Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Couldn't find any more nuggets on the rich in People or US magazines? Talk about a tired stereotype. Wonder if you'll throw in one of these nuggets next time to talk to Ralph Wilson and how he's fleeced New York State taxpayers to line his pockets? quit making my point. ... jw
B-Man Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 yes, we should hold a parade every day at noon to salute the rich because we simply wouldn't know misfortune without them. they deserve our glowing praise and sympathy for the hard work many of them put in influencing government to ensure the rules continue to be fixed in their favor. because who, but them, have access to the front door of government, and the opportunities and lawyers to water down laws, win government contracts and reap the whirlwind of gold and silver poured into our failed banking and investment institutions without even to have to say thank you. after all, we are indebted to all of them. and in the spirit of "let them eat cake," perhaps we can cobble up a collection and buy them all a gold-plated Rolls Royce as a sign of our unfettered gratitude. in fact, i will begin taking up a collection, because without the rich, we wouldn't have someone to aspire to or grace our magazines (though, speaking of winning the baby womb lottery, how misfortunate so many of us are to not be born into great inheritance. Paris Hilton will forever remain my hero, because of her wealth, grace and charm, and in that order.) .... my apologies for questioning the rich. unlike we here in the trenches, they are without sin. jw Sarcasm is an art form that you obviously do not possess Johnnie. You were called on your conflicting "I don't judge people" silliness by another poster, and you've got no substance to respond with.....................so follows your half-assed attempt at humor. Please.......continue to embarrass yourself.........we need the entertainment. .
KD in CA Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. You scream it at the top of your lungs with every 'gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket' euphemism. yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion Fate in life? Not being rich is a "fate"? Someone who works hard to pay their bills requires sympathy? This is the essence of the liberal mindset. People without money are now victims and evil is the heart that doesn't offer the requisition 'compassion', naturally in the form of endless government handouts.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 yes, we should hold a parade every day at noon to salute the rich because we simply wouldn't know misfortune without them. they deserve our glowing praise and sympathy for the hard work many of them put in influencing government to ensure the rules continue to be fixed in their favor. because who, but them, have access to the front door of government, and the opportunities and lawyers to water down laws, win government contracts and reap the whirlwind of gold and silver poured into our failed banking and investment institutions without even to have to say thank you. after all, we are indebted to all of them. You understand that I could take out the words "the rich" and replace them with "the unions", or, "organizations like ACORN" in that paragraph...and not really have a problem, right? I mean literally. So what's the real problem? It's not one side or the other. Nope. It's the fact that the Federal government, and those that participate in it, have found a way to whore themselves out politically, and make a whole lot of personal $$ in the process. That's the real problem, and the ONLY way to fix it is to take away their ability to do the whoring. Reduce their power-->reform the tax code down to a postcard, and there won't be ways for any special interest group to get over. But, what are the chances that you support that...the actual solution to the actual problem? and in the spirit of "let them eat cake," perhaps we can cobble up a collection and buy them all a gold-plated Rolls Royce as a sign of our unfettered gratitude. While we are at it, let's increase per student spending another $3k per kid, and then self-congratulate ourselves for being "compassionate" while we also ignore that fact that the increased spending has no effect on results. in fact, i will begin taking up a collection, because without the rich, we wouldn't have someone to aspire to or grace our magazines (though, speaking of winning the baby womb lottery, how misfortunate so many of us are to not be born into great inheritance. Paris Hilton will forever remain my hero, because of her wealth, grace and charm, and in that order.) .... How wonderful that so much spending, time and effort is expended on people who refuse to utilize it, and consistently choose idiocy instead. How great that we can spend so much on make work jobs for government employees, that either do nothing to improve things, or make them worse. Yes, thank God we are spending all this money on entitlement bureaucrats who see themselves as entitled as well. Governor Cuomo didn't just come out and say we need to cut taxes and spending in this state, right? But, even if he did, you know better than the #1 Democrat in NY, don't you? my apologies for questioning the rich. unlike we here in the trenches, they are without sin. jw No, you said you refuse to judge people by their status in life, yet, you have done so in every post. I'm simply improving your soul by correcting your unseen errors.
Rob's House Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 the difference, as i see it, between the media on the right and left is conviction. as others have stated, people who choose journalism as a profession generally have an idealistic nature which lends itself to liberalism. their potential bias is often based on conviction. i think this is generally less true for those on the right, especially commentators on the far right. i don't believe limbaugh believes much of the stuff he says but then he hides under the veil of "entertainment". he and his ilk really are propagandists who cynically work for their masters and with great effect. i wouldn't be surprised if hannity really believes his message but savage? how do you go from far left liberal to fascist? bitterness? disillusionment? maybee but i think it's much more likely a case of personal economics. in short, i think left leaning journalist view their job as more of a vocation while right leaning more often see it as a good paycheck. i'm sure this is overgeneralized but i'm convinced there's truth to it. All I got out of this is that you really know nothing about the people on the right of whom you speak, nor do you understand what makes them tick. This is not surprising considering you and your I'll conveniently believe whatever you wish were true. quit making my point. ... jw Your only point is that you agree with liberal philosophy and therefore liberal reporting isn't biased because they're just reporting [what you believe to be] the truth.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Sarcasm is an art form that you obviously do not possess Johnnie. You were called on your conflicting "I don't judge people" silliness by another poster, and you've got no substance to respond with.....................so follows your half-assed attempt at humor. Please.......continue to embarrass yourself.........we need the entertainment. . Wawrow isn't able to hang with me, and never has been. I mean, in order to set your expectations properly, it's not like you're going to see some sort of interesting debate here. What you will get is 1. Wawrow saying something stupid(and in this instance, birddog riding shotgun), and completely indefensible. 2. Me correctly identifying the stupidity and hammering Wawrow for it 3. Wawrow ducking, running, covering, grasping at whatever tangential straw he can ....and making even more mistakes in his lame efforts at backpedaling, or, even more funny, doubling down on the silliness. 4. Me finding even more errors with which to make fun of him So, since you are newer, you don't understand that this process is only beginning. Have patience. We will get to 4, and it will be funny, I promise. wawrow is literally incapable of putting the shovel down once he starts digging..... And, I am still waiting for Birddog to find me a Candian doctor who wouldn't rather have the US system, prior to Obamacare. Or, it would be hysterical for him to try struggling through explaining how immediate, universal, preventative heath care is an absolute must....until the day when you need to be seen by the doctor because you have a lump in your arm and a family history of cancer. Funny how the absolute "immediate need" becomes immediately....relative.
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Wawrow isn't able to hang with me, and never has been. I mean, in order to set your expectations properly, it's not like you're going to see some sort of interesting debate here. What you will get is 1. Wawrow saying something stupid(and in this instance, birddog riding shotgun), and completely indefensible. 2. Me correctly identifying the stupidity and hammering Wawrow for it 3. Wawrow ducking, running, covering, grasping at whatever tangential straw he can ....and making even more mistakes in his lame efforts at backpedaling, or, even more funny, doubling down on the silliness. 4. Me finding even more errors with which to make fun of him So, since you are newer, you don't understand that this process is only beginning. Have patience. We will get to 4, and it will be funny, I promise. wawrow is literally incapable of putting the shovel down once he starts digging..... And, I am still waiting for Birddog to find me a Candian doctor who wouldn't rather have the US system, prior to Obamacare. Or, it would be hysterical for him to try struggling through explaining how immediate, universal, preventative heath care is an absolute must....until the day when you need to be seen by the doctor because you have a lump in your arm and a family history of cancer. Funny how the absolute "immediate need" becomes immediately....relative. i'm quite glad you are blessed with a heightened sense of self-fulfilling superiority. what have is said that indefensible. in your mind that might be the case, and yet in your self-righteous zeal, you have no ability to see other points of view. please, i've stated my case. some people disagree. that's fair. as for your Canadian doctor point, geez. i've lived in both countries. i can compare the differences. and here's the point that i make that never gets an answer from all those who rail against universal health care. never in my 36 years in Canada did i ever have to attend a fund-raiser in order to help a friend, colleague or anyone else for that matter to make ends meet or in a position to be bankrupted as a result of medical care. here, different story. why is it that basic needs that everyone should have access to cannot be met in this rich nation. guess this is digging or running or whatever. i've made my points: -- i've noted that i in fact come from a family that went from rags to riches, and it happened in Canada. -- i've never not accepted there being a liberal media bias. and yet, it's bedeviling to understand why others don't see biases in every media outlet, mainstream or whatever. -- i've questioned posters points of view on a lack of compassion, and wondered in what chapter