1,782 Forum Posts by "Christopherr"
By the way, guys, this happened to another dude in the same SS division as this guy just last year. He was "just a guard" too, but what was found out was that an SS guard at a death camp meant that he played a role in the killing.
You really think SS guards, the elite branch of the military, did nothing in the camps? No, they were cycled around and given jobs, some of which included playing a direct role in the killing, as Kumpf did when he was given the job of finding still-living bodies and killing them. This is why the SS division in the camps was called Death's Head.
This ordeal's been going on for decades. The law wants to finish what it started, and you should know that he wasn't 88 back in the day. He shouldn't be allowed to just say, "Fuck you guys, now I'm too old to be convicted!" and go off scot-free.
You can't accurately say he was forced, because SS members such as himself were the most loyal Nazi supporters--almost every single SS member was there because they really wanted it. With the notion that he was probably willfully a member of the SS, we surely know he served in death camps due to the fact that SS members were rotated between divisions and all SS members were aware of the death camps.
I don't know if physicians per capita is very useful data, though. On one end, a poor country might have few doctors and poor technology, whereas a rich country could have few doctors and good technology. Yet in the middle we see countries with mid-grade technology and higher numbers of doctors.
I mean, doctors are still in high demand either way, but in countries with better healthcare, not as many people need to become doctors.
At 3/15/09 04:37 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I have a good "Economics Naturalist" question:
Why are there less doctors/population in the US, if docs get paid much more in relative and in absolute terms in the US?
Part of it is that we're more privatized. More socialization means more people coming in for care, which ultimately means more doctors. That can't be everything, though, because the more socialized Canada has less doctors per capita than the US.
At 3/14/09 05:30 PM, Brick-top wrote: Politicians aren't Scientists. Therefore they do not understand it.
But I wonder what the world would be life if they were. Should there be a law passed proclaiming anyone who wishes to be involved in Politics needs a legitimate degree?
On the BBS or in real life?
At 3/14/09 10:36 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 3/14/09 10:19 PM, Proteas wrote:I saw that stuff on the news back when people were gearing up for y2k. I know that they're as impracticle as any of the other rounds but they're just so beutiful.
Oh, staff? I think I found an exotic shell for you; Dragon's Breath Flamethrower ammo. Clicky.
I figure it would be great for scaring the hell out of someone. Intimidation is a great tool.
You could do serious damage with it if you were in a dry area, like Arizona to West Texas.
At 3/13/09 08:45 PM, wdonica wrote:At 3/13/09 03:07 AM, Tancrisism wrote: But should he be jailed for three years?Would you think that jail time correct if he had thrown a shoe at Obama?
If a Muslim tossed his shoes at the Chosen One, Democrats would call for the death penalty.
At 3/11/09 07:22 AM, Elfer wrote: The pay gap between universal healthcare and private healthcare is largely made up by malpractice insurance costs.
Malpractice insurance costs won't go away with universal healthcare, though. They're just so damned high, the government will never include them in benefits, and if they did, we'd feel the hurt in taxes. I mean, even in the public hospitals, insurance for an ob-gyn is more than the vast majority of the nation's salaries (sometimes over $200,000). The costs just vary for the doctor depending on how cheap the entity hiring him can get it.
The reason it's so high could be better fixed by fixing the legal system and its vague definitions of malpractice, but that will never happen in a government created largely by lawyers for lawyers. Should it be done, though, an ob-gyn wouldn't have to throw money away on insurance to protect himself from getting slapped with a lawsuit for delivering a baby with a birth defect (or other stupid things doctors get sued for).
Universal healthcare (or some degree of it) is a terrible idea to support if one is a physician, but on the bright side, there are things about the job the government can't fuck up too badly:
-Respect
-Ease of getting medicine (we get lots of trial packets and can self-prescribe)
-Good job security
-Great benefits
I genuinely love what I do, and I would work myself equally hard if my salary went down (even though my specialty is extremely stable).
At 3/8/09 05:21 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:At 3/8/09 05:06 PM, Christopherr wrote: Notice how every time he talks about raising taxes on the rich and on Wall Street (which is very often), stock prices drop? That's because the economy has a large basis in faith, and Obama hurts that.That statement seems to assume Obama is the only factor. Bush didn't talk about taxing the rich, but the stocks were falling regardless.
