Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[lilpixieofterror]

What back slap? I don't think you have any ability at reading comprehension, and I've never pretended otherwise. I'm not on your side. I'm not on anyone's side.

My comment to you about irrelevant anecdotes has nothing to do with you being the source. I'd have said the same to anyone. It was irrelevant. I prefer people that actually contribute (always have).

While it's quite cute to watch you pretending that you were not being aggressive with your comments, I have better things to do than exchange passive aggressive jabs with you, so moving on...

No one asked you to refute bald assertions, but you did try to refute what he said. You just did so extremely unsuccessfully.

Nah, the problem is that you don't know the history of what you're talking about and make up assumptions as you go along because your dislike of me is in control of you. Sorry sweety, Tazzy Wazzy didn't back up his claims and it isn't my job to back them up when he refuses to back them up. I know... difficult concept...

I do live in the US. I have no idea what the crime rate is where I live. It's not something I pay attention to. Whether or not I am involved in crime doesn't drastically affect the crime rate. If the US has a really high violent crime rate, that in no way implies that any given person will have committed a crime. That's pretty basic.

Again, you're missing the point because you don't want to bother to understand what I'm saying and just assume you automatically know. My true argument is this:

If you live a life of crime; your odds of being a victim of a crime are higher than if you don't (at least living in a country, like the US).

That's all, but hey... if you want to jump down my throat and demand I give facts and figures for somebody that will just ignore them anyway... that's you're choice, but sorry... Tazzy Wazzy doesn't take the time to bother to give analysis and it isn't my job to refute his bald assertions for him. I know... difficult concept...

I didn't say 'little effect'. That's you putting words in my mouth. Repeating the same stuff doesn't make me more convinced of it. Again, I haven't 'forgotten' any of this. I simply don't find it sufficient. There are more factors than just our manufacturing capability involved (one of which is the fact we weren't being invaded by anyone).

And ignoring it doesn't make it go away either nor does making factually errors add to your credibility at all (you aware aware that US Pacific territories were invaded during WWII, therefore making your claim factually incorrect, unless you want to amend your claim that the US mainland wasn't invaded, but than again... the British isles were not invaded either). The reality is that WWII was very much a war of attrition in which the allies and axis powers tried to wear down one another and the key to winning the war was the side that could outproduce the other. Just a few examples:

- The Battle of the Atlantic was the German U-boats trying to sink ships coming to the UK faster than they could be built or deliver supplies. The Germans lost because they were unable to sink ships and supplies faster than they could be built and delivered.
- The Battle of Brittan was another key battle in which Germany was trying to wear down the RAF to establish Air superiority for their invasion of the British Isles.
- The Eastern Front was pretty much a war of attrition in which the USSR and Nazi Germany tried to kill one another and destroy each others equipment faster than can be replenished. Obviously, the Axis powers failed to do this.
- The Pacific Theater was a war of attrition in which the USN and IJN tried to sink each other faster than other one could produce ships. The Japanese could not hope to win that sort of war with the US (remember, Japanese war victories, in the late 19th and early 20th century, against another industrial power, mostly realized on winning key strategic victories and achieving limited objectives. Japanese pre-US war doctrine seems to have reflected this doctrine since they would eventually lose a war of attrition).

Sorry, but all of this stuff is pretty easy to confirm and look up if you really do not believe me. The introduction of the US into the war, on the side of the allies, gave the allies a key production advantage which allowed the allies to outproduce the axis powers and defeat them though sheer numbers (remember, by 1943 the axis powers found themselves often outnumbered and outgunned in most major engagements from about mid year to the end of the war). While you are correct, to a degree, that pure numbers do not always give you a victory; WWII lasted 6 long years and that gives the one that could produce things faster than they could be destroyed, ended up being the one with a huge advantage.

[shunyadragon]

Wow, one thing! Be honest robrecht, the Republicans had no real input when this bill was being designed. And the Republicans had almost no say in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As opposed to Bush who had wide bipartisan support on his Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and on his Education Bill. The fact is Shuny is bias, liberals are just as closed mined (or not) as conservatives.

Your neglecting the fact that the Republicans refused to have any input in the process of the bill.

[seer]

Your neglecting the fact that the Republicans refused to have any input in the process of the bill.

