Why Americans don't like Obamacare
Jan 16th 2011, 9:20 pm
#331
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
"A defense" yes. Optimum? erm.. not up for it today but it's safe to say I don't think so.
Jan 16th 2011, 9:29 pm
#332
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
"You've heard all the obvious benefits of urban trees -- shading buildings, sheltering wildlife, filtering air pollution, stopping erosion. A new Portland study suggests a more surprising benefit: healthier newborns."
For dog's sake, plant more trees, STAT! They save BABIES!
um, as one commenter noted "--"Women located on leafier Portland streets were more likely to be younger, white and non-Hispanic, have fewer previous births, and live in newer and more expensive houses."--"
I can't believe the Feds are spending our money on this. Studies, I sneer at your studies!
Jan 16th 2011, 9:40 pm
#333
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
You would have loved this headline and story here this week...
"You've heard all the obvious benefits of urban trees -- shading buildings, sheltering wildlife, filtering air pollution, stopping erosion. A new Portland study suggests a more surprising benefit: healthier newborns."
For dog's sake, plant more trees, STAT! They save BABIES!
um, as one commenter noted "--"Women located on leafier Portland streets were more likely to be younger, white and non-Hispanic, have fewer previous births, and live in newer and more expensive houses."--"
I can't believe the Feds are spending our money on this. Studies, I sneer at your studies!
"You've heard all the obvious benefits of urban trees -- shading buildings, sheltering wildlife, filtering air pollution, stopping erosion. A new Portland study suggests a more surprising benefit: healthier newborns."
For dog's sake, plant more trees, STAT! They save BABIES!
um, as one commenter noted "--"Women located on leafier Portland streets were more likely to be younger, white and non-Hispanic, have fewer previous births, and live in newer and more expensive houses."--"
I can't believe the Feds are spending our money on this. Studies, I sneer at your studies!
Washington DC has trees ...
Jan 16th 2011, 9:46 pm
#334
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,605
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
Jan 17th 2011, 12:27 am
#335
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Jan 17th 2011, 2:57 am
#338
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,605
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
I've tried to nudge folks towards this a few times, but it seems that hyperbole trumps rational thought every time.
Jan 17th 2011, 3:06 am
#339
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
Mate - I thought we'd done this to death, already. Define your terms - what does "less guns" mean? Guns in whose hands? What are your crime recording standards? Define a homicide - in England, it's a murder that leads to a criminal prosecution, in the US its a death that occurs while a crime is being committed. They're two very different measures. This whole thing is a lil' bit complex.
I've tried to nudge folks towards this a few times, but it seems that hyperbole trumps rational thought every time.
I've tried to nudge folks towards this a few times, but it seems that hyperbole trumps rational thought every time.
Jan 17th 2011, 7:21 am
#340
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,111
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
Interesting debating style ...
Let's suggest that statistics are too complex to be used by the common man (anyone who disagrees) ...
More "statistics can't be trusted", and throw in everyone's favorite, the 'Straw Man':
Let's avoid a specific question and instead, suggest the other poster is being diversionary:
More of the above, but this time let's pretend we are superior debaters by throwing in big concepts like 'longitudinal analysis' and 'refutation', 'continuity error' (and of course, another 'straw man' accusation!):
Let's pretend we have the high road and everyone else is being irrational:
But let's use some hyperbole of our own:
Followed by more claims to being the only rational voice in the debate ...
And finally, let's pretend to agree with our opponents, but turn it into an attack on the gun control folks ...
Meanwhile, I still have not seen any answer to what I thought was a very basic question ... just how would it work to have teachers carrying guns in schools ...
The original concept in this thread was, should we greatly relax existing gun control laws to allow teachers and schoolkids to carry weapons in class. This was subtly morphed into a debate about whether MORE controls were appropriate.
Stepping back and looking at the whole discussion, its seems obvious to me that there are indeed too many laws; we should scrap the individual state laws and replace them with one federal law that would close the loopholes. Unfortunately the gun lobby would fight this because they want the loopholes.
Let's suggest that statistics are too complex to be used by the common man (anyone who disagrees) ...
...Define your terms - what does "less guns" mean? Guns in whose hands? What are your crime recording standards? Define a homicide - in England, it's a murder that leads to a criminal prosecution, in the US its a death that occurs while a crime is being committed. They're two very different measures. This whole thing is a lil' bit complex.
...
But the corollary of that is, there's be more big blokes raping and stabbing and beating to death. The reason the Colt .45 was called The Equalizer was that it gave the weak a means of resisting the depredations of the strong. Ban guns and it's Christmas for rapists. Is that your ideal?
But the corollary of that is, there's be more big blokes raping and stabbing and beating to death. The reason the Colt .45 was called The Equalizer was that it gave the weak a means of resisting the depredations of the strong. Ban guns and it's Christmas for rapists. Is that your ideal?
OK, you've convinced me. Really, I'm not being funny, it's true. There is a mental health element to the whole gun control thing.
Insanity has been defined as trying something several times and observing a negative outcome in each case, yet carrying on repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting the outcome to be different.
Every time a bad actor commits a crime, y'all respond by demanding more restrictions on law abiding folks. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. Regardless of the result, bad actors carry on doing the same bad things because, and this is the bit that you don't seem to be able to grasp, criminals don't mind breaking the law.
