Richards
-
Content
2,618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by Richards
-
-
QuoteQuote>What if they need insulin? What if there is an injury that requires therapy?
>Schizophrenia medicine?
Then they use one of the many methods available for people nowadays to get such care.
Are there resources for the extremely poor to get those? Not trying to sound like a bleeding heart lib (can't stand entitlement culture) but it just seems like it could limit some people to always being ill. Am I missing something here? Not that familiar with your system.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
Emergent care - yes. Long term care - no.
Some people are just going to be piss poor even if they are working. What if they need insulin? What if there is an injury that requires therapy? Schizophrenia medicine? Are there not societal benefits to be derived from providing long term care? Again, the problem up here in Canada doesn't seem to be the long term care so much as the abuse (needless visits) and expectations of the kinds of things to be covered (neccessities vs niceties)My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteQuoteShould we do the same thing to the armed forces as well?
No. People being put in harms way on our behalf should have some spiritual comfort provided.
You have hit me with a question here that is hard to specify a complete answer for since our soldiers do come from various religions and all deserve the same support. We may not be able to afford padres of all religions but I would suspect that we would need to ensure they are versed in all religions and open minded enough to provide neccessary religious support in any religion.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteWho is they
"They" are the ones you refer to when you said
"All I see is people who've accepted one form of government handout claiming that it's a handout when they got it, and it's a handout when someone less fortunate than themselves gets it, and that they don't want another form of government handout for themselves or for someone else."Quoteand why do you assume that use implies need and need implies where and why the line is drawn?
It seems implied that they agree with a service if it is one that they used. It implies to some extent that there is need.QuoteIf you believe that the only justification needed to not have public education (or other program) is your ability to pay for private education (or other program) ... then this discussion is over.
I don't. I was making a point which is that we cannot treat the issue of health care on the basis of whether or not "you" can afford it. It is a debate that can have societal ramifications.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe do not need to fund/subsidize a convicts religion. His right, his problem.
i am OK with that. No more chapels in the prison system. The bible shall be available in the prison library on the same rotational availability as witchcraft tomes. The crown shall cease supplying salary for chaplains/imams/rabbis.
Precisely. If the catholic church wants to spread the word to convicts they are free to drop in and hand them out. I should not have to pay for it.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
QuoteQuoteQuote*** All I see is people who've accepted one form of government handout claiming that it's a handout when they got it, and it's a handout when someone less fortunate than themselves gets it, and that they don't want another form of government handout for themselves or for someone else.
So if they needed the handout then it is a valid handout and they accept others getting it but if they did not need it then it shouldn't happen?
It has nothing to do with need. It has everything to do with where to draw the line and why.
Right, and by your own wording they seem to be drawing the line at whether or not they used it (and thus needed it). Who decides where the line is drawn? Maybe if I am rich and can afford to send my kids to private school I can say that public school is not neededMy biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
People do not require artifacts to practice their religion. Otherwise catholics stranded on a desert island without a crucifix will go to hell. We do not need to fund/subsidize a convicts religion. His right, his problem.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
QuoteAll I see is people who've accepted one form of government handout claiming that it's a handout when they got it, and it's a handout when someone less fortunate than themselves gets it, and that they don't want another form of government handout for themselves or for someone else.
So if they needed the handout then it is a valid handout and they accept others getting it but if they did not need it then it shouldn't happen?My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
I was going for my B Cop when I went back to school and had to drop out of the sport temporarily. I intend to get back in. Anyway I can respect the view that ex-jumpers (like myself) may not have a valid reason for being here and that I guess is up to the moderators as to whether or not site access should be restricted to those who have current CSPA/USPA membership. The site is good for newbies or wannabes to learn something about the sport so you are hurting them by doing that but troll control might be more effective with limits.
CSpenceFly did make a valid observation about ex jumpers giving advice in the skydive forums but again that is something that can be controlled simply by having other members tear the ass off of anyone giving advice they are not qualified to give (You can be the enforcer CSpenceFly).
I like this sight but in fairness I mostly stick to SC and bonfire with little interaction in the skydive forums unless someone starts talking about making AAD's mandatory in which case I go thermonuclear.
That's my 2 cents, but I abstained from voting because in fairness the actual current jumpers should be the ones deciding that.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. -
QuoteNo argument there. However we need to treat the cause not the symptom. People with no legitimate interest in our country voting is the symptom, people with no legitimate interest in our country having a passport is the cause. If someone is a citizen they are a full citizen; we do need to put tighter controls on who gets that privilege.
I agree entirely, but I also think there should be some clause taht allows for a landed immigrant who has citizenship to have that citizenship revoked if they are not in compliance with certain implicit expectations (like living in Canada and/or doing their best to contribute), or if they are acting in a manner that clearly shows a conflict of interest.
But yes tighter controls in the first place would be easier.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
It has nothing to do with need. It has everything to do with where to draw the line and why.QuoteI don't think you want to discuss or debate the issues. "I'm right" is your cry and anyone that doesn't side with you is selfish. There is no looking at how to resolve this.
Well this is speakers corner after all
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can have government run health care while controlling abuse.
Our personal healthcare decisions should be between us as individuals and our chosen health professionals, not politicians or gov't bureaucrats and regulators hamhandedly trying to 'control abuse', whatever that means.
And you are free to do that if you seek private health insurance. Those who take the government version accept whatever rules apply to them.
QuoteYeah, but, ya know -- I can really understand being irritated at someone who wants a pregnancy test done at the ER because that way they don't have to pay the $15.Quote***Personally I think I would rather live in a society willing to spend a little to keep us ALL a little healthier
Then put restrictions on what is covered and how the service can be used. Health care does not have to be abused. You can have government run health care while controlling abuse.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
QuoteHealthcare is a personal service some need more or less of. Some can pay for it straight up, and some can engage an insurance company who's willing to underwrite the risk for the payment of a fee. I (and Adam Smith too) think we as a civilized society owe it to ourselves to ensure the poorest and most in need get it (and they already do). But that's a long way from handing the whole thing over to the gov't removing any remaining incentives for waste protection and personal responsibility. Even in countries with uni health care, many examples of those who get good care when they need it are often those who go outside the system for their own extra personal cost. I'll let you guess why they do that.
Alternately some may argue that health care coverage may be something that could naturally be best served as a publicly run monopoly. If you want to avoid the abuse then put restrictions on how it is used. Nothing stopping people from buying private health care above and beyond. We have public and private schools. Society just needs the balls to know where to draw the line on how something is used (at the risk of incurring special interest backlash) rather than not have it because there is a slippery slope to abuse.
QuoteI suspect that someone have to show excellent behavior to get out of jail on parole.
You suspect wrong.......very wrong. Look at Peter "parole me again" Whitmore.
QuoteNow look at the mob. In terms of law we have an organized gang, which assembled with intention to commit a crime against a person. I do not know the details of U.S. law, but in the most countries I've lived the organized crime does take much more attention from the law, and always carries stiffer penalties.
That is organized crime? So if me and three of my freind "organize" between the three of us to buy an illegal pay per view descrambler are we organized crime?
QuoteThe person who has justifies himself to take a law enforcement into their own hands is already dangerous. Today he decides a released convict should be punished by some broken bones. And tomorrow the same person will kick the shit out of another person who, he thinks, looked lustfully on his daughter (or on his ass in a gym).
So we will base the vigilantes punishment
on what he might do next time rather than just the crime in isolation? Can we start doing that with sex offenders since studies have shown they tend to re-offend?
QuoteWhy not to kick the shit out of some gays then, who violate the Highest Law?
Straw man. Someone who kicks the crap out of a guy who molests his daughter is not neccessarily pre-determined to go "wow i fucking hate gays.....damn i want to kick the shit out of one of them
QuoteMaybe I missed something, but a person who is organizing a mob to beat someone released from jail after serving several years there does not look for me a "decent person reacting to extreme circumstances" at all.
What if the guy molested a couple of six year olds and somehow got a weak sentence (it does happen). And the mob consists of the parents of the children when he moves back into the neighborhood
QuoteAnd if you ever talk to a criminal, most of them will tell you that they did not want to commit any crime, they were victim of extreme circumstances and society abuse, and should be released from the jail immediately.
And all I hear is bleeding hearts buying into that crap. Every time a crack monkey kicks the crap out of a senior citizen or shoots some guy while robbing him everyone goes on about "harsh punishment isn't the answer, lets try to understand him, lets look at the root causes" yet when someone who is sick of being a victim of these jerks takes the law into his own hands all this bleading heart crap disappears and they want to punish
QuoteQuote
If a man beat the shit out of someone who molested his daughter I will not fear him moving into my neighborhood since he is not likely to be a threat to the average person
It depends. He could beat the shit out of you because he thinks you want to molest his daughter, or you look similar to someone from the sex offender list (the pics there are pretty crappy quality anyway).
Has this become a serious problem? Do we have large numbers of parents of molested children who have taken the law into thier own hands once suddenly going on rampages mangling everyone in sight on the off chance that they might molest?
QuoteQuoteYa, maybe I did and didn't think about it. Normally that is the sort of thing that gets my shit in a knot though; the constitution says I get a vote, not I get a vote providing,...
Actually I can agree with that under certain conditions. If you are a canadian who works for a corporation that requires you to be overseas or have some reason why you as a canadian need to be out of the country then fine. I don't want a citizen of convenience who stayed here long enough to get a passport (or any of his relatives) living in some other country, only using his canadian status when he needs surgery or needs to get out of dodge to be able to influence the direction of the country since clearly he does not have the best interest of Canada in mind
QuoteQuoteMy wireless is secured, but I have unlimited. So what would be wrong with one of my neighbors using it? Other than me leaving myself open on an unsecured network....
Simple. The more people can pirate someone elses service the fewer that have to pay for the service and the internet provider falls even shorter of their intended revenues. They respond by raising the prices for those that are paying hence it is not a victimless crime.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAs for spoiling the vote that could likely benefit the liberal party
I live in Calgary. There will be no Liberals elected in Calgary.
Don't get used to it. With the oil industry and growing economy you must have noticed Albertas population growing significantly and not because albertans are having more babies. Where are these newcomers from and what are their political beleifs?
QuoteQuoteI have similar problems in Canada. I currently view the "Conservative Party of Canada" as the lesser of all evils. But even they do things that make me shake my head. I am seriously considering spoiling my ballot next time around (which could be this Spring, Summer or Fall). I know it is pretty much a wasted vote.
They are not doing a bad job at all. As for spoiling the vote that could likely benefit the liberal party because the people who are likely to vote liberal will certainly be voting. Not having a party in charge is not an option so at the very least go with what you perceive as being the least worst.
I often wonder what the abstainers think they are accomplishing? Do you think that Harper will go "Oh my gosh....CanuckinUSA did not show up to vote! Our voter is disenchanted with the system! We will immediately have to clean up our act! As a matter of fact I will call up Stephan Dion and explain the situation too him and he will be so concerned that he will agree to cooperate with us to reafirm voter confidence in our government !"?
Trust me. Many people with ideas entirely contrary to what Canada stands for will certainly be showing up to vote for the Liberal party or even the NDP. Would you like Sharia law? Somebody has to get their way....if not you then who. I know it sounds a bit like a soap box speach but the right to vote is something we in the west are incredibly lucky to have. If you do not vote then someone who has their own ideas for Canada certainly will. If you want the government to serve you better then become the squeaky wheel. The reason you are not happy is that someone who was willing to be the squeaky wheel got the government to bend to their will and now you are paying for it. Your response to this is to become even more removed from having influence?
Nobody said democracy was easy.QuoteToo bad "Libertarian" has never really caught on in either country.
They have some great sounding ideas but they also have some that only sound good in discussion and may not work out as well in reality. besides if they became mainstream then we would have the same problem with them because at the end of the day established political parties breed corruption.
QuoteQuoteYes. At their own risk.
Only if the person they screw over is wealthy enough to hire a good lawyer
QuoteQuote***WTF? Can you elaborate? Sounds pretty fucked up.
Otter from Animal House could be a spokesman for the government. "You fucked up! You trusted us!"
Ask freethefly about how valid promises to take care of him turned out to be.
Private insurance can pull cheap stunts too I imagine
QuoteI honestly think he's trying to cover up something he did to her. I mean, who wouldn't try to revive her or even call an ambulance to get her help? He could have given her location and booked his ass out of there even. All that would depend on if he left traces of himself behind on her body though too.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Date rape drug was likely because he comes across as the self important type who thinks that any girl who turns him down is a "stuck up bitch that needs to be taught a lesson", and she OD'ed. He likely did try to revive her because dead bodies with date rape drug in the system and your semen inside them can be bad for your future, but he cretainly wouldn't have been motivated out of concern for her so much as concern for himself. As for dialling 911 and leaving.....well again that exposes him to too much risk and since he is clearly more important than her well....shit happens. Lot more convenient for this self indulgent prick to limit his help to methods that don't expose him to risk. Once she dies, her body became evidence to be disposed as trash rather than a human body that should have had the dignity if a proper burial. If the not knowing what happened to her was killing her parents well....not his problem. He has to look out for his own entitled future.
QuoteArrogant prick. I hope justice prevails.
He's wealthy and his dad is a judge so it won't.
QuoteQuoteIt does make me uncomfortable when a poster gets attacked for little or no reason. IMO positive vibes are always better than negative vibes. What do you all think?
Strangely I don't like it when a poster receives an unprovoked attack (particularly if that person is not participating in the thread) or if a person is being needlessly provoked, even though it has nothing to do with me. Even if the poster being attacked is someone I don't particularly get along with I don't like seeing it happen. It bothers me a lot more than being attacked myself (I can't explain that).
As for myself I do not attack but will occasionally counterattack if the person is being a dickhead to me with an unprovoked attack (yes I know that is not a good excuse).
FBI Job Opening
in The Bonfire