Objective analysis of partisan arguments & talking points (hopefully)

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, December 18, 2008 05:05
VIEWED: 6810
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 9:11 PM

This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.

How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.

The experimental Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 9:25 PM

An Ahh yes, no one here likes agreement bump

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, December 12, 2008 9:31 PM

How about:

L) A national socialized medical system is needed now to provide all citizens with equal care, and to insure citizens against insurance abuses rendered on a daily basis.

R) A national socialized medical system is economically impossible, could never be implemented effeciently, and will make things worse.

Data: The debt of the US cannot be sustained, and another program would only hasten eventual collapse. Additionally, data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting.

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 9:34 PM

I hope to post later, but it will take a long response, which I don't have time for right now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:

Data: The debt of the US cannot be sustained, and another program would only hasten eventual collapse. Additionally, data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting.

Emmmm. I detect opinion there...I'd go with:
Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting. This indicates flaws in their supposedly excellent system; we need to be clear on our goals before considering any such overhaul.

IMHO...

The trying to get along Chrisisall

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:29 PM

Yours seems even more biased. For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.

WHOZIT

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.

How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.

The experimental Chrisisall

Now that the Democrats rule the Whitehouse, House & Senate you want to come up with a "calm agreement"? SOON I WILL LAUGH AT YOU'RE PAIN!!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Yours seems even more biased.

LOL, which way?

Quote:
For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.

I just felt that the comment about a new healthcare system speeding up our possible economic demise to be a bit more opinion than fact, you know, predictive without hard data to back it up- who knows- done correctly, it might actually SAVE money, just, like, will it be done CORRECTLY...?

The details Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Yours seems even more biased. For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.

Since yours was solely negative, and Chriss' offered both positive and negative, I'd say yes, you missed.

Unless offering pro's and con's is now officially "more biased" than just presenting one side.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 10:58 PM

Well, to start to dabble:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq. But historically, the search for WMD wasn't started until after int'l pressure built for Bush to pursue his WMD claims. He may have thought they would be abundant enough that US troops would stumble across them. However, given that the UN inspectors did not find WMDs and were close to concluding their search, it's more likely that he knew there would be none, and was hoping he wouldn't be called on to address the issue.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.
A person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would check to see if the results of his good intentions - 2 wars, curtailing freedoms, disaster response, national economy and other policies - were producing good results over time. Given that the results have not been as expected, a person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would try to determine what went wrong, and either try to mitigate the problems, or at least not repeat them.
Given that these didn't occur, the choices are that Bush's intentions weren't good, or he is incapable of learning from his mistakes.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today. Available studies indicate that scaring people doesn't create productive attitudes towards finding and implementing solutions.

***************************************************************
R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good

Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cuttign corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socilaiized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agneda does not fit with health care delivery.

This indicates flaws in their supposedly excellent system; we need to be clear on our goals before considering any such overhaul.
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:06 PM

Would everyone please take a break from the political stuff for a moment. I'm trying to make a fan film and need canon help.

Go to my thread in Firefly--Immediate Assistance and answer my canon questions gorramit!

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.

Well, what I wrote never precluded him being stupid, but I was trying to stay simple, and there's a cornucopia of opinion to weed through before you get to the conclusion based on available data that he's stupid (a conclusion I agree with, BTW).
But you did lay it out pretty succinctly, I must say.

Also, if he were truly evil, there's a LOT more damage all around that he could have caused, therefore, I must default to 'stupid'.

The sherlocks Holm-like Chrisisall

WHOZIT

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, to start to dabble:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq. But historically, the search for WMD wasn't started until after int'l pressure built for Bush to pursue his WMD claims. He may have thought they would be abundant enough that US troops would stumble across them. However, given that the UN inspectors did not find WMDs and were close to concluding their search, it's more likely that he knew there would be none, and was hoping he wouldn't be called on to address the issue.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.
A person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would check to see if the results of his good intentions - 2 wars, curtailing freedoms, disaster response, national economy and other policies - were producing good results over time. Given that the results have not been as expected, a person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would try to determine what went wrong, and either try to mitigate the problems, or at least not repeat them.
Given that these didn't occur, the choices are that Bush's intentions weren't good, or he is incapable of learning from his mistakes.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today. Available studies indicate that scaring people doesn't create productive attitudes towards finding and implementing solutions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHAT! RUE take a side! You running for office?

I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:18 PM

Hey ChrisIsAll

I added this later, I thought you might be interested in commenting.

R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good

Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cutting corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socialized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agenda does not fit with effective health care delivery.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:20 PM

There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. In fact, there's every bit of evidence to suggest the exact opposite. ( See 9/11 Commission , '04 and '06 Congressional Hearings on WMD )

CIA Release of NIE, October 2002: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade. http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

i wouldn't go as far as to call Bush a GREAT leader. Hell, he's subverting the will of his own party by bailing out the UAW and the BIG 3 Auto makers, simply to save his legacy. Bravo.

Too early to tell about Obama. We elected a complete unknown.

650 Scientist come out against manmade global warming. Somebody better tell AlGore ! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conte
ntRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:21 PM

Rue- Not bad! Fact-based, non-confrontational...I can deal!

The non-partisan Chrisisall

SWISH

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:22 PM

The bias comes in stressing one side aspect of the US health care system as if that defines it entirely. Wealthy foreigners who come here for health care are not having the same experience as the average American, ie they are wealthy and not at the mercy of their HMO.

SWISH

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:27 PM

Hey - I have a novel idea. Since Rap always shows up spouting this same blind madness, how about we don't let this thread devolve into a pointless "No he didn't!" "Yes he did!" spat with him? It seem that every thread I check into here turns into a Rap name-calling argument. It does derail more interesting conversations.

Just a suggestion.

ETA: I'm referring to this: "There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone." This horse corpse has been beaten folks. Nothing but bone. She ain't gonna run again!