of the Bible, it reads that the poor require no priveleges or standing in society. i will not apologize for my views, and yet you seem to think you hold the sole and brilliant idea, and that we should goose-step behind it, because obviously, you have the rare gift of being perfect and right minded. some might say delusional, but why be judgemental. jw You scream it at the top of your lungs with every 'gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket' euphemism. Fate in life? Not being rich is a "fate"? Someone who works hard to pay their bills requires sympathy? This is the essence of the liberal mindset. People without money are now victims and evil is the heart that doesn't offer the requisition 'compassion', naturally in the form of endless government handouts. here's the problem i find with this response, it assumes far too much. i have never said people without money are "victims." you suppose i say that, but that's not true. endless government handouts. puh-leeze. there's a neat juxtaposition here, which i'm sure some might not grasp the nuance. if it is ok to question government money spent on welfare programs, then is it not also ok to question the amount of money spent on Wall Street and war? jw
GG Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 i've made my points: -- i've noted that i in fact come from a family that went from rags to riches, and it happened in Canada. Yet, you have no problem trashing those who do it in the US. And while Canada may be the only exception to that rule, how much of Canada's largesse to its citizenry is the convenience of geography and the spoils it gets from its neighbour? -- i've never not accepted there being a liberal media bias. and yet, it's bedeviling to understand why others don't see biases in every media outlet, mainstream or whatever. Who on the right hasn't acknowledged the biases? -- i've questioned posters points of view on a lack of compassion, and wondered in what chapter of the Bible, it reads that the poor require no priveleges or standing in society. The compassionate and caring chapters & verse in the Bible are invariably followed by the requirement that you pledge your body & soul to God, otherwise ye be smitten from this Earth. So if you choose to pick passages that call on men to be compassionate and charitable, they also have to be aligned with the main point of Judeo Christian ethos. If you take God out of that equation and try to apply only the good parts of the Bible to a seculkar world, without introducing the fear and guilt of Hell, then the social contract breaks down because there's no downside. That's what the conservatives here are arguing. It's not enough to simply put policies and programs in place because they feel good and they're the right thing to do. No one is arguing that. The argument is over the methods to judge the effectiveness of those programs and fix them if they're broken. It's that second part that eludes most liberals I know, because it involves an admission that the feel good programs as currently designed do not work.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) See B-man? Never fear, warwow-dog is here...with his magic shovel. i'm quite glad you are blessed with a heightened sense of self-fulfilling superiority. what have is said that indefensible. in your mind that might be the case, and yet in your self-righteous zeal, you have no ability to see other points of view. please, i've stated my case. some people disagree. that's fair. Nope. The only thing I have is a spotless record of busting you up on this board. The only reason it is indefensible is: it is impossible to both not judge people by their status in life, and judge people by their status in life, at the same time. The only thing you've done is either contradict yourself, babble like an idiot, or not see that it is in fact your point of view, specifically, is the very reason you say such silly things. as for your Canadian doctor point, geez. i've lived in both countries. i can compare the differences. and here's the point that i make that never gets an answer from all those who rail against universal health care. never in my 36 years in Canada did i ever have to attend a fund-raiser in order to help a friend, colleague or anyone else for that matter to make ends meet or in a position to be bankrupted as a result of medical care. here, different story. Well, then for 36 years you missed the point: Canada does not in fact have universal health care...if you have to wait until you are dead/really sick to get it. How much further along are we if we have to look forward to attending funerals of the people that couldn't get health care approved by bureaucrats, instead of fund raisers for people that weren't impeded by them? How is that "progress" there dopey progressive? (See B-man, I told you, it's just a matter of time until the hole gets to big to climb out of....and hence the digging becomes more furious and the hole deepens) why is it that basic needs that everyone should have access to cannot be met in this rich nation. guess this is digging or running or whatever. Why is is that with all the money that is spent on health education, and all the State and Federal unfunded mandates that demand that it be taught....we still have so many fatasses, tobacco users, and unmitigated drunks like you(and me)? And, again, Canada's health system doesn't attend to the need for access you describe either. Same answer for both: for all your hubris, people like you cannot create systems that solve these problems....not when the participants don't want to participate, and not when you refuse to define the problems properly. Hint: Saying "they need to have X" is not proper problem definition. Perhaps you should start by asking the people themselves, instead of determining it for them? Stop focusing on "the need". Start focusing on "the problems", and how to accurately define them. Hint: that's the only way real