So yeah, I think there are some nutters in play. They'd be the gun control lobby.
Insanity has been defined as trying something several times and observing a negative outcome in each case, yet carrying on repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting the outcome to be different.
Every time a bad actor commits a crime, y'all respond by demanding more restrictions on law abiding folks. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. Regardless of the result, bad actors carry on doing the same bad things because, and this is the bit that you don't seem to be able to grasp, criminals don't mind breaking the law.
So yeah, I think there are some nutters in play. They'd be the gun control lobby.
Let's look at this seriously for a moment. Joe Teacher is a responsible citizen who owns a gun. He brings his gun to school where he teaches 9 year olds. Does he carry the gun in a holster? Does he put it in a desk? Does he leave it in his bag? Does the school provide locking storage for the gun (schools that can't afford basic books)? Right off the bat, these are problematic options. If Billy Boy suddenly falls into a violent coughing fit and Joe Teacher has to attend to him, on the floor, is his gun in a holster and removable by another student? Did he leave his bag or desk unattended so another kid could retrieve it?
Cops carry guns, but they are not only trained in USING the gun, but also in PROTECTING the gun. I often watch cops when they are in grocery stores, or coffee shops, and they have clearly been trained to keep their hand/arm 'over' the gun area, so someone could not casually yank the weapon.
I don't even want to THINK about the situation when our well-intentioned Joe Teacher hears a bang in the next room, or sees a kid with a toy gun ... arghhhh ...
Cops carry guns, but they are not only trained in USING the gun, but also in PROTECTING the gun. I often watch cops when they are in grocery stores, or coffee shops, and they have clearly been trained to keep their hand/arm 'over' the gun area, so someone could not casually yank the weapon.
I don't even want to THINK about the situation when our well-intentioned Joe Teacher hears a bang in the next room, or sees a kid with a toy gun ... arghhhh ...
Stepping back and looking at the whole discussion, its seems obvious to me that there are indeed too many laws; we should scrap the individual state laws and replace them with one federal law that would close the loopholes. Unfortunately the gun lobby would fight this because they want the loopholes.
Last edited by Steerpike; Jan 17th 2011 at 7:36 am.
Jan 17th 2011, 10:20 am
#341
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: CHELTENHAM, Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,494
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
By all accounts here in this thread it makes the United Kingdom capital city of London look as serenely law abiding and as peaceful as a nunnery on a quiet day! 
Many people here in the UK genuinely believe that many Americans can't sleep properly in their beds at night unless they have a gun located underneath their pillows. Personally I don't believe that to be the case......or do I? 
Jan 17th 2011, 1:08 pm
#342
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
The term ‘homicide’ covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
....
In 2006/07, 757 deaths were initially recorded as homicide, a decrease of two per cent on the previous year. Where the police initially record an offence as homicide it remains classified unless the police or courts decide later that no offence or homicide took place. Of the 757 offences first recorded in 2006/07, 23 were no longer recorded as homicides by 12 November 2007. The 734 offences currently recorded as homicide in 2006/07 compared with 725 in 2005/06, an increase of one per cent.
....
Also, for an incident where several people are killed (such as the cockle pickers drowning in Morecambe Bay and the 7 July London bombing victims), the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed rather than the number of incidents.
....
Court proceedings had resulted in homicide convictions in respect of 148 victims and proceedings were pending for a further 340. Suspects responsible for the deaths of 23 victims had committed suicide or died, and all suspects were acquitted in 24 cases. No suspects had been identified in connection with 195 cases. In the remaining four cases the proceedings were either discontinued or not initiated
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
Last edited by elfman; Jan 17th 2011 at 1:21 pm.
Jan 17th 2011, 2:27 pm
#343
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,367
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
Mate - I thought we'd done this to death, already. Define your terms - what does "less guns" mean? Guns in whose hands? What are your crime recording standards? Define a homicide - in England, it's a murder that leads to a criminal prosecution, in the US its a death that occurs while a crime is being committed. They're two very different measures. This whole thing is a lil' bit complex.
I've tried to nudge folks towards this a few times, but it seems that hyperbole trumps rational thought every time.
I've tried to nudge folks towards this a few times, but it seems that hyperbole trumps rational thought every time.
A homicide is simply the killing of a person by another person. When you get into capital punishment there is the higher requirement of a murder being committed during the commission of another crime. But that is a sentencing requirement and doesn't change the definition of the word homicide.
Jan 17th 2011, 3:58 pm
#344
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Seal Rock, Oregon
Posts: 842
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
http://www.ktvz.com/news/26474022/detail.html
Jan 17th 2011, 4:51 pm
#345
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: Why Americans don't like Obamacare
The links that Elfman and I provided to crime statistics make it clear that your claim is completely false. Reading those documents make it clear that the English/ Welsh homicide totals include cases that have yet to be tried and solved.
I really detest it when people resort to making things up when the facts are readily available. The US has a substantially higher homicide rate, no matter how you slice it.
In England and Wales, there were 39 homicides attributed to shooting in 2008-9. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf In 2009, the United States had 9,146 murders that were attributed to firearms. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_11.html Arithmetic should make it obvious which nation has a greater problem with gun crime.