WHOZIT

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey ChrisIsAll

I added this later, I thought you might be interested in commenting.

R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good

Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cutting corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socialized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agenda does not fit with health care delivery.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been? (Bush bad or good?) I'm fine (Barry lying or not?) nothing much happening here.

I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone.

Sorry, this was supposed to leave pure, unsubstantiated opinion out of it; citing facts that are not, and were not ever facts at all is for other threads. Making extrapolations based on actual facts could be okay, but they have to be FACTS, and data supports no missiles, & no WMD, all you have are statements by officials that turned out to be incorrect.

The hardline Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
how about we don't let this thread devolve into a pointless "No he didn't!" "Yes he did!" spat with him?

Sounds good to me. I shall not be spattish here.

SWISH

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been?

See, the point of an "unbiased" statement is that you don't pick a side. But the bagel down and think, son.

BTW Chris, I was thinking of doing a similar thing as this thread back before the election, mostly regarding Palin. I was challenging myself to argue both sides with her, just to see if I could handle it. I wanted to start a thread seeing if other folks could manage similar things, but I'm just not online enough to follow through with such a venture.

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:38 PM

ChrisIsAll

The global warming report Rap linked is a political report drafted by US Senate republicans.

Out of curiosity, I checked the list of supposed scientists. Many are TV weathermen, doctors, or scientists in unrelated fields. To me, that attempt to inflate numbers is ethically challenged. And that it was drafted by politicians of one party makes it partisan in the extreme. It look more like a propaganda attempt.

I estimate the number of genuine experts to be 20 - 30.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:41 PM

swish,

what you and others fail to acknowledge, either by intent or sheer ignorance, is that I always bring evidence to back up a specific claim. Like above, where I post , w/ link , a line from declassified CIA papers, per the NIE findings in '02. This, in conjunction with qutoes by George Tenet and William Cohen, along w/ quote from Dem leaders from as far back as '98 ,that I've often posted, show a clear sign of acceptance by generally everyone in our Gov. that Saddam wasn't living up to his UN agreements, and that we weren't going to allow this to continue.

But of course, you're right about 1 thing, that the pile of bones which use to be the whipping horse isn't going to rise again.

I too am for putting it all to rest.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

WHOZIT

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been?
See, the point of an "unbiased" statement is that you don't pick a side. But the bagel down and think, son.

BTW Chris, I was thinking of doing a similar thing as this thread back before the election, mostly regarding Palin. I was challenging myself to argue both sides with her, just to see if I could handle it. I wanted to start a thread seeing if other folks could manage similar things, but I'm just not online enough to follow through with such a venture.

Now you want "unbiased"?! Have a bagel!!!!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

SWISH

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
swish,

what you and others fail to acknowledge, either by intent or sheer ignorance, is that I always bring evidence to back up a specific claim.

You can invite all you want, but I ain't dancing Rap. Done this step too many times.

Have a nice day.

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ChrisIsAll

The global warming report Rap linked is a political report drafted by US Senate republicans.

Out of curiosity, I checked the list of supposed scientists. Many are TV weathermen, doctors, or scientists in unrelated fields. To me, that attempt to inflate numbers is ethically challenged. And that it was drafted by politicians of one party makes it partisan in the extreme. It look more like a propaganda attempt.

I estimate the number of genuine experts to be 20 - 30.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue, I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever

One of Rue's " weathermen" ? ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:51 PM

swish,

Of course you won't dance, because dancing would force exposure of fraud on your part.

I understand.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:55 PM

BTW - thinking about global warming per se -
it is a fact that CO2 and methane are a greenhouse gases, and it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 and methane levels have been rising over the decades. It's also a fact that Antarctic ice cores reveal that CO2 and methane levels are at the highest they've been in 800,000 years ("Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases" - "The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand."). There is also an increase in soot levels (which deposit on snow and ice and cause it to melt, decreasing the earth's albedo).

However, there is an increase in SO2 levels from fuel combustion which decreases the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. SO2 released from China is thought to be a temporary mitigating factor in global warming. SO2 has two opposing effects - if it's high up enough in the atmosphere (stratosphere) it can cause cooling, but at any elevation in the atmosphere, by decreasing sunlight it causes plants to take up less CO2.

Overall, however, global warming is expected to be the dominant factor. The decrease of sunlight reaching the earth is thought to ultimately reduce the ability of plants to absorb CO2, as well as reduce food production.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHOZIT

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW - thinking about global warming per se -
it is a fact that CO2 and methane are a greenhouse gases, and it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 and methane levels have been rising over the decades. It's also a fact that Antarctic ice cores reveal that CO2 and methane levels are at the highest they've been in 800,000 years ("Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases" - "The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand."). There is also an increase in soot levels (which deposit on snow and ice and cause it to melt, decreasing the earth's albedo).

However, there is an increase in SO2 levels from fuel combustion which decreases the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. SO2 released from China is thought to be a mitigating factor in global warming.

Overall, however, global warming is expected to be the dominant factor. The decrease of sunlight reaching the earth is thought to ultimately reduce the ability of plants to absorb CO2, as well as reduce food production.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Methane = Cow Farts. Ban Cows!.......moo

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

SWISH

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
swish,

Of course you won't dance, because dancing would force exposure of fraud on your part.

I understand.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Ahhhh, don't be bitter, sweetheart. Just sit in the corner and try and look pretty. I'm sure someone will take up your invite eventually.

***jumps onto dancefloor and shakes ass***

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:28 AM

Quote:
I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.

Mmmm?? Really? How much?

Please PM me to settle on an amount and payment terms. Thanks!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WHOZIT

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.
Mmmm?? Really? How much?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

It's snowing down south, much of New England has no power because of an ice storm, time for YOU to prove you're point!

