Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Wow, you really expect me to help you prove your claim?
You made the claim, now back it up!

You see, this is how debate actually works, you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove said claim, the onerous of duties is upon you son.

Wrong.  You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 10:25:29 AM
Yet you seem to forget your history class, or did they teach you about the fact that the House was controlled by the opposing party?
Aside the fact that he accomplished what he set out to do, destroy the USSR.

Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim.  Now prove it, please.

----------------

It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... ).  It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.

Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people.  It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service.  Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?

To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:

Quote from: Minohtar, post: 8055933, member: 2247America joins the 20th century! Woohoo! :p

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:47:46 PM
Wrong.  You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:

Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim.  Now prove it, please.

----------------

It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... ).  It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.

Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people.  It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service.  Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?

To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:

You're asking me to prove the obvious?

Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?

Granted, the Soviet Union was suffering, as do all Nationalist Socialist Communist regimes, but Reagan knew this and pushed the USSR to the brink, then shoved them over the edge.

Without Reagan's plan, the USSR very well may have recovered and held it's grip, but it didn't.

From the outset, Reagan moved against détente and beyond containment, substituting the objective of encouraging "long-term political and military changes within the Soviet empire that will facilitate a more secure and peaceful world order", according to an early 1981 Pentagon defense guide. Harvard's Richard Pipes, who joined the National Security Council, advocated a new aggressive policy by which "the United States takes the long-term strategic offensive. This approach therefore contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of containment". Pipes's report was endorsed in a 1982 National Security Decision Directive that formulated the policy objective of promoting "the process of change in the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system". [The quotes from Peter Schweizer, Reagan's War.]

A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan's massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm

Pros and cons for the health care plan.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:47:46 PM
Wrong.  You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:

Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim.  Now prove it, please.

Find the USSR on a map.  Please post the image.

Quote
It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... ).  It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.

Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people.  It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service.  Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?

To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:

First, Canada has a crappy health care system.  Even PM Danny Williams thinks so (yet supports it like you).

Second, bringing in the free market and consumer-based products to the health care system is the solution -- not your socialist fantasy.

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:31:15 PM
You're asking me to prove the obvious?

Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?

hahaha

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "?  I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people.  Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th.  Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.

But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please.  It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion.   

Canada has around 50 million, while the US has over 300 million, half of which don't pay a dime in income tax. And where do you think the WHO gets their statistics? I'm sure Canada is on the up and up when it comes to records pertaining to their socialized medicine. The CBO has already predicted the costs are doubled from the original calculations. This will be a monumental mess if allowed to go forward.We already know there will be death panels, albeit not their true name, but in essence that's what they will be.Bean counters making life and death decisions. People will die while they decide their fate, but then that will be the intension. The only good that has come of this SC opinion is that it has caused a huge backlash. Obama can play the this is not a tax game, but he isn't know for his truthfulness.

Sci FI, you're a committed leftist. Where is all the money you'll need, for everything you want, supposed to come from?

Quote from: Indy on July 02, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
Canada has around 50 million, while the US has over 300 million, half of which don't pay a dime in income tax. And where do you think the WHO gets their statistics? I'm sure Canada is on the up and up when it comes to records pertaining to their socialized medicine. The CBO has already predicted the costs are doubled from the original calculations. This will be a monumental mess if allowed to go forward.We already know there will be death panels, albeit not their true name, but in essence that's what they will be.Bean counters making life and death decisions. People will die while they decide their fate, but then that will be the intension. The only good that has come of this SC opinion is that it has caused a huge backlash. Obama can play the this is not a tax game, but he isn't know for his truthfulness.

They have the craziest ranking system.  No wonder libs love it.  For example, for every household who can afford health care directly, they give you a lower ranking.  It's the stupidest ranking system ever...

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
They have the craziest ranking system.  No wonder libs love it.  For example, for every household who can afford health care directly, they give you a lower ranking.  It's the stupidest ranking system ever...

Indeed the rankings are based more upon how socialist the healthcare system is, rather than on how good the healthcare is.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 05:40:46 PM
Find the USSR on a map.  Please post the image.

Funny, but stupid.  That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself.  Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?

Quote
First, Canada has a crappy health care system.  Even PM Danny Williams thinks so (yet supports it like you).

