# Actor doesn't like southerners...but see my movie anyway...



## billc (Jun 20, 2012)

Well, if this statement by one of the actors in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter,"  doesn't say "come and see my big budget summer movie," I don't know what does...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/20/Abe-Lincoln-Star-South-Racist-Homophobic



> Growing up in the South, three things you grow up [sic]: homophobic, sexist, and racist. It&#8217;s just innate and in your blood. Growing up and going to North Carolina School of the Arts and Juilliard, a lot of my friends were gay. So that&#8217;s something that I wanted to deal with and move past in my own personal life&#8212;that homophobia that I was raised with and that was prevalent in the community I grew up in.



Sooo...when is hollywood going to discuss the idea of not offending the people you want to shell out 12 bucks for your movie with their actors?  Here is the articles author in response to this actor's belief about "all" southerners...



> So progressive and tolerant, isn't he -- except for, you know, Southerners, who are ALL bad, ALL bigoted, and ALL "isty."
> As someone who has spent over a decade living in the South,  I can tell you first hand that Mackie is a stone-cold liar.
> I've spent decades in the Midwest, nearly nine-years in Los Angeles, and eleven in North Carolina. And if I've learned anything, it's that people are people and that Americans as a whole are shockingly tolerant and able to live together. Incidents of bigotry are so rare in this country they lead the news, and that includes the dreaded South.
> I have found one segment of the population, however, who are a bunch of intolerant bigots, and that's the Anthony Mackie types -- the bubbled, elitist, wealthy leftists who lash out at entire swathes of people in order to burnish their own "tolerant" credentials.
> They&#8217;re also so pathetically ignorant, they don&#8217;t even see the irony in doing so. And neither does the sycophant media supposedly there to interview them.



Sooo...all you southern, racist, homophobic and sexist types, which he apparenly feels is the majority of you, his movie opens soon, make sure your first in line to shell out 12 bucks a head for the chance to see this wonderful actor strut his stuff on the big screen.

You know Hollywood, this is the internet age, where statements like this go around the country in the blink of an eye.  If someone is sitting on the fence between shelling out 12 bucks plus more for snacks, and waiting for Redbox, netflix or cable, you might want to talk to your stars about their public comments...you know, since they represent your product to your customers.  Sure, not everyone is a racist, sexist, homophobic southerner, but there are a lot more southerners who aren't racist, sexist, and homophobic who might think you are insulting them.  These southerners might just decide to not spend that 12+ bucks to see that movie.  The people who like other Americans, and don't like them being insulted might decide to stay home as well.  Just something to keep in mind.  Ask Tom Hanks, and that actress from Jonah Hex how insulting your fans works wonders for your career.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

You do know that Anthony Mackie was talking about himself there, right?



> "Growing up in the south three things you grow up [sic]: homophobic, sexist, and racist. It&#8217;s just innate and in your blood. Growing up and going to North Carolina School of the Arts and Juilliard, a lot of my friends were gay. So that&#8217;s something that I wanted to deal with and move past in my own personal life&#8212;_*that homophobia that I was raised with and that was prevalent in the community I grew up in.*__*,* _



I mean, he was born and grew up in New Orleans-and could easily have said those same things about the African-American community-as well as the south.

How many true southerners are going to see a movie with Lincoln as the hero, anyway? :lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 20, 2012)

Come on Elder!  You surely don't expect a consideration of context and intent to mar the output of that font of ... erm ... font of ... well ... ah heck it's a font of something ... that is breitbart.com?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Come on Elder! You surely don't expect a consideration of context and intent to mar the output of that font of ... erm ... font of ... well ... ah heck it's a font of something ... that is breitbart.com?



Yes, he's one of those self-loathing Southerners! 



billcihak said:


> Sooo...all you southern, racist, homophobic and sexist types, which he apparenly feels is the majority of you, his movie opens soon, make sure your first in line to shell out 12 bucks a head for the chance to see this wonderful actor strut his stuff on the big screen.