I'm going microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

AURAPTOR

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

***jumps onto dancefloor and shakes ass***

* points and laughs *

Ha - ha! Made ya dance!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SWISH

Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:44 AM

Choosing dance partner pointedly...

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

R: Sarah Palin is the End of the Democratic party.
L: Sarah Palin is the Devil in high heels.

Sarah Palin provided much needed energy to a party on the outs. Though many of her views were controversial and her political history invited criticism, she had the personality and strength of character to win the respect and admiration of many of her own party.

[Edited a bit because it was too Palin positive. I'm still not satisfied.]

(Don't be too sad, Rap. I'm sure some hard-up desparado will come along some and take your offer up. How bout you post more of those rightwingnews articles? That seems to entice them well...)

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:10 AM

He doesn't want a reasoned debate, folks - he never really did.

All he wants is to howl his pathetic fantasies to a bunch of nameless nobodies on an internet forum since no actual person will put up with him or his nastiness without the very real threat of a boot up the ass, and I *been* tellin you that from get-go.

As such, there's really no point in talking to him, if there ever was - and y'all should quit feeding his desperate need for attention since all it does is validate his precious little persecution complex and spawn more verbal filth from him.

Nastiness, I can take, actual and direct attempts to threadwreck or smash reasoned debate, I find unacceptable.

Consider yourself killfiled, Rap, I gave you every single possible chance, but enough is enough, you wanna be a goddamned troll, you can fall into the killfile buffer with the rest of em.

Good Bye, and Good Riddance.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:12 AM

A - Politicians: They're all bad.

B - Climate: Don't crap where you live.

C - Healthcare: Crummy is better than none.

-F

RUE

Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:05 AM

A - Politicians: They're all bad. (Except the good ones - like YOU ! )

B - Climate: Don't crap where you live. (I agree.)

C - Healthcare: Crummy is better than none. (But good is better than crummy.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:17 AM

Quote:

Objective analysis of partisan arguments & talking points (hopefully)
CHRISISALL

Thanks, a step in the right direction

Quote:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

Don't confuse G.W.Bush with the right overall. Talking points in defense of the administration in power are often parrotted by the side that supported the bastard, like Bush, like Clinton, because they are afraid of losing power.

That said, I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better.

Quote:

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

Bush is a man of no power. His advisors deeply believe they are doing what is best for the world, if not the country. Their machiavellian faith in an unshakeable greater good makes them as close to evil as my religion will allow. Since I don't believe in good and evil, I will just say that they are karmically very off balance and far from the path.

Quote:

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

Obama plays the game. He's clean enough to be selected as a candidate. They didn't run Blagojevich.

Quote:

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.

This moderation is good, I would go much further on this. The cause of global warming is the increase in co2, but almost none of that is coming from people driving cars. Statistically, the Taiga arctic forest, by itself, consumes more co2 each year than the entire production of human-related emissions. This is a very definitive indicator that something is happening, someplace that's else. The real cause of the co2 spike is deforestation

The runaway scenario is nonsense. The move from 300ish to 600ish ppm is nothing compared to historical spikes as high as 7700 ppm which failed to end life on earth, or even hinder it. It would, however, create total chaos. A spike half this size is sufficient to cause massive human relocations and spark wars more than adequate to completely destroy civilization. It's a little known detail that the stone age 10,000 years ago was not a starting point, but a low point. Civilization, evidence continually indicates, is far older, but the end of the last ice age cause such an upheaval, and that destroyed almost all trace of civilization. So, it is an issue for concern, but not one for panic.

Quote:
How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.

Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by creating a more effective adoption system, one that perhaps compensates the mother for the inconvenience, as is often done in the developing, particularly catholic, world

CHRISISALL

Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better.

That's the best argument for it not being an actual *lie* that I've seen- I must downgrade my take as being "Available data indicates he unintentionally misled the people concerning WMD, believing the flimsy & uncompelling evidence to be factual, with the confidence that some would be actually found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq."

The reconsidering Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:31 AM

Thanks. I still oppose his decision to go to war, I oppose a lot of the stuff the neo crowd does, but it's startling the degree to which they actually believe in what they're doing.

Sure, they lie, but most of it is cya.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

Bullshit

Quote:
R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Sure... if you live in a vacuum of black and white.

Quote:
Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

Available data, meaning the media outlets none of us really trust 100%, right?

I do believe that it was known that there were no WMD's and a game of Wag the Dog was played on all of us, but I'm not convinced that Bush even knew about how he was being used, let alone my complete inability to wrap my head around the concept that he masterminded anything of that scale.

Quote:
R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

It's really not a partisan decision unless you let it be....

Quote:
Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

I think that is a subjective analysis of it, but I tend to agree with this. I don't agree with his idea of what is good for the country, but I do believe that he really does have that in mind even though he's been lead so far astray...

Quote:
R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

I have many reasons that I don't trust him, at least anymore than I trust Bush, or McCain, or Big Brother, or Peter Francis Geracie. Nothing that has happend in the last week gives any weight in that decision. I'm still stuck on why the Governer really got called out now. I just don't buy that it was the Republicans that did it to make Obama look bad. We've all seen enough M Knight Shamalamadingdong's movies to know that the evil Republicans exploiting the people with an obvious lie at this point is highly suspect, if not completely trite and unoriginal.

No.... I think Obama will be a martyr here.

Quote:
Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

They're all dirty man. Some people we dig a lot further to prove are dirty though.

Quote:
R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

I do hope you're joking now, or just pointing out what "they" want us to think, cause if you really paint it this black and white I'm starting to find this post very condesending.

Quote:
Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.

I thought about stuff like that when I was a kid and even remember asking adults questions about what would happen in the future when there is no more room to throw away garbage and what if oil ran out, but they all basically shrugged it off with a "don't worry about it" answer. When I was a kid, I thought that they meant that I was being silly and that would never happen. Now I realize that they were just talking to me like a kid and trying not to think to hard about the question I was asking.

