On November 04 2010 15:52 Xtar wrote: maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
How am I wrong about Chomsky. First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Am I a shitty veterinarian if I specialize in dogs? Am I a hilarious engineer if I specialize in bridges?
No. No I am not. If linguist meant, "Know many languages" such a criticism might make sense.
As for Chomsky on buying elections, I remain unconvinced.
Does money flow to a winning candidate, or does a candidate win because money flowed to him\her? It seems chicken-and-the-egg and lacking a clear answer to me. Perhaps the evidence exists and I just haven't been confronted with it.
youre a shitty veterinarian if you ONLY know how to treat dogs.
On November 04 2010 16:34 maliceee wrote: how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
By deliberately telling something that you know is not true. I have this habit to tell people they are liars when I believe they are. If you can't handle that I suggest you manner up and avoid it in the future.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
I don't even understand what your mean because of the grammar. But just because a country is a republic that doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You are deliberately equivocating the meaning of the word. Let me tell you a little secret. Plato is dead. He died a long time ago and a lot of things happened since then.
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
You tell me. If you ask me a republic is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. It's just that those two forms are most common for western countries.
How am I wrong about Chomsky.
Because he speaks several languages.
First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
How am I supposed to tell considering everything you have told so far. 'Sarcastic points'? You have to build up a certain reputation first before you can successfully engage in sarcasm. Don't blame me for that. I mean, you still believe he doesn't speak any other languages. If I would have identified this as satire I would either have IDed both statements are satire or both as genuine. People just can't recognize when you are for real and when you are joking. So don't joke. It doesn't work.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Am I a shitty veterinarian if I specialize in dogs? Am I a hilarious engineer if I specialize in bridges?
No. No I am not. If linguist meant, "Know many languages" such a criticism might make sense.
As for Chomsky on buying elections, I remain unconvinced.
Does money flow to a winning candidate, or does a candidate win because money flowed to him\her? It seems chicken-and-the-egg and lacking a clear answer to me. Perhaps the evidence exists and I just haven't been confronted with it.
youre a shitty veterinarian if you ONLY know how to treat dogs.
Treat =\= specialize, but perhaps it was a bad example. Linguistics is a science and sciences are heavily specified as far as average jobs go. It doesn't change the fact linguists do not need to know different languages.
On November 04 2010 15:52 Xtar wrote: maliceee, don't be a liar. I never said anything about what a republic is. Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. Apparently you think that monarchies are democracies and republics are tyrannies?
Also, you are wrong on Chomsky.
As for the elections costing money, that's because they are marketed and marketing costs money. It's no secret that huge donations come from all kinds of corporations. It's also no secret politicians act contrary to their electorate. But the most expensive marketing is not always the best one.
how am i lying? Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
you also said he's a hilarious linguist. one can take this as either a comedian that is also a linguist, or a linguist of laughable stature. And I haven't seen him doing any acts at comedy clubs!
though I just noticed the irony you've brought to us. A semantic ambiguity
nevertheless Chomsky is incredibly intelligent. my favourite debate of his is with Buckley way way back. And if you study linguistics, you'll learn even more about him.
On November 04 2010 16:34 maliceee wrote: how am i lying? the hostility from you is scary dude.
By deliberately telling something that you know is not true. I have this habit to tell people they are liars when I believe they are. If you can't handle that I suggest you manner up and avoid it in the future.
How is referencing the US then putting "democracy" in quotations not giving the idea that the US says its a democracy but in reality it's not?
I don't even understand what your mean because of the grammar. But just because a country is a republic that doesn't mean it's not a democracy. You are deliberately equivocating the meaning of the word. Let me tell you a little secret. Plato is dead. He died a long time ago and a lot of things happened since then.
The sentence, "Just because the US has a president rather than a king doesn't mean it isn't a democracy" doesn't make sense. Since when did having a king signal a democracy?
You tell me. If you ask me a republic is more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. It's just that those two forms are most common for western countries.
First of all if you couldn't tell that wasn't in the least bit serious gain a few sarcastic points. Second of all, he doesn't know another language and that is all I said about him.
How am I supposed to tell considering everything you have told so far. 'Sarcastic points'? You have to build up a certain reputation first before you can successfully engage in sarcasm. Don't blame me for that. I mean, you still believe he doesn't speak any other languages. If I would have identified this as satire I would either have IDed both statements are satire or both as genuine. People just can't recognize when you are for real and when you are joking. So don't joke. It doesn't work.
