Canuckistani

Man, things are getting twisted here. According to Slate, 1200 people died with the help of a gun, and they acknowledge that's not a comprehensive list. The 900 figure is the average of 30 gun homicides a day.

Sorry, no. Gun homicides in the US are 11,000 a year = 30 a day. Total gun deaths are 30,000 a year = 82 a day. The latter, of course includes all those 4 yr olds accidentally shooting themselves or somebody else (as you will see in the Slate graphic.)

Can you prove that? 900 seems to be the correct estimate, so is it the well over that you're arguing against? And is it not being well over but just at 900 no problem. Probably it's less than 900, because I bet gun homicides go up in the summer, so it's an average of 30 a day, but was probable less in January.

Then we should ban booze. Oh, wait, we tried that, it didn't work.

There should be no bible class in a public school - teach all religions or none.

I'm all for it controlling it's production. But that would include allowing people to grow some for personal use. People will anyway, and no way the govt would go busting down homes for a couple of plants if pot were legal - they don't even do that now. I want the govt to control large scale production and sales of the stuff.

Why not? It's not an illegal plant. You probably can't sell it, at least not in finished form.

Why not? Their children are certainly educable and can become productive citizens, no? Sounds like racism to me.

Nope, it's legal to make your own wine and beer at home. The make your own places are just for people who lack the skills - they basically do everything for you except put it in bottles, from what I understand. Medicinal pot is nothing like oxy. People should be able to grow their own.

I was talking about recreational pot. Notice that brewing beer and wine is allowed, distilling it isn't. But the same holds true for medicinal pot. Most definitely somebody who has a permit to use medicinal pot should be able to grow their own - for one thing to save money. But I would legalize anyway, and allow growing small amounts, so it would bee a moot issue.

It would be silly to try to outlaw growing your own. Think of it as brewing your own beer or wine. Moonshine is more like allowing home production of crystal meth. A reasonable limit should be put on how much pot you can grow, and of course we can't sell it. I've certainly given and been given homemade wine or beer tho, which probably is not legal either.

Just to make this legible. Use the post plain text function - it will help in a case like this.

There is no perfect system. We could improve ours, no doubt. Without adding the private insurers that your darlings the Swiss have. I just don't see how adding private profit helps for insurance purposes. Canada has one of the lowest administration costs of the developed countries. France, also held up as a model is way up there in administration costs. But whatever, the US system is worse, much worse. We have nothing to learn from them except not to copy it. Given that as a a starting point, I'm open to new ideas. Probably be tough to get buyin from enough stakeholders tho, so we might just be stuck with making the best of what we've got. In terms of health outcomes and expense we're not doing bad at all. We're just being fed the "unsustainable" crap by people who want us to go the US way.

Yes. Nice try, but by jbg's logic, Israel should expand until there are no Arab or Persian or Muslim states left, since Israel is building population centers in the occupied territories. Next it will be Jordan is just across the Jordan from our population centers so we have to start settling Jordan. Etc. If Israel withdraws to 67 borders and keeps getting attacked, I would have no problem with them putting military outposts in the West Bank until security is established. Under these conditions I would also be in favor of our govt providing any and all support. But what kind of country uses civilians as their security measure? Oh, I know, not a country but terrorists are always accused of hiding behind civilians.

Actually I'll go with the Jungians and say they are archetypes of the collective unconscious. I have no more or less an idea if they exist vs a Christian God - both seem very unlikely to me to be what we consider objective reality. In fact by definition they can't be, since they surpass our objective reality. And our objective reality gets pretty shaky sometimes. My belief is that there is a universal all encompassing consciousness we are all a part of. I've had some experiences in that direction, but couldn't prove to you that my belief is the correct on. In fact it's likely to be incorrect, since it's being held by my very limited consciousness, and is almost certainly to be incorrect as far as you are concerned, since your limited consciousness is different from mine. I think.

They are life-style choices to a large degree. Drug use, obesity, driving without due care and attention at a safe speed, gun use. Maybe they should have called their findings the "American Mental Health Disadvantage." It wasn't always thus. Maybe the CIA really did put LSD in the drinking water, and they're just on a bum trip.

I always thought the quid pro quo would be each side formally acknowledging the other's right to exist.

I think you bankrupt them because putting the CEO's in prison would make the next batch too afraid to lie cheat and steal, so profits would be greatly reduced. Our system can't tolerate that, honesty is much too dangerous a concept. Or as Col. Jessep said.... (could use that line for half the discussions on this forum.)

Me. But as I said, we shouldn't apply our standards to those old timey folks. Trying to make sense of the bible will just mess with your head.

Yes. He lauded the sons who covered him, but cursed the son of the son who saw him naked. The bible is full of crap like this - different times, different people. We can't really understand them, nor should be take moral guidance from them.

Glad you're evenhanded about it, many people here aren't' in one way or another. I guess I'm not, since I think Israel needs to make the first move here, close the settlements. They are continued, day to day attacks on Palestine, so some Palestinians attacking back is understandable. But, if Israel did close the settlements, and attacks continued, I would have no problem with the Israeli military kicking ass and taking names as far as Palestinians are concerned. But your last sentence makes no sense. The precaution being taken is to support the actions that make no sense, therefore this action makes no sense. It's quite understandable that if I want to punch you in the nose, as a precaution I also hold a gun to stop you from retaliating. Nobody would agree that it's justified tho.

These are classes taught in public schools - a required part of the curriculum. This stuff should be taught in church. If schools want to teach religion, it should be comparative religion, not proselytizing. Don't see how this passes the separation of church and state:

As the wiki article says, many people agree with you that it makes no sense. And again, politics got involved with the writer just looking for an excuse for the holocausting of the Canaanites. The bible is full of stuff like that, including the New Testament. The book of John is deemed to be so anti-semitic because by the time it was written, Jews were actively helping to out and prosecute Christians along with the Romans. Hence Paul's trip to Damascus, and his conversion thereon.

Noah's son was Ham, Canaan was his son. For some reason Noah cursed Canaan for what Ham did. And all Ham did was see his dad nekkid, 'cause daddy was passed out drunk. Noah should have cursed himself, but you know how drunks are. Also, other places it says Ham was the second son, not the youngest, so they couldn't even keep that straight. To many editors, not enough reporters who were on scene would be my take.

Agree with the first part. Vilifying Israelis for aggression expansionism and policies that are harmful even to themselves doesn't seem any worse to me than the vilification the Palestinians are exposed to. Both sides here have not been playing well with others, both sides claim victimhood while being an aggressor. Israelis need to give Palestinians something to make peace for, ie a viable state. Palestinians need to quit the attacks. But settlements and their military defense are also a form of attack, taking land is about aggressive as it gets, so the Israelis need to stop their aggression as well.