We are messing it up, although I don't need any article or video by the "experts" telling me what is happening based on "theory". I know I throw too much crap away. I know I don't preserve water like I should. I know I don't recycle as thouroughly as I should do.

Bottom line, an end of the world scenario, as scary as it sounds, might be the only catalyst to get everyone on board and fast. How much alternative energy talk have you heard in the last week or two at 1.70 a gallon for gas? Don't we have an Auto bailout to think about

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:03 AM

*hands Jack his own neon green crayon*

SWISH

Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:27 PM

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD because he believed that the real dangers he perceived in the US's future - increased reliance on the whims of OPEC and economic upheaval due to high oil prices - could be prevented by winning control of Iraq's oil. And if he happened to find WMDs in Iraq along the way - hey, bonus.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

The danger isn't the destruction of the entire earth, but the "small" changes in climate which could cause great upheavals. The Dark Ages were largely due to the Little Ice Age - a drop of about 1 degree C. It didn't kill off the earth in any way, just destroyed the food supply in Europe and led to centuries of plague and famine, as people could not adapt to changing conditions.

My point: I disagree with the statement of the left's opinion, that climate change will destroy us. I don't hear any actual lefty saying that, just the righties using strawmen.

On the other hand, I have hear many righties say the there is NO climate change. So that I don't think is a strawman.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by...

I agree with what you're saying, but would work in one fact: Data shows that abortions will happen whether legal or not.

Quote:
Here's a misfact. Auraptor. I will not argue this misfact, it's a waste of time. You wasted more time composing it.

Unless he manages to make this thread spire into the abyss of useless bickering focused all on his glorious self. I think he considers his time well spent if he can make that happen.

Quote:
Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

Interesting. Almost laughable, if it wasn't so terrible. Where'd these numbers come from?

Quote:
Or, we could just suggest that Auraptor attempt to be more objective and self analytical, as we all should.

It's been tried. Again and again. No point. Hence my advice: don't even try. It ruins each thread. They all become Rap-vitriol focused.

Rapvitriol. Sounds like a new drug LOL!

Quote:
1. Let the left define itself and and define the positions of the left, and then let the right do the same for the right. I think that having the left and right define each other has led already to some radical misrepresentation.

I disagree. The internet is full of the left defining the left and the right defining the right. The world is full of it, and it goes no where because one doesn't listen to the other. It's much more enlightening to try to walk in the other side's shoes.

I feel like many of the debates I've lurked through here are stuck in misrepresentations of each side. Seems useful to bring these assumptions to light. Like in debate - you have to be able to argue both sides to truly understand an issue, right?

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Here's some data, which doesn't support any of these positions: Statistically, the best healthcare system in the world is Indian Ayurvedic traditional medicine, and the worst is the former soviet union system, according to a recent UN/WHO study.

Is Ayurvedic traditional medicine a healthcare system of the kind we are talking about, as in who pays for its cost? I always thought it was a particular kind of medical care/philosophy.

Quote:

Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

That's very interesting! Where are these numbers coming from? :)

SWISH

Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:45 PM

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

I forgot... my factual statement would be:

Given the complex and chaotic (as in, not mathematically predictable) nature of the climate, it is currently impossible to conclusively prove or disprove climate change. However, observations of atmospheric pollutants and global temperature trends suggest that human activity could be having an effect on the climate. As even a small change could do such great damage to world economies and societies, the concensus of those setting environmental policies is shifting toward taking action.

It's wordy. Oh well.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD because he believed that the real dangers he perceived in the US's future - increased reliance on the whims of OPEC and economic upheaval due to high oil prices - could be prevented by winning control of Iraq's oil. And if he happened to find WMDs in Iraq along the way - hey, bonus.

See, I happen to believe this in part, but I can't call it *fact*...I don't see any hard data that nails this down, just a lot of circumstantial stuff, and so I'd call this 'opinion'.

The technical Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

Bullshit

SHUT UP, 6IX!!

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:13 PM

Quote:

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by...

I agree with what you're saying, but would work in one fact: Data shows that abortions will happen whether legal or not.

"a) not at the same rate, and b) that's not the point. My point is that the legal battle is probably the wrong one for everyone except for those who want to divide, those being the people in power.

Quote:

Quote:
Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

Interesting. Almost laughable, if it wasn't so terrible. Where'd these numbers come from?

The UN/WHO report on international healthcare systems. Ayurvedics ranked first, and Russia ranked last.

Quote:

Quote:
1. Let the left define itself and and define the positions of the left, and then let the right do the same for the right. I think that having the left and right define each other has led already to some radical misrepresentation.

I disagree. The internet is full of the left defining the left and the right defining the right. The world is full of it, and it goes no where because one doesn't listen to the other. It's much more enlightening to try to walk in the other side's shoes.

The alternative is just manipulative partisan BS 95% of the time. Almost no one is objective, but worse, most people don't even understand the opposition position. This thread is littered with misinterpretations.

Quote:

I feel like many of the debates I've lurked through here are stuck in misrepresentations of each side. Seems useful to bring these assumptions to light. Like in debate - you have to be able to argue both sides to truly understand an issue, right?

A debate starts when two different parties define their positions. If one party defines both sides, then it's a farce.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:23 PM

The UN does fascinating reports each year on statistics for each nation, such as life expectancy, quality of life, real purchasing power of take home income, etc. The healthcare rating is based on a basic "no treatment" statistic which is "80% of all people who have a life threatening condition recover if they receive no care" and so, if in Russia, those who do seek treatment have a 70% recovery rate, then that's a -10%. The US used to be at 82%, or +2%, but it has slipped.

The death totals are roughly the same now as well. In the US, about 1 million people are estimated to survive because they sought treatment, and around 900,000 die who wouldn't have, because they sought treatment.

Still, this can't be applied blanketly: Not all conditions are equal. Appendicitis, you should probably go to the hospital. There are a lot of things that we think of as "definites," which probably are to be avoided.

