Canuckistani

The Kelowna accord might have kept the Natives quiet a bit longer by throwing more money at them. Wouldn't have actually resolved anything. My understanding is that bill C45 is the trigger for this protest - how would the Kelowna accord have prevented that? As for living like the First Nations do, I'm not used to collectivist living, so probably wouldn't like it. But the people of the Osoyoos band certainly live a good life. The difference is that their chief has a you don't work you don't get money policy, and they've got off their asses and actually built a good economy. Also. I've worked with many people of Aboriginal heritage - they got paid the same wage as I did. Don't see what's wrong with that. I certainly wouldn't like to live in a godforsaken hole somewhere where there are no jobs, nothing to do. But then nobody is keeping them there, They're free to come to where the jobs are, and get one like everybody else, pay taxes like everybody else. The horror.

ah, so the two state solution is racist. Man there's a lot of racists out there. Seems to me even Israel was in favor of this racist position. But for sure, cast everybody that doesn't agree with Israeli Lebensraum policies as racist, and they'll start using terms like Lebensraum because once tarred why should they bother to be polite. Heck, there even seems to be a significant number of Israeli Jews who are racist in this fashion.

What precedent? A precedent is when a judge uses a prior judgement in the case he is ruling on. In this case, her acquittal was overturned, ie the ruling says she should not have been acquitted. If anything, the precedent here is that what she did is not permitted. They just said because of the extraordinary circumstances, the ones you are actually alluding to, ie police failure to act, she should not be tried again.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read what the OP said differently: I don't think the words exceptional and precedent go well together.

but it didn't set that precedent. The judges specifically said this was not a case of self-defense. They just said she shouldn't be tried again after being acquitted twice because of police failures. I do think there's a bias against men in the justice system, I just don't think this was a case of that. If they had ruled that she was justified in hiring a hitman, that would be a totally different matter. As for failures, in BC we had the Vanderhoof woman who stabbed her lover in the groin and watched him bleed to death. She was found guilty of manslaughter and given two years house arrest, because the judge thought she wouldn't do it again. Imagine if the gender roles had been reversed in that one.

Except they're not needed by anybody who has some skill. And the semi-auto rifles are sure popular with the mass killers and even the gangbangers. See what I'm saying here?

I've eaten plenty of moose that was shot with a Lee Enfield 303 or 30 06 bolt action. You do have more than one shot available, just have to take a little more time to chamber another round. If you're that much in a hurry that you have to fire multiple rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, you shouldn't be hunting in the first place. Or just get an automatic weapon and really spray some lead.

Say it isn't so. You mean the US not only does it tooooooooooooooooooooooo, but does it mooooooooooooooooooooore?

And you don't need to use a semi-auto rifle to hunt, as shown by all the people that do so with bolt action rifles. If you need to blast off shots that fast, you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.

As well as the inefficiencies of the multiple payer system. Also just read a piece that said the super rich are sucking up healthcare resources because they can afford to pay for them, which in turn of course raises costs for everybody else.

So the National Research Council has a pro Obamacare agenda. You seem to be the one with an agenda here.

Do you have some non-flawed statistics to back that up?

It's obvious: They're just featherbedding.Also, they're a bunch of commie pinkos:

What was their agenda? Seems to me you're the one with an agenda who doesn't want to accept the findings of this study.

http://jama.jamanetw...6967#qundefined

So every study is tainted, we know nothing, since there isn't one study out there that's not paid for by somebody. OK

No, you will find news articles sensationalizing very specific research findings. The research is often done in isolation - ie looks at a specific aspect, ignoring the bigger picture. The media then gets a hold of this and runs with it. In this case, this was a big picture study, and JAMA isn't given to sensationalizing. The researchers themselves, and other expert commentators were surprised that white middle class Americans with insurance were also unhealthier than the same cohort in other countries.

I made the mistake of calling it healthcare in the title. when the article is about health of various nations. Of course healthcare factors into that. But to say that these researchers twisted statistics is just silly on your part.

That's a good point. Not just different places, but as we see, subcultures in the same place. Urbonics for instance.

You are way overstating the claim. What you are presenting is Whorf's original idea, which was then roundly dismissed. Amazon tribesmen who had no names for colors still were able to distinguish them. Recent studies have shown some effects of language on perception, but nothing as drastic as what you claim. Read up on linguistic relativity.

Ah. The articles talk about white middle class people with health insurance having poorer health than their cohorts in other developed countries. It's not just the poor and minorities. That would indicate that the US health system is not performing well, even for those who have access to it. The rich can always buy the very best health care. In any country. So the rich in the US may not do worse than the rich in other countries, likely don't do better either. But if that's what your argument is about, so what?

This isn't a scientific board. It's a board where people express their opinions. You're free to hang on to your doubts, but it's not as if you've scored some major point of argument. The experts are expressing what they took from the data. That's a lot more meaningful than you saying you have no data. If you want to go by hard data, you're limited to saying you have no opinion, since you haven't seen the data yourself. Kind of limits your participation here, doesn't it? I've got guys in the field we're discussing saying they've looked at the data and here's what they think. You've got nothing. I win.

Hang on to your doubts. What do all those people involved in the field know.