solutions that can really solve them can be created. i've made my points: Really? When? I don't see anything that can't be dismissed as the musings of a person who is unwilling to go in and actually obtain the raw data upon which accurate conclusions can be drawn. -- i've noted that i in fact come from a family that went from rags to riches, and it happened in Canada. This is a point? Did they do this before or after universal health care in Canada? Sounds like before... If so, however were they able to achieve these wondrous results? -- i've never not accepted there being a liberal media bias. and yet, it's bedeviling to understand why others don't see biases in every media outlet, mainstream or whatever. No, you dopily missed/ignored the clear distinctions that has been drawn: There is a difference between opinion/analysis and hard news reporting. The issue at hand is the bias in the supposedly hard news in the MSM. -- i've questioned posters points of view on a lack of compassion, and wondered in what chapter of the Bible, it reads that the poor require no priveleges or standing in society. Yes, you've talked about the Bible and one of the deadly sins, Greed....yet you have conveniently left out 2 of the other sins, Pride and Envy. Why is that? Why can't you see the sin of pride that these failed government programs are predicated on? You trying to tell me Obamacare isn't hubris? You trying to tell me that endlessly talking about "millionaires and billionaires" isn't envy personified? i will not apologize for my views, and yet you seem to think you hold the sole and brilliant idea, and that we should goose-step behind it, because obviously, you have the rare gift of being perfect and right minded. some might say delusional, but why be judgemental. jw Nope, I have simply, again, tried to improve your soul by correcting your unseen errors. Edited January 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Wawrow isn't able to hang with me, and never has been. I mean, in order to set your expectations properly, it's not like you're going to see some sort of interesting debate here. What you will get is 1. Wawrow saying something stupid(and in this instance, birddog riding shotgun), and completely indefensible. 2. Me correctly identifying the stupidity and hammering Wawrow for it 3. Wawrow ducking, running, covering, grasping at whatever tangential straw he can ....and making even more mistakes in his lame efforts at backpedaling, or, even more funny, doubling down on the silliness. 4. Me finding even more errors with which to make fun of him So, since you are newer, you don't understand that this process is only beginning. Have patience. We will get to 4, and it will be funny, I promise. wawrow is literally incapable of putting the shovel down once he starts digging..... And, I am still waiting for Birddog to find me a Candian doctor who wouldn't rather have the US system, prior to Obamacare. Or, it would be hysterical for him to try struggling through explaining how immediate, universal, preventative heath care is an absolute must....until the day when you need to be seen by the doctor because you have a lump in your arm and a family history of cancer. Funny how the absolute "immediate need" becomes immediately....relative. there were nearly 10000 applications for 2500 spots each year between 2001 and 2006 for canadian med schools. these kids know the system they'll be working in yet still apply in droves. i think that acceptance rate is actually lower than in the us. you seem to be arguing that "insurance" or govt run healthcare should asllow pts to pick and choose tests and procedures like a kid flipping through a sear's catalog. i doesn't work that way with aetna or cigna and not suprisingly it doesn't work that way in the canadian system. Edited January 10, 2012 by birdog1960
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Yet, you have no problem trashing those who do it in the US. And while Canada may be the only exception to that rule, how much of Canada's largesse to its citizenry is the convenience of geography and the spoils it gets from its neighbour? GG: Give me a break. You suggest -- no, you not only suggest you say with sole conviction -- that the U.S. is the only nation in which people have the opportunity to go from rags to riches. You actually write, and I quote -- "Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed." I point out my story, and now I'm wrong for that? Suddenly, Canada is a mere "exception" as if this somehow this now further proves your point. Don't change the subject here. I know it's difficult on this board to concede anything, because lord knows that would make you look weak. But to argue in the face of you being proven wrong takes that to a level that I thought was above you. And now I'm somehow trashing the U.S. Canada has its many share of flaws. And yet it's not all right to question America, because it is a perfect nation? Geography certainly plays a role, and yet so does philosophy. Thanks to regulations, the Canadian banking system was not as severely affected by the bursting of the real estate bubble. Jesus. And now you proceed to interpret my meaning of the Bible, as if "Love Thy Neighbor" is full of exceptions. No, it's Love Thy Neighbor, not judge they neighbor, not pity thy neighbor and certainly not look down on thy neigbor because they are down on their luck and, oh well, thems' the breaks. it doesn't take a Jesus Freak or layman or non-believer to understand and appreciate that is essentially a good way to live one's life, without fear of being smitten or smited, whichever may be the case. jw
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Birddog requoting me....with no reply at all....no reply at all. Sing it! Ohhh ohh no reply at all. EDIT: Oh, NOW you have something to say? Yes, and there are a ton of people that try to get into the IT business, and many of whom either quit or get tossed out. So what? The reason I am still in it, and I imagine most docs are still in their business, is that despite all of the daily horseshit, we actually like doing our jobs and helping people who are in deep trouble.That doesn't mean I like how my business runs currently. More importantly, it definitely means that I will do everything in my power to keep the government out of my business completely. And, your response doesn't explain why so many Canadian docs leave for the US. Or, why all of the ones I have met hate their system. So, again, I ask where are you hiding the practicing Canadian MDs that like and will openly defend their system? Birddog, birddog, thank you for making my point for me. I am arguing that BOTH massive bureaucracies fail. If the Canadian system is just as bad as the insurance companies....then how in the F is it "better"? How it is something we should aspire to? Why should we replace one terrible system with another terrible system? How about we do what I wrote last time this came up? Drive everything back down to the counties, where it belongs, and let them do what is right for their people. You aren't seriously suggesting that what is right for Erie county, is right for Steuben, and also Nassau are you? Then why are we running Medicare/Medicaid the same way in all 3? Edited January 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 OC, I've never been much for watching a cat play with a near-dead mouse, so I think that I will just post some more articles on the the actual theme of the thread....................and leave you to deal with Johnnie-one note. Liberal Media bias (warning: contents are opinion, not to be confused with mainstream news articles) This Week's MSM Bias Award Goes to George Stephanopoulos We've been dealing with liberal media bias for years, but George Stephanopoulos' performance in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night in New Hampshire was particularly egregious. In many of these MSM-moderated debates, liberal moderators have tried to stir up personal fights between candidates, which diverts our focus from more important issues and, before national television audiences, shifts attention far away from Barack Obama and his disastrous agenda. Yes, these are debates among Republicans and designed to bring out distinctions among the candidates, but it should be up to the candidates to initiate and define those distinctions, and it is improper for the moderators to continually steer the debate away from substance and into the personal. With the moderators constantly stirring up catfights, liberal ends are served, both in placing Republican candidates in the worst light and in creating the illusion that their primary differences are with one another rather than Obama. If you doubt this, then ask yourself how often in Saturday night's debate the candidates were given an opportunity -- instead of showing how corrupt, immoral or inexperienced their GOP rivals are -- to distinguish their policy proposals from the others in the context of the Obama record. The narrative in these debates ought to be how each of the candidates is better-equipped than the others to reverse Obama's agenda. In addition to misdirecting the debates substantively, the liberal moderators have also, too often, injected themselves into the debates as if they were either driven by their irrepressible egos to make themselves players rather than facilitators or so ideologically revolted by the GOP's policies that they were compelled to argue Obama's side in his absence. The moderators shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If they are going to direct the debate solely toward differences among the GOP candidates, they shouldn't present Obama's side for him, giving him and the liberal position a free ride. .
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 GG: Give me a break. You suggest -- no, you not only suggest you say with sole conviction -- that the U.S. is the only nation in which people have the opportunity to go from rags to riches. You actually write, and I quote -- "Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed." I point out my story, and now I'm wrong for that? Suddenly, Canada is a mere "exception" as if this somehow this now further proves your point. Don't change the subject here. I know it's difficult on this board to concede anything, because lord knows that would make you look weak. But to argue in the face of you being proven wrong takes that to a level that I thought was above you. And now I'm somehow trashing the U.S. Canada has its many share of flaws. And yet it's not all right to question America, because it is a perfect nation? Geography certainly plays a role, and yet so does philosophy. Thanks to regulations, the Canadian banking system was not as severely affected by the bursting of the real estate bubble. Jesus. And now you proceed to interpret my meaning of the Bible, as if "Love Thy Neighbor" is full of exceptions. No, it's Love Thy Neighbor, not judge they neighbor, not pity thy neighbor and certainly not look down on thy neigbor because they are down on their luck and, oh well, thems' the breaks. it doesn't take a Jesus Freak or layman or non-believer to understand and appreciate that is essentially a good way to live one's life, without fear of being smitten or smited, whichever may be the case. jw See B-man? Remember when I said "grasping at tangential straws"? Yeah, now it's about "Canadian pride" and the wonders of the Canadian real estate market ....and not about bias in the media, or the fact that universal health care that doesn't deliver health care universally...is not universal. Now it's about GG's theological shortcomings. I honestly don't know if he has any, but hey, as I said, it's best not to prevent the wawrow shovel from doing it's work. I told you we'd get to 4. Just a matter of time. Soon I expect it will be about my ego, or, did we already start down that tangential path?
