Page 13 of 22
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:22 am
by MSimon
IntLibber,
The articles in question have nothing to do with socialized medicine. They are about the government limiting access to pain medication for people with chronic pain.
The fact that government "care" follows the same regimen is incidental.
Here is a report of a citizen being prosecuted for expressing her opinion on a case being tried.
I've Got A Secret
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:33 am
by alexjrgreen
IntLibber wrote:We have a right to life, we dont have a right to health.
I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:44 am
by MSimon
alexjrgreen wrote:IntLibber wrote:We have a right to life, we dont have a right to health.
I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
I'm not happy. Send me your money. Because without all your money my pursuit of happiness will be much more difficult than average.
Ah. You will probably come up with some bogus claim like I'm making your pursuit of happiness more difficult. I'm having none of it. It is self evident that my happiness is more important than yours. Just ask me.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:27 am
by alexjrgreen
MSimon wrote:alexjrgreen wrote:IntLibber wrote:We have a right to life, we dont have a right to health.
I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
I'm not happy. Send me your money. Because without all your money my pursuit of happiness will be much more difficult than average.
Ah. You will probably come up with some bogus claim like I'm making your pursuit of happiness more difficult. I'm having none of it. It is self evident that my happiness is more important than yours. Just ask me.
You don't have a right to happiness. Only the pursuit of it...
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:29 am
by MSimon
alexjrgreen wrote:MSimon wrote:alexjrgreen wrote:
I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
I'm not happy. Send me your money. Because without all your money my pursuit of happiness will be much more difficult than average.
Ah. You will probably come up with some bogus claim like I'm making your pursuit of happiness more difficult. I'm having none of it. It is self evident that my happiness is more important than yours. Just ask me.
You don't have a right to happiness. Only the pursuit of it...
Well OK then. Pursue better health on your own dime.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:38 am
by alexjrgreen
MSimon wrote:alexjrgreen wrote:You don't have a right to happiness. Only the pursuit of it...
Well OK then. Pursue better health on your own dime.
A good comparison is free speech. You exercise it "on your own dime".
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:41 am
by MSimon
alex,
Did some impostor (sock puppet) say this under your name?
I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
Or was I imputing more to that than you meant?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:52 am
by alexjrgreen
MSimon wrote:I would argue that ill-health interferes with the pursuit of happiness...
Or was I imputing more to that than you meant?
Someone can interfere with your right to free speech (and incur penalties at law) without changing the fact that you exercise free speech on your own dime. The same is true of the pursuit of happiness.
IIRC, an American couple were prosecuted recently for denying medical treatment to their child.
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:45 pm
by Diogenes
Geeze people! I was trying to turn this thread into a sort of resource for people to find all sorts of articles about the inbred relationship between the media and the democrats, and you guys have cluttered it all up with irrelevant crap. How did you get so very lost from whatever thread that stuff was supposed to go in ?
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:19 pm
by MSimon
Diogenes wrote:Geeze people! I was trying to turn this thread into a sort of resource for people to find all sorts of articles about the inbred relationship between the media and the democrats, and you guys have cluttered it all up with irrelevant crap. How did you get so very lost from whatever thread that stuff was supposed to go in ?
Schizophrenics at work (or is it play?).
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:29 pm
by Diogenes
MSimon wrote:Diogenes wrote:Geeze people! I was trying to turn this thread into a sort of resource for people to find all sorts of articles about the inbred relationship between the media and the democrats, and you guys have cluttered it all up with irrelevant crap. How did you get so very lost from whatever thread that stuff was supposed to go in ?
Schizophrenics at work (or is it play?).
Did you hear the one about the Agnostic Dyslexic insomniac ?
He lies awake at night contemplating the existence of dog.
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:13 am
by MSimon
Diogenes wrote:MSimon wrote:Diogenes wrote:Geeze people! I was trying to turn this thread into a sort of resource for people to find all sorts of articles about the inbred relationship between the media and the democrats, and you guys have cluttered it all up with irrelevant crap. How did you get so very lost from whatever thread that stuff was supposed to go in ?
Schizophrenics at work (or is it play?).
Did you hear the one about the Agnostic Dyslexic insomniac ?
He lies awake at night contemplating the existence of dog.
:)
And it took what? 12 or 13 pages to go totally off the rails? I'd say that was outstanding - given that the usual is three or four.
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:36 pm
by Diogenes
67% Say News Media Have Too Much Influence Over Government Decisions
Voters are even more convinced now that the news media have too much influence on the actions of government and try to help political candidates they want to win. Most also still think the average reporter is more liberal than they are.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of likely U.S. voters believe the news media have too much power and influence over government decisions, up six points from October. Just eight percent (8%) think the media have too little power and influence, and 19% think their level of power is about right.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _decisions
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:53 pm
by Skipjack
I find it absuletely hillarious, that the republican candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin is now working for the oh so unbiased Fox news...
I guess that influence can go both way, cant it?
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:53 pm
by MSimon
Skipjack wrote:I find it absuletely hillarious, that the republican candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin is now working for the oh so unbiased Fox news...
I guess that influence can go both way, cant it?
About time too.