How very blinkered and insular of you. Let me be perfectly clear.
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more. Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business.'
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world. The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenbw
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
What do governments have to do with this?
This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
I didn't say it gave me a right to choose how their profits were spent, (although my bank does exactly that ), but I feel that I am entitled to enter into a debate about those choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more.
Not strictly true. I can also reward a company for it's policies by praising it, buying more of it's products and encouraging others to do likewise.
As I mentioned earlier, I and other members of my bank have a direct say in how the profits from that bank are invested. This is also true for their insurance and retail business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
You could indeed demand that, but it wouldn't get you very far.
If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
Once again, I did not say I had the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, but I do have the right to comment on how it is spent, as any Apple customer has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world.
Did I say that this was what I was hoping for? No, I simply pointed out the irony of a US citizen telling foreigners to 'mind their own business'.
An irony compounded when said citizen admitted that he too was not registered to vote in California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
Most analysts link the current credit crisis to the sub-prime mortgage business, in which US banks give high-risk loans to people with poor credit histories.
These and other loans, bonds or assets are bundled into portfolios - or Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) - and sold on to investors globally.
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
And isn't it equally splendid that you are able to do likewise, and not have to do so in French?
I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.
He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).
Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.
This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.
Damn right. What is it with these people that don't want to hear what other people have to offer. Just like my five year old - hands covering ears - blah, blah, blah, blah...
Quote:
If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.
Oh, yes please! I fear it would be less charged than this debate however, even though I am against methadone clinics and for complete legalization of all drugs. Sure to rile a few people here and there.
WTF is gay marriage? i mean if you wanna be with someone of your same sex for the rest of your live so be it, but why would they even want to get marry on top of that. Apple please stop flushing shareholders money down the toilet and let People do what ever the heck they wanna do as long as it doesn't affect the company
WHY? Gee what a great question. Let me help you out, since I guess by asking that question you also don't feel heterosexuals should get married either because maybe we all want and need the following benefits and protections a legal marriage affords:
Marriage, as far as the govn?t is concerned, is a legal institution and determines things such as property, tax reporting as a couple, inheritance, survivorship rights, as well as family visitation and medical decision rights. THAT'S WHY
I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.
Don't get your hopes up. His view of non-americans is that they are un-american by default.
[QUOTE=Fotek2001;1329582]I take it you just went straight to the comments to post your flame without reading this bit:
Yeah and I take it you believe everything you hear too:
Prop 8 does not infact have language that say's it will be taught in schools..thats the hidden lie....BUT...it will have to be taught it schools because there is California Education code that currently exists and if this prop is opposed, then married will then be defined to include same sex marrige. Thus a change in its definition. If so than the following code pulled directly from the California Education requirements will in fact require teachers to instruct on marrige...as re-defined by this prop. See Section "D" below:
"If same sex marriage and traditional marriage are seen as equal by the state constitution, then same sex marriage will fall under the same instructional category as traditional marriage in the following excerpt from CA Education Code 51890
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood
Since learning about the responsibilities of marriage is part of the Ed Code, it will automatically include learning about all “types” of marriage that will, by necessity, be presented as equal to each other."
If the issue was just about handing a marrige cert to same sex couples to get the same rights as heterosexual couples.....WHO CARES...go for it....its just a piece of PAPER with legal rights that is recognized by the state . Fine..but this effects my right to teach my children sound moral values.
Do your research people. This is the future of our country here!
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more. Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world. The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
And yet, many Americans living near the Canadian border cross over into Canada to get medical treatment because they know Canadian doctors/hospitals won't turn them away. What about the Americans who come up for our cheaper medication?
The situations you refer to are rare and only make the news because we don't think it is acceptable that our medical system lets down even ONE of our citizens. Can you say the same about your system?
QUOTE=zinfella;1330762]I prefer to be self reliant, and maintain my freedom, not to mention all of those extra tax dollars that Europeans are forced to pay. As for free health care under socialism, ask the Canadians why they come here for care when they're able. Why is it that people are trying to sneak into the US, if socialism is so good?
[/QUOTE]
You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
Actually you misunderstand. Born-again Christians have very internalized morals, given that God's Holy Spirit dwells within a believer. You can't get much more internal morality than that. And best yet, it's determined by God, not by man, not by 'religion'.
I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.
He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).
Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.
Please don't associate Reagan with Bush! They are far different in their approaches. The term Cowboy capitalism has bee used to describe Bush economics (unfettered/wild-west capitalism). Reagan's approach we much more reasonable (and it actually worked!) in it's approach! Reagan finally freed us from the stagnation of the 70's and his policies put the USSR 6-feet-under. As for your complaints of trickle-down economics, that is how _all_ capitalism works! From the top down.
Before you get you panties in a wad. I am a social-Liberal with les-liberal fiscal tenancies as I believe neither the Liberals or Conservatives are 100% correct.
This is not a political issue. It is one of human rights. Americans like to say they stand up for human rights around the world and yet when it comes to gay rights in their own country (or even rights for African Americans, for that matter), so many of them would deny two loving people from making a life-long commitment to each other. Yet, people like Brittany Spears can get married on a whim. Pure hypocrisy.
You can't be serious?!!! Why does Brittany end up in the news, because everyone just likes to talk about here wild life. Duhhh, anyone can get married on a whim whether you are Brittany or not! come on! Gay marriage is a hot topic because some of us believe in the biblical bible that says it shouldn't be. Just because someone is so liberal does not make it right due to the fact that you say so. What if I said murder should be legalized? Oh, well that hurts someone so of course not you say. But the real question is, who is really right versus wrong. One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right. Whether people choose to believe in it or follow it is something totally different.
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself .
99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.
I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.
Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.
It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.
It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".
Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.
What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.
Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.
We Canadians sometime say our medical system is broken. That is because there are people who slip through the cracks and do not get the help they need. However, these incidents are rare in the whole scheme of things. If the percentage of Canadians who slip through the cracks is equal to the percentage of Americans who don't have coverage and can't pay for care, then we'd consider our medical system a total an utter failure. It's all relative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".
Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.
What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.
Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.
Only had to wait a month............
It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
I'm not saying a month is fast, but at least he got the care he needed. Under rare situations, people can still pay for immediate care if they don't want to wait... by paying for it in the US just like Americans do. The difference is, the vast majority of us don't have to. I think it's a good thing that our government doesn't allow people with more money pay for faster care. It sets a dangerous precedent and could end up making our system like that in the US. You forget that for the vast majority of Canadians, our system works, albeit not without flaws. However, in a country with a population of over 33 million, not everyone's going to be happy with waiting a bit longer. The "thousands" you refer to is a drop in the bucket, and as I said, they can still pay for their care... in the US like you Americans do.
Of those thousands, what percentage HAD NO CHOICE but to go to the US for treatment and what percent just didn't want to wait? And for your information, if it's a proven procedure that had to be done immediately and for some reason, couldn't be done in Canada, OUR HEALTH CARE STILL PAYS FOR IT, flight and all!
Ask any Canadian if they spend any time worrying that one day, they will be seriously ill or injured and will have to choose between going bankrupt versus keeping his/her life. As much as we like to complain that our system is flawed, I challenge you to find a Canadian who would choose to have the American system over the Canadian system.
So you're still not answering my question. What good is immediate care when you can't afford to pay for it?
Americans like you love to use the word freedom, as if only Americans have true freedom. Freedom where only the people who can afford it isn't freedom... not for everyone anyway. I challenge you to show how you as an American is TRULY more free than I am as a Canadian. I'm all for being patriotic but blind patriotism is frightening. The difference between you and me is that I love my country but accept and question its flaws. The way you talk, it's as if you don't believe flaws in the US even exist. I suspect that's how you guys ended up in the mess you're in now.
... and since we're in this thread about gay marriage. I, as a gay Canadian have the freedom to marry another man (when I meet him) one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Only had to wait a month............
It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.
I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.
Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.
It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.
I accept your compliments.
My "Cliff Notes" assessment of the Civil War was accurate. The existence in perpetuity of slavery in the existing slave states was handed to them on a silver platter by the original 13th amendment, but that wasn't good enough: nothing but extension of slavery by "the vote of the people" in each new state would do. Then, after the war, they dreamed up all this Jeffersonian crap about "states' rights" and "no taxation for internal improvements" to make their Lost Cause? sound a little better.
