Mccain And-or Huckabeeeeeeeee

[Texico]

Ok, I think I now understand what you meant by what you wrote. It still seems to me that you were trying to twist my words, though. Just consider my second post to be adding on to my first in order to explain it a little more clearly for others.

I knew the Mayan calendar was mathematically based, but you say that the predictions came from the rest of the world or the later generations of Mayan peoples? So if I understand this correctly, then the Mayan calendar will only roll over and essentially start anew, but there is no inherent prediction of anything else changing, correct?

As for living with the squirrels...

[gaia.plateau]

Ok, I think I now understand what you meant by what you wrote. It still seems to me that you were trying to twist my words, though. Just consider my second post to be adding on to my first in order to explain it a little more clearly for others.

The only time I'd ever manipulate someone's words is to crack a joke I was just trying to put things in perspective, vis-a-vis what's more important: achieving/insuring freedom, democracy and security in America, or extending the empire abroad?

I knew the Mayan calendar was mathematically based, but you say that the predictions came from the rest of the world or the later generations of Mayan peoples? So if I understand this correctly, then the Mayan calendar will only roll over and essentially start anew, but there is no inherent prediction of anything else changing, correct?

That's my understanding of things, from my experience and studies, aye. I believe that there originally were implications, however, that with the rolling over of the calender so too would roll over "history", as was read by Mayan high priests from the stars. It's from this that they believe technology will collapse.

My personal take on it is this: if I knew nothing of these predictions and prophecies, and had no outside influence, suggestion, or bias but my own objective perceptions of the world today... I'd tell you that human civilizations might not have much longer than 5 or 6 years to go.

And squirrels are excellent! Edited February 8, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Perrj99]

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one

Sources please. Edited February 8, 2008 by Perrj99

[gaia.plateau]

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one

Sources please.

Common knowledge? It's been stated by dozens of senior NATO officials, most of them likely Americans. Germany, the UK and Canada have the most rigorous training programs in the world. I personally learned it in my military history class and from several military journal articles. PM me your e-mail address and later in the month I can search for some incontestable peer-reviewed ones for you.

Edit: And it isn't nice to edit someone else's quote to change the context Edited February 9, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Bulldog_916]

New Orleans is a mess because they have a local gov't that brings new meaning to the word corrupt.

And where was Bush???? Eating cake...I love the art splash for it...
like 911, reading to kids, he finds out what happened, and keeps on reading

I'm sorry but Bush can't be blamed for what happened with Katrina. The way it works in this country is that the City requests aid (if needed) from the state, and the state then requests aid (if needed) from the national government. There was no request for aid until after the storm hit.

You know what else comes with universal government controlled healthcare? The inability to maintain a potent world-wide military. If critics are right that in the event of Ron Paul pulling the US out of the UN, NATO, etc. the world would collapse as the current hegemon influenced peace fades away then the same would be true as we lose funding for our armed forces because our citizenry is fond of low taxes.

As much as the general populace would enjoy socialized healthcare, I think that they view it as a way for them to save money. I'm not 100% sure that every person in support of universal healthcare understands that it's inception would cause a significant increase in taxes and an equally impressive increase in government spending. I hate to admit it, but I lack faith in the intelligence of my fellow man. There is just no circumstance in which I can see everyone rejoicing in a government which now (after universal healthcare) spends twice as much (invented figure, I won't lie) as it previously did.

I don't know. Honestly, I'll live either way. I just have my preferences. Or maybe I'll get lucky and the world will end in 2012 like it's supposed to.

Look, as far as the N.O. thing goes, when you know a bad storm is going to hit in one of the most WEAK places on the ENTIRE Gulf Coast, you, as a government, are obligated to do something about it. Louisiana wanted their levees and other assorted flood protections strengthened by the Army Corps of Engineers, can you guess what administration not only denied them that project, but CUT funding for flood protection in Lousiana? If you guessed the Bush Administration, you would be correct. Why you ask? The funding that was SUPPOSED to go to strengthening levees and flood protection in Louisiana was diverted to THE WAR EFFORT IN IRAQ!!! They made no bones about it and didnt even try to cover it up! Where does the responsibility lie in this case? Had the projects that were originally going to be done been funded correctly, New Orleaneans would have AT LEAST had adequate protection from the storm surge which would have bought them more time for evacuations. Then everyone knows what happened with the whole debacle with FEMA. "Heck of a job Brownie, heck of a job!"

Scotsman:

New Orleans is a mess because they have a local gov't that brings new meaning to the word corrupt.

The Fed gov't has no legal right, nor duty to interfere with any form of commerce within a state. The problem with sub primes was that there were a collection of dumb people that were willing to sign their name to anything. They didn't care about cost, nor the result of buying something beyond their means, just that they could get the keys to the front door. They refinanced every time there were 2cents worth of equity (usually resulting from value escalation, and not paying the note down.) then they spent every penny of the money on some new chunk of rubbish that they couldn't afford. No one lied to them, they signed knowing all the possibilities, and well able to hear everyone with an ounce of wits say the bubble was going to pop.

Nothing is stupider than someone that thinks the gov't needs to save them from their own inability to control their own spending. Shite, maybe we should call it a disease, and put them all on the role for a disability.

Part of freedom is knowing what you can't afford. You are free to sign any contract you want, no one said it has to be fair. Part of being "sub prime" is the fact you couldn't control your spending/credit/bills properly in the past. They get the high rates because their credit sucked... and that was their doing, not the gov't, not the banks, and definitely not the tax payers. After the lenders got burned, they are cranking back the loans, and avoiding sub-prime customers. The market fixes itself. Only a fool would think the rest of the nation needs to pay off their house so they can max every credit card in sight. I paid all my loans off, they can too. It just takes discipline, and self control... not the gov't. I dare bet if the gov't saved their sorry dead-beat asses, they would turn right around, and do the same stupid crap again. Part of life, some have, some don't... but anyone can if they apply themselves.

I would MUCH rather see the feds take any bail-out of these wankers, and put it into decent college grants, and a loan program that actually works. Investing in the future of the nation, not the stupidity of greedy people buying beyond their means.

Scots: When I said oversight, I meant oversight, not interjection. Now the Fed is having to cut interest rates to keep the economy above water. So either way, you have federal government interference in commerce, whether that's in the form of oversight of banks, consumers and investors knowingly entering into agreements that they had no way of backing or cleaning up after an economy-shattering decision. This is going to affect us all unequally. The poor and middle classes are going to be fucked and already are being fucked pretty much. Food banks are experiencing shortages that they have never had to deal with since the depression. People are foreclosing on houses in record numbers. If you're secure where you're at, more power to you. If you're in the upper echelon making a shit-ton of money a year and another republican is elected, that means great things for you. For the rest of us, it means we're fucked. This nation is in personal debt like never before and national debt we've never experienced. Still, we're spending off the hook and looking for ways to cut taxes more. Does this sound like logic to you? No, no, and hell no. The money has to come from somewhere, and our asses are bone dry.

As far as universal health care: I highly doubt you wont have a choice in the matter. You'll be able to stay privatized if you want to. If you're company is shelling out for the majority of the care you need, no problem. But for people making less than 30k a year and dont have medical insurance, it would certainly help to have an option at all. If you feel like opting out, which I will likely do because even at 21 I have full benefits through my company, then opt out. A lot of people will opt out. The rest, this is for them. I'd rather have my fellow American provided health care state sponsored than no health care at all or having to pay each and every red cent back to the care facility out of pocket. Can you imagine being in several tens of thousands of dollars in debt because you decided to get your child's illness treated or your wife needs surgery? It happens tens of thousands of times a year or more. I would personally rather it didnt. Sorry I wish for a better day to come.

[Perrj99]

Gaia, I removed nothing of significance to what I wanted sources for. If I left the other part of your message, I expected to have received a response for something I did not need. Feel free to PM me said information.

[Geiseric]

[attachment=1051:Suicide.gif]

[gaia.plateau]

Gaia, I removed nothing of significance to what I wanted sources for. If I left the other part of your message, I expected to have received a response for something I did not need. Feel free to PM me said information.

I mentioned it as one piece of data to argue that universal healthcare does not stop a country from having a potent military... you quoted it as a standalone statement, but really what I was referring to was the that you tacked on to the end, for whatever reason.

I'm not implying that it was your intention, but it could be imagined that such intentional editing could have been to cast the quote as insolent and trite, instead of objective and auxilary. I know that you're not capable of that sort of dishonesty, which is why I only mentioned it in passing and with due insincerity. Edited February 9, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

I guess it depends on how you define potent... the British and Canadian militaries are better trained than the American one

Sources please.

I'll second that.

33 warship navy, with only 15 FOG. woo-hoo now that is an imposing battle group. I am sure the world is quaking at the 4 diesel electric subs. I guess it is easy to be well trained when you are stuck with 1950's technology.

All those 120 or so leopard variant tanks... if you can find enough beavers to fill the treadmill-cages to make them move. Not a bad vehicle, but still, a rifled tube? Ancient technology by any standard. (Hell, even Kuwait has more combat ready armour, for that matter, almost triple.) Let us not even begin to look at what seems to pass for Arty. Damn little better than horse artillery... but at least they are past ramming grape shot down the muzzle... barely.

well trained, or not, poorly equipped at best.

Nothing is funnier than a Canadian talking about the quality of a virtually non-existent military.

[gaia.plateau]

And yet we're doing in Afghanistan what you couldn't do there and still can't in Iraq... maintaining order and keeping peace. I guess those beavers are pretty good at not firing on civilians, which is part of the reason that some of the highest generals from the American military serving in NATO call the Germans, Brits and Canucks the best trained troops in the world.

The question was whether having universal healthcare intrinsically inhibits a country from having a potent military, so why are you caviling over details when your position against universal healthcare is, as you've claimed, so easy to defend? Edited February 10, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Bragging about being left there as the clean-up comittee... it's funny. I needed a good belly-laugh tonight. It doesn't take much training to be little more than the rent-a-cop at the bank.

Universal health care is why Canada is short on Dr.s, and why Canadians come to the USA for any serious care. (if they have the $)


What generals are these? Let's see a name. Hell, I may even know them!

[gaia.plateau]

Bragging about being left there as the clean-up comittee... it's funny. I needed a good belly-laugh tonight. It doesn't take much training to be little more than the rent-a-cop at the bank.

Stating facts isn't bragging... calling it so is a tactic The US army is fighting rag tag individual insurgency groups in Iraq... The Canadian army is fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, focused and trained paramilitary forces in Afghanistan. Which takes more training? We weren't left there, we took over to do a job you couldn't while you moved on to invade another country and leave it in shambles.

I still haven't seen you do anything but cavil over details which are only auxiliary to the topic... you jumped into the discussion about universal healthcare in relation to military potency, so what do you have to say about it?

Universal health care is why Canada is short on Dr.s, and why Canadians come to the USA for any serious care. (if they have the $)

We have a doctor shortage? Is that why I had to wait a whopping 15 minutes the other day to get my strep throat looked at in an emergency room, at the very bottom priority behind head traumas and cardiac arrests? At a clinic I would have been unlucky to wait 5. How long do you have to wait to see a doctor?

Universal healthcare is also why the UK, France, and most European states don't have poverty levels comparable to many third world countries. Edited February 10, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Bragging about being left there as the clean-up comittee... it's funny. I needed a good belly-laugh tonight. It doesn't take much training to be little more than the rent-a-cop at the bank.

Stating facts isn't bragging... calling it so is a tactic The US army is fighting rag tag individual insurgency groups in Iraq... The Canadian army is fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, focused and trained paramilitary forces in Afghanistan. Which takes more training? We weren't left there, we took over to do a job you couldn't while you moved on to invade another country and leave it in shambles.

I still haven't seen you do anything but cavil over details which are only auxiliary to the topic... you jumped into the discussion about universal healthcare in relation to military potency, so what do you have to say about it?

Universal health care is why Canada is short on Dr.s, and why Canadians come to the USA for any serious care. (if they have the $)

We have a doctor shortage? Is that why I had to wait a whopping 15 minutes the other day to get my strep throat looked at in an emergency room, at the very bottom priority behind head traumas and cardiac arrests? At a clinic I would have been unlucky to wait 5. How long do you have to wait to see a doctor?

Universal healthcare is also why the UK, France, and most European states don't have poverty levels comparable to many third world countries.

The military is the duty of the fed gov't, healthcare is not. We have this document, maybe you have heard of it, called a constitution. It grants our federal gov't the duty of raising, equipping, and maintaining a military. It does not, however, grant them the power to raise, and equip a second rate healthcare system. It grants the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the artificial extension of life, nor does it guarantee happiness. The US government has a nasty habit of using services, and even our own rights to beat us over the head. I can foresee the gov't withholding healthcare from people who are behind on child support, or have some unresolved legal issue. (likely to happen, as they already withhold DL's and soc sec money from anyone in those categories.) The database would become yet another thing the gov't would have as a tool to interfere in the personal liberties, and privacy of it's citizens. Look at the state of our veteran's hospitals, they are a fine example of what the USA would have as a standard of care! Look at the lack of corrective action when everyone knows the problems... can you imagine the disaster if that were the norm through all the healthcare system?

I have noticed we don't have hordes of people mobbing the border in an effort to get to the great healthcare in Canada. (I do see Canadians using American hospitals in an effort to find specialized care.)

We have as many as 20 million illegals infesting the country, that is what, 2/3 the pop of Canada? Over double that of Sweden (so often touted as the example of how good socialism works) and about 1/3 of the UK's total pop. The numbers are too much for the rest of the legal residents to pay for the care of.

In the USA we have a litigious society bent on getting yet another freebie by suing each-other at every possible chance. Smoke 50 cigs a day, and sue the tobacco grower when they get cancer, drink 3 bottles of boone's farm a day through pregnancy, then sue the Dr when the kid has 9 eyeballs. Never check their tires, then sue the automaker when their 4x4 rolls over as they dodge in and out of traffic at 80 mph. Hell, we even have cops that, when a family calls 911 because the child drown in the pool, and the cop slips in the water, she sues the family for having a wet surface!

How do you possibly think a socialized med system can survive in that??????? It would be yet another money-cow for the lawyers! .

We have a group of people who would live in a gov't paid house, on food stamps, making babies to get more $, all the while driving a new car. There is an entitlement mentality that will seek to get all they can, taking advantage of the lack of oversight of gov't freebies. In Canada you have a better work ethic (Hmmmm... lazy Americans... bet you never heard of that before, eh? )

As for no Dr. shortage, you must be the only one in Canada that thinks there isn't one!

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/08/28/...r-shortage.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=222287
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ame=&no_ads=
http://www.moredoctors.ca/learn_more/

Let's hear it for socialized med.

Don't even try to convince me how good the NHS is... I lived my childhood under that system. Great for a broken finger, fine for a mild case of strep, but not the place to be if you are in bad shape. Keep in mind that under the NHS there is always a fall-back on a private system. If a service is canceled, and can not be scheduled in (may be wrong, but it WAS) 28 weeks then it can be done at a private facility, on the NHS's schilling.

As for a well equipped military, and it's relation to gov't run healthcare... there is a reason the UK is known for having the finest trained, most professional... and worst equipped soldiers in NATO.

How long did I wait for a dr? Hell, I can't remember, but it wasn't long... I was in Canada at the time... ironic, isn't it?

[Geiseric]

"We have as many as 20 million illegals infesting the country, that is what, 2/3 the pop of Canada? Over double that of Sweden (so often touted as the example of how good socialism works) and about 1/3 of the UK's total pop. The numbers are too much for the rest of the legal residents to pay for the care of."