If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, liberals don't have alternate viewpoints -

I said “secularists”. Secularists can compromise because they’re not locked into (alleged) revelation-based, beliefs...they're open to many views. Conversely, religionists cannot compromise their beliefs. How can you “compromise” THE IMMUTABLE TRUTH as revealed by the one-true-god? Answer: You can’t, not without being disobedient and risking divine punishment.

you are a perfect example.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Charity little Christian or you'll make god angry.

[Tassman]

If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.

Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

[shunyadragon]

Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

Actually I agree it is flawed, but the bottom line is that the Republicans when in power have refused to provide a healthcare system that provides healthcare for erveryone. Like Tassman said, we are the only developed nation that has provide this. It remains that, 'no compromise,' on most issues. This does reflect the over riding religious issue that extreme religious views will not compromise out side there belief system with a religious agenda. This in turn leads to violence against others ;who are different' over the millennia.

[seer]

I said “secularists”. Secularists can compromise because they’re not locked into (alleged) revelation-based, beliefs...they're open to many views. Conversely, religionists cannot compromise their beliefs. How can you “compromise” THE IMMUTABLE TRUTH as revealed by the one-true-god? Answer: You can’t, not without being disobedient and risking divine punishment.

This is nonsense. Which secularists? The Chinese? The Stalinists? North Koreans? The liberal left in this country?

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Charity little Christian or you'll make god angry.

The fact is bro, you are one of the most closed minded posters on this site.

[seer]

Actually I agree it is flawed, but the bottom line is that the Republicans when in power have refused to provide a healthcare system that provides healthcare for erveryone. Like Tassman said, we are the only developed nation that has provide this. It remains that, 'no compromise,' on most issues. This does reflect the over riding religious issue that extreme religious views will not compromise out side there belief system with a religious agenda. This in turn leads to violence against others ;who are different' over the millennia.

This is stupid even for you Shuny. Conservatives don't believe that the government is the solution for all of life's ills. The fact is these social programs are sending this country into bankruptcy. They are unsustainable. This is not a religious position, it is a rational one.

[seer]

Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

Well we offered them, like health saving accounts, tort reform, and tax credits, but Obama (peace be upon his names) wanted nothing to do with them. And we are the richest nation on earth because we have not accepted socialism to the degree that other Western nations have. But that is changing thanks to our liberals, our financial will be as broken as Greece in a few years.

[JimL]

If the bill was flawed at it core, why would they? And they did offer market based solutions, like tax credits, tort reform, and the ability of health insurance companies to sell nation wide. But it all fell on deaf ears. I mean we are not socialists like the liberals Shuny. We tend to look for free market solutions.

Actually the bill is flawed because republicans did have input and democrats unlike republicans understand the necessity to compromise. The aca has a lot of good in it, which even republicans can not deny, but do you think that they, the republicans, would have actually advocated for those things on their own. Damn straight they wouldn't have.

[seer]

Actually the bill is flawed because republicans did have input and democrats unlike republicans understand the necessity to compromise. The aca has a lot of good in it, which even republicans can not deny, but do you think that they, the republicans, would have actually advocated for those things on their own. Damn straight they wouldn't have.

No Jim, the Republicans would have taken a completely different line. And how do you compromise with socialism if you are not a socialist?

[JimL]

No Jim, the Republicans would have taken a completely different line. And how do you compromise with socialism if you are not a socialist?

Would've, could've, should've, but they never did and never had any intention to deal with the health care problems in this country. They've had ample time to do something seer. Why didn't they? Use your head now, try to be objective, why have they never done anything?

[Jedidiah]

Except that you never found any with the result that until the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the richest nation on earth was the only nation in the developed world without universal health cover.

We were wrong because everyone else was doing it so we should?

[seer]

Would've, could've, should've, but they never did and never had any intention to deal with the health care problems in this country. They've had ample time to do something seer. Why didn't they? Use your head now, try to be objective, why have they never done anything?

Well I can't get into their heads, but I don't see any reason for the Government to be doling out healthcare, or for the Government to take money out of your pocket, by force of law, and pay for my healthcare. Or my rent or my food, etc... Simple...

[shunyadragon]

We were wrong because everyone else was doing it so we should?

No, because everyone else provided health care, and all we provided was expensive inefficient emergency rooms.