My parents inherited some property when my grandma passed, where she used to live before she became to frail to live alone. There was a stray cat explosion there around the time she moved out of the house. Still had to maintain the place, and you'd see upwards of 20 stray cats at times. There were maybe two houses there who were guilty of buying/taking in animals they didn't properly care for. Since you can get in trouble with dogs more easily than cats, these same people tended to keep them locked in their yards slowly starving and dehydrating them. The cats roamed free, bred like crazy. People generally try to keep them fed, but it's roughly 50-75 bucks a cat to get them checked for feline leukemia and then neutered/spayed... and roughly the same if they test positive for feline leukemia and have to be put down because they'll kill all the other cats eventually if returned. And it seems like an injustice to capture them and have them all put down when they aren't hurting anyone or attacking people's pets.

Only thing that can help the problem is stricter laws on pet owners, because allowing people to continually take in/buy/adopt pets and slowly torture them to death via extreme heat/cold/lack of food/water/no vaccinations/medical treatment is not being punished severely enough to stop it. It's just too wrong to see it happen and know the law won't punish them enough to deter others.

Your video, A frail, bandaged Dennis Hopper receives his Hollywood star., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

the fundamental thing here is that the family is so large that its unlikely that all of them would piss you off

for example a western family is normal parents , kids , maby grandparents

if in a western family u had parents kids grand parents cusens and half cusens then it would be easy to get on with most the people as its unlikely that they would all be able to piss you off or be realy anoying.

also in a western society not all of them but some u have a good medical service and a responsible community that helps people out so a family structure like this is not needed to the same extent.

if there was a blind man in uk for example im sure loads of people would help them out , for a start they would probably have a guide dog. I know that if i see sum one that looks particularly old or frail or ill then i keep my eye out to see if they need help , im sure Manny people do that in the uk .

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States. That balance is already long gone. If "you" wish to circumvent those limits, even and especially for "the common good", then you may as well admit you support a benevolent dictatorship where the thugs at the top can do anything they want as long as you FEEL they're doing the right thing, or they appear to be.

The Constiution is not a "living document" nor written on an Etch-a-Sketch. It is, however, simply ignored by the scum in the federal mafia. If an Amendment was needed to outlaw alcohol, why is there no proposed amendment mandating 'free' health care? Because the current shits are anarchists, or monarchists.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane.

And you're basing this massive dissatifaction on what, exactly? Or is the mythical "46 million" uninsured going to come out of the woodwork again?

Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.

"But you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it."

You would be hard pressed to find average Americans dying in the streets due to a lack of health care. Like I wrote, 20 million illegal aliens seem to know where the emergency rooms are, even when the sign is written in English.

From wikipedia:

The health care industry is likely to be the most heavily regulated industry in the United States. A study published by the Cato Institute suggests that this regulation provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up to $340 billion.[159] The study concluded that the majority of the cost differential arises from medical malpractice, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and facilities regulations. Part of the cost is attributed to regulatory requirements that prevent technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and diagnostic procedures that carry little risk.

It appears that once again, the soaring costs of medical care can be largely attributed to government interference. (And trial lawyers, but that's another story).


It's perplexing that numbers of people claim religion is evil yet believe that a true source of goodness is a government program which people are forced to enroll in at gunpoint. There's some confusion that this recent Obamunist government intrusion isn't the same as mandatory "universal halth care" but that's where it will end up. The camel's nose is poking into the tent.

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.

Yes, you wished harm on me, but that's due to your "left wing brainwaves"as the socialist believes that when one person wins, another must automatically lose; that's why the scramble for an "equality of outcomes" is so important. This isn't Dicken's "A Christman Carol" and I'm not Scrooge. And because not everyone agrees with your one-size-fits-all mentality on this or that issue does not mean they they're A) automatically wrong and B) in need of an ego resizing. Don't worry, I've had hard times aplenty.


Seems to me the only thing missing from your plan is personal responsibility. Are smokers or fat folks given less priority care or charged more in Australia? And forgive me in advance for going here, but at what point under the government system does some bureaucrat say, "Your child ain't gonna make it anyway because such-and-such condition has a 20% survival rate" and cut off treatment, or the more expensive treatments. From my point of view, you should at least entertain the idea that giving the government power over life and death when they can't even deliver the mail is a serious risk. They're serving you at their convenience and if they decide to cut you off, you're in a lot more trouble than some insurance company which can be sued.

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything.

There's a whole political system based on the idea that government should provide everyone with free everything, via the abolition of private property. And really, since no one is driving the train, it makes perfect sense for the communist to demand that everyone be fed for "free" all the time. Food is a more immediate and vital basic need than health care, isn't it? Even the healthy must eat to stay they way...so is "free" bread a 'right'?

What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.

Things cost money. Either you pay or someone else does. Your argument in a nutshell is that socialized medicine is less expensive, and in some ways---brace yourself---you might be right. As stated, I don't claim to have all the answers, but for America a completely government-run health care system (which is what the taxocrats are after) will be a disaster.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

The military is a tiny slice of the US budget compared to all the "free" social programs. We don't have the money to pay for all of the "free" goodies we have now, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Someone has to pay for all this stuff. Under socialized health care is it "fair" that the healthy guy with no major medical problems gets little return on his health care taxes while the fat smoker spends two years in a hospital bed before expiring?

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain.

"Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". I said no such thing, but I will say this: government is the problem more often than not, and per your friend, your government system could just as easily and cheerfully kept him on the dole to suit its own purposes. Apparenlty he made a choice which brought him desired results. Which brings me to another point: some people are beyond helping, they will fk up everything all the time by constantly making the wrong choices no matter how much help you give them. There's no reason to hurt such people more than they hurt themselves, but there's also no reason to let them game the system forever.

Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

It must be cultural. Americans--the real ones--don't trust authority. Our government was founded by revolution and rebellion against the idea of kings, or ten thousand pint-sized would-be kings holding clipboards.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples)

Government consider plans to deny NHS treatment to smokers and obese

Anger over NHS restrictions for osteoporosis treatment

Vulnerable And Frail To Get Substandard Medical Care, Australia

Australia's health care system basically 'broke'

Left-wing socialist ideals have given you a certain perspective not shared by all. Your "culture", like many in the world, believes that the group is more important than the individual.

I'm sayin' that sooner or later, that belief will bite you on the buttocks, because the operators of such systems remain human. Less government = better.

The basis of the idea that every human being is entitled to "free" health care is a made-up "right" based on nothing. Even among the world's major religions' mandates to selflessly help others there is no call to establish gigantic government entities to take care of the public.

It's repugnant to suggest that because one does not fall to his knees in praise of The System, one then must automatically be for suffering or letting others starve.

Government is a necessary evil that creates nothing and can only take by force and shuffle around what already exists. The answers to the health care 'crisis' will be found among the people, not bureaushits.

-----------------------
-----------------------

While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

I'm not berating unskilled labor, but doesn't the medical student with half a million dollars in loans and 10 years of college study deserve more financial reward for their efforts? The socialist says, 'No, doctors' labor is a publicly-owned commodity whereas other occupations are not.'

-----------------------

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

Canada doesn't do asylum based on illness, that's reserved for other things. We do however bring people back into Canada from around the world who actually need medical care and can't get it in 2nd and 3rd world countries for treatment all the time. That aside, if you show up in Canada and require critical care for some emergency condition. You'll get it. Whether or not you'll have to pay for it(being that you're out of country and a non-payee into the system) is another question altogether different. Healthcare isn't free here either, that's where that 50% tax rate comes in along with country wide equalization payments. Since Canada already deals with Americans, and other foreign nations entering the country for healthcare, I'm sure you can figure out how much of a strain the puts on the system. And yes, there's a special division relating to healthcare fraud from non-Canadian nationals in every province.

Thank you for this information.

Fred Flintstone died gaunt and frail in a hospital at the age of 57 losing a long battle with severe emphysema. His physician, Dr. Rockenburg, told reporters that he went peacefully.

Oh god, I'm addicted. I'm going to keep going. I'll edit this post as I add more.


Plaza Tunjugun - Sexier than any Bodypart
Lolly Badcock - Our Frail and Feeble Mind
List of National Natural Landmarks in Wyoming - Life is too Short for Traffic
I challenge anyone to try the one above. It is a nightmare combination. Source image is HERE
Osbe - It Just Happens
Sukiyaki - Reading Without Pleasure
Deafhood - Be Wrong and Kill
Galsi - You're Not Looking

In today's world where we're fed lies and bullshit by the media and our own governments, where (british examples only sry) you can get fined MORE for leaving your bin lid open by 3 inches than shoplifters get fined for stealing, 4 burly binmen force a frail older lady to carry her own bin down her drive because they consider it "too difficult", where police abuse their powers on a seemingly daily basis, and where we seem too apathetic to protest our country going to a war we don't believe in

THIS is what i love to see, THIS is how we should be showing our discontent, THIS is how we should demonstrate not just to our own government but to the people suffering as a result of our governments, that, to quote El Duderinho, THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND MAN!