I have stayed out of this because frankly, everyone is set in their opinion here and showing no interest in being open to other perspectives and ideas, but I have to say, Scotsman, that is a truly revolting thing to say about your fellow humans. What makes you more deserving of a better life? That is some elitist bullshit, and I'll be the first to say it. If you want illegal aliens to cease being a drag on the economy (hah) then speak for a better method of naturalization. This anti immigration movement bullshit has got to start being called on what it is: 2 symptoms of the most disgusting parts of our society, masked ethnocentrism and national elitism.

I know that you are using it to support your claim of socialism being nulled by the free-loader effect (basically, that is what it boils down to, nothing new here) but your language gives away your position, and it is nothing to be proud of (and regardless, the free loader effect causes problems on both sides of the argument. Nor does it truly negate the functionality or potential of socialist institutions, rather it creates possible issues, but every system has them). Edited February 10, 2008 by Geiseric

[Bulldog_916]

I dont see the point of having a well-trained volunteer force if no one can take care of them when they get home. We have thousands of Vietnam vets still trying to find someone to treat their illnesses from the chemicals they were exposed to in that war. We have over 150,000 Gulf War vets who are sick and cant get treated at ANY V.A. hospital. The government still denies that Gulf War Illness is real despite university lab results that show that their GENETIC STRUCTURE was altered by the chemicals they were exposed to. At least under socialized medicine veterans who come home from Iraq and Afghanistan (if there are any left THERE) will have an outlet to get their illnesses treated. Bush slashed funding for veterans benefits after proclaiming during his presidential campaign in 2004 that he would enhance funding for vets. It makes me sick to think McCain might actually get the presidency. The U.S. will become a military state as opposed to a state that has a military. Apparently conservatives dont know that what we're doing is actually CREATING more terrorists than it's killing. There are well over a billion Muslims in the world. 98 percent of them are not Jihadists. That percentage is going to go down as we continue to wage war on "radical extremists." There is always going to be collateral damage. But that makes no difference to those who we are killing and those they leave behind. If we continue on this road of military force in the Middle East, we're going to be the next Roman Empire. Odd how few Romans there are now....

The U.S. is ready for a standardized level of health care. Hell, if state run health care is made a reality, you very well might see more hospitals and more Americans working for them (hello more jobs). Let's start taking care of our own people first for a change! Americans are #1!

[gaia.plateau]

That's because you have to become a Canadian citizen to get free access to our healthcare, which is also why your jingoist argument about immigration holds zero water. "Illegal aliens" wouldn't have access, and it's ridiculous that you would sincerely believe they would. You're forecasting anarchy and Armageddon over a few bandaids to sick, desperate people.

Fun fact, the number of Americans that have become Canadian citizens just to access our healthcare, per capita, isn't very far behind the number of Canadians who go to the US for complex operations. Think about it, the very wealthy in the US don't need to worry, and even the lower-middle class can't afford to move, let alone the poor. It's only the low end of the upper-middle class who have chronic illness that could afford to move to Canada, become citizens and attain our healthcare- and yet every year, of the thousands of American immigrants to Canada, over half list healthcare as the reason or a major reason for immigration. I'll get a source for that later today, heading out right now.

I have noticed we don't have hordes of people mobbing the border in an effort to get to the great healthcare in Canada. (I do see Canadians using American hospitals in an effort to find specialized care.)

We have as many as 20 million illegals infesting the country, that is what, 2/3 the pop of Canada? Over double that of Sweden (so often touted as the example of how good socialism works) and about 1/3 of the UK's total pop. The numbers are too much for the rest of the legal residents to pay for the care of.

Edited to correct a typo. Edited February 10, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

"We have as many as 20 million illegals infesting the country, that is what, 2/3 the pop of Canada? Over double that of Sweden (so often touted as the example of how good socialism works) and about 1/3 of the UK's total pop. The numbers are too much for the rest of the legal residents to pay for the care of."


