Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
yes, but they charge other people to pay for people who can't afford treatment.
ZOMG! Nationalised healthcare is what shall bring the fall of American nation!
Forget terrorists, crime, poverty, drugs and arms trade, forget fighting wars in pretty much every continent on earth.
Nationalised healthcare will be the death of American nation. Because sponsoring war is so much better than making sure elderly can get medicine!
then why don't you support the idea that the wealthy no longer have to be so encumbered with the bills of vets?
because, as we all know, the wealthy are the people most hard-done-by under any government policy
lol, and they care about your rights too, their rhetoric of oppression not being a way for them to continue to hold power and influence, but in fact, the cries of the subjugated. They are your brother, man!
Originally posted by inimalist
then why don't you support the idea that the wealthy no longer have to be so encumbered with the bills of vets?because, as we all know, the wealthy are the people most hard-done-by under any government policy
lol, and they care about your rights too, their rhetoric of oppression not being a way for them to continue to hold power and influence, but in fact, the cries of the subjugated. They are your brother, man!
So what you're saying is that the "socialistic" policy of fairness is actually of benefit to the wealthy?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
ZOMG! Nationalised healthcare is what shall bring the fall of American nation!Forget terrorists, crime, poverty, drugs and arms trade, forget fighting wars in pretty much every continent on earth.
Nationalised healthcare will be the death of American nation. Because sponsoring war is so much better than making sure elderly can get medicine!
I though that America had already fallen! 😠
Originally posted by inimalistVets are the only ones who should be covered by socialized medicine as they were wounded on behalf of USA, thus USA owes them a debt.
then why don't you support the idea that the wealthy no longer have to be so encumbered with the bills of vets?because, as we all know, the wealthy are the people most hard-done-by under any government policy
lol, and they care about your rights too, their rhetoric of oppression not being a way for them to continue to hold power and influence, but in fact, the cries of the subjugated. They are your brother, man!
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Vets are the only ones who should be covered by socialized medicine as they were wounded on behalf of USA, thus USA owes them a debt.
I don't agree. I'd say anyone who does anything that involves a benefit to their country and is subject to an accident at work is wounded on behalf of their country.
Originally posted by inimalistwhat are your thoughts about wounded members of Hamas or Hezbullah? Should they be supported by their government?
I don't think that's a fair question here...as we know Hamas employs terrorism. Technically more paramilitary and not a well establish army like the US and UK military.
If you change Hamas to Fatah then it would be a more valid question.
(just an observation)
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't think that's a fair question here...as we know Hamas employs terrorism. Technically more paramilitary and not a well establish army like the US and UK military.If you change Hamas to Fatah then it would be a more valid question.
(just an observation)
The US uses shock and awe (TERRORISM).
Mercenary contractors (paramilitary) people are still dying "for their country". The US uses them too.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The US uses shock and awe (TERRORISM).Mercenary contractors (paramilitary) people are still dying "for their country". The US uses them too.
HUH?!
Mercenaries don't die for the cause of any country. Who told you that fairy tale? They fight for money and recognizition...nothing more.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosy'know, we sent them over, we told them to do dangerous shit and fight and get their limbs blown off, the least we could do is fix the wounds we inflicted upon them.
What if the war they were part of turns out to be detrimental to the USA?Why would anyone want to moralize health care?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
y'know, we sent them over, we told them to do dangerous shit and fight and get their limbs blown off, the least we could do is fix the wounds we inflicted upon them.
The US army is currently volunteer, they knew perfectly well they could be placed in danger and besides the US doesn't necessarily owe them a debt (your condition for state funded healthcare) if the war they fought in made things worse for the US.
Mind you I have nothing against socialized healthcare (for vets or otherwise) I just find your process of criteria to be skewed.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Mercenaries don't die for the cause of any country. Who told you that fairy tale? They fight for money and recognizition...nothing more.
They get hired by a country to fight and die for said country's cause, that's all I mean. If soldiers in standard armies deserve recognition then so do mercenaries.
The US uses shock and awe (TERRORISM).Mercenary contractors (paramilitary) people are still dying "for their country". The US uses them too.
I'm sorry, mercenary contractors work for money, not for their country and they are not under orders to sacrifice their limbs. We don't owe them a damn thing. Very hilarious, comparing the two, and inaccurate. IT also shows your haphazard and biased view.
As for shock and awe, that's not terrorism, terrorism is literally targeting civilians.
Excuse the wikipedia quote:
Shock and awe, technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.
Since this doesn't involve trying to kill civilian workers, women, and children, regardless of honor, rules, or previous diplomacy, but instead frightening the enemy military forces into surrender, thus saving lives on both sides.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm sorry, mercenary contractors work for money, not for their country and they are not under orders to sacrifice their limbs. We don't owe them a damn thing. Very hilarious, comparing the two, and inaccurate. IT also shows your haphazard and biased view.
They get hired by a country to fight and die for said country's cause, that's all I mean. If soldiers in standard armies deserve recognition then so do mercenaries.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Since this doesn't involve trying to kill civilian workers, women, and children, regardless of honor, rules, or previous diplomacy, but instead frightening the enemy military forces into surrender, thus saving lives on both sides.
So in other words it's a way of spreading . . . terror? The military can gloss over shock and awe however they like, it's still borders terrorism in my book.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
its not terrorism as its not targeting civilians. Using a show of arms to make people surrender has been a tactic for years.
By your definition not mine. I'm using ya know the actual meaning of TERRORism. It also happens to be the one you would fine as the first definition in a dictionary. The idea that TERRORism has to target civilians is a convenient way of justifying the use of TERROR, nothing more. Obviously targeting non-combatants is reprehensible but it is not a requirement for causing . . . TERROR.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
And Nemesis has a point.
Yes, he does.