
>
> In US law lying is not generally a crime.
>
>> On 8/30/2012 11:29 AM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>>> In article<k1o9c6$akc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"<janea...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> There is a Mosaic law against perjury, but lying and perjury are not the
>>> same
>>> things.
>>
>> Perjury is, of course, a form of lying.
>
Irrelevant.
> Perjury is.
Higher stakes.
> People constantly to
> themselves and others without being struck by lightenning.
Golf is but a game.
>> Get rid of your fuckwitted nym theme. It blew even when you first
>> started it, and now it's stale - it blows and it's stale. Drop it.
>
Or being a wanton cat lady...
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 2:55:09 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 2:29 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> And what about those poor individuals (some of them even post here) who
>> are mentally incapacitated? Would you just leave them to fend for
>> themselves?
>
> I wouldn't, and I think many other people wouldn't, but any action I
> undertake on their behalf must be entirely voluntary on my part, not
> coerced. As hard-hearted as it may sound, mental defectives and others
> who can't fend for themselves do not have an enforceable right to
> anything that leads to a moral or legal involuntary obligation that
> falls on me or anyone else.
So then you would be for abolition of all police forces?
>
>> And what about those poor individuals (some of them even post here) who
>> are mentally incapacitated? Would you just leave them to fend for
>> themselves?
>
> I wouldn't, and I think many other people wouldn't, but any action I
> undertake on their behalf must be entirely voluntary on my part, not
> coerced. As hard-hearted as it may sound, mental defectives and others
> who can't fend for themselves do not have an enforceable right to
> anything that leads to a moral or legal involuntary obligation that
> falls on me or anyone else.
After all, enforcement of the laws against crime must be VOLUNTARY, right?
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 2:58:22 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 2:42 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>
>> Only a moron would believe that consciousness continues without brain
>> activity.
>
> Either it does or it doesn't, but that isn't your decision. Your decision is
>
>> Only a moron would believe that consciousness continues without brain
>> activity.
>
> what you assume and how you live with your assumption.
There is no decision. When your brain ceases to function, all
consciousness is gone and never will return...Ever.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 3:04:05 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 12:58 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 2:42 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>>
>>> Only a moron would believe that consciousness continues without brain
>>> activity.
>>
>> Either it does or it doesn't, but that isn't your decision. Your
>> decision is
>> what you assume and how you live with your assumption.
>
>
> There is no decision. When your brain ceases to function, all
> consciousness is gone and never will return...Ever.
Well now, you must not have heard of:
> On 8/30/2012 2:42 PM, Don't make my brown eyes China Blue wrote:
>>
>>> Only a moron would believe that consciousness continues without brain
>>> activity.
>>
>> Either it does or it doesn't, but that isn't your decision. Your
>> decision is
>> what you assume and how you live with your assumption.
>
>
> There is no decision. When your brain ceases to function, all
> consciousness is gone and never will return...Ever.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it,
required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her
heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the
blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.
After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life. During the time
that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably
detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were
later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of
the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her
ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used
and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was
clinically and brain dead.
Mike Lovell
Aug 30, 2012, 3:08:35 PM8/30/12
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic <r...@co.bass> wrote:
>> reality is Jesus was a Jewish trouble maker.In those days they killed
>> them by nailing them to a stick. Today is a shot in back of the head.
>> Its just a case of then and now.
>
> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
>> them by nailing them to a stick. Today is a shot in back of the head.
>> Its just a case of then and now.
>
> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEAQECAAYFAlA/ui8ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4F2AQApgy+WKq/iFUzTL+1CLb9m2cw
3ACy7S4w+4bRyMoZauqLVTzn9JthZyxNu0CPCFq54JbBymNFqKDTHkHCfKyDQSqV
f1fWxSb+IsYaw7mt4iN2riEfgOBTF3CxqlaoCEmP/RVDJ/bHscCcDKFfzD82RIN1
78TKvHROKZiBnUz3n5Q=
=KJoO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 3:12:07 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 2:46 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>
>> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
>> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
>
> Highly unlikely, but mathematically possible I suppose.
It is EXACTLY as likely as 'god'.
>
>> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
>> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
>
> Highly unlikely, but mathematically possible I suppose.
When you understand that, all will become clear.
>> What is your point?
>
> If you haven't got it yet, what more could I say?
Everyone who knows me on usenet also knows that I am an extremely
friendly person who just happens to have an extraordinarily high IQ.
>> I don't understand the whole idea of god worship. Who cares?
>
> Interesting "if" statement.
>> Do you
>> think that a god who created the universe and everything in it cares
>> even one bit whether or not you bow and kneel at the correct times? That
>> you mumble some ancient words and make signs in the air? Stupid.
>
> I don't give those things much thought, sorry.
>>> It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
>>> experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
>>> indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
>>
>>
>> Wow! That's a mouthful of bullshit.
>
> Yours.
Sometimes I prefer the colloquial, 'bullshit' as it gets the point
across quite well.
>>> It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are not
>>> in effect.
>>>
>>> Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
>>
>>
>> Are you on drugs?
>
> Are you so easily threatened by the beliefs of all others?
disjointed and somewhat chaotic. I thought that you may be on some
prescription medication that caused these effects. If this is just your
normal manner of conversing, please accept my deepest apology.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 3:12:31 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:08 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> reality is Jesus was a Jewish trouble maker.In those days they killed
>>> them by nailing them to a stick. Today is a shot in back of the head.
>>> Its just a case of then and now.
>>
>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>
> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
Depends which chapter of history and branch, doesn't it?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-30, lib_o_matic<r...@co.bass> wrote:
>>> reality is Jesus was a Jewish trouble maker.In those days they killed
>>> them by nailing them to a stick. Today is a shot in back of the head.
>>> Its just a case of then and now.
>>
>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>
> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
Does _your_ "state" regularly encourage neonazism?
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 3:26:13 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:12 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 2:46 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
>>> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
>>
>> Highly unlikely, but mathematically possible I suppose.
>
> It is EXACTLY as likely as 'god'.
Not given the bulk of codices on the subject.
> On 8/30/2012 2:46 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>
>>> And it may be that continued scholarly examination will reveal that a
>>> leprechaun is in charge of the whole universe.
>>
>> Highly unlikely, but mathematically possible I suppose.
>
> It is EXACTLY as likely as 'god'.
> When you understand that, all will become clear.
testimony record.
>>> What is your point?
>>
>> If you haven't got it yet, what more could I say?
>
>
> Look, some how or other you have set yourself up as my enemy.
When did that happen?
> Everyone who knows me on usenet also knows that I am an extremely
> friendly person who just happens to have an extraordinarily high IQ.
>>> I don't understand the whole idea of god worship. Who cares?
>>
>> Interesting "if" statement.
>
>
> It is?
>>> Do you
>>> think that a god who created the universe and everything in it cares
>>> even one bit whether or not you bow and kneel at the correct times? That
>>> you mumble some ancient words and make signs in the air? Stupid.
>>
>> I don't give those things much thought, sorry.
>
>
> Then what is the problem? Tell me.
> I'm here for ya, big guy.
>>>> It may also be that in analyzing and correlating individual life
>>>> experiences and lessons that coincidence gives way to a pattern
>>>> indicative of design of some non-localized sort.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow! That's a mouthful of bullshit.
>>
>> Yours.
>
>
> I stand by my statement..Semantically, what you said above is null.
> Sometimes I prefer the colloquial, 'bullshit' as it gets the point
> across quite well.
>>>> It clearly is evident that for you these sorts of introspections are
>>>> not
>>>> in effect.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, continue living life as it comes to your buffers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you on drugs?
>>
>> Are you so easily threatened by the beliefs of all others?
>
>
> It was a serious question.
> Your thought patterns, as expressed here, are
> disjointed and somewhat chaotic.
> I thought that you may be on some
> prescription medication that caused these effects.
usenet message medical diagnoses?
> If this is just your
> normal manner of conversing, please accept my deepest apology.
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 3:28:18 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 3:08 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>
> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
You know what's great, Mike? There is a never ending supply of kooks!
>
>>
>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>
> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
I find endless fascination and enjoyment in the mind of a kook.
The idea that there is a virtually unlimited supply of them...A
'cornucopia of kooks' as it were, makes me quite happy.
lib_o_matic
Aug 30, 2012, 3:31:18 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 1:28 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 3:08 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>>
>> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
>
>
> You know what's great, Mike? There is a never ending supply of kooks!
Yes, you lot seem to regenerate spontaneously.
> On 8/30/2012 3:08 PM, Mike Lovell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the neonazi view, now go kill yourself.
>>
>> Christianity, the religion of love ... ???
>
>
> You know what's great, Mike? There is a never ending supply of kooks!
> I find endless fascination and enjoyment in the mind of a kook.
> The idea that there is a virtually unlimited supply of them...A
> 'cornucopia of kooks' as it were, makes me quite happy.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 3:40:48 PM8/30/12
to
"lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1oar8$hl0$9...@dont-email.me...
On 8/30/2012 11:54 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7ti$th$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>
> Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
>
> ======================================
Yes, and you seem to be living it in reverse.
=========================================
Do you think because you snip stuff, no one else read it?
Calling you a liar is a gross understatement.
On 8/30/2012 11:54 AM, Dano wrote:
> "lib_o_matic" wrote in message news:k1o7ti$th$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 8/30/2012 11:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 8/30/2012 11:06 AM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't believe in any Gods.
>>>
>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>
>>
>>> I know, thanks for finally fessing to your atheistic nature.
>>
>>
>> Why would anyone beyond the level of 'blithering idiot', believe in god?
>
> Why did the framers cite Nature's God in founding this republic?
>
>
> Do you propose they were all "blithering idiots"?
>
> ======================================
>
> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
> --------------------------------------------------
> Isn't there a prominent commandment regarding lying?
Yes, and you seem to be living it in reverse.
=========================================
Do you think because you snip stuff, no one else read it?
Calling you a liar is a gross understatement.
HVAC
Aug 30, 2012, 3:41:02 PM8/30/12
to
On 8/30/2012 3:04 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>
>> There is no decision. When your brain ceases to function, all
>> consciousness is gone and never will return...Ever.
>
> Well now, you must not have heard of:
>
>
> http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
>
> This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it,
> required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her
> heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the
> blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.
No she wasn't 'put to death'. She was put into suspension. All her body
>
>> There is no decision. When your brain ceases to function, all
>> consciousness is gone and never will return...Ever.
>
> Well now, you must not have heard of:
>
>
> http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
>
> This operation, nicknamed "standstill" by the doctors who perform it,
> required that Pam's body temperature be lowered to 60 degrees, her
> heartbeat and breathing stopped, her brain waves flattened, and the
> blood drained from her head. In everyday terms, she was put to death.
functions were mechanically maintained.
> After removing the aneurysm, she was restored to life.
> that Pam was in standstill, she experienced a NDE. Her remarkably
> detailed veridical out-of-body observations during her surgery were
> later verified to be very accurate. This case is considered to be one of
> the strongest cases of veridical evidence in NDE research because of her
> ability to describe the unique surgical instruments and procedures used
> and her ability to describe in detail these events while she was
> clinically and brain dead.
the world with random number generators being installed high up in
hospital operating rooms and in ICUs. To date, there has been a grand
total of ZERO successful reports. None of the patients even reported
seeing the number generator, never mind the correct number.
The fact that the doctor has a book and the patient has a music CD,
seems to be the root cause of this 'near death experience'.
Sorry that I am the pin in your party balloon.
Dano
Aug 30, 2012, 3:43:30 PM8/30/12
to
"skink on sink" wrote in message news:k1oatu$hl0$1...@dont-email.me...
On 8/30/2012 11:58 AM, Dano wrote:
> You just got on board being down with murdering me.
I suspect he will not be the last either.
=================================
Of course not. That's how you righties roll.]
Murderous cowards all.
On 8/30/2012 11:58 AM, Dano wrote:
> You just got on board being down with murdering me.
I suspect he will not be the last either.
Of course not. That's how you righties roll.]
Murderous cowards all.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages