|
On February 07 2012 08:28 Derez wrote:Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit): - We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery. Euthanasia is a right and a personal choice over here, as it should be. Maybe Santorum could get his head out of his ass and actually read up on our system, it is actually pretty good.
hm lol, I knew several things in that didn't sound right, but it feels like Santorum's staff are just deliberately making things up for talking points.
|
On February 07 2012 08:28 Derez wrote:Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit): - We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery. Euthanasia is a right and a personal choice over here, as it should be. Maybe Santorum could get his head out of his ass and actually read up on our system, it is actually pretty good.
Thanks for debunking this right away, I knew this couldn't have been even close to true. My bigger worry though is that everyone at that rally probably believes every word he's said which is both sad and scary. Americans are going to need to relaize one day that they need some form of socialized medcine there is simply no other way to do it which allows a country to take care of the entire population.
I really hope this election doesn't devolve into crazy talk of death panels and the like.
|
On February 07 2012 09:17 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off. If 51% of the people decides this, then abortion IS murder, and eating meat IS murder. Just for the sake of the argument, many countries have additional obstacles to changing the fundamental (constitutional) rules of society just by getting 51% support, such as requiring 2/3 support or a minimum turnout on a referendum to change the constitution for example. These are all band aids and safety nets though, at the end of the day the majority is what really matters. I can see the problems as well as you do, but fact remains that without a true technocracy there is no other way of enforcing fairness and equality than letting the majority decide on all the issues. And as much as I support the idea of technocracy, even for that to ever happen you would still first need a stable democracy that is capable of dealing with issues like corruption and overbearing private interest to be able have that transition. At the end of the day, 51% represents the will of the people a lot more than .5% of richest people in the country (following only their own interest) do. You really have no valid excuse not to listen to the majority. If the majority of people living in a society want to change how that society works, what ethical grounds do you have to deny them the power to do this? Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to. Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy and the cornerstone of personal freedom, something that most Americans appear to idealize above all else. How long do you think you can push this image before people really see through the flaws of American political system for what it really is? You should consider the fact that in literally every society, majority ultimately decides its fate. Even in the most authoritarian societies, once the majority has been sufficiently pissed off, they have always taken the matter in their own hands. It seems rather unwise to me to ignore what the majority of people wants.
in a true democracy yes, 51% of a vote is majority and win the vote, but in most countries you have elected officials that discuss the bill in length before it proceeds to a vote and during that time many bills are canceled. If countries ran a true democracy then you as a person would be able to cast a ballot for anything you wanted and their would be an endless list of would be legislation at every voting opportunity.
also the american message has changed over the last 100 years and I think it should go back to "leave me the fuck alone" that was a great message that every person had the right to say (to our government) and the fact that after state and federal taxes most people pay about 40% of their wages to uncle sam and his cohorts is quite funny. As far as flaws goes, I think that one major flaw in the US government is that legislature is permanent. I think that the next amendment to the constitution should be adding an expiration date to all of the legislature (at least future) then the creep of power that is evident in US politics would diminish and there would be a reset on a lot of the unnecessary paperwork.
|
On February 07 2012 15:59 farside604 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 08:28 Derez wrote:Being dutch I felt the urge to respond (althought I hope most of you realize he's full of shit): - We don't wear 'do not euthanize me' bracelets, they do not exist. - Every single euthanization is at the request of the patient, noone is euthanized involuntarily or forced to. In fact, euthanasia is only an option for those who are in what is called 'endless suffering', which is quite a high standard to meet. You cannot elect to kill yourself without grounds, and all requests are evaluated by multiple physicians. - Euthanasia is not 10% of all deaths. It concerns 2,500 people a year, which is less then 2% of deaths. - Noone is actually going to other countries for healthcare to escape getting killed in the hospital. The people going for treatment to other countries go to, for example, Turkey or Thailand, for plastic surgery. Euthanasia is a right and a personal choice over here, as it should be. Maybe Santorum could get his head out of his ass and actually read up on our system, it is actually pretty good. Thanks for debunking this right away, I knew this couldn't have been even close to true. My bigger worry though is that everyone at that rally probably believes every word he's said which is both sad and scary. Americans are going to need to relaize one day that they need some form of socialized medcine there is simply no other way to do it which allows a country to take care of the entire population. I really hope this election doesn't devolve into crazy talk of death panels and the like.
as long as the country can afford it, healthcare is fine. You get problems though when health companies know that they can increase the cost of a doctors visit and the government will pay for it. You also have the problem of the price per employee to pay for that healthcare and that it is a requirement to pay like 700 for healthcare, which I don't want to pay, I am 22 and I don't need to see the doctor more than 1-2 times a year which certainly isn't 700
|
Wow...
![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyzfata2KS1qbdwe9o1_500.jpg)
|
As long as the country can afford it, healthcare is fine.
The US is one of the richest countries in the world... This is certainly is not your problem.
You get problems though when health companies know that they can increase the cost of a doctors visit and the government will pay for it.
Ahm, why exactly should health companies be able to do that?
Now the doctors can decide if they want only to treat private patients (which aren't many) or the general public (which are the extremly BIG majority).
You also have the problem of the price per employee to pay for that healthcare and that it is a requirement to pay like 700 for healthcare, which I don't want to pay, I am 22 and I don't need to see the doctor more than 1-2 times a year which certainly isn't 700.
Where exactly is the problem? When you get seriously Ill these 700$ look like a snowball in Hell... Alone the chance of such an Illnes occuring is well worth the money.
Btw: In Switzerland it isn't even allowed to drive a car if it isn't insured...
|
On February 07 2012 16:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow...
Now thats something...
|
On February 07 2012 16:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow...
Omfg I'm dying, that's just too good.
|
On February 07 2012 16:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow...
How cute, it's Romney replacing his family with money.
|
On February 07 2012 16:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow...
Yup, getting that crazy people vibe again that I thought was gone with the likes of Bachmann (or at least the remaining candidates showed great restraint and the ability to cover it up).
Anyhow, is the underlying message of that image that women don't get to have money, they only get to stand on the side and decorate the picture? 
|
On February 07 2012 17:42 Talin wrote:Yup, getting that crazy people vibe again that I thought was gone with the likes of Bachmann (or at least the remaining candidates showed great restraint and the ability to cover it up). Anyhow, is the underlying message of that image that women don't get to have money, they only get to stand on the side and decorate the picture?
The underlying message is you can't spell Romney without "money."
|
On February 07 2012 17:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 17:42 Talin wrote:On February 07 2012 16:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow... Yup, getting that crazy people vibe again that I thought was gone with the likes of Bachmann (or at least the remaining candidates showed great restraint and the ability to cover it up). Anyhow, is the underlying message of that image that women don't get to have money, they only get to stand on the side and decorate the picture? The underlying message is you can't spell Romney without "money."
Whoa, totally didn't see that. ;o
|
|
|
figures... thats what we get in media these days
|
On February 07 2012 18:44 ixi.genocide wrote:figures... thats what we get in media these days
Lol. Yeah, It's been going viral this past 24 hour cycle. This is what happens when you have someone like Mitt who's out of touch with the common man and you have him doing these pictures. He's such an easy target man. xD
|
Some other figures for anyone interested. 20% of all dutch deaths involve pot. 40% of the deaths involve a mill of some sort, and the rest are 'regular deaths' like disease.
I love how he is making it look like the dutch hospitals are some kind of concentration camp where you involuntarily get killed because euthanesia is legal here.
American politics, always a great way to start your day off laughing  .
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 07 2012 02:03 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 01:00 Jibba wrote:On February 06 2012 05:45 Kiarip wrote:On February 06 2012 05:37 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 15:29 Khelben wrote:
republican/democrat....there's no difference. The people making all the decisions aren't in politics... If you think there's no difference between Republican and Democrat, check out what sources people by party affiliation get their money from, by percentage. If you think there's no difference between bad and worse, you're terribly mistaken. more like worse and worse. They all get their money from special interests. And all special interests want the same thing, an advantage in the market without having to report to the consumers. "Special interests" represent a lot of different things. And not all corporations or special interest groups agree on what they want, nor is what they want necessarily bad. It's because of special interests that we have a chance to enact a reasonable immigration policy. It's because of them that local science and hands-on museums get money from the government. It's become a nebulous "enemy" that politicians use to score political points. Special interests are called special for a reason. They're never the interests of a consumer, because the consumer would prefer that the company money was spent on improving the product to compete in the market, rather on lobbying to be able to avoid competing in the market. I don't even know what one would call a "reasonable immigration policy," but I'm pretty sure that museums and stuff run on entrance fees and donations (not all donations are given by special interests, but a lot are you're right, but that's different than giving money to someone to support their campaign so that they can legislate how you wan them to.) As for the last line, yes politicians like to call each other out on them, but then every single politician has some kind of special interest support, so they usually only do it when a certain type of interests is villainized (like Romney calling Gingrich out on him lobbying for Fannie and Freddie,) or when the other guy isn't there to respond (like everyone jumping on Obama.)