I don't care what Danny Williams thinks.  Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO.  You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Second, bringing in the free market and consumer-based products to the health care system is the solution -- not your socialist fantasy.

Prove it. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 08:30:01 AM
Funny, but stupid.  That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself.  Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?

When and why did the Soviet Union fall.

QuoteI don't care what Danny Williams thinks.  Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO.  You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.

If I buy a Yugo as opposed to a Mercedes, is that "proof" that the Yugo is a "better" car. Or is it simply "proof" that the Yugo is a CHEAPER car. You know, fewer features not quite as safe, etc. You are arguing that the Canadian system is "better" because it's cheaper. To which the obvious answer is because it offers fewer features. As usual, you want to have it both ways. So it covers everybody. If the stock answer in Canadian Healthcare is: "take two aspirins, and I'll put your name on the waiting list", how exactly is that better? There have been a number of cases - I pointed out the death of Natasha Richardson - where Canadian rationing has caused the death of the patient. Canadian medicine rations the most common of tests carried out here in the US. There are 7 to 9 month waits for an MRI in Canada,
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php
something you can walk in an get in the same day here in the US. 

QuoteProve it.

You prove that simply because it cost less, Canadian Healthcare is better.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 08:48:07 AM
When and why did the Soviet Union fall.

That's what I'm asking you, Holmes.

Quote
If I buy a Yugo as opposed to a Mercedes, is that "proof" that the Yugo is a "better" car. Or is it simply "proof" that the Yugo is a CHEAPER car.

Too bad that your side sort of spews rhetoric about the unbearable costs of Obamacare every second of every news conference and ad.

Quote
You know, fewer features not quite as safe, etc. You are arguing that the Canadian system is "better" because it's cheaper.

Or maybe because the WHO rates it higher than our own?

QuoteTo which the obvious answer is because it offers fewer features.

Prove it.

QuoteAs usual, you want to have it both ways. So it covers everybody. If the stock answer in Canadian Healthcare is: "take two aspirins, and I'll put your name on the waiting list", how exactly is that better? There have been a number of cases - I pointed out the death of Natasha Richardson - where Canadian rationing has caused the death of the patient. Canadian medicine rations the most common of tests carried out here in the US. There are 7 to 9 month waits for an MRI in Canada,
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php
something you can walk in an get in the same day here in the US. 
You prove that simply because it cost less, Canadian Healthcare is better.

And does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM
That's what I'm asking you, Holmes.

Son, you simply aren't smart enough to talk your way around me. That: "answer a question with a question, because I don't know the answer", BS won't cut it here. If you have no idea of the most basic facts of geopolitical history, than you are simply regurgitating talking points you don't even understand.

QuoteToo bad that your side sort of spews rhetoric about the unbearable costs of Obamacare every second of every news conference and ad.

Or maybe because the WHO rates it higher than our own?

Maybe because, being better informed than you are, we know that WHO rates healthcare on the amount of government involvement in Healtcare. So a system with a large private healthcare sector - the US, rates lower than a system with a large government healthcare sector - Canada. IOW, the socialist UN rates things on a socialism scale.

QuoteProve it.

Child when we do post the links supporting our point of view you simply ignore them, I'm tired of trying to be cooperative with a mindless ideologue, so Phuck you.

QuoteAnd does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?

When you need an MRI in Canada you get placed on a waiting list. When I need an MRI here in the US, my doctor simply gives me a list of sites affiliate with his practice and a prescription/consult on what he would like done.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM


Prove it.

For someone with all the answers, you sure have a problem debating.
When stumped, you simply sidestep the question, and shout "Prove It" as if this somehow palliates you from actually disproving the point.
Then when proof is granted, you simply ignore the post and move onto the next, only to proclaim victory by shouting "Prove It".

Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2012, 09:51:37 AM
For someone with all the answers, you sure have a problem debating.
When stumped, you simply sidestep the question, and shout "Prove It" as if this somehow palliates you from actually disproving the point.
Then when proof is granted, you simply ignore the post and move onto the next, only to proclaim victory by shouting "Prove It".

Why are you surprised? The lib/prog approach to everything is to force someone else to do the heavy lifting. "Other people's money," the sine qua non of lib/prog policies, without which NONE of their programs are possible, is necessarily the product of other people's work and/or investment.