I was fucking cheering them on. Unfortunately, if we want to show our discontent in this way, some people will HAVE to break the law and possibly get incarcerated. Because police can cause harm to you within the law, but you can't cause harm to them (ie. to stop THEM causing harm to innocents/people protesting for the good of our future)

I expect, nay hope, to see this in great britain soon due to many things happening atm:
- Reverse racism/reverse political correctness, where you're not allowed to express yourself or your opinions to the full extent for fear of upsetting other people (people get sacked, fined, arrested, villified because of it)
- Political correctness gone mad - where money, time and other resources are wasting in order to find a way of saying or doing things that cannot possibly offend anyone in any way
- Rediculous fines and charges and bill hikes in order to shore up more income to be wasted in the usual manner
- Police chasing statistics and allowing people in danger/in distress to handle it (or not) themselves
- National health service allowing people to become MORE ILL in our hospitals due to neglect and waiting lists, some of those waiting having funded the NHS for 50 years of their life to find they're second in line to a scrounging sponger who never contributed a penny to the services they rape

/ahem
viva la revolution

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sounds like an exciting job. I used to live in Alaska. I went back about a year ago for my 20th high school reunion.
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Dag-Cow-Sift-Up

In reply to this comment by sorted:
That picture is of me circa ~85 and yes Alaska (for about 5 years), I was up there in Sitka flying on USCG HH-3Fs Helos. Fixer/Flyer (Avionics), in the air I navigated, worked our long range comms and assisted our Flightmechs with hoisting and inflight refueling operations. Primarily search and rescue up there with some fisheries thrown in (this is before it was all fished out...). My Helmet said inappropriately even back then 'Alaska is for Lovers', heh. The kids can't get away with that these days, nope. I really loved my time up there, dunno if I'd enjoy it these days being olde and frail...that reminds me, where's my walker dag nabit!!!

In reply to this comment by dag:
Not a problem. Are you from Alaska? (your helmet)

In reply to this comment by sorted:
Thank you Dag most sincerely.
I was fumbling about trying to
resurrect it.

That picture is of me circa ~85 and yes Alaska (for about 5 years), I was up there in Sitka flying on USCG HH-3Fs Helos. Fixer/Flyer (Avionics), in the air I navigated, worked our long range comms and assisted our Flightmechs with hoisting and inflight refueling operations. Primarily search and rescue up there with some fisheries thrown in (this is before it was all fished out...). My Helmet said inappropriately even back then 'Alaska is for Lovers', heh. The kids can't get away with that these days, nope. I really loved my time up there, dunno if I'd enjoy it these days being olde and frail...that reminds me, where's my walker dag nabit!!!

In reply to this comment by dag:
Not a problem. Are you from Alaska? (your helmet)

In reply to this comment by sorted:
Thank you Dag most sincerely.
I was fumbling about trying to
resurrect it.

I wonder what his views on gay porn would be, seeing as they don't have any frail, defenseless, only-have-a-choice-because-men-give-them-one women being degraded in them.

All of his nonsense implicitly assumes that sex is bad---or at least vulgar, that women don't actually enjoy sex on the same (base/animal) level as some men, and that porn is only there for the pleasure of men.

Sexist, old-school poppycock, all of it.


PS: Chomsky, who reads every major US paper daily and has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things America (among other things), has never even heard of Hustler magazine? Larry Flynt? For someone with such a strong opinion on pornography he seems uncharacteristically ill-prepared to talk about it.

May you leave a trail of blood in the snow, for the slow of spirit, and the frail of lame-and make movies, lots of them, those reserved for family and fast-talking investors...
4 all you frogs.....who speak but remnants of your naive tongues...

Mai vous laisser une traînée de sang dans la neige, de la lenteur d'esprit, fragiles et de la lame et faire des films, beaucoup d'entre elles, celles qui sont réservées pour la famille et rapide-parler investisseurs ...

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Thank you, Zonbie, for being a voice of reason in this thread. The European hornet is not aggressive unless defending a nest and the males are not even equipped with a stinger.
Spoco, the European wasp and hornet are not the same animal. The wasp is as you describe: aggressive, frail and interested in human food. The hornet is none of these.
Excluding those with allergies, I don't get the terror people have of bees/wasps/hornets/etc. Being stung is really not a big deal. Certainly no reason to call for a hunt to extinction.


Thanks for the clarification overcast, that does clear things up a bit. I don't dislike bees at all, they leave us alone, it's the aggressiveness of the European wasps I hate, they damn well chase you around (and the kids, I predominantly am trying to keep them from the kids, I'd rather not have a screaming kid on my hands). If they just left us alone I'd be fine with them, but they really are aggressive bastards, and their sting hurts enough that I'd rather them not be around.

Plus they're introduced to this country, so we should be able to eradicate them with impunity... (ok, don't extend that too far else all people in this country other than Aboriginals fit in the same basket)

Thank you, Zonbie, for being a voice of reason in this thread. The European hornet is not aggressive unless defending a nest and the males are not even equipped with a stinger.

Spoco, the European wasp and hornet are not the same animal. The wasp is as you describe: aggressive, frail and interested in human food. The hornet is none of these.

Excluding those with allergies, I don't get the terror people have of bees/wasps/hornets/etc. Being stung is really not a big deal. Certainly no reason to call for a hunt to extinction.

jazz and blues, formerly wildwestshow which still bears the name, as it is and should be-yee ha, hep cats and frails.....

I did change it though shortly after I read it.....I had mistakenly thought she had turned rather mannish in another clip.....but that was another frail-Man Georgina is some fine equestrian-lovin' femmage......