Subject:
|
Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 04:40:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
249 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
<snip some good stuff that I didn't know--good geography and history lesson
there>
> > So what, it should not even be attempted? Defeatism, coming from an american?
>
> Not at all. If you would kindly convince the scourge of
> medical-malpractice law teams to stop suing for millions of dollars over the
> tiniest little mistakes or uncontrollably random happenstance, we might find
> that the money wasted on malpractice insurance could be rechanneled into funding
> better medical care for the less fortunate. I'll let you cry on my shoulder if
> your feelings are hurt when they laugh in your face.
Well isn't that the American Dream--get rich quick? Everything is a lawsuit
these days--how much is a life worth? As much as your lawyer can wrangle from
the court systems.
I have a life insurance policy. It ain't big but it's enuf to pay what I owe
and have a wee bit left over for whomever. There will be no need to sue for
monetary reasons, so why sue in the first place? So you can live off the fat
settlement cheque and not have to work. People are just waiting for something
to happen to them so they can sue somebody. Nice.
> > Agreed, very few people do so.
> > Now, assuming for a second that you're a Christian: isn't that the lamest
> > argument, "others don't help so I don't have to do it either"? Heck, if
> > there's anything from christian ethics that I identify with, it is solidarity!
>
> What makes you think that solidarity isn't based on self-centered motives
> at the core? If you experience joy from helping the needy, aren't you motivated
> at least in part by the joy you experience? And if you're motivated by joy on
> any level, how can you say you're doing it for purely altruistic reasons?
>
> > You don't want them to change their minds either. Remember the amount of
> > radars and airbases the US have access to in Canada...
>
> I think we'd weather bad political relations a lot better than Canada
> would. We've got Alaska in the northwest, and Europe in the northeast. It's
> certainly more convenient to have access to military installments in Canada, but
> I doubt there are currently any countries which are both capable of directly
> attacking the United States and foolish enough to try. Unless we have the
> misfortune of electing some simpering ultra-pacifist wuss as the leader of the
> Free World, I think the threat of imminent reprisal is enough to deter any
> country capable of waging war on US soil.
See, here we are again. "The *leader* of the free world". Well, no, not
really. Your leader leads *you*, he certainly does not lead me, and I know that
I'm living in the 'free world'. So no, take your American made blinders off and
know that you're not the only ones living on this planet--there are other
leaders *in* the free world.
Heck, I'll even grant you that your leader is the most *powerful* leader in the
free world (at least when I watch 'Letterman', that's what Dave says) but he
isn't the only leader in the free world.
But you'll forgive my King slip and I'll forgive this one. I was watching a
documentary of Mr. King and his little speach was going thru my head when I
wrote that post a while back--sorry 'bout that. Nice catch though.
>
> > In sequence with the preceding paragraph, what if Canadians one day grow fed
> > up of this paternalistic approach? What will the US do then?
>
> I imagine we'll continue to have the world's most powerful military, and
> life will go on pretty much as it has. We'd probably also enforce trade
> restrictions, which I suspect would be much more harmful to the Canadian economy
> than to the US economy.
>
> > I can imagine the Canadians pretty much relaxed, since *they* don't have any
> > enemies...
>
> Everyone has enemies. Even Canada.
'Tis true! Those pesky Canadians with their Peacekeepers and all. Boy, I can
see why people would hate us.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) Hawaii was a US territory during WWII, just like Puerto Rico is now. Unlike Puerto Rico, Hawaii had been seeking to become a State back in 1903, with Congress finally giving full consideration to the issue in the 1930's, well before WWII (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
