John Cuthber

I live in a ... place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right. And, once that place learns the falsehood of that statement it will be a better place. If you can get rid of capital punishment too, you will be well on the way to civilisation. Re "Okay...let's foot the bill for all Americans. Then we can pay for their doctor bills plus emergency room visits. Because you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse? " Last time I turned up at my doctor's I was seen inside 10 minutes- I wasn't particularly ill- it's just that you hear about the long waits, but not about the short ones. There's bound to be quite a lot of variation. Besides which, for twice the money as the NHS costs , you could almost certainly get a better service . As things stand, you pay twice the money and it's far from clear that the service is even as good. In some regards it's plainly not (though I realise yo are not going to accept that infant mortality and overall longevity are good markers.) It seem s that you are happy to pay twice as much for healthcare just to maintain a system that makes sure that some people, who can't afford it, suffer.

Re insurance you are all missing the point that, if the government underwrites healthcare it also underwrites the insurance. Since it has no shareholders it doesn't need to make a profit so it can be cheaper. Also it pools a larger group of risks which reduces it's costs. Re the state of play for employers- I believe that may be why the UK government is trying to make our system more like the US one.

Relatively few tannoy systems are made by tannoy. It has been a while since you actually rang off at the end of a phone call. Most of the people I meet who "have an axe to grind" have no axe, nor the equipment to grind it. A lot of musicians sign up to a record label, but they don't actually make records much any more

It's a symbol for an arrow and, in this case, it lets you know what the edit was.

Because you said "Just look at beauty: any particular thing isn't actually universally ugly or beautiful, " Now can we get back to the question of whether there was any sensible basis for doubting Obama's citizenship? If not, was it xenophobia? It might have been a simple smear campaign, but would it have worked against a white guy?

"Now, for Pete's sake, let's quit beating a dead horse and move on. " You mean the one where the US pays roughly twice as much for healthcare but doesn't get a better service? That's the biggest dead horse here. The numbers show it to be true. Even the web page you cited agrees that things like infant mortality (with all it's problems) and under 5 year mortality (which addresses those problems to some extent) are widely used and broadly accepted by, for example the WHO as measures of "fitness for purpose". It's difficult to argue against average lifespan as an indicator of good healthcare (even if a right-wing think tank disagrees). There's no question that the US pays more. You seem to accept it when you say "So? We also make more money. Generally speaking the more you make the more you spend.". Which is true enough, but an odd point of view. If you want to buy some bread, do you look round to see what shop will offer it to you for the highest price? Remember, we are not talking about paying a premium for a better product like getting nicer bread or having it delivered, it's a worse product that you buy- yet you seem happy to pay more for it. So, it seems to me that by continuing to try to argue, you are flogging a dead horse.

"Like any revolution of ideas, there will be those who with the creative imagination to explore and test these new ideas for themselves." We have and they leave a lot to be desired. "There will be those who stick their heads in the sands of denial like an ostrich." Yes, notably you. You keep denying that there is a problem with your idea. " You might be amused to know that the responses I have experienced here are a mirror image of those I've had at 'religious' forums. They like it even less then you do, so you have lots of company. " I'm not surprised. I may think that they are misguided, but I accept that they can usually spot blatant illogicallity so it's no wonder they don't accept your "message" either. " I have provided a taste of what is coming and inevitable." Nope, you have provided nothing but a jumble of words. "There is no stopping it now." You have yet to satisfactorily explain what "it" is. "Time is never on the side of ignorance." You may be right about that, but the question is which side is ignorant? "The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is. " No, the real tragedy will be if we are too busy chasing after bronze age myths to set ourselves free and embrace how much better we are than that. Now, I remind you that this is a discussion site so can I ask you to actually answer the questions people have asked- otherwise you will look like a troll.

I'm not sure if that's as ironic as "I'm not evading anything."

"Otherwise you can test the teaching on its own merits" I did. It failed.

If you read the wiki article you would realise that it has nothing to do with religion (it's just common sense really) However, I'm happy to give you a quick example of why begging the question isn't a valid debating technique and why you cannot assume the thing you are trying to prove, I'm going to prove that there is no God. number one of my assumptions is that there is no God. Therefore there is no God (see 1 above). Now Kla2, do you realise that this argument is dross? Do you understand that any argument that starts from what it's trying to prove is equally dross? (with the exception of a reductio ad absurdum argument which I suspect you wouldn't understand)

To be fair, this is not as wrong as it looks. "How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God?" In my experience, many so-called proofs of God make this assumption. That's why they are bollocks. Kla2 Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question and see if you can understand why your so-called proof is a logical fallacy. Though you seem to have overlooked the other fatal flaw: this assertion "When all things began, the Word already was." is self contradictory. If the Word exists then (whether you like it or not) it must have begun "when all things began" otherwise that time is not when " all things began". At best it's when " all things - apart from the Word- began". You may have noticed that I included a link to the wiki page about scientific evidence. I strongly suggest that you read it before you post again.

I got as far as the first line "When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God..." It's self- contradictory and it assumes there's a God so it's begging the question Epic fail. I'm not going to wade through 370 pages of dross. If there's actually any evidence* then let us know. Otherwise you might as well leave now. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Oh come on. Talking about the beauty of things and the nature of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the fact that there was never any sensible reason to doubt Obama's birthplace. It was a straightforward xenophobic attack.

"But how will science confront a religious [moral] ideal, not of human intellectual origin, but that meets all the criteria of their own discipline?" Get back to us if that actually happens. re." History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith. " Nobody ever questioned the existence of faith, so proving that it exists is a bit silly.

Incidentally, are you going to start calling water "hydronium hydroxide" to be consistent?

The point I was making is that none of the "left wing" loonies seem quite as weird as the right wing ones (though the latest post by Rigney shows Schultz getting close). Saying "I think we should rip his heart out and play football with it" is insensitive, and probably dumb in terms of swinging public opinion, but it's not as absurdly false as some of the claims made by the right wing like "Obama wasn't born in the US". One is a matter of opinion (albeit a minority view if taken literally) but the other is just not consistent with the real world.

If I travelled 3 seconds in time then I'd turn up roughly a hundred kilometres away because of the earth's orbital motion.

I did know the right answer, but I don't know how to set up the "spoiler" thing.

I didn't. I don't know much about Limbaugh .

Fuel cells are much more efficient then internal combustion engines.

It's the guy's personal opinion and protected as free speech. In particular, if you accept that Cheney is a war criminal (and I think that's certainly plausible) then ripping his heart out (after due process) might be viewed as a reasonable punishment.

Thanks. He certainly looks a bit of a fool, but he doesn't seem in the same league as the loony republican.

OK. I was wrong. I checked and found that aqueous ammonia does react with Al. A nice squeaky pop confirmed the production of hydrogen. However it remains the case that aqueous ammonia doesn't contain nearly as many hydroxide ions as you would expect from the name and so the name is still misleading.

Cemeteries already reuse space.