Roughly 300,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to "clerical error" wrong surgery, wrong medication, etc. Drug reactions to intentionally perscribed medications are a big part of the 900k, and on-site infections gotten in the hospital are a large part. The single largest statistical killed in the hospital is anaesthetic overdose or reaction in the surgery.

If you must have surgery, you should probably skip the anaesthesia. If you can't handle the pain, sorry, evolution might have just selected you out :)

I personally have had a lot of major surgery, and I'm very conscious of the need of people to maintain the right over treatment options. If I didn't have that right, and had taken the recommended course, I wouldn't be sending this message. I would be dead three times over. Possibly four, but definitely at least three.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:26 PM

In india, it's mixed in. There are ayurvedics that you can go to, but also a lot of doctors will prescribe ayurvedic treatments over modern ones, and the top spot for india for healthcare was attributed to the combination of the two by the UN.

Another statistic just reported, 38% of americans use alternative medicine now, up from 12% last time I checked.

SWISH

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by swish:

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD because he believed that the real dangers he perceived in the US's future - increased reliance on the whims of OPEC and economic upheaval due to high oil prices - could be prevented by winning control of Iraq's oil. And if he happened to find WMDs in Iraq along the way - hey, bonus.

See, I happen to believe this in part, but I can't call it *fact*...I don't see any hard data that nails this down, just a lot of circumstantial stuff, and so I'd call this 'opinion'.

The technical Chrisisall

I agree. I have "evidence" that satisfies me, but I don't expect it to convince most folks here, especially those who aren't even convinced by true and hard facts. I started writing my argument out, but it would take too damned long.

SWISH

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:32 PM

swish: " Data shows that abortions will happen whether legal or not."

dreamtrove: "a) not at the same rate,"

But with a great deal more damage to the people involved, which may not be the point to you, but its pretty damned important to me.

dreamtrove: "Almost no one is objective, but worse, most people don't even understand the opposition position. This thread is littered with misinterpretations."

The invitation is out there for each side to have their say, and what's more, to state what they understand of the other side's position and hear if that fits or not. One party is not defining both sides. Chrisisall left it open, clearly stating: this is my best effort, please add to/change as you see fit.

I think the real interesting thing would be for folks to make an honest effort to argue the opposite side. I don't think some posters here would be capable of doing that. They would only throw out the usual strawmen, in effect tearing down the other side instead of trying to win it. Many posters here are incapable of letting go enough to really try and understand and defend the other viewpoint.

For what it's worth, my above argument about Bush's motivations in Iraq is actually against the idea that he is evil. I believe he was truly out to defend his country and its people, and thought he was making the kind of tough decisions that good leaders make in troubled times. Exactly the kind of tough calls that make us love a fictional character like Malcolm Reynolds so much. In a way, I do admire Bush for that. (I have to grit my teeth and leave out the many "but" statements I could make here!)

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:21 PM

Trying to legislate morality is idiotic.

-F

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 15, 2008 1:40 AM

Frem

With all due respect, Trying to legislate is idiotic :)

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 15, 2008 1:41 AM

I want to see the arguing stop. I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem. Most of the rest of this is just willing surrogates for hand me down ideology.

SWISH

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem.

No disrespect meant to Frem. Or to PN, really. But... you've actually read PN's posts, right?

Or are you not serious?

*irony radar out of order*

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 15, 2008 2:38 AM

Quote:
I think the only real constructive debate here is going on between PN and Frem.

Umm, no offense...

But that's a DAMN scary thought, even to me!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, December 15, 2008 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.

Bullshit

SHUT UP, 6IX!!

post without an isall, isall

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AGENTROUKA

Monday, December 15, 2008 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The healthcare rating is based on a basic "no treatment" statistic which is "80% of all people who have a life threatening condition recover if they receive no care"

That is fascinating! How is this measured? Full recovery with absolutely zero adverse effects? What kind of life threatened condition? No care defined as "no care by medical workers and doctors" or literally no care?

Quote:
and so, if in Russia, those who do seek treatment have a 70% recovery rate, then that's a -10%. The US used to be at 82%, or +2%, but it has slipped.

The death totals are roughly the same now as well. In the US, about 1 million people are estimated to survive because they sought treatment, and around 900,000 die who wouldn't have, because they sought treatment.

But how can it be certain that they wouldn't have died if they had sought treatment? Is "woudn't have died" the same as full recovery? What about treatments that would have increased quality of life, if successful? Is this based on diagnoses or on this statistic you mention above?

Quote:

Still, this can't be applied blanketly: Not all conditions are equal. Appendicitis, you should probably go to the hospital. There are a lot of things that we think of as "definites," which probably are to be avoided.

Like what? :)

Quote:

Roughly 300,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to "clerical error" wrong surgery, wrong medication, etc. Drug reactions to intentionally perscribed medications are a big part of the 900k, and on-site infections gotten in the hospital are a large part. The single largest statistical killed in the hospital is anaesthetic overdose or reaction in the surgery.

Are these errors due to sloppiness or are they "honest" mistakes? On-site infection should probably be preventable if all guidelines are properly followed, right?

Quote:

If you must have surgery, you should probably skip the anaesthesia. If you can't handle the pain, sorry, evolution might have just selected you out :)

Guess I was just a wimp when I had my appendix taken out with anaesthesia. :)

Quote:

I personally have had a lot of major surgery, and I'm very conscious of the need of people to maintain the right over treatment options. If I didn't have that right, and had taken the recommended course, I wouldn't be sending this message. I would be dead three times over. Possibly four, but definitely at least three.

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?

AGENTROUKA

Monday, December 15, 2008 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
In india, it's mixed in. There are ayurvedics that you can go to, but also a lot of doctors will prescribe ayurvedic treatments over modern ones, and the top spot for india for healthcare was attributed to the combination of the two by the UN.

