Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (5228)	7/19/2001 4:27:27 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Personal request: In the future could you warn me that you've redirected me to the RWET. It's a lot like jumping into the first cleaning tank of a sewage treatment plant. Thanks. a March decision by the European Court of Justice that the EU can lawfully suppress political criticism of its bureaucracies and their leaders. There are so many "red flags" waving on this statement it's almost blinding. The red flags being "Rhetoric", "distorted rhetoric", "realllly distorted rhetoric". It would be worthwhile to actually look at the substance that the author of the editorial used. Of which the author provides no direct quotes or links to. Perhaps you've assessed the source of the author's opinion? the EU government sees "a clear responsibility to regulate the dissemination of ideas, because opinions can bubble up from individuals' selfish personal interests and create social disturbances," Same comments as above. Noting the additional use of the word "because". Very reminiscent of the rhetoric that other countries can only disagree with us "because" they hate us for our freedoms and economic success. I tend to be more data driven than ideologically or opinion driven. What are the facts [the source] for the author's opinion. Holland now allows doctors not only to assist in a suicide, but to kill patients they don't think deserve to live. There is certainly doctor assisted suicide in Holland. No challenge to that. I have this wild ass guess that I'll be hard pressed to find legislation in Holland that says: "Doctors can kill patients they don't think deserve to live." What's your guess? In Sweden the government spends 57% of gross domestic product; the average of European Union nations is 50%. The U.S., including state and local governments, spends 31%. What's the comparative data of quality of life in Sweden between that of the US? What's the more important comparison? Quality of life? or percent of GDP? Quality of life is much harder to compare than a simple comparison of allocation of GDP, but which is most important? Additional note: I recall seeing numerous conservative "editorials" citing that US taxpayers pay close to 50% of their income to taxes. Has it suddenly dropped to 31%, or is it just 31% for the purposes of this article. I'm not going to look them up, but perhaps my statement might jog your memory. Is it your recollection that the number typically bantored about is closer to 31% or 50%? jttmab P.S. In the US don't we have twelve average John and Jane Does decide whether someone deserves to live. The inalienable right to life....not quite sure what inalienable means. P.P.S. Doctor assisted suicide is an ugly, ugly problem. Having spent the last couple of weeks of life with someone that wasted away to a skeleton and suffered from excruciating pain with terminal cancer; barely able to communicate the simple request to end it all. I have difficulty in dealing with the notion that doctor assisted suicide is always wrong. I run across people from time to time that can easily accept an occasional death penalty error, i.e., an innocent being executed, but cannot accept a person's judgement about when they have suffered enough pain.