A lot of people have long regarded France as a contrarian country, and that they would oppose whatever it was that the Anglosphere wanted to do. This is how I and others initially regarded France's opposition to the Iraq war. Later, when it became apparent that French businesses and officials had been colluding with the Sadam regime to enrich themselves, the motivation for France's opposition appeared to be more sinister. As a sufficient quantity of prominent businesses and politicians can often influence public opinion, and as public opinion is traditionally inclined to thumb it's nose at the Americans anyway, it was not surprising that the Majority in France was against the invasion. That being said, while Americans had no reason to have any love for France at this time, nothing I ever heard or read seriously discussed going to war with France. It sounds like an idea concocted by childish blowhards.Skipjack wrote:When they did not want to join your crusade to Iraq, quite a few US citizens that I personally know were already talking about war with France and that quite seriously...Diogenes wrote:I/we don't hate the french.
Seriously, there was never any real discussion of any serious retaliation against France. Boycotts and criticism Yes. War ? Absolutely not!
I have always heard that Icelandic women are incredibly beautiful. That's not a bad reason to move there.Skipjack wrote:I agree with you on that. It is a scary situation and one of the reasons why I would rather like to move elsewhere. I have hard Iceland is quite nice...Diogenes wrote:Everything i'm seeing tends to indicate that Europe will be a Muslim continent in 50 years, so we may or may not have a friendly relationship with it in the future.
LOL

Skipjack wrote:I dont know about the US, but in Austria, all doctors to be have to go through a few years of the so called "residency" here (turnus). In this time they are still in traning basically, but are already working in a hospital. They of course are somewhat limited in what they can and can not do. So I think that this is pretty much what you describe.Diogenes wrote:]Maybe, but I'm thinking more Doctors and more Competition might be beneficial. Perhaps create an apprentice type Doctor? One that can't proscribe narcotics, but can proscribe Antibiotics, Anti-fungals, and Viral inhibitors ?
Doctors here must also go through residency. Usually 2 years.
Skipjack wrote: Btw, my father and my sister both are medical doctors and good ones. They would probably be able to provide some interesting input into this discussion from their point of view. All I know is that we had a time when we had way to many doctors here in Austria, because they made the medical studies to easy. It did lower the prices a bit, but that was outdone by the decrease in quality. The result was a lot of quackery and all sorts of incidents that made my father furious
The lowered standards were a result of socialist policy, btw (you may find that interesting). They wanted to reduce the cost of the health care system (more doctors that can be force to accept less pay due to competition) but in the end had to realize the errors in their ways and now they are making the studies harder again.
This is not exactly what I was thinking. I've noticed that nowadays doctors specialize. We have Ear, nose and Throat specialists, we have endocrinologists, we have gastroenterologists, podiatrists, Gynecologists, Urologists, Dermatologists, etc.
Like Dentists, they specialize on one particular type of practice, so why could they not start their specialization in the very beginning instead of being required to learn a great deal about medicine that they won't ever use?
I should not be surprised to discover that dentists don't study vertebra or colons, and yet in their specialty they perform just fine. Could not the same concept be applied to other Doctors ?
Don't know. Just a thought.
Skipjack wrote:There is very little wrong with the general morals tought by christianity (and I am saying that as a completely unreligious person), but all christian churches tend to interfer with politics too much. Like any larger insititution they want to increase or at least maintain their power.Diogenes wrote:They taught people a moral code that made them less likely to rape, rob and steal. It dampened down the bad things that people do to each other, and made a stronger more symbiotic society.
This has had many very bad results.
I Think my point is, as bad as mixing politics and religion has been, the cases where athiesm was mixed with politics have turned out to be far worse.
George Will (Syndicated Columnist) pointed out in an article years ago, that if you believe in the devil, and if you believe that certain people are in league with him to wither your crops and bring sickness to you and your children, then hunting them down and killing them is a very reasonable thing to do.Skipjack wrote:Yes, but the protestants were not that much better than the catholics. They were e.g. also taking part in witch hunts.Diogenes wrote:The Protestant Schism was the result of the perception that the Catholic Church had lost its moral way.
With that being said, I hardly think the quantities are comparable.
Several people have now emphasized that point. It does seem to be likely now.Skipjack wrote:The question is whether the good outweighs the bad. I have my doubts.Diogenes wrote:I believe they did a great many good things throughout their history.
I think the catholic church is responsible for a lot of the shit that went down in Europe and it delayd our development.
The US was founded by a lot of those that wanted to escape the catholic supression. Dont forget that.
Skipjack wrote:Communists and muslims. Socialists are going more towards the grey area (and I still dont like them much, just to make that clear).Diogenes wrote:Even adding those casualties into the mix doesn't come close to the Deaths caused by the Socialists and the Muslims.
The difference between a communist and a socialist is one of degree. I think it is the vector at fault. Not the scalar.
Skipjack wrote:YES, I fully agree with you on that. This is one of the big failures of socialism.Diogenes wrote:All of Europe bears the blame for not having more children. As I have pointed out elsewhere, having children has always been considered the right thing to do, as well as a duty. It makes it possible for a society to defend itself.
There is another problem: Hitler supported women having lots of children. Nowadays, we have this extreme anti Nazi thinking here (which has its positive sides, dont get me wrong) that has been very kindly supported by the US as well, btw. Anyway, so having lots of children, or mentioning the idea of supporting women with lots of children more, emmediately makes all the lefties cry "you are bringing Hitler back!".
In Germany and Austria, the whole "anti Nazi" thinking has also brought about a kind of "anti German culture" thinking. Culture is good as long as it is not our own
The Nazis scared the h*ell out of people, and in some ways they have over reacted. Even today, the Nazi argument is still being used (by me and others

Skipjack wrote: In an environment like that, you get the results we have to deal with right now. I dont like it, but again that is not the fault of our health care system. It might be the fault of our social system (pensions, unemployment money, etc). This I have my gripes with. Oddly enough, ours is not much more expensive than yours (you pay some 12.5 % or so to it, right?). As a self employed I pay some 15% for it (I think employees pay arround 23% here, or rather the company pays it for them, result is the same though). Both you and me are to much in my opinion, especially considering what we get for it.
I dont see the need for either of them also. I would much rather get rid of that completely.
I have simple ideas. One of the most important of them is that You can't spend more than you make. If you do, you are being foolish. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it, so you should put it out of your mind that you might wish to have it. Unfortunately, the socialist minded peoples of the world don't seem to understand basic math and basic economics.
Even when you can afford something, it is not always in your best interest to acquire it. Like the Fat person that buys themselves an electric mobile chair, rather than walking more. Sure, they can afford it, but the consequences of acquiring it may be that they die sooner and in a more miserable state.