Another statistic just reported, 38% of americans use alternative medicine now, up from 12% last time I checked.

So this UN survey focused on the quality of the actual care received, rather than things like coverage and access to care, who pays for it, etc.? I'm no expert on India and maybe it's prejudice talking, but they do have a large part of their population living below the poverty line, if I am not mistaken, who might not have access to the healthcare system that got this apparently well-deserved top spot?

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 15, 2008 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

post without an isall, isall

Yikes!!!isall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:39 AM

Rouka

Don't be a total dick. I know it may be hard.

1. Put your questions to the UN or WHO, not to me, I didn't make up the study.'

2. My guess is, yes, this is treatment actually received. Surprisingly, parts of africa do fairly well because the doctors do close to nothing. Places in africa where they try usually do really poorly.

3. My own treatments, this is where you come off ass a total ass, for reference, insulting the injured.

a) I was in a severe accident at 19, had my face ripped off, and had to have reconstructive surgery. I had numerous internal injuries. I received a lot of much needed care. Early on, a doctor came into my room and told me I had been cleared for a transfusion, but the blood was untested, and could carry an infection. He told me I would probably not survive if I refused the transfusion, but that I also would not survive long enough for the test results to come back. I refused the treatment. My friend Krishna, by coincidence, got that transfusion, and has since died of HIV, than the blood, which was pooled, was tainted with.

b) at 25, I became suddenly ill at my job, and drove to a clinic, which did some vital signs, which showed me with radically low numbers, in the line that I heard the nurse say "by rights, the patient should be already dead." It was not the first time I'd heard this, since the same thing had been said of me at 19. I knew this meant something was severely wrong. The hospital diagnosed me with gastrointeritis, gave me some medicine, and sent me home, telling me to call back in three days if I didn't feel better. Instead, when I felt much worse 8 hours later, I had to lie to get back into the hospital and get some actual tests, which showed conclusively that I had acute appendicitis, and less than 12 hours to live. Again, some medical treatment was essential, my ability to choose that treatment was as well.

c) at 32 a sudden illness created an overflow of adrenaline in my system, which was building to critical levels. I knew something was physically wrong. I asked to be checked out physically before anyone sent me to the psych ward, and was assured by the admissions that this would happen. It didn't. I spent three years in psychiatric care. I became a guinea pig, and had to refuse treatment for several drugs which made me so much worse that I felt I was going to die, and I also was able to refuse the recommended, I kid you not, shock treatment and frontal lobotomy. Eventually, I was able to sue for my release, do my own damn research, and discover that in fact, something was physically wrong with me, I had a gut infection which was preventing key precusors from entering my blood, and thereby getting to my brain. This had prompted the body to produce an excessive amount of adrenaline to attempt to correct the problem. Both of these had apparent mental side effects, but no amount of mental health treatment would have cured the infection and corrected the condition.

If we lose the ability to choose our treatment options for ourselves, we really have lost our own personal right to life.

Over and out from the living non-zombie dreamtrove
...is all

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?

Wow. You must have never worked in a hospital.

It's not exactly like on ER or St. Elsewhere everywhere...

The I-had-my-own-battles-with-Doctors-too Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:21 AM

"That said, I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better."

It's the ONLY excuse for a war. You have to show that a country poses an immediate threat in order to attack them first and not be considered an aggressor. And, while Bush made an awful lot of noise about WMDs and Hussein's (supposed) connection to terrorism, even he couldn't show the need for a 'pre-emptive' war (the legal kind), he had to call it a 'preventative' war (the illegal kind).

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:39 AM

DT -

If you could come up with a title or some other identifier for the study, I'd appreciate it. I looked and couldn't find anything.

That said, there's at least one error I can find in your post: the 80% figure is for people with any illness, not life-threatening ones. So, people with a sore throat, stuffy nose, minor infection etc will get better anyway, whether the doctor does anything or not.

The other 20% do need medical care.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:51 AM

Rue,

I couldn't disagree more. There was no precedent at all for preemptive war under US law, or any support for it under international law. The vaguest lines that could have been drawn and still have some sort of precedent would have been to use the extermination of the kurds, and take the kosovo precedent. A better one would be to recognize kurdistan ahead of time, and they allow it to invite you in. When Saddam then invaded the secessionist kurd republic, you could then fight back, and maybe win some allies inside Iraq. This is what russia did with S. Ossetia, and it led to an alliance with Abkhazia. In a dictatorship like Iraq, Bush could have take the entire country by that manner, eventually.

What he did, or Cheney, Rummy, Wolfo and Perle did was idiotic. There was no support for the idea anywhere in US or international law. It was bound to make us enemies all over the place, and winning any war without allies is pretty damn near impossible. The smart move next, would have been to claim victory after deposing Saddam, which would disguise the fact that we were actually defeated by Al Sadr. Since "Regime Change" was a state motive, Saddam Gone, Al Sadr-backed democracy in place, claim victory and hold a parade, party over.

But what they did do is proof that they are morons. They poured all their effort in trying to destabilize the region, hiring militias, inciting sectarian violence, etc. It's exactly what Obama has planned for Afgh. and Pakistan, and towards the same ends: to hope that it spills into Iran and destabilized that nation, and the region. This is not conspiracy theory, it's stated public policy.

But simply to invade Iraq and institute regime change, WMDs was a moronic idea. They did it because they thought it was the one thing they could prove. They were not sure they could prove kurdish genocide. If they were, they would have gone for it. I think they're dumb, but they're not functionally retarded.

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:16 AM

"There was no precedent at all for preemptive war under US law, or any support for it under international law. The vaguest lines that could have been drawn and still have some sort of precedent would have been to use the extermination of the kurds, and take the kosovo precedent."

Except the Kosovo stuff was ongoing at the time - not something 15+ years in the past as with the Kurds. And there was nothing going on against the Kurds at the time due to the no-fly zone.