You are the one arguing for a "solitary, hermitic lifestyle." I believe we, as social animals, live in a society, where the welfare of all is (or should be) the concern of all. The Aryan Nations compound society you favor, where whoever has the most guns rules, while anybody who doesn't want to suck their dick can just go and live in a hollow tree and eat bark, is the logical extension of the Republican economic philosophy.
Individual greed may know no party affiliation, but the consistent platform plank that the rich should and deserve to get richer, while the poor deserve to get poorer, because, after all, they're not rich, and therefore beneath notice, does.
I'm waiting for someone who keeps arguing for "democracy" when it comes to limiting someone else's freedoms, to explain how it is "democratic" that a Democratic presidential candidate could get a unanimous vote in all the blue states, and 50% minus one in all the red states (that is, about 83/17) and still lose the election! I would like to read any reasonable arguments on that. Of course, I'd like to see a unicorn, too--and one's about as likely as the other.
Just a couple of quotes I stumbled across since we've seemed to wander off from same-sex marriage to socialism.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.
Comments
How very blinkered and insular of you. Let me be perfectly clear.
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more. Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business.'
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world. The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself
A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself
really? I guess you two deserve each other then...
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
What do governments have to do with this?
This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
I didn't say it gave me a right to choose how their profits were spent, (although my bank does exactly that
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more.
Not strictly true. I can also reward a company for it's policies by praising it, buying more of it's products and encouraging others to do likewise.
As I mentioned earlier, I and other members of my bank have a direct say in how the profits from that bank are invested. This is also true for their insurance and retail business.
Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
You could indeed demand that, but it wouldn't get you very far.
If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
Once again, I did not say I had the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, but I do have the right to comment on how it is spent, as any Apple customer has.
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world.
Did I say that this was what I was hoping for? No, I simply pointed out the irony of a US citizen telling foreigners to 'mind their own business'.
An irony compounded when said citizen admitted that he too was not registered to vote in California.
The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
Most analysts link the current credit crisis to the sub-prime mortgage business, in which US banks give high-risk loans to people with poor credit histories.
These and other loans, bonds or assets are bundled into portfolios - or Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs) - and sold on to investors globally.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
And isn't it equally splendid that you are able to do likewise, and not have to do so in French?
I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.
He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).
Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.
What do governments have to do with this?
This is a discussion on an international Apple related forum about Apple donating money to a worthwhile cause.
As an Apple user and a registered member of this forum I am fully entitled to contribute to the discussion.
Damn right. What is it with these people that don't want to hear what other people have to offer. Just like my five year old - hands covering ears - blah, blah, blah, blah...
If, however you wished to enter into a debate on a 'Tower of London Visitors' website, discussing the contribution they had made to the UK's methadone clinics you would be entitled to do so.
Oh, yes please! I fear it would be less charged than this debate however, even though I am against methadone clinics and for complete legalization of all drugs. Sure to rile a few people here and there.
WTF is gay marriage? i mean if you wanna be with someone of your same sex for the rest of your live so be it, but why would they even want to get marry on top of that. Apple please stop flushing shareholders money down the toilet and let People do what ever the heck they wanna do as long as it doesn't affect the company
WHY? Gee what a great question. Let me help you out, since I guess by asking that question you also don't feel heterosexuals should get married either because maybe we all want and need the following benefits and protections a legal marriage affords:
I would be grateful if you could use your English to point out where I have expressed any 'feelings of loathing for the bad old USA', as I am unable to recall any such instances.
Don't get your hopes up. His view of non-americans is that they are un-american by default.
Yeah and I take it you believe everything you hear too:
Prop 8 does not infact have language that say's it will be taught in schools..thats the hidden lie....BUT...it will have to be taught it schools because there is California Education code that currently exists and if this prop is opposed, then married will then be defined to include same sex marrige. Thus a change in its definition. If so than the following code pulled directly from the California Education requirements will in fact require teachers to instruct on marrige...as re-defined by this prop. See Section "D" below:
"If same sex marriage and traditional marriage are seen as equal by the state constitution, then same sex marriage will fall under the same instructional category as traditional marriage in the following excerpt from CA Education Code 51890
51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood
Since learning about the responsibilities of marriage is part of the Ed Code, it will automatically include learning about all “types” of marriage that will, by necessity, be presented as equal to each other."
If the issue was just about handing a marrige cert to same sex couples to get the same rights as heterosexual couples.....WHO CARES...go for it....its just a piece of PAPER with legal rights that is recognized by the state . Fine..but this effects my right to teach my children sound moral values.
Do your research people. This is the future of our country here!
My guess is that there is no government on Earth that affords the right of a citizen to express views based on the tenure of ownership of Apple products, so this is a really dumb justification to use in an argument.
WRONG. The money you paid got you whatever it was you bought, and based on your use of the term "blinkered," paid a lot more in taxes to your own government. Unless you are a shareholder -- a part-owner, that is -- of Apple, Inc., your purchase of a product gives you no right to choose how the profit from your purchase is spent. If it did, you would be able to buy a new iMac and then be handed a little form asking you exactly how you wanted the profits to be allocated by Apple.
As a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase a product to "punish" a company for it's policies, but nothing more. Otherwise, I could demand that because I bought a ticket to visit the Tower of London, I want the UK's methadone clinics closed.
Consider this: if Apple product ownership gives you the right to tell Apple how to spend it's money, and their support of "Gay Rights" in California offends or pleases you, why didn't you stand and scream, condemning or condoning, their decision to not contribute to the support of these rights for all these years? Did buying Apple products mean you whole-heartedly supported their lack of support for the gay community in California?
You sound exactly a child who wants Daddy to keep the bullies at bay, but not be told to stop acting like an ass (arse?) in front of them. Be very careful when hoping for the USA to reduce it's involvement in the world. The world's markets are collapsing by the very thought of a reduction in American spending abroad.
You're quite welcome! (and isn't it splendid that you're still able to make your opinions known to us in English rather than express all these feelings of loathing for the bad old USA in what assuredly would have been you new native language, German?)
Well said!
And yet, many Americans living near the Canadian border cross over into Canada to get medical treatment because they know Canadian doctors/hospitals won't turn them away. What about the Americans who come up for our cheaper medication?
The situations you refer to are rare and only make the news because we don't think it is acceptable that our medical system lets down even ONE of our citizens. Can you say the same about your system?
QUOTE=zinfella;1330762]I prefer to be self reliant, and maintain my freedom, not to mention all of those extra tax dollars that Europeans are forced to pay. As for free health care under socialism, ask the Canadians why they come here for care when they're able. Why is it that people are trying to sneak into the US, if socialism is so good?
[/QUOTE]
You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
Actually you misunderstand. Born-again Christians have very internalized morals, given that God's Holy Spirit dwells within a believer. You can't get much more internal morality than that. And best yet, it's determined by God, not by man, not by 'religion'.
Since god DNE, it's a null pointer.
KRR
I pretty much have to agree, he has a very nineteenth century outlook on things (with a nice dose of anti-Communism for the sake of modernity). All you have to do is say Socialism and he gets all riled up. He probably has no idea that most western nations, the U.S. included, are based on a system of socio-capitalism.
He can't be entirely to blame, though, he sounds like the typical American that really bought into Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down" philosophy. He's very much the type of person that makes you sad to be a citizen of this country. I don't get where we left behind the idea of the greater good and veered wildly into extreme greed. It's people like him that put us in this economic crisis. After all, the "invisible hand" of the market will guide us and if the government tries to instill regulation, it's becoming socialist. Adam Smith was talking about Agrarian economies, not highly complex multi-national infrastructures (please get over yourselves).
Thank g-d it seems like after eight years of this guy's philosophy running our government, the era of Reagan is finally coming to a bitter end.
Please don't associate Reagan with Bush! They are far different in their approaches. The term Cowboy capitalism has bee used to describe Bush economics (unfettered/wild-west capitalism). Reagan's approach we much more reasonable (and it actually worked!) in it's approach! Reagan finally freed us from the stagnation of the 70's and his policies put the USSR 6-feet-under. As for your complaints of trickle-down economics, that is how _all_ capitalism works! From the top down.
Before you get you panties in a wad. I am a social-Liberal with les-liberal fiscal tenancies as I believe neither the Liberals or Conservatives are 100% correct.
KRR
This is not a political issue. It is one of human rights. Americans like to say they stand up for human rights around the world and yet when it comes to gay rights in their own country (or even rights for African Americans, for that matter), so many of them would deny two loving people from making a life-long commitment to each other. Yet, people like Brittany Spears can get married on a whim. Pure hypocrisy.