A special interest group is any collective action group. They exist for any reason. Some have money, some don't. AARP is the most powerful interest group there is, and it's not representing a corporation. The NRA is another powerful one, but so is the Brady Campaign.
The immigration policy is that Big Agriculture depends on them, so any closed border bullshit is simply not a reality, no matter what politicians say publicly. They're the ones trying to improve the guest worker laws.
Teachers, doctors, plumbers, postal workers, etc. all have major lobbying groups. There's a lot more financial institutions and bullshit PACs now, but that's only a recent development. Yes, it needs to be fixed but it doesn't mean non-corporations don't have a voice. It's just been diminishing lately.
My point is that people view lobbying as one big act of collusion but in reality, outside of financial lobbying, there's actually a great deal of competition.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 07 2012 10:27 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 09:44 Krikkitone wrote:On February 07 2012 09:17 Talin wrote:On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Government is not "the people" it is 'the majority of people' as someone above said... what do you do when 51% of the population decides abortion is murder. or that eating meat is murder. or when 51% of the people think that the current President should not have to run for reelection. or that 1-10% of the population isn't good for anything but being killed off. If 51% of the people decides this, then abortion IS murder, and eating meat IS murder. I can see the problems as well as you do, but fact remains that without a true technocracy there is no other way of enforcing fairness and equality than letting the majority decide on all the issues. And as much as I support the idea of technocracy, even for that to ever happen you would still first need a stable democracy that is capable of dealing with issues like corruption and overbearing private interest to be able have that transition. At the end of the day, 51% represents the will of the people a lot more than .5% of richest people in the country (following only their own interest) do. You really have no valid excuse not to listen to the majority. Just for the sake of the argument, many countries have additional obstacles to changing the fundamental (constitutional) rules of society just by getting 51% support, such as requiring 2/3 support to change the constitution for example. These are all band aids and safety nets though, at the end of the day the majority is what really matters. On February 07 2012 08:48 Krikkitone wrote:
Government, in America, is NOT a tool for the people to organize and run society the way the 'majority' wants to... we designed a government specifically to avoid the majority organizing society the way they want to. Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy and the cornerstone of personal freedom, something that most Americans appear to idealize above all else. How long do you think you can push this image before people really see through the flaws of American political system for what it really is? You should consider the fact that in literally every society, majority ultimately decides its fate. Even in the most authoritarian societies, once the majority has been sufficiently pissed off, they have always taken the matter in their own hands. It seems rather unwise to me to ignore what the majority of people wants. Majority vote is the fundamental principle of democracy Majority vote is fundamentally opposed to personal freedom (of course so are all other forms of government, including anarchy) I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this statement (the latter one). The way I see it, majority vote ensures majority rule. And the majority of people will never willingly vote to deny themselves their rights and freedom.
This happens all the time... Kansas and the PATRIOT Act are the two shining examples of this. Kansas is so entrenched in certain conservative dogmas that they continually vote for things that are actually detrimental to their daily lives. I don't mean ideological things, I mean practical ones.
And the vast majority of Americans supported the PATRIOT Act and they continued to support it by 20% margins 2-3 years later.
The will of the majority is generally quite terrible and la Terreur was a major reason why we have a representative democracy, where technically the people don't even have a vote for Presidency.
|
Tuesday night sees GOP caucus contests in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. And it would seem the Romney campaign’s internal polling suggests things aren’t looking too great for the GOP frontrunner in any of them. His team is scrambling to submerge expectations to ocean-floor depths, sending out a memo downplaying the contests’ importance and stressing that the March 6 Super Tuesday states should be the real test of Romney’s momentum.
According to the memo, by Romney political director Rich Beeson, “we expect our opponents to notch a few wins” over the course of the race, but the campaign plans to win with its superior resources over the long haul. It also stressed that the caucuses Tuesday in Minnesota and Colorado don’t immediately award any delegates and the Missouri primary doesn’t award delegates period (Gingrich isn’t on the ballot either). The basic gist of the message: ignore everything that happens in February no matter what.
“It is difficult to see what Governor Romney’s opponents can do to change the dynamics of the race in February,” Beeson wrote. “No delegates will be awarded on February 7 — Colorado and Minnesota hold caucuses with nonbinding preference polls, and the Missouri primary is purely a beauty contest. Except for the Maine and Wyoming nonbinding caucuses running through February, the next contests are on February 28 in states where Governor Romney is strong. Arizona’s 29 delegates will be bound in a winner-take-all contest. Michigan, the state where Governor Romney grew up, binds 30 delegates.”
Source
|
That fotoshopped pic of romney might actually help him.
People love money.
vote R(epublicans) for MONEY
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