There doesn't seem to have been an extant excuse along those lines for the US to have attacked Iraq.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rouka

Don't be a total dick. I know it may be hard.

Wow, name calling. I'm really impressed.

Quote:

1. Put your questions to the UN or WHO, not to me, I didn't make up the study.'

I would if you provided a link or some other way to find out just what study you are talking about. Right now all we have is your interpretation of a text that may or may not exist, if one wanted to be extreme about it. I'm sure it exists, but it is not within my means to fin dit. I tried googling for some of the things you mentioned and got nothing useful. So I ask you.

Quote:

2. My guess is, yes, this is treatment actually received. Surprisingly, parts of africa do fairly well because the doctors do close to nothing. Places in africa where they try usually do really poorly.

So it's not really the kind of "health care system" that people mean when they talk about the word, as in the financial aspect and who has the chance to receive care if they want/need it?

I'm all for non-standard medical practices if they work for people, but that does nothing to answer the question of cost. Nor does "they do fairly well in africa" contain any information about how this is measured. Just mortality rates or also quality of life?

Quote:

3. My own treatments, this is where you come off ass a total ass, for reference, insulting the injured.

How do I come off as an ass about this? I didn't ask you to describe your injuries, although I am very sorry you had to experience such terrible things. You used personal experience as a reference and I asked you something about it. How is that being an ass?

Quote:

If we lose the ability to choose our treatment options for ourselves, we really have lost our own personal right to life.

And nowhere did I argue against that.

If you want to consider me rude for asking you questions about the facts that you state... sorry, I'll just have to be one.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Wow. How come your doctors would have been so eager to push unnecessary treatment, knowing it would kill you?
Wow. You must have never worked in a hospital.

It's not exactly like on ER or St. Elsewhere everywhere...

I really really haven't. I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...
But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

That said, there's at least one error I can find in your post: the 80% figure is for people with any illness, not life-threatening ones. So, people with a sore throat, stuffy nose, minor infection etc will get better anyway, whether the doctor does anything or not.

The other 20% do need medical care.

Now this figure seems to make a whole lot more sense.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...

LOL. The doctors that do plastic surgery are a whole lot easier on the eyes for some reason...

Quote:

But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.

Think about where you've worked- there's usually a few peeps that are great at their jobs, a group that are very competent, a group that slide by doing as little as possible, and a couple of real idiots- something like that, right?
Well, same thing in the hospital, so you're in trouble if you get the slackers, and dead if you get the idiots.

The simplifying Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:21 PM

I never saw experimental therapy forced on anyone in all the hospitals I worked at. Generally there are protocols that doctors are required to follow. If they don't, then Medicare, Medicaid or other insurance won't cover the treatment, and hospitals frown on that.

I did see doctors at a standstill on what to do with certain diseases: Legionnaires (when it was a mystery), human mad-cow disease, AIDS (when it was a mystery). I've seen doctors 'miss' a diagnosis, leading to inappropriate treatment. Plus, there are a few just plain bad doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. And, sad to say, I've heard of one nurse who may have been either sadistic or just extremely callous to other people's pain.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I know it's not like ER, as no one looked that pretty when I had my appendix taken out...
LOL. The doctors that do plastic surgery are a whole lot easier on the eyes for some reason...

Somehow I do NOT mind that I haven't had personal opportunity to find out for sure. *shudders*

Quote:

Quote:

But I know very little about the interior workings, so I asked.
Think about where you've worked- there's usually a few peeps that are great at their jobs, a group that are very competent, a group that slide by doing as little as possible, and a couple of real idiots- something like that, right?
Well, same thing in the hospital, so you're in trouble if you get the slackers, and dead if you get the idiots.

Riiiiiiight. Also: Ouch. I do not enjoy thinking of hospitals the way I think of the office. It obviously makes sense... But.

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:30 PM

'Expert' medical programs out-diagnose doctors every time.

I've always wondered why they aren't used more.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:04 PM

The Hussein govt. was under seige during those 15 years, and there's no statute of limitations on genocide. I'm not going to argue the point. I thought it was obvious.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:09 PM

Rue,

Newsflash: lucky you. I was held down by six men and injected with medicine that I was not only allergic to, but that this fact was already on my medical record to which the non-doctors had access to, if they had bothered to read. My crime? Still being awake and using the bathroom at 4am, which was "passed hours." They very nearly killed me.

My respect for the medical profession, slightly less than for government.

And I was lucky, I've heard much worse stories from "permanent care facilities." And even those pale in comparison to nursing homes. And those pale in comparison to prisoners and soldiers.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
They very nearly killed me.

Peeps that never been on the wrong end of abuse of authority, whether in government or medicine, have a hard time grasping how devastating an effect they can be allowed to have at a word or whim.

The not-laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:30 PM

Psychiatric 'care' is an issue of which I have no personal knowledge. In the past, it was subject to all sorts of abusive practices. But in the last few decades, AFAIK they are allowed to hold you for 36 hours, after which they are required to release you - except in very rare circumstances. DT's experience may have been before the 1980s when 'deinstitutionalization' became all the rage, and when these limitations on psychiatric 'care' came into being.

BTW Just being female and (in the past) poor has put me on the wrong side of what I can claim a 'right' to. I think I understand better than most the implied threat of authority.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:56 PM

Rue

No, it was more recently. That's 36 hours *after* you file your appeal for release. They can use those thirty six hours to try to prove that you are a danger to yourself or to others.

My brother is a law professor, so I called him, and learned about the appeal process, something I was never informed about at the hospital. This was one of several occasssions, but the first two years they were content to hold me for a week, send me home for outpatient care, and bring me back in. The third year, a different hospital saw me as a meal ticket. An in patient looney is worth $1,000/day or more, plus, the opportunity to experiment. They went ballistic on me for 36 hours but were unable to make a case that I was a danger to myself and to others, even after injecting me with a mix of 6 different drugs. By the time I left, I was hallucinating all over the place, but did a very good job of faking being sane.

