Massacre in Connecticut - Page 19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And you called someone who is not a socialist a socialist, or who is a socialist... a corporatist... or vice versa... :lol:

No, I called someone who is a corporatist and socialist and fascist what they are.

Though, quite frankly, I repeated myself there.

corporatist = fascist = corporate socialist

Obama is these for sure.

Additionally he also has socialist tendencies in the way that you think of socialism ("for the people" ) also. But, admittedly, he's probably more of a corporate socialist/corporatist/fascist and merely puts on the "for the people" socialism to get votes from his adoring and ignorant worshipers.

Nice moving the goal posts there. You didn't say corporate socialist (which is what the Republicans are to much more of an extent than Obama ever was). You said "corporatist and a socialist".

So now you're saying Obama is not really a socialist (the only meaning of the word on its own). You're saying that he's pretending to be a socialist to get votes.

It gets even more ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Nice moving the goal posts there. You didn't say corporate socialist (which is what the Republicans are to much more of an extent than Obama ever was). You said "corporatist and a socialist".

I merely explained the terms to you...which you clearly are having trouble with today. Get it straight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

So now you're saying Obama is not really a socialist (the only meaning of the word on its own). You're saying that he's pretending to be a socialist to get votes.

 

It gets even more ridiculous.

We sometimes he is pretending and sometimes he actually is. It is not or need not be an all or nothing thing. It's not black and white as you clearly think. Some of his policies are socialist, and some are corporatist. He clearly cannot campaign on being a corporatist...in fact he (publicly) speaks against it often, though his actions are quite different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

So now you're saying Obama is not really a socialist (the only meaning of the word on its own). You're saying that he's pretending to be a socialist to get votes.

 

It gets even more ridiculous.

 

We sometimes he is pretending and sometimes he actually is. It is not or need not be an all or nothing thing. It's not black and white as you clearly think. Some of his policies are socialist, and some are corporatist. He clearly cannot campaign on being a corporatist...in fact he (publicly) speaks against it often, though his actions are quite different.

Ah, I get it. Sometimes he's what you say he is, and sometimes he is the opposite of what you say he is. Shouldn't that make him neither?

Time for me to go to sleep. Three hours of work tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Ah, I get it. Sometimes he's what you say he is, and sometimes he is the opposite of what you say he is.

No. Try to keep up: Sometimes he does things that are corporatist. Sometimes he does things that are socialist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Shouldn't that make him neither?

It should make him both.

You do not have a handle on the concept of logic, I see.

A corporatist does not do socialist things and a socialist does not do corporatist things. An independently thinking individual can do both.

And seriously, I'm going to sleep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You do not have a handle on the concept of logic, I see.

 

A corporatist does not do socialist things and a socialist does not do corporatist things. An independently thinking individual can do both.

Geez. Wow.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

 

In Texas, they are considering a requirement to NOT teach critical thinking skills because then kids would question the babble tought them by their parents.

 

That's right, they are considering making ignorance a part of the curriculum.

Would it really be a big deal to post a link when you're making broad accusations like this?

Enjoy, Frank.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

1280 gun deaths in the US since Sandy Hook on December 14th last year- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

The total number of US deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 to 2012 was 4,486. That's half the total yearly gun murders per year in the US, which total 8,775. 

Comparing killings in the war to domestic killings at home is proving what in your opinion?Humans are still dying for no dam reason.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing, Marv. Here on the left we think we should make an effort to put an end to both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

1280 gun deaths in the US since Sandy Hook on December 14th last year- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/us-gun-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2602074.html

 

The total number of US deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 to 2012 was 4,486. That's half the total yearly gun murders per year in the US, which total 8,775. 

Not to mention the thousands injured in both areas.

The military injured are then further subject to injury by the cutting of VA funds by...

The rest,well, they don't need insurance.

At least you have a positive and reassuring answer for me. Thanks.This gun violence is way out of control completely now.Over 1200 deaths since Sandy Hook.La Pierre is the biggest turd I have ever heard and saw with his bullshit about the back round check not to important to look into.
 

So I got this email earlier this week about how I should show up yesterday to protest Maryland's idiotic proposed gun control law because I belong to a shooting club.

But it's worded (slight paraphrase here because I don't have it open) "Join us to show you are against ANY new gun control laws".

Which I'm not.  I'm just against stupid ones.  There are some stupid provisions in SB281 but there are quite a few that make sense:

• Prohibiting people with mental illness from owning a gun.
• 8 hrs mandatory training for handgun permits
• 16 hrs mandatory training for carry permits (except as a may issue state that's kinda moot)

So I was a no show but I guess a couple thousand owners showed up.  And they had the usual dumbshit stuff on signs and I'm sure the majority of non-owners think gun owners are a buncha kooks.

What gets me is it's a real echo chamber on the internet shooting forums.  I guess it's the same in the anti-gun forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

There are very few "anti-gun forums". People who are "anti-gun" just post common sense things here or on HP or on Facebook etc. We don't gang up as a group with a single cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

That and the billions spent by the NRA in Washington.

You are either misinformed, Making Shit Up™ or lying: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000082

Or making a figurative exaggeration. Perhaps I should have said "gazillions" at which point you would have called me a liar because that's not a word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Or making a figurative exaggeration.

You've been doing that a lot lately. Or at least using that as your excuse. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

You've been doing that a lot lately. Or at least using that as your excuse. 

Didn't you know? When he personally attacks you, your family, or your religion, or makes outrageous, baseless claims it's always "metaphorically". So that makes it okay.

Who is mentally ill?

For the quazillionthion time since Newtown: another shooting.  This time in a courthouse in Delaware.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/new-castle-county-courthouse-shooting_n_2661604.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

For the quazillionthion time since Newtown: another shooting.  This time in a courthouse in Delaware.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/new-castle-county-courthouse-shooting_n_2661604.html

You really think posting a shooting that took place in a government building with metal detectors and a bunch of armed cops who were sworn to protect the people shot helps prove your case that we should all turn in our guns and let the government protect us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Isn't Chicago one of the most liberal cities in the country? And doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Presumably, you'd argue that the UK is more liberal than Chicago, and presumably you'd argue that it has stricter gun control laws?

You've repeatedly pointed to the UK as being an extremely violent place, which to a degree I'd actually agree with, but it's much, much less violent than the US.

The UK has between 200-220 knife murders each year, and less than 50 gun murders out of a population almost exactly five times less than the US (63 million UK, 315 million USA). For the year from 2011 to 2012 there were a total of 550 murders in the UK (including those found guilty of manslaughter) For 2010 in the US there were 1,704 knife murders alone. Additionally there were 540 blunt object murders. That's almost the same amount as the total murder count in the UK for that year. "Other weapons", which include everything outside of guns, knives, blunt objects, strangulation, fire, narcotics, hands and feet, poison, explosives, asphyxiation and drowning, totalled 874 in the US. That alone is much higher than the UK's total number of murders.

The UK is liberal, it has strict gun laws, and it has far, far fewer murders.

Check how people are murdered in the US here- http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Do you know how many people died in the U.S. last year because of preventable medical errors? Many, many more than were killed in shootings.

If it's about reducing preventable deaths, if it's about saving lives, why are we not hearing about that at least as much as these shootings?

I'll tell you why. Because it's not about saving lives. It's about gun control. Or, more precisely, it's about control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Do you know how many people died in the U.S. last year because of preventable medical errors? Many, many more than were killed in shootings.

 

If it's about reducing preventable deaths, if it's about saving lives, why are we not hearing about that at least as much as these shootings?

 

I'll tell you why. Because it's not about saving lives. It's about gun control. Or, more precisely, it's about control.

Things are being done to reduce medical errors. Over half of the deaths are caused by medication errors and there's an ongoing battle to try and limit the numbers through better training and electronic monitoring. Having people chipped with RFID would help too. That might even help prevent some of these murders too someday.

Are you f'ing kidding me?

The number one way to lower preventable medical deaths is through socialized medicine. We know this as an observable fact by looking at what is happening in countries outside of the US, countries which have socialized medicine.

Why aren't we doing anything about it? Because of people like you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Having people chipped with RFID would help too.

I'm sure nothing bad could come from that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The number one way to lower preventable medical deaths is through socialized medicine. We know this as an observable fact by looking at what is happening in countries outside of the US, countries which have socialized medicine.

Citation?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/09/03/gvsd0907.htm
 

Now for the denials in 5...4...3...2..

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/09/03/gvsd0907.htm
 

Now for the denials in 5...4...3...2..

So you have a correlation*. Do you have anything that shows a causal relationship between socialized medicine and levels of preventable medical errors or might there possibly be other factors at play?

*And this correlation appears to be unclear as well since it only mentions three countries besides the US (United Kingdom, France and Germany).

And we have a winner.

How about the historical reduction in mortality rates in those countries that have freely accessible socialized medicine vs. the US?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

How about the historical reduction in mortality rates in those countries that have freely accessible socialized medicine vs. the US?

Again, citation(s)?

If you want to do this right it would be useful to look at all countries with socialized medicine and as long a span of history as possible.

And here you go...

https://www.impartial-review.com/stories/us-has-more-preventable-deaths-and-improving-at-a-slower-rate-than-europe-514

Specifically:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And here you go...

 

https://www.impartial-review.com/stories/us-has-more-preventable-deaths-and-improving-at-a-slower-rate-than-europe-514

 

Specifically:

 

First, this report is the report behind the article you posted. So it's not telling us anything new and still is only comparing to three countries (while implying all of Europe). Nothing new here. There may the correlation you're claiming, but this falls far short of proving it.

Second, you quoted one snippet, but didn't quote this: "The lack of progress in the United States was largely attributable to circulatory conditions other than heart disease—mainly cerebrovascular disease and hypertension." both of which are largely related to personal consumption habits. So the differences that are being seen may have little to do with the structure of the healthcare system than the fact that a lot of American eat like shit, get little exercise, smoke, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I'm sure nothing bad could come from that.

 

So am I, quite the reverse. At the moment people in hospital typically wear a band around their wrists. The RFID chips are built into the band and when someone goes into hospital their medical information is put onto the RFID chip. I believe a UK hospital is using it at the moment, but it's still a very new thing.

RFID chips embedded into peoples bodies will likely come about only on a voluntary basis. That might deter someone from committing a crime in the first place though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Things are being done to reduce medical errors. Over half of the deaths are caused by medication errors and there's an ongoing battle to try and limit the numbers through better training and electronic monitoring. Having people chipped with RFID would help too. That might even help prevent some of these murders too someday.

Yes, let's brand people like cattle and treat them as such because they are too stupid to care for themselves. A regular leftist utopia.