If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
CatNipped wrote: Evelyn, although I tend to agree with your sentiments, I have so say... if you have some evidence that Dubya has committed an impeachable offense, the democratic party would love to hear from you. It's all very well to say that we should throw him out of the Whitehouse (and I agree that would be a good thing if only there were a democrat better then Kerry to take his place - but even that wouldn't happen, *Cheney* would take his place and how would that be any different than what we have now?). Short of armed rebellion which, granted, was successful for us in the past, there is nothing we can do to change the situation for the next four years. Try browsing through some of the matierial at http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Yoj wrote: "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message ... jmcquown wrote: What bugged me the most was these same people had no problem with our insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for a number of people who really didn't need it. At $40,000 USD a pop, with 8 people having had the surgery in a single year, just imagine the insurance premium increases for everyone else. Oh, I didn't have to imagine in, I lived it in 2003. Only 2 people I worked with followed the doctors orders and the surgery was very successful for them. And they weren't overeaters (nor unhealthy eaters) to begin with. They'd had a predisposition to being overwheight since childhood and problems with blood pressure, knee joint issues, etc. That's who it's for. More power to them! I can't IMAGINE having any "elective" surgery at all - let alone anything so invasive and yes, life-threatening! I put off simple (nowadays) cataract surgery as long as I could, and that is "elective" only in the sense that you CAN opt for blindness instead, but who would do so voluntarily? Cataract surgery is worth it! For one thing, it can be done on an outpatient basis, so you don't have to be in the hospital. For another, the results are outstanding! Joy (I had mine two years ago) Yeah, me too - but it wasn't until I realized it was either that, or give up driving (a sheer necessity in Southern California). |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Yoj"
wrote: "Yowie" wrote in message ... I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly: "Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t sandwhich?" Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not think the person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they way well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the two choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was only just slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was. Yowie I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*! Drawing from horror fiction, there's a T-shirt occasionally seen at science fiction conventions: "Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser of two evils?" |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
... CatNipped wrote "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results to follow. David, I fully support *everyone* having the right to say whatever they feel - even to the point of America-bashing. What *I'm* asking is that, if you are corresponding with *me*, and want to stay on friendly terms, then please don't blanket criticize my entire nation because you don't like the actions of a few of my fellow countrymen. I am fully in agreement with most of the objections people from other nations have about my government. But, just because you don't like the fact that my *government* (*NOT* me) is opposed to the Kyoto Treaty, please don't say that "Americans" (which includes me, my family, and my friends) are stupid, backwards, evil, etc., etc., etc. Am I not making that distinction clear? You complained about *other* people "bashing" the USA. Can you not see it is just the same? *I* did not bash the USA when you were complaining about someone in the Middle East. There is a big difference there, David. "Other people" doesn't mean "all other people in the world", and nobody in their right mind would think it does. "America" or "Americans", without any modifier, means *all* Americans. Joy |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
... Yoj wrote "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... Yoj wrote "David Stevenson" wrote in message ... If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to stop some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans. Terrorism, for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations. One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of speech. That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or otherwise, by other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans not to criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical remarks. I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or actions of some of its members. Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results to follow. Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction? -- David Stevenson So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they want, but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent it when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only *some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who are criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do not commit whatever offense is currently being criticized. I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding others up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other people up the more the average American must expect a reaction. -- David Stevenson Okay, first I don't know what you mean by "winding others up". Maybe you could explain that term. Second, your next statement is the same as if I said, "The more some English bash America, the more the average Englishman should expect an angry reaction." Do you think it is right that I, and other Americans should blame you for what some other English person says? I don't. I also don't think the reverse is true. Joy |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
... Sherry wrote Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the results to follow. I'm not criticizing your post, David, but I am simply bumfuzzled by it. What do you mean? What kind of talk "winds people up"? I just don't see anyone bashing the English, or any other country for that matter to the extent that the Americans are the brunt of criticism. I would say never on this group. Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction? There you go again. If you would just use the word "some" Americans, I don't think it would sound like so much like you are tarring an entire nation with the same brush. I said "tend to". That's my experience. If you wish to take generalisations to the particular, that's your choice, but there is no reason to. You're turning it upside down. A generalization is taking the particular to the general. It is assuming, stating, or implying that all members of the group spoken of do the same thing, or are the same, as those particular examples. Do you really believe that the average American does not promote his country more than the average person in some other country? -- David Stevenson I certainly believe exactly that. It isn't my fault that the minority of Americans who do are much louder than the majority of us who don't. Joy |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
... Howard Berkowitz wrote: No, and there's a fairly logical defense of that. I would suggest the "average American", or, perhaps, I should say "USAian", has neither traveled internationally nor has extensive communications outside the country. Given that, to whom are they promoting their country? To other English-speaking posters on the internet? And NOT having "traveled internationally nor had extensive communications outside the country" (thus lacking any reasonable basis for judgment) doesn't prevent the "my country, right or wrong (but NEVER "wrong")" faction from vociferously claiming America's alleged "superiority" in all things! That allegation is so patently untrue, how can anyone blame people of more experience for their negative responses? Fine, so respond negatively to those who make such stupid statements. Don't do the same thing you are accusing them of by tarring us all with the same brush. Joy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|