Gaf The Horse With Tears

You do realize that it was Tina Fay, pretending to be Sarah, that said she could see Russia from her house? (BTW, you can see Russia from parts of Alaska)

Voting is not discriminitory... not allowing an issue to come to a vote at all that a portion of the populace wants addressed is. two examples from this thread... That 18% of the populace that thinks the world is the center of the solar system (you know, the crazy people). Rolling our collective eyes at them is discrimination, warranted yes, but discrimmination none the less. Now, if it came to a vote (you know, in the bizzarro world) and 82% of the population voted it down... thats not discrimmination. case 2 is the 11% (approximatly 3.8million people) of the population of Canada that wants the Canadian healthcare system reformed to allow more instances where an individual can pay out of pocket for thier own insurance. Telling them thier concern is not worthy of reform is discrimination. Telling them that thier concern is something for the Provinces to decide is discrimmination. Bring their concern to a vote or at least being open to Parliment debating it would be the non-discriminatory stance. How is voting not discrimination? Because the people in questions concern/belief/creed is at least being acknoledged as worthy of consideration.

It is the strong and consistent policy of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and Harvard School of Public Health to treat all community members with respect, to provide an environment conducive to learning and working, and to ensure equal access to rights, privileges and opportunities without regard to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, veteran status or disability. Harassment on the basis of these characteristics is inconsistent with the above principles and violates obligations of non-discrimination imposed by imposed by law and Harvard policy.

I did replay to that. You do not have to part of a minority to be discriminated against but toi make you happy.. I'll say some more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination Case Law for Political Discrimination: http://supreme.justia.com/us/427/347/ http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/507/case.html You don't the WORLDS definition of discrimination... I can't do anything about that. I've explained my position, repeatedly. I have linked proof.. over and over. Any time you discount a cross section of the populace simply because you don't like what they are saying/doing... you are practicing discrimination. They do not have to be a racial minority, gay, transgender or any of the ohter groups you mentioned. Now, are you done insulting me yet?

Dude... I explained myself repeatedly in this "debate". Your refusal to accept my explination is not the same thing as me not explaining.

Perhaps instead of all the crap you have been responding to that I didn't say you should have read what I did say. I know they had a voice for the poll but our esteemed friend wrote thier concerns off as not worthy of consideration in any national reform. That is a form of discrimination. As soon as she said it should be decided by the provinces without any legal reasoning she was practicing political discrimination. I'm glad you are finally done with this topic. You are starting to get irrantional.

Wow, thats a whole lot of "not what I said at all". Are you done kicking that horse yet? Really, it's dead. Why don't you focus on what I have actually said rather than some wild far out interpritaion you have come up with all on your own. OK, I'll try one more time... there is a differance bewteen discounting one persons vies and discounting the views of a significant portion of the population. What we are talking about is not discriminating against people for how they vote.. but discriminating against them by never giving them a voice at all.

The discrimination comes in when they are treated differently than any other group in the debate about what should be done. In this case... when they are told that thier grief can be handled at the state level while veryone elses can be handled at the federal level. When this same thing is said to gay when fighting for the right to marry, it's discrimination. It's still is here. and thank you Slogo for actually seeing where I cam coming from.

As long as there is no mandate to go with it but I think we already have two public options... Medicaid and Medicare. I did not say I agree with it being a Right though.

I do beleive that people have been argueing that Healthcare is a Civil Right. Infact, trying googleing Hearlthcare and Right. Torn... treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." The world disagrees with you. You don't have to belong to a racial or sexual minoroty to be disriminated against. According to the UN.. here is a list of the major types of discrimination: Age discrimination Appearance discrimination Birth status discrimination Cultural discrimination Disabilities, discrimination based on Ethnic discrimination Gender discrimination Language discrimination National minority, discrimination Nationality discrimination Political discrimination Property, discrimination based on Race discrimination Religious discrimination Sexual orientation discrimination Social origin discrimination

OMFUCKINGGOD. When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige. In the example given above... we are told that 11% of the population want more options to pay for healthcare out of pocket rather than be in the Federal system. We were told, that the provinces should be the ones deciding that, not the Fed. How is it discrimination in one case but not the other? In both cases a small percentage of the population want something the majority does not. Both cases have people who do not want the benefit for themselves but do support the people wanting it.