Hm perhaps I should handle this a different way. What specifically did I lie about?
You can't be a democracy and a republic man. Maybe you should study what the US is instead of just being an asinine person who thinks he's always right. The electoral college kind of negates your point, sorry.
in that interview he states he would love to be ABLE to speak another language, and the closest evidence anyone has to him speaking another language is he studied Hebrew, So i guess youre a liar, or ignorant. Maybe you could post a source to back it up, but I doubt you will.
and about the American public be more wealthy than the Canadian, ha. So many more expenses and the rich are so top heavy that it skews the GDP per capita into looking like people have more. Also HDI is about the universal healthcare Canadians and other developed nations have combined with the massive amounts of cash we save. 20 year olds without parental support do not have their lives pulled apart by a broken leg.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
its almost like I was presenting uncontested facts and arguing with blathering idiots... hmm
and about the American public be more wealthy than the Canadian, ha. So many more expenses and the rich are so top heavy that it skews the GDP per capita into looking like people have more. Also HDI is about the universal healthcare Canadians and other developed nations have combined with the massive amounts of cash we save. 20 year olds without parental support do not have their lives pulled apart by a broken leg.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
its almost like I was presenting uncontested facts and arguing with blathering idiots... hmm
Is there a reason to add that in there? they're not uncontested facts, theyre statistics that are debatable.
You are blatantly ignoring the differences in wealth in the US except when it fits your perception.
The US has different income levels and the majority of those can be measured by location. A teacher in New York makes twice as much as a teacher in Mississippi, a banker in Maine makes more than a banker in Maryland, a trashman in New York City makes more than a trashman in Albany. The poverty line in the US is hard to gauge because of this. A person in GA could live comfortably off 20k a year living alone while a person in Los Angeles would struggle to find a place to live with running water. Taxes can not be decided upon as simply as you and others seem to think. "We need more money for healthcare" is hardly ever the answer. It almost certainly comes down to how the money is currently being spent, and I think the US education system is proof of this. The funding has increased by huge amounts over time yet the schools get worse and heavier in debt each year. A lot of that has to do with teacher unions, but that is another topic altogether.
Statistics can be used to fit any point of view. There has to be some concrete reasoning with statistics for them to be used properly. While it is easy for smaller countries to tout their tax system and healthcare, they always leave out the fact that the US is the only country in the world with such a large amount of urban and rural areas. The tax system is different under each state and for good reason. A heavy tax or subsidy on corn in one state may have a drastic negative or positive affect, while in another it could be the exact opposite. This is true on a smaller scale in smaller and more densely populated countries (like the UK for example), but the effect is exponentially greater in the US.
If anything, it's annoying when other countries tell us how stupid we are and make fun of our politicians when they have leaders like sarkozy and his affair with a man eater, or tony blair, or Berlusconi, or ahmadinejad, or chavez, or castro, morales.
Merkel, on the other hand, is awesome, so germany can say whatever they want. I would move there if i could that country rocks.
Chomsky said that he would love to be bilingual or multilingual. He doesn't even technically say he isn't. But your interpretation that he thinks he isn't bilingual is correct. But that doesn't mean he doesn't speak any languages other than English.
If you hear me speak in English, rather than write, you'll instantly hear I am not bilingual. Now if you want to proof me he knows Hebrew that's hard to do because I would have to have him cite sources that are Hebrew and that were never translated. I know he does that. But I don't know Hebrew at all and I have no clue how to conclusively proof to you that there isn't a secret private translation somewhere in a MIT drawer somewhere. I don't know exactly how good his French and Yiddish are, but certainly he has some ability in those as well.
Anyway, I see you just refuse to accept you are wrong in one of the most simple and obvious cases one can conceive of; the US health care system. So what point is there still in debating you. You are too far out to be reasoned with.
On November 05 2010 03:10 Xtar wrote: Chomsky said that he would love to be bilingual or multilingual. He doesn't even technically say he isn't. But your interpretation that he thinks he isn't bilingual is correct. But that doesn't mean he doesn't speak any languages other than English.
If you hear me speak in English, rather than write, you'll instantly hear I am not bilingual. Now if you want to proof me he knows Hebrew that's hard to do because I would have to have him cite sources that are Hebrew and that were never translated. I know he does that. But I don't know Hebrew at all and I have no clue how to conclusively proof to you that there isn't a secret private translation somewhere in a MIT drawer somewhere. I don't know exactly how good his French and Yiddish are, but certainly he has some ability in those as well.