I never said he was the only factor; I just said the president is a very large factor in the stock market.
It seems less and less like coincidence that every time he talks about it, the stocks show noticeable drops. And that makes sense, because the stock market has a basis in prediction of future stocks, and if the president says that he's going after them, the stocks lose value.
Obama has played a large part in the economy ever since he became the Democratic front-runner in the primaries.
Notice how every time he talks about raising taxes on the rich and on Wall Street (which is very often), stock prices drop? That's because the economy has a large basis in faith, and Obama hurts that.
At 3/5/09 11:36 AM, JoS wrote: I heard they are going to make Betty, Barbie's 'fat friend".
Well, then they'd have to make a wingman for Ken so he may pound Barbie's snooch without getting blindsided by the whale.
At 3/5/09 10:40 PM, Elfer wrote: I finally had a break from course work, so I decided to do some SCIENCE!
*Cue Ozzy's Iron Man*
I suppose the issue isn't whether we're more creative or not nowadays. We can pretty much be sure that something is hampering creativity and individuality in the modern day.
As to whether schools are doing it, I'm not sure. I'd say that gifted programs do cultivate an ability to think analytically, but I don't think they're particularly helpful for creativity, whereas regular education is primarily fact-based. Given the very, very socialistic nature of the public education system, I'm not surprised that we cater to the lowest common denominator.
Alright guys, I'm gonna lay down some new info here:
-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE IS A FUCKING GREAT MOVIE.
-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE IS A FUCKING GREAT MOVIE.
-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE IS A FUCKING GREAT MOVIE.
Oh man, it hit me right here *<3 <====*. Seriously, it's on my mental list of favorites now.
At 3/5/09 12:36 PM, Brick-top wrote:At 3/5/09 12:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:It doesn't really support the Science/God-God/Science suggestion. So I'm cliaming satire.At 3/5/09 12:27 PM, Brick-top wrote: SHouldn't satire be in General?I did not see it as satire. Wall of text though AGH.
It's a string-theory/tenth dimension argument.
Maybe you lack the ability to visualize things through any eyes but yours. It doesn't look like he's trying to prove that God exists, but instead try to gain understanding on how and where a God would exist, should one exist. In that sense, Science "supports," as in allows for, a God, but doesn't necessarily prove it.
If you think it's satire, then provide something or rethink yourself, because nobody else has so far.
At 3/5/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: When virtually every animal in the world has a world view that seems pathetically incomplete and local to us, isn't it sheer hubris for us humans to think that we know everything?
It's sheer hubris for us humans to even think we possibly canknow everything, for that matter.
At 3/5/09 03:21 PM, ThePretenders wrote: Lol, I served the motherffucking player.
I play the Vista's free chess too much already. I like to play on high difficulty, but sometimes I put it on highest, and then it rapes my mind. I CRIED THE WHOLE TIME.
When I was in school, I did really well on standardized testing... But I never felt smarter than the other smartest kids. Like, there was this one girl who I did better than on standardized testing but got the same grades I got on everything. The only difference was that I worked my ass off getting those grades while she did the minimum amount of work.
It was disheartening.
At 3/4/09 04:13 PM, fli wrote: I don't know about the this thing about fema (other than what I remember during Katrina)--
but i saw a picture of the prison camp, and I think i saw that in a website about Mananzar--
a place where we kept the Japananse Americans during WWII...
Why would that have to do anything with Fema?
Nothing, unless FEMA has secret time-traveling machines along with their secret camps.
At 3/4/09 09:41 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Please Discuss.
Discuss what? The topic got blocked because you didn't provide any commentary, so you reposted... and replaced what little commentary you had with a summation of the already-short article.
What are you saying? Why are you saying it? Are you trying to promote a goal?
At 3/4/09 05:53 PM, Al6200 wrote: Generally I don't think that any charities should have tax return status. It makes no sense that the government should prefer me giving another $10,000,000 to Harvard's endowment, instead of spending $10,000,000 on buying stuff or hiring employees. And it's not about narrowing inequality, charities are often transfers from one rich person to another rich person, not from a rich person to a poor person (see top colleges multi-billion dollar endowments).