I have stayed out of this because frankly, everyone is set in their opinion here and showing no interest in being open to other perspectives and ideas, but I have to say, Scotsman, that is a truly revolting thing to say about your fellow humans. What makes you more deserving of a better life? That is some elitist bullshit, and I'll be the first to say it. If you want illegal aliens to cease being a drag on the economy (hah) then speak for a better method of naturalization. This anti immigration movement bullshit has got to start being called on what it is: 2 symptoms of the most disgusting parts of our society, masked ethnocentrism and national elitism.

I know that you are using it to support your claim of socialism being nulled by the free-loader effect (basically, that is what it boils down to, nothing new here) but your language gives away your position, and it is nothing to be proud of (and regardless, the free loader effect causes problems on both sides of the argument. Nor does it truly negate the functionality or potential of socialist institutions, rather it creates possible issues, but every system has them).

We are a nation of laws, no one's desire to make a better life for themselves is above those laws. The ARE illegal, they did not follow the legal procedure to enter the nation, and as such are criminals. I would guess, to follow your logic to it's likely end, if the gang punks think they are making a better life for themselves, and their family by shooting everyone not wearing their colours, then that is fine. After all they are just making a better life for themselves. How bloody stupid.

Do you know how mexico handles the Hondurans, and Guatemalans illegally entering Mexico "in search of a better life"? before you spout some leftist stupidity you need to go have a look. They have no right to expect of the USA what they are not willing to give their southern neighbors.

[ahwahoo2006]

"We have as many as 20 million illegals infesting the country, that is what, 2/3 the pop of Canada? Over double that of Sweden (so often touted as the example of how good socialism works) and about 1/3 of the UK's total pop. The numbers are too much for the rest of the legal residents to pay for the care of."


I have stayed out of this because frankly, everyone is set in their opinion here and showing no interest in being open to other perspectives and ideas, but I have to say, Scotsman, that is a truly revolting thing to say about your fellow humans. What makes you more deserving of a better life? That is some elitist bullshit, and I'll be the first to say it. If you want illegal aliens to cease being a drag on the economy (hah) then speak for a better method of naturalization. This anti immigration movement bullshit has got to start being called on what it is: 2 symptoms of the most disgusting parts of our society, masked ethnocentrism and national elitism.

I know that you are using it to support your claim of socialism being nulled by the free-loader effect (basically, that is what it boils down to, nothing new here) but your language gives away your position, and it is nothing to be proud of (and regardless, the free loader effect causes problems on both sides of the argument. Nor does it truly negate the functionality or potential of socialist institutions, rather it creates possible issues, but every system has them).

I have to disagree with this position. There is nothing "revolting" about saying that there is a serious immigration crisis in this country. The unfortunate truth is that this world is not equal - no one is more deserving of a better life, it is just the roll of the dice that some of us ended up born in the US. Being anti-illegal immigration is not about ethnocentrism or national elitism, it is about the rule of law, which is the basis for all society. The majority of anti-immigration sentiment is about ILLEGAL immigration, and it is important to remember that. The United States is not the only country in the world that has laws against it - just try getting into just about any country in the world without a passport or visa. People are passionate about immigration because it directly effects them: essentially, illegal aliens that use local, state, or federal services are stealing from every tax-paying member of American society.

What most people do want is a REFORM of the current system and ENFORCEMENT of the current laws. Personally, I think it needs to be a multi-part effort that targets both the offenders and the people who enable them. Deport all illegal immigrants and target companies that hire them. Remove another motivation for illegal immigrants by revoking birthright citizenship (i.e. just because you are born on US soil you are a US citizen). Stop "catch and release" immigration enforcement.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people who want to completely close and seal our borders to any immigrant. This country is based on a long, proud tradition of being a "melting pot" and many immigrants have contributed greatly to this country. I'm sure many of you have living family members who were immigrants. MY great-grandmother on my father's side, who I had the privilege of meeting a few times, was an immigrant from Germany in the early 20th century who came through Ellis Island. Illegal immigration is a slap in the face to those who sacrificed and saved and waited to join our population legally.



