sees_all1

Or wireless N routers.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement. I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes: Are you trolling? Nope. When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

wat Excuse me, that was Joe Biden. Harry Reid said that he was electable because he was light skinned and with no negro dialect. My apologies for confusing the two. EDIT: Also, I think its a bit unfair that the Black Panthers aren't prosecuted for voter intimidation, even though they were filmed outside of a polling place with a nightstick.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising. We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place. Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement. I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

As a conservative, I feel oppressed every time people shout "Racist! Bigot! Homophobe! Misogynist! Anti-Semite! Islamaphobe! Heartless! Warmonger! Redneck!" Yep, you know me. I hate Blacks, Gays, Lesbians, Women, Jews, Muslims, Poor People. I think that covers what, 99.7% of the world's population? And by the way, I love going to war with other countries, I cling to my guns and religion, I love nascar and above all Pabst Blue Ribbon. Excuse me, I'm late for my White Power rally.

Yeah! I hate how much scrutiny occupy wall street got from the media, and how little scrutiny the tea party gets! It's like there's a conservative media agenda. I also hate how the media was going through all of Jon Edwards stuff, being all super sleuthy, and reporting on rumors of his alleged affairs every day, when they didn't even mention any of the half dozen, credible and documented attacks against Herman Cain... Get over yourself.

You would think that in a post racial world, it wouldn't matter what either group said. Guess we're not quite there yet.

In the long run, elevating one ethnic group and giving it a special status hurts relations more than it helps. When it comes to programs attempting to help an ethnic group, usually it ends up hurting them. While I don't feel I have any authority to speak on the subject, I've read several prominent African Americans describe how affirmative action has made them feel inferior by lessening their accomplishments, exactly opposite of what it was intended to do. Logically, I can understand that. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155469/go-ahead-apologize

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least). Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed. You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically. You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved. The Canadian medical system is not "for profit", and it's just fine. Just because something isn't labeled "for profit" doesn't mean it doesn't profit. If there really was no profit in the healthcare system, no one would waste their time with working there.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least). Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed. You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically. You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

Not sure how they can deem this theft... JaGEx still owns both.

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed. That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known.

Iron ore is what, 380 each? That puts it up to 300k/hr. Plus the price of rares has dropped (I think the Green H'ween is down 20% or more), makes it easier than ever to own a rare.

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though. Are you suggesting that a government should only provide those things which we have an inalienable right to? I'm just curious, I don't see where you're going here... This is the post a few pages back that triggered the discussion. [hide] I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people. Sure, turning people away from hospitals if they're unable to pay is "cruel," but having to shut down entire burn units in hospitals because of criminals making meth is worse for the general population. In the strictest John Locke sense of government (that the USA is founded on), requiring a health care professional to treat someone violates the professional's freedoms (and in a sense is tyranny). Government (We the people) paying for healthcare for those who can't (i.e. making the taxpayers pay for the poor) violates the rights of the people. That's not to say that people who can't pay shouldn't be treated, it means that's left up to charity. In my opinion, that also means that people who can't pay shouldn't receive the latest and greatest, most costly treatment. EDIT:fixed an inconsistency... :oops: [/hide] My entire point in that tangent was that just because something's nice to have the government manage doesn't make it an inalienable right. There were a few other things but I think I've lost sight of the original discussion. :sad:

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though.

Just because something is a public service does not make it an inalienable right. Roads are not inalienable rights. Public schooling is not an inalienable right. Healthcare is not an inalienable right. Just because someone exists does not automagically give them a right to healthcare. Trying to take this discussion back to the topic, if a person injures themselves, and a doctor is nearby, that doctor has no legal obligation to help them. Saying Healthcare is an inalienable right means otherwise, that doctors (or people in general) are obligated under natural law to help everyone, regardless of circumstance. In the US, hospitals that accept federal funding are required to treat anyone and everyone, and are not allowed to turn people away because they can't pay. Private hospitals have no such obligation. Part of the reason why I don't think people should be turned away (especially from public hospitals) is because when I'm having a medical emergency, I don't want to have to convince the hospital that I'm insured or have the ability to pay. That's also to say that its my obligation to reimburse the hospital once I'm better. Most of the time, medical emergencies aren't in-and-out, they require long term care. People that can't reimburse the hospital shouldn't be given the best, most costly treatment, they should receive the bare minimum. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes. That seems contradictory. What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen. I'm pretty sure you don't buy a book for it's paper. And I'm pretty sure you don't buy a CD for it's shape. The phrase you need is, You stole my idea!

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that. I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any. That's not the same as "free healthcare". Healthcare isn't free, it's publicly funded. The majority of the population pays taxes in order to provide it. And the majority of the population is deserving of it. Just like any other public service. You just made my point.

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that. I agree with this. The right to health is as inalienable a right as any. That's not the same as "free healthcare".

We're talking about inalienable rights, the ones "endowed by the Creator". An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical. Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

The current boondoggle of legislation in the US really doesn't have bearing on whether healthcare is an inalienable right. When thinking inalienable rights, you should think more of revolutions and the formation of new governments. For instance, if some country X wasn't providing free healthcare for its people, it wouldn't be reasonable for its people to overthrow the current government, establish a new government, and force the health providers to treat everyone for what they give them. As a counter example, it is reasonable for a people to overthrow their government for denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, or things like property rights, individual body rights, or the right to defend oneself.

That's why they don't let people like you become doctors. :rolleyes: