Walsingham

Well, this thread is growing apace. I hope someone has time to read my responses below. I've tried to distill out general themes. 1. The system will be mismanaged I think this is probably the best counterargument. The US govt. does arse some things royally. My counter is the military. Your military is fething awesome in almost every sense and particularly veteran care (to the best of my knowledge although I concede there are other forumites with better background on this point). However, if I am incorrect in my apprehension and the US govt cannot do anything right then I put it to you that you need to FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY. 2. The system won't tackle actual costs My instinct tells me that this will be the crucial factor. Without controlling the means of supply, rather than just setting up hospitals/medics, the govt. is setting themselves up to be fleeced 3. People will get stuff they don't deserve I still find this the most asinine objection. The cretinous caveman understood that working with other cavemen to bring down a mammoth would result in an unfair share of spoils, but nevertheless meant he got a good deal. If going public health costs you less as both a private consumer and as an employer/purchaser then WTF? You get cheaper healthcare AND get to help other people. Where's the big deal? Don't even get me started on this point as a Christian.

Settle down, you pervs.

What we need is a good dose of what we've always done best. Simple common sense, rather than grand bull**** theories about government.

Would it be possible to illuminate our colleague over the correct usage of the inverted comma?

1. I just realised that the seal of the united states is that of an eagle proudly flaunting its crotch. 2. Despite all the efforts in this forum I still don't understand why this bill has provoked such terrifying partisan furore. I apologise if this is me being thick. Figures I find realistic suggest that you chaps spend far more on healthcare overall yet receive a system which is at best equivalent to that of most european nations. But more importantly, the notion that socialised healthcare leads inexorably to a communist state are belied by the FACT that none of the European nations who have such a system are communist. Given this, it still seems to me that the case against has been paid for and benefits the insurance companies. The mere argument that the companies are within their rights to do this does not remove the right of ordinary citizens to try and stop them. Not by flying planes into buildings, or getting locked up in jail, or dying in any way, but by demanding change from their elected representatives. Which is surely far more emblematic of the spirit of our brave colony than raw capitalism!

You eat like an English king, sir.

There is a growing trend of extremists using court cases to cripple their critics. Keep your eyes peeled.

That's a shame, because Gorth said it.

You eat like a king, sir.

You may not have meant to present the dichotomoy, but I don't see why terrorism can't be a crime. Certainly fighting it using just law enforcement poses problems, but it's certainly criminal. EDIT: It's also fair to say that a lot of terrorists are just fething nutloops.

Sorry to hear all this, man. You may recall I've fallen out with my brother in the last few years. I think people underestimate how important it can be.

I should have thought that it was highly unwise to lay claim to direct descendence. Look at all the unpleasantness the Shia have to put up with.

Sorry, I meant apart from Volo, since it may lift his spirits and lead to some sort of replosion.

I would be grateful if you would make this your sig.

I shall have to take time to consider both your points.

WTH? I agree... 1) Well played, Estonia. Feel free to start your own thread to brief us on your country. I'm sure we'd all enjoy that. 2) Come on France. It's no good getting distracted by how good you are at rugby and letting the nerdly arts wither away!

http://www.zombie-cow.com/?page_id=17 This incredibly budget priced game is easily the best point and click I've played. It's chock full of LucasArts style humour (early Lucas Arts style), yet the puzzles generally make a little sense. You absoltely MUST give it a try.

I've been trying to get a handle on recent French political developments and can't get anything sensible from English language media. There's all sorts of odd 'noises off' coming from your country, which I want to understand: - Sarkozy polularity down - Far right gaining ground - State of political violence following those riots a few years ago - Attitude towards Europe - Attitude towards the United States - View on Germany I figure that asking here is as good as anywhere else.

I take your objection in good spirit, Orogun because I share your horror when people try to dodge personal responsibility. Yet nevertheless I DO maintain that a person can be maladjusted trhough no particular fault of their own while retaining tehir responsibility over what happens next. This is important because such outside factors can be leveraged by the people who suffer the consequences of the crime. I don't see that as being particularly odd or nice/fluffy. Surely the whole purpose of leadership - in business for example - is to apply similar leverage to make people behave better? I say that people can be brought low by a combination of factors. take, for example, the chap who suffers from low levels of monoamine oxidase. He has a fundamental need to perform high risk behaviours. If you put him in a very safe environment he will find it as stifling as solitary confinement would be to you or me. If he is rich he will find numerous avenues for safe pursuit of his thrill-seeking. he may become a mountain climber, or surfer. However, if he is poor what outlet does he find? Petty criminal behaviour is free and a big risk. I use this example because I know so many men who fit this template who managed to kick petty criminality when they joined the Army and found outlet in the field. They are as good as gold, utterly trustworthy, provided they are getting enough excitement. I wouldn't excuse any of them if they stole anything from me, nor would I forgive, but I would expect the spark which initiated the trouble to be a dull posting, or some other misfortune. Similarly, if someone is on crack cocaine then this literally hardwires the brain into a different 'shape' that motivates the addict towards the drug as strongly as a father would be to save his kids. I draw a big distinction between these bottom up motivations for crime, that arise beyond the boundaries of the subject's control and must simply be struggled against at the conscious level, and the top down motivations. A top down motivated criminal being someone who experiences no fundamental discomfort without criminality, but whose ambition and greed make them choose a life of crime accompanied by almost dispassionate violence. I have met many such people in my earlier days as a journalist.

I think spirulina is quite tasty.

It's just a sign of being 19. You magnificent bastard.

Be careful, mate. I've long taken the view that terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy incorporating the political dimension in detail. It is there, obviously, because no action is without a 'political strategic' dimension, but it really isn't the the focus of terrorism. The only political point common to all terrorists is that they have chosen to emphasise violence over discourse for some reason, despite having an inferior military force to their target.

I do think that there is a fundamental problem at root here. Most criminals are basically unfortunates. They suffer from an absence of effective skills and hormones which drives them to seek outlets which offend good society. I'm not excusing it, but these folk need treatment and rehab, to become contributors. However I would contend from my own research and experience that there are some criminals - who account for the majority of serious crime - who are effectively enemies of society and treat society as such. They have no interest in rehab because they have no interest in participating. Our main problem is that we currently put simple unfortunates into the same mangle intended for the serious troublemakers, which brutalises them to no purpose other than making them worse. We also put serious criminals through a process which is softened to accomodate the simple unfortunates. The problem with resolving into two systems is that it offends the notion of one rule of law for all. I'm not sure what could be done about that.

Yeah, you know me.