Once again, semantics -- is that all you got?
Posted By: lom on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: I believe she said "spoken like" - sm
sounds like ...Maybe you should look up the definition of semantics, because it sounds like your not very knowledgeable in vocabulary or word usage and inferred intent.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
semantics
One basic fact that not many think about but it still holds true: If there had NOT been racism, hatred and bigotry in this country agains blacks and other minorities - do you think there would have EVER been a need to enact legislation and PASS LAWS to protect those very people from being discriminated against in THE FIRST PLACE?. Racism has been prevalent in this country for hundreds of years and to have the nonchalant attitude regarding your remark about black people still living in the past COULD be insulting but it is not even worth commenting on anymore. I feel sorry for you.
Not semantics - Law. There was a need for the Civil Rights
movement of the 50s and 60s. That movement did the job and now it is all water under the bridge. Quit whining about slavery and mistreatment. Quit living in the past. That's all African-American's based their votes on in this election, was the past and skin color. It's racism and ignorance pure and simple. The hypocrisy is the democrats/liberals and their message of tolerance. Now it's the whites that are disciminated against and all tolerance is gone.
Socialized health care = semantics...
what it boils down to is, when you have the federal government start administering all health care, quality of care will go down, not up, and access to care will be even more difficult. You cited Medicare and Medicaid...both rife with waste and fraud. We read about it every other day. The VA system for soldiers is federally run...tell me how well THAT is working, and that is not for every person in the US. I would like a poll of rank and file Canadians...I would like to know what individuals think of their health system. The only one I saw quoted said 55% of his paycheck is taken off the top for taxes, and a large part of that is what funds the health care system. There ARE waiting lists for operations. And even if you have the money privately to pay for your own operation if time constraint is involved, you are NOT allowed to jump the "list." That is why many Canadians cross the border for emergent care and surgery. Just a couple of weeks ago there was the story of the two women with high-risk pregnancies who could not be hospitalized because there was nowhere to put them. They ended up in Seattle.
So no thanks. I would much rather have a full cost of premiums tax refund, which is what some have proposed. Yeah, you will still have to cough up the premiums for a year, but then if you take your refund at the end of the year and put it in the bank...voila. There are your premiums for the next year. And we can keep the quality of care we have and the access we have.
That would be my choice, far, far ahead of any kind of federal government subsidized and administered health care...which is what Hillary is proposing, only calling it "universal" instead of socialized. Same difference.
Semantics versus common sense...
As I mentioned previously, the phrase I mentioned was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constititution. I never mentioned citizens at all, and neither did that phrase.
What I did say is that the law of this land - and any country I am aware of - protects human life, and I'm pretty sure there is little argument that a pregnant woman is always pregnant with a human life...not a gopher, a lampshade, or a pickle. There has never been a human pregnancy that produced anything other than a human being. We (human beings) have laws to protect other human beings. I just don't understand why some people don't think unborn human beings should be included in that protection. Hiding behind religious differences, constitutional "technicalities," and "live and let live" rhetoric doesn't negate the fact that human beings give birth to human beings, and if you kill that human being - any human being, either in the womb or out, it is wrong, ethically, morally, by all human standards and all human laws in all countries of which I am aware.
Word, semantics, when socialist doesn't scare...sm
people enough, it gets elevated to communist and nazi just being inflammatory. We are Americans first, democrats and republicans second, period.
sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
|