Anyway, I see you just refuse to accept you are wrong in one of the most simple and obvious cases one can conceive of; the US health care system. So what point is there still in debating you. You are too far out to be reasoned with.
What a great rebuttal. If anyone here is close-minded and has their mind made up its you.
There is nothing worse than a person who feigns superiority when they have nothing to back it up.
Actually, calling someone a liar when you yourself don't know what you're talking about is worse. Congratulations.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
You think you won an internet debate against someone you think is an idiot by lying. Well done.
Enjoy your country under Obama and Boehner and enjoy paying those health care bills. When you do at least you can remember how won this debate against me and not feel as bad as you would feel otherwise.
On November 05 2010 04:31 Xtar wrote: Of course I am tapping out. I don't care.
You think you won an internet debate against someone you think is an idiot by lying. Well done.
Enjoy your country under Obama and Boehner and enjoy paying those health care bills. When you do at least you can remember how won this debate against me and not feel as bad as you would feel otherwise.
ok then, bye? I don't mind when someone as blinded as you doesn't want to debate and actually understand what's going on. It's like a sign of "I realized I have no idea what I'm talking about so I resort to ad homs and blanket statements."
I appreciate other point of views when theyre rational and explain their reasoning. You do neither.
On November 04 2010 07:53 Xtar wrote: Ever since people have been polling the US population around 65% of Americans have been in favor of government run health care. How come both of the political parties have been against this all these years when health care is also one of the major issues voters care about? Even now the democrats didn't reform correctly. Isn't the US a democracy? How is it possible that politicians don't listen en voters vote against their own interest?
As for those people that still like the US health care system or somehow still want to defend it; get real. People won't even believe you are serious, even if you are. So stop it already. People won't believe that they care more about your wallet then you do. In the end you are paying and not some Canadian, Australian or Swiss.
The US system is the only private system in the industrialized world. And exactly for that reason it is the most expensive. In all other western countries the government uses it's purchasing power to negotiate a lower prize. In the US this is illegal by law, yet the government does it for everything else it needs.
The system is basically deliberately not fixed to benefit the insurance and pharmacy corporations. In the US you buy an election through marketing. You don't have real elections in the US. So private industry basically buys the politicians and they just don't reform because they don't have the support to do so.
Noam Chomsky's is a hilarious linguist. He doesn't know another language.
Chomsky, whatever else you might say about him, is a very accomplished linguist. The fact that you don't know anything about formal language theory speaks more about your ignorance than his.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
Malicee, Noam Chomsky uses the maximal definition of biligual: being as fluent in another language as you are in your native language.
I am bilingual by the maximal definition, because I speak polish and english equally well. But I can get by in german, chinese and (well, i would if anyone spoke it anymore) latin.
On November 05 2010 03:29 maliceee wrote: What a great rebuttal.
Like I said, I don't care anymore. You are beyond reason.
There's actual hard evidence I could give you, but I just like to see you rage. For example, there's a certain very famous debate that should come up for everyone. Well, at least those that aren't ignorant. That's pretty conclusive evidence.
You cared before? because those posts were pretty bad also. You called me a liar when you were demonstrably wrong, If anyone's rage quitting its you.
If anyone with actual knowledge on this subject wants to show me more than personal anecdotes and WHO rankings that would be great. Xtar's tapping out, not that he was ever really in it.
Malicee, Noam Chomsky uses the maximal definition of biligual: being as fluent in another language as you are in your native language.
I am bilingual by the maximal definition, because I speak polish and english equally well. But I can get by in german, chinese and (well, i would if anyone spoke it anymore) latin.
Besides this being completely off topic, maybe you could provide me with a source of that? Unlike Xtar I searched for any information as to if he is bilingual and there was nothing. The most information I found was his studying hebrew and being Jewish.
That is what bilingual is should be, being equally comfortable in two languages. I am bilingual in French and English, but if I went with just getting by I guess I am multi lingual in Japanese, Spanish, and Latin also?
I can't help you with that. I just remember that little tidbit from a lecture I once went to. I don't know if he is fluent in other languages.
The thing is, among linguists, there are two different definitions of multilingual: the maximal, where you have to be as fluent in your second/third/etc as you are in your native and the minimal, where your fluency has to be sufficient to get by.
So by the maximal definition, you are bilingual and by the minimal definition you are pentalingual.
EPT