You can't be serious?!!! Why does Brittany end up in the news, because everyone just likes to talk about here wild life. Duhhh, anyone can get married on a whim whether you are Brittany or not! come on! Gay marriage is a hot topic because some of us believe in the biblical bible that says it shouldn't be. Just because someone is so liberal does not make it right due to the fact that you say so. What if I said murder should be legalized? Oh, well that hurts someone so of course not you say. But the real question is, who is really right versus wrong. One liberals idea is not always the same as someone else's. That is why we have the Bible to teach us what is right. Whether people choose to believe in it or follow it is something totally different.
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
People like this are ineducable. They want all the perks of living in a society, but if anyone suggests that they should pay anything like their fair share to maintain it, they scream "Socialism!"
They also think, when they're allowed to keep all of "their" money, that it will still be worth something after they've destroyed the government that issued it. They live in a pure fantasy world where everything they get is sacred, and if somebody else doesn't have as much, or anything, it's because they're "lazy" or "trying to get something for nothing."
I happen to believe that we are a social species and we can't live like the lone predators these people fancy themselves as. What's so funny (not really) about the whole thing is that these very people are the most dependent on society working perfectly to maintain their illusions and their lifestyles. Fortunately (for them) they have a political party that's been in the ascendant for the last 28 years that has raised selfishness and greed to the level of a fucking philosophy!
This would be bad enough, but selfishness and greed don't sound as good as they might as a political platform, so they've been forced to climb into bed with the most fanatical religious nuts and the most mindlessly belligerent warmongers in order to form their ruling coalition. Now this unholy alliance is coming to the biggest train wreck in history, and where they go from here, I don't know. Their "base" (in most parties, that means the normal, non-crazy people, but in their case it means the most extreme fringe of the raving loons,) will be increasingly radicalized and undoubtedly will turn to domestic terrorism of some kind; not just family-planning clinics any more.
Short of a revolution, there is no way to eliminate that "two-thirds of the states with one-third of the population with a majority in the Electoral College" situation, because three-quarters of the states have to ratify a constitutional amendment. So what will happen? I don't know, but something has to. We've had one Civil War to end slavery (well, actually, to prevent its extension to the Territories) and if we have to have another one to eliminate the enslavement of the majority of the population by a frenzied red-state cabal of troglodytic Neanderthals, well, give me a gun!
A-MEN. I couldn't have written it better myself
99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.
I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.
Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.
It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.
It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".
Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.
What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.
Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.
We Canadians sometime say our medical system is broken. That is because there are people who slip through the cracks and do not get the help they need. However, these incidents are rare in the whole scheme of things. If the percentage of Canadians who slip through the cracks is equal to the percentage of Americans who don't have coverage and can't pay for care, then we'd consider our medical system a total an utter failure. It's all relative.
You are either ignorant of the facts, or you are lying. We get tons of Canadians here to take advantage of our health care just to avoid the ridiculous long waits for some procedures under your "wonderful" system of socialized medicine. Here, we don't have those silly restrictions caused by a government run enterprise trying to be all things to all people, and failing miserably.
Actually, you are ignorant of the facts.
It is rare for Canadians to go to the US for medical procedures. The ridiculous long waits you refer to are uncommon. A few years ago, I tore my pec major right off my humerus while weight lifting. The next day, I was in to see one of the top 3 shoulder specialists in the province. Within a week, I was in surgery to have it reattached... Oh, and I didn't pay a cent for this outside of my monthly $55 contribution to our "socialist medical system".
Recently, my dad was experiencing heart problems. After a diagnosis that indicated he needed 6 bypasses for his heart (his life wasn't in immediate danger), he was in the hospital and got his surgery within a month. Again, he didn't pay an extra cent outside of his regular contributions.
What good is it to have a great health care system with immediate service when you can't afford to pay for it? That's is a serious question. You may be lucky to have health care coverage through work or be wealthy enough to pay for your services but too large a percentage of Americans don't and would NEVER get the care they need.
Our system is not perfect by any means. However, we ALL have coverage, even if it means we sometimes have to wait a bit longer. Yes, there are those who don't want to wait and have the money to pay for their services. They go to the US not because we don't have the ability to treat these people here in Canada. It's because we don't allow it... because here in Canada, we try to consider that a poor person's life is just as valuable as a wealthy person's life. When it comes to the health of our citizens, everyone has to get in line and just because you're wealthy doesn't mean you get to leap-frog those who are not. So to get around our rules, these people choose to go to the US where the rules don't apply.
Only had to wait a month............
It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
Of those thousands, what percentage HAD NO CHOICE but to go to the US for treatment and what percent just didn't want to wait? And for your information, if it's a proven procedure that had to be done immediately and for some reason, couldn't be done in Canada, OUR HEALTH CARE STILL PAYS FOR IT, flight and all!
Ask any Canadian if they spend any time worrying that one day, they will be seriously ill or injured and will have to choose between going bankrupt versus keeping his/her life. As much as we like to complain that our system is flawed, I challenge you to find a Canadian who would choose to have the American system over the Canadian system.
So you're still not answering my question. What good is immediate care when you can't afford to pay for it?
Americans like you love to use the word freedom, as if only Americans have true freedom. Freedom where only the people who can afford it isn't freedom... not for everyone anyway. I challenge you to show how you as an American is TRULY more free than I am as a Canadian. I'm all for being patriotic but blind patriotism is frightening. The difference between you and me is that I love my country but accept and question its flaws. The way you talk, it's as if you don't believe flaws in the US even exist. I suspect that's how you guys ended up in the mess you're in now.
... and since we're in this thread about gay marriage. I, as a gay Canadian have the freedom to marry another man (when I meet him) one day.
Only had to wait a month............
It's obvious that the concept of going in for the surgery immediately, is totally foreign to you. BTW, we get thousands of Canadians here every winter, and they tell a a different story than you do. They would love to be able to pat]y for needed care, but as you pointed out, your government, in their infinite wisdom has forbidden that. So much for freedom, eh.
99% of this diarrhetic diatribe spews incoherent trains of thought to nowhere, other than a world of stark contrast and no varying levels in-between. Besides the mentally stunted uneducable the Cliff Notes on the Civil War was also particularly myopic.
I hope you can speak more independently than the keyboardist ranting about the fear mongers propping up Socialism and up with Tyranny mantras. The man writes as if he's got a Plantation to maintain but no sharecroppers to help make it possible.
Anyone who thinks that any one political party has a patent on Greed is a toothless Neanderthal. The same person who is proclaiming these Greed mongers as cave dwelling Neanderthals wreaks of being an envious Curmudgeon longing for their own solitary, hermitic lifestyle to become the norm. Abuse of language is too common in this world. The fact that even most English speaking individuals don't know the nuances of their own language may be to blame.
It really is sad that the historical attention spans of each generation's citizenry doesn't extend more than roughly 50 years prior to their birthing, if that. Greed knows no political party affiliation. It twists the arms of both sides, equally.
I accept your compliments.
My "Cliff Notes" assessment of the Civil War was accurate. The existence in perpetuity of slavery in the existing slave states was handed to them on a silver platter by the original 13th amendment, but that wasn't good enough: nothing but extension of slavery by "the vote of the people" in each new state would do. Then, after the war, they dreamed up all this Jeffersonian crap about "states' rights" and "no taxation for internal improvements" to make their Lost Cause? sound a little better.
You are the one arguing for a "solitary, hermitic lifestyle." I believe we, as social animals, live in a society, where the welfare of all is (or should be) the concern of all. The Aryan Nations compound society you favor, where whoever has the most guns rules, while anybody who doesn't want to suck their dick can just go and live in a hollow tree and eat bark, is the logical extension of the Republican economic philosophy.
Individual greed may know no party affiliation, but the consistent platform plank that the rich should and deserve to get richer, while the poor deserve to get poorer, because, after all, they're not rich, and therefore beneath notice, does.
I'm waiting for someone who keeps arguing for "democracy" when it comes to limiting someone else's freedoms, to explain how it is "democratic" that a Democratic presidential candidate could get a unanimous vote in all the blue states, and 50% minus one in all the red states (that is, about 83/17) and still lose the election! I would like to read any reasonable arguments on that. Of course, I'd like to see a unicorn, too--and one's about as likely as the other.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.