I don't deny that. I did not say this: "so you're saying that any time a vote is taken, we're discriminating against anyone who wasn't a part of the "winning" group? so every election we have is discriminatory? the entire nation, and everyone in it, is prejudiced, due to "majority rules"?" I did nto say anything close to that.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? When people say that we should lets the states decide the issue of Gay marrige... they are told, by people on the left, that doing so is allowing discrimination. Because some states MIGHT bar Gay marrige. In the example given above... we are told that 11% of the population want more options to pay for healthcare out of pocket rather than be in the Federal system. We were told, that the provinces should be the ones deciding that, not the Fed. How is it discrimination in one case but not the other? In both cases a small percentage of the population want something the majority does not. Both cases have people who do not want the benefit for themselves but do support the people wanting it. If you don;t understand my position.. I'm sorry. I can only guesse that you are trying to find something to disagree with me about. I've explained it as plainly as I can.

PUsh back agains the bailouts is what started the whole TEA party movement. BTW... one of the major reasons that Ford is hiring those 1800 people and investing all that money... is all the Tax breaks that KY is giving Ford for doing it. Also, you should read about those Wikileaks... Ford took bailout money.

I agree, that is fuckign stupid. God thing thats not what I said at all.

TRy reading my respones. I've explained it already. Or you could just read the whole paragraph it's in. Personally, I think you are failing to see it because you dont want to.

OK Ford investing $600million and hiring 1800 new workers. Not sure it counts though.. Ford didn't take any bail-out money.

11% is not one or anyone. It's 11%. It's a group. A group of people. Anytime you dismiss a group of people, you are discriminating. Exactly how large does a group have to be before they count in your views? I'm not being foolish, thanks for the insult. I am being truthful and straight forward. You are advocating discrimination against a GROUP of people who do not share your political views. A little over 1Tenth of the population. I can think of a list of causes that Liberals advocate for that encompass small percentages of the population. Gay rights being one that comes easyest to mind. A good portion of them are based on political idieas. Why is it disrimination to discount/right off/ignore thier voices but not simular groups with conservatives views? Civil Rights do not end when you cross over into conservative thoughts. ,

Sorry, but thats exactly the definition of Category. Any group that has something in common is a category. Hence the original group being shown in the poll in question. If they were not a category they would not have been listed with a % next to them. "cat·e·go·ry noun \ˈka-tə-ˌgȯr-ē\plural cat·e·go·ries Definition of CATEGORY 1: any of several fundamental and distinct classes to which entities or concepts belong 2: a division within a system of classification"

"certain group or category" "a person or thing based on the group, class, or category"

"In sociology, discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.[1] The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[2] Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries. In some countries, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative effects of discrimination." "dis·crim·i·na·tion   /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] –noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate" I beg to differ and so does every definition I can find.

So, If I read correctly... out of pocket health costs are going up at a higher rate due to the Healthcare reform? and over all costs? and Doctors are going to get paid less for giving care? and the costs of Medical Malpractice insurance? Where does that stand?

I dont think Bush stole his second election... Kerry lost because Kerry sucks. Also, that does not expalin why Europe is falling apart. BTW, I tried to send you a direct mail but you have me blocked.

It's because people want to adopt the systems that we see failing.. right now. Look at the riots. Look at the countries going into default. Not one of you will address these things. Where is the money going to come from to cover the costs? The UE is on the brink of collapse. Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal.... all going under... All for the same reason... Debt due to entitlements they cant pay for. Canada's debt problem is worse than the US's. England and France are not much better off... Germany and France are talking about pulling out of the Euro. All due to Debt caused by entitlements.

Are you fucking kidding? I NEVER SAID OUR SYSTEM WAS BETTER. NOT ONCE. Why would I expalin why I think our system is better than Canada's if I didn't actully say I beleive that our system is better? As for the gay thing, let me try to explain in smaller words. Siren discounted 11% of the population. She did so by saying that the provinces could handle thier needs or not. For what ever her reasons, addressing thier concerns is not worthy of the Central government. When Gay marrige comes up. people say they the Central Government needs to make Gay marrige legal so thier rights are not trampled on. If someone says they think that it is something that the states should provide they are labled a homophobe or worse. They are accused of not careing for the Rights of the Gays. I want to know why that 10% is treated one way and the 11% the exact oppisite. If you somehow translate that to me calling Siren a gay basher or a homophobe... well.. you really need to work on your reading comprehension.