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) See B-man? Never fear, warwow-dog is here...with his magic shovel. Nope. The only thing I have is a spotless record of busting you up on this board. The only reason it is indefensible is: it is impossible to both not judge people by their status in life, and judge people by their status in life, at the same time. The only thing you've done is either contradict yourself, babble like an idiot, or not see that it is in fact your point of view, specifically, is the very reason you say such silly things. Well, then for 36 years you missed the point: Canada does not in fact have universal health care...if you have to wait until you are dead/really sick to get it. How much further along are we if we have to look forward to attending funerals of the people that couldn't get health care approved by bureaucrats, instead of fund raisers for people that weren't impeded by them? How is that "progress" there dopey progressive? (See B-man, I told you, it's just a matter of time until the hole gets to big to climb out of....and hence the digging becomes more furious and the hole deepens) Why is is that with all the money that is spent on health education, and all the State and Federal unfunded mandates that demand that it be taught....we still have so many fatasses, tobacco users, and unmitigated drunks like you(and me)? And, again, Canada's health system doesn't attend to the need for access you describe either. Same answer for both: for all your hubris, people like you cannot create systems that solve these problems....not when the participants don't want to participate, and not when you refuse to define the problems properly. Hint: Saying "they need to have X" is not proper problem definition. Perhaps you should start by asking the people themselves, instead of determining it for them? Stop focusing on "the need". Start focusing on "the problems", and how to accurately define them. Hint: that's the only way real solutions that can really solve them can be created. Really? When? I don't see anything that can't be dismissed as the musings of a person who is unwilling to go in and actually obtain the raw data upon which accurate conclusions can be drawn. This is a point? Did they do this before or after universal health care in Canada? Sounds like before... If so, however were they able to achieve these wondrous results? No, you dopily missed/ignored the clear distinctions that has been drawn: There is a difference between opinion/analysis and hard news reporting. The issue at hand is the bias in the supposedly hard news in the MSM. Yes, you've talked about the Bible and one of the deadly sins, Greed....yet you have conveniently left out 2 of the other sins, Pride and Envy. Why is that? Why can't you see the sin of pride that these failed government programs are predicated on? You trying to tell me Obamacare isn't hubris? You trying to tell me that endlessly talking about "millionaires and billionaires" isn't envy personified? Nope, I have simply, again, tried to improve your soul by correcting your unseen errors. just because you say it to be so, does not make it true. yes, last time i visited Canada, there were people dying in the streets, so many so that the funeral homes and crematoriams are over-booked and in fact have begun operating 24 hours a day to meet demand. and just because you used words to argue against my points doesn't make your musings less nonsensical. how did my family get to where it got, and was it with the help of universal health care: Here's a question oh great fact-finder. I'm 48, look up when universal health care came into being in Canada and do the math for yourself. but of course you won't. you'll come back with something about how you've bested me by railroading your dim views and pretending them to be uncompromisable, as if this is a contest and not an attempt at discussion. and if that's the case, then obviously, i can't come close to matching your unmitigated state of heightened and blind zeal. so i'll concede that point. ----- ADD: or, why waste my breath when i can simply take a page out of the OC's handbook and say: Hey guys, look at me. I've proven him wrong. jw Edited January 10, 2012 by john wawrow
B-Man Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Canada Free Press..........because without America there is no free world ABC apparently decided that due to Rick Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa, the debate should focus more on social issues than the economy. Conveniently that also served to help Obama and the Democrats as it shifted the focus away from one of the most troublesome problems the President has as he faces re-election. Did we really need a long discussion on whether or not states should be allowed to ban contraception, or if Ron Paul would still call Newt Gingrich a “Chickenhawk?” And of course the most inane question of the night was saved for the very end when the candidates were asked what they would be doing on a Saturday night if they weren’t running for president. Who cares? The real winner wasn’t Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum or any of the other GOP candidates, but Barack Obama, who was given a mostly free pass by the liberal media moderators through their line of questioning. GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich turned the tables on the media during Saturday night’s debate in New Hampshire on ABC when he answered a viewer question on gay marriage by taking a shot at the liberal media. "I just want to raise the point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples? Which is exactly what the state has done. Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivering of service because of the bias and bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways, and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side and none of it gets covered by the news media." That answer didn’t sit well with ABC moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, who quickly changed the subject so they wouldn’t have to deal with the very real issue of liberal media bias
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 oddly enough, Canada has a higher life-expectancy rate and lower child-mortality rate than the U.S., and yet, the per capita expenditure on health care in Canada is almost half of that in the U.S. and oddly enough, the percentage of government revenue spent on health in Canada is lower than that here in the U.S. now, these are mere statistics, and open to interpretation, but at the very least there's an indication that OC's point about people lining up to attend funerals in Canada has been put in question at the very least. of course, he'll soon come back with a post to inform us all how wrong i am. jw
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 -- i've questioned posters points of view on a lack of compassion, and wondered in what chapter of the Bible, it reads that the poor require no priveleges or standing in society. Isn't that the definition of "poor"?