Anyways, that is just my $0.02.

[MechAnt]

I'm all for helping others. We all want to have everyone live a good life but the harsh reality is, that can never come to realization. Love doesn't make the world go 'round, money does. It's an unfortunate and ugly truth. Only with the incentive of money will people do anything. Like previously mentioned, since our medical system is based around money, doctors earning 300k+ a year and then overnight earning 100k will be enough to have quality of care decline rapidly. Gov't is bureaucratic and inefficient in every way possible, taking the one thing that has the most money passing hands every year in the US (healthcare if you didn't catch it) will effectively double the size of gov't in terms of responsibility. However, if you look at what Massachusetts is doing with their health care, I think is excellent. They are running a STATE SUBSIDIZED health insurance plan. It is seeing widespread success. If we can implement that in each state over time, we can effectively take a step forward in solving our healthcare crisis. The main thing I believe we need to do is destroy the foundation on which our healthcare crisis is sitting upon; prevention is the best cure. If we can put into place an intense health promotion campaign, we can prevent many medical problems. With this, we can pad ourselves against future medical problems causing a big drop in demand for medical care therefore causing a drop in its price. Economic forces prevail yet again. Yay for me, one of the 10 conservative college students in the University of California system.

[ahwahoo2006]

Gov't is bureaucratic and inefficient in every way possible

MechAnt brings up a good point. Would you really trust the US government to effectively run a nationwide healthcare program?

[Perrj99]

Gaia, I removed nothing of significance to what I wanted sources for. If I left the other part of your message, I expected to have received a response for something I did not need. Feel free to PM me said information.

I mentioned it as one piece of data to argue that universal healthcare does not stop a country from having a potent military... you quoted it as a standalone statement, but really what I was referring to was the that you tacked on to the end, for whatever reason.

I'm not implying that it was your intention, but it could be imagined that such intentional editing could have been to cast the quote as insolent and trite, instead of objective and auxilary. I know that you're not capable of that sort of dishonesty, which is why I only mentioned it in passing and with due insincerity.

Ahh, gotcha. I didn't add that, it was part of the end of your original quote. For some reason I deleted the second half of your quote (which was not necessary for the question I was asking) and missed the " " still there. Edited February 11, 2008 by Perrj99

[Bulldog_916]

Gov't is bureaucratic and inefficient in every way possible

MechAnt brings up a good point. Would you really trust the US government to effectively run a nationwide healthcare program?

If you cant trust them with your health, how can you trust them with your security?

[AKammenzind]

Gov't is bureaucratic and inefficient in every way possible

MechAnt brings up a good point. Would you really trust the US government to effectively run a nationwide healthcare program?

If you cant trust them with your health, how can you trust them with your security?

Well that's not really a good argument, but that aside you can't trust them with either. I think that was his point

[Bulldog_916]

But thats the thing, we blindly follow whenever there's a threat of terrorism. We trust in them.

"No go ahead Mr. President, I'll happily allow you to tap my phone if I ever make an international call."

"No Mr. President, my internet records are an open book for you to scan with whatever tools you have."

"No Mr. President, I'd love to have your national security agency track my purchases if you think it will protect me."

"As long as I dont have anything to hide, I really dont care what they look at." <----- I hear a lot of people say that.

Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

[AKammenzind]

But thats the thing, we blindly follow whenever there's a threat of terrorism. We trust in them.

"No go ahead Mr. President, I'll happily allow you to tap my phone if I ever make an international call."

"No Mr. President, my internet records are an open book for you to scan with whatever tools you have."

"No Mr. President, I'd love to have your national security agency track my purchases if you think it will protect me."

"As long as I dont have anything to hide, I really dont care what they look at." <----- I hear a lot of people say that.

Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

I agree 100%. People are stupid, and trusting, and it's going to come back to bite them in their collective asses.