I believe the legislation was created to give incentive to give to charity, since people are generally pretty selfish and often need some coaxing to do good. Drawbacks aside, could tax return status for charities actually be a more efficient method of government contribution to social programs than the current bureaucratic methods?
Not an expert on charitable giving to be honest. Is there a lawyer on Newgrounds?
I believe that BrianEtrius is a semi-lawyer. I thought lawyers were heartless bastards, so what would you need ask him regarding a topic on charity?
At 3/4/09 07:01 PM, aninjaman wrote: You know whats missing?
Any helpful discussion whatsoever on your part?
Any proof this is true.
Oh, links, sorry. Should you keep your ear to the ground and watch the daily news on a major US network, you'd hear at least some version of it. Here's some research, though, all taken off the front page of a simple, two-second Google News search for "Obama charity tax returns".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/27c harity.html?_r=1
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/03/why-
make-300000-when-250000-is-so-much-more/
At 3/4/09 03:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Happy belated birthday to Christopher.
I hope everyone realizes that I was in no way actually angry.
Obama's recent plan regarding tax returns on charitable donations is taking a huge step away from the norm. Previously, charitable donation nearly always yielded tax returns, but Obama wants to cut tax returns for wealthy people, the same wealthy top 2% donating over 40% of all charity monies in the US.
I've been watching on the news that not only will he be destroying incentive for these people to donate, but that isn't my main objection. My main objection is, according to the news I've watched through the day, that the government gets to pick and choose what charities are eligible for tax returns. For example, Planned Parenthood, because it was a source of Democratic campaign funds, will be eligible, whereas something such as an anti-abortion charity could (and most likely would) be denied. Also, government charities obviously would be automatically given tax return status.
So the questions for discussion are:
-Does the federal government have a right to pick and choose what charities have tax return status?
-Is it even proper at all that the Democratic party, a party with a history of championing what is good for the public, be removing the incentive to give to charity?
-Should a government charity receive preferential treatment over a private one?
NOTE: I ask these questions not to argue, but to gain knowledge on the issue (because frankly, I'm not an expert on charitable giving). I've given my opinion on it, and I would like to hear justification from the other sides of the issue (although, like me, I doubt most people here are experts on charitable giving). So please, try and remain civil, and aim not to disprove anyone, but instead use each other to grow in understanding.
I don't know anymore. What is "conservative" now? "Conservative" used to mean small-government, common-man-supporting, fiscally responsible people. Now the "conservatives" are big-government, big-business people who spend as much money as the liberals.
I consider myself conservative, though, a moderate one at that. However, by today's standards, I guess I could be called ultraconservative, because I wish to retain the conservative identity from many years past, further back than most current conservatives, to the simpler times where people didn't need the government so much and everything weren't so polarized.
At 3/3/09 09:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote: What if the power that is called god is instead the 'universe' & outside of it as well.
That way, we are like the flea on a flea on a louse that rides an elephant . In otherwords, of no actual significance at all EXCEPT in our own minds .
That isn't what our organized religious clubs are preaching at all.
You'd fit in well with the old transcendentalist movement.
Thoreau, Whitman, the people who felt that God was in everything.
FUN FACT:
The easy way to temporarily fix Social Security in the US would be for Americans to have more children.
Did you know a third party exists in British Columbia just for this issue?
You'd like them. Plus, they push exactly what you want, a 32-hour work week.
And I only looked them up because I love you so much.
Name: Chris
Party affiliation: Republican
Gender: Male
Country: USA
1 Abortion
Against abortion, for killing babies.
2 Gay marriage
Yeah, sure, gay people can get married to women if they want.
3 Oil vs. Alternative energy (wind power, water power, etc.)
I voted that lazy people (welfare livers, children) be put to work in mines, rat wheels, etc.
4 War on Terror (you dont need to be from the US to awnser)
There's a war? Nobody here told me there was a war. Wait, you mean the one over Chris Brown terrorizing Rihanna? That was wild!
5 George W. Bush (have fun with this one!)
Yeah, he's not that bad.
I support the idea. Maybe we could even sticky the thread when shaggy gets creamed, that we may never see any retarded 9/11 threads again.