It was hear that I learned about "permanent care."
Those guys had horror stories that put the hollywood imitation to shame. There they do not have to release you. But in order to be in permanent care, they have to deem you a danger to yourself or to others, for which the grounds are very light. When they pump you full drugs, not so much as tipping over a chair is tricky business. They were able to induce a couple of seizures though, which did some permanent damage. Can't miss meal time, or shower time, can't speak up, act up, no matter what you're on or what condition your in, or you could be on your way to permanent care. Scary world.

Never, anywhere, during three years of psychiatric care, was I allowed any actual medical care, even from clinics, to find out if something was actually wrong with me, which it was. Here in the US. I fled to Hungary actually, which is where I was able to unravel what the real situation was. Afterword, undoing the damage done by psychiatric care has been another issue.

BTW, I grew up very poor. I used to work for 15 cents a day, that bought you a bowl of soup. Life is tough all over. There's no comparison. Sorry.

RUE

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:13 PM

Hey DT

Did you ever see the movie Jaws ? I wasn't trying to spark a 'who's got the biggest scar' contest, but if you want - ok, you win, hands down. I was just trying to make a point w/ ChrisIsAll that I have been on the 'wrong side' of the man.

As for the laws - I'd appreciate it if you could provide some information. My father (now deceased) fell and broke his hip due to Parkinson's. The anesthetics, pain pills, LDopa et al sent him into permanent hallucinations/ delusions. Being off of all medication for weeks barely made a dent. But he kept threatening to sign himself out, broken hip and all.

(He also said that he took a taxi to visit a family member in Buffalo - who'd been living out of state for over 20 years and was still out of state - and found a 'disgusting ' party going on ... that he took his 'cart' - he couldn't remember the word wheelchair and English was not his first language - and saw they had a bank of phones in the basement and people madly answering them b/c the place was bankrupt and going to close down ... that he was eating 'delicious' cheese - out of an empty hand ... that he was back in England after WWII in a medical facility ... that he'd gone back home - to a building that never existed - and he was ready to pack and go back there to stay ... and many other obvious waking dreams that he nevertheless thought were real.)

Anyway, it was very touch and go as to how he could be kept in the hospital, which we did day by day with persuasion and cajoling, b/c after all, he had the right to sign himself out and could insist on it. No matter what his physical and mental state.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:05 AM

Rue

> Did you ever see the movie Jaws ?

Nope

> I wasn't trying to spark a 'who's got the biggest scar' contest, but if you want - ok, you win, hands down.

I thought I capped it with having my face literally ripped off. Though I have a friend who was in Iraq and Afgh for 5 tours this time, who had his head blown up twice, reconstructive surgery, once from a shotgun point blank, the other, an IED.

> I was just trying to make a point w/ ChrisIsAll that I have been on the 'wrong side' of the man.

Yah, I know, I didn't mean to belittle it. It's just that once you're marked "mental patient" it's like being a prisoner. You're treated like you have no rights, and the most annoying is that you seem to have no rights to regular medical treatment.

> As for the laws - I'd appreciate it if you could provide some information.

I don't know. I was fortunate my third time in to have access to a payphone. We weren't allowed change, but my mom snuck some in with donuts. She also snuck me some herbals to help counteract the drugs they were giving me. Both were against "policy." But I think this is a grey area, policy seems to be at odds with "law" but no one seems to be paying attention. My attempts to draw attention to the situation were no more successful than when I worked at a facility for downes syndrome residents that management basically treated like animals. You need to find someone in the system who is clean and cares in order to get anywhere, and I wasn't so lucky. I was luck to know my brother. If you have a specific legal question, I can forward it to my brother.

> My father (now deceased) fell and broke his hip due to Parkinson's. The anesthetics, pain pills, LDopa et al sent him into permanent hallucinations/
> delusions. Being off of all medication for weeks barely made a dent. But he kept threatening to sign himself out, broken hip and all.

Sounds like he was overmedicated. My general feeling is that anesthetics and pain killers should be avoided. L-Dopa is the natural treatment for parkisons, I find it works better with CoQ10, which appears to act as a transport of the L-Dopa. Chances are there was some reaction between the pain killers, I'm assuming some sort of opiate derivative, and the phenylalanine-choline chain. The whole series can end you with a pretty high level of norep, and as a result, adrenal overflow. Hallucinations are usually a sign of Dopa-overdose, which you shouldn't be able to create in a parkinson's patient. It's random speculation, but I would guess that the parkinsons was not advanced enough for the level of treatment, and they overdid it. When I had my car accident, in 1989, I was put on cocaine and morphine, which was serious overkill for the pain. I suspect that, since it took them two days to give me pain killers, I would have made it through without, but I can only speculate. There's a part of me that sees PN's MKULTRA in the idea of putting a teenager on Cocaine and Morphine at the same time for pain, and not derivatives, just straight, and IV. Like they were trying to create a customer. But that's just my paranoia speaking.

> (He also said that he took a taxi to visit a family member in Buffalo - who'd been living out of state for over 20 years and was still out of state
> - and found a 'disgusting ' party going on ... that he took his 'cart' - he couldn't remember the word wheelchair and English was not his first language
> - and saw they had a bank of phones in the basement and people madly answering them b/c the place was bankrupt and going to close down ...
> that he was eating 'delicious' cheese - out of an empty hand ... that he was back in England after WWII in a medical facility ...
> that he'd gone back home - to a building that never existed - and he was ready to pack and go back there to stay ...
> and many other obvious waking dreams that he nevertheless thought were real.)

Also he might have been experiencing some enterograde amnesia. A limit of active dopamine in the system can cause a lack of access to recent memory, and so people are lef