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 just because you say it to be so, does not make it true. Sure, but me saying something is so has an order of magnitude more propensity to be true, than you saying something is so. yes, last time i visited Canada, there were people dying in the streets, so many so that the funeral homes and crematoriams are over-booked and in fact have begun operating 24 hours a day to meet demand. and just because you used words to argue against my points doesn't make your musings less nonsensical. Musings....nonsensical....yep. What was I supposed to use...besides words? Shrubberies? The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch? Maybe B-man's characterization of you being a mostly dead mouse isn't that far off. This is too easy. how did my family get to where it got, and was it with the help of universal health care: Here's a question oh great fact-finder. I'm 48, look up when universal health care came into being in Canada and do the math for yourself. So, it wasn't as a result of universal health care, was it? Or are you telling me that at wawrow family gatherings, you all tell the kids that universal health care, and not the great-grandparents, were the reason your family made good? but of course you won't. you'll come back with something about how you've bested me by railroading your dim views and pretending them to be uncompromisable, as if this is a contest and not an attempt at discussion. and if that's the case, then obviously, i can't come close to matching your unmitigated state of heightened and blind zeal. Buddy, look at this post, never mind this thread. I've already bested you, in the same way I "bested" the spider I just killed. Actually "besting" you would require me taking you seriously, which I clearly don't, because you never give us a reason. The fact that your musings don't even approach being logical, and are filled with contradiction you seem incapable of recognizing, is cause for humor for me...and certainly not worth "discussion" as though they merit serious thought. ADD: or, why waste my breath when i can simply take a page out of the OC's handbook and say: Hey guys, look at me. I've proven him wrong. jw I'm laughing at the "thought" process that must have occurred for you...to decide to come back, and edit your post...with this. Yeah, it wouldn't have been as good without adding this part. The best is that you think you've proven something, anything, in this whole thread besides....the Candian real estate market is better off than ours and that you know the Golden rule.
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Sure, but me saying something is so has an order of magnitude more propensity to be true, than you saying something is so. no. Musings....nonsensical....yep. What was I supposed to use...besides words? Shrubberies? The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch? try a logical point. Maybe B-man's characterization of you being a mostly dead mouse isn't that far off. This is too easy. yes, because you fail to make any reasonable point. So, it wasn't as a result of universal health care, was it? Or are you telling me that at wawrow family gatherings, you all tell the kids that universal health care, and not the great-grandparents, were the reason your family made good? your impervious streak to logic or reason remains unbroken. Buddy, look at this post, never mind this thread. I've already bested you, in the same way I "bested" the spider I just killed. Actually "besting" you would require me taking you seriously, which I clearly don't, because you never give us a reason. The fact that your musings don't even approach being logical, and are filled with contradiction you seem incapable of recognizing, is cause for humor for me...and certainly not worth "discussion" as though they merit serious thought. bested? I'm laughing at the "thought" process that must have occurred for you...to decide to come back, and edit your post...with this. Yeah, it wouldn't have been as good without adding this part. The best is that you think you've proven something, anything, in this whole thread besides....the Candian real estate market is better off than ours and that you know the Golden rule. and once again, you fail to make a point. good for you for once again proving me right. jw Isn't that the definition of "poor"? finally, a breath of fresh and a point of view. how's tricks, Tom? jw
Recommended Posts