:lfao: just....:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Come on Elder! You surely don't expect a consideration of context and intent to mar the output of that font of ... erm ... font of ... well ... ah heck it's a font of something ... that is breitbart.com?



Font of verkrampte vacuousness?


----------



## Steve (Jun 20, 2012)

So, the gist of the article is that the author is offended, so no one should go see the movie?  Sounds hippy dippy to me.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 20, 2012)

Once again guys, you're letting the truth get in the way of some Brietbart "reporting."  I mean, you can't do that, since the truth doesn't support the narrative that is trying to be told.  What if all reporters used that truth and context in reporting?!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 20, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Once again guys, you're letting the truth get in the way of some Brietbart "reporting."  I mean, you can't do that, since the truth doesn't support the narrative that is trying to be told.  What if all reporters used that truth and context in reporting?!



 In  short, attack the message, not the messenger. 				It is entertaining how even some of you who, frankly, I would have expected better from, resort to ad hominem attacks on any Brietbart reporting....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 20, 2012)

I don't know what to say.  If the message was worth engaging with you know that I would, whether I was for or against it.

I have said it so many times it even bores *me* that you right wing fellows do yourself no favours when it comes to credibility by relying on such sources almost to the exclusion of all else.  It takes a lot to debase the already debased currency of politics but sites like that one manage it.

I know you get very upset when I phrase it like this but I really do not mean the insult you take it to mean when I say that it is child-like politics in some parts and sulky-teenager politics in others.  Occasionally a prominent 'nail' gets hit on the head (and I say so when I see it) but that's bound to happen when the site slams all nails in the same way.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 20, 2012)

When one section of the media, i.e., the much maligned, blogosphere are the ONLY ones reporting on some things, doesn't that indicate a problem with the rest of the media? For instance, fast and furious, barely news outside of the "right" blogosphere, the US Government aided and abetted in handing guns to drug cartels, at the cost of Brian Terry's life, but, if you only watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, you wouldn't know that...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 20, 2012)

:nods:  Aye, there is certainly truth in the fact that those that own the controlling interests in the big media outlets are prone to direct the 'story' the way they want it to go.  Indeed, over here in Britain at present we have a full blown enquiry going on into the behind-the-scenes activities of certain large scale media moguls.

{Google the Leveson Enquiry if you've not heard of it already}

But there is a difference between a source being an independent one and a source being a reliable one.  For some years I have much enjoyed listening to one of my favourite American political 'ranters', Alex Jones {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)}.  I am sure you know of him.   Some of what he has to say is actually founded in verifiable facts but the journey he takes those facts on is not always one that gels closely with reality.  So, much as I applaud his ability to hold forth with passion and gusto, without substantial supporting information I am not disposed to base my choices on what to believe on what he says.  For, just as the site noted above is always going to twist something into the shape required to say awful things about the Democrats, so Mr. Jones will shape all that he sees into the cloth that has the Military-Industrial Complex woven into it's fabric.

Here's one of his you might find entertaining:

http://www.hotindienews.com/2010/07/19/1028193

[yt]haWxh94IgBI[/yt]


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> When one section of the media, i.e., the much maligned, blogosphere are the ONLY ones reporting on some things, doesn't that indicate a problem with the rest of the media? For instance, fast and furious, barely news outside of the "right" blogosphere, the US Government aided and abetted in handing guns to drug cartels, at the cost of Brian Terry's life, but, if you only watch MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, you wouldn't know that...



Not knowing who Brian Terry was I Googled him, there's plenty of articles from the news sources you say don't cover the story on the Google list. Go onto any of the sites you the companies you mention, I did and you will find numerous articles about Brian Terry. Even the BBC run the story, this is their latest on it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18528798


You can take the news to the people but if they don't want to absorb it there's nothing you can do. Ignorance is often a choice, you can't always blame the news companies.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> In  short, attack the message, not the messenger.                 It is entertaining how even some of you who, frankly, I would have expected better from, resort to ad hominem attacks on any Brietbart reporting....



ROFL  Seriously?!  ANY Brietbart reporting is immediatley suspect.  Not because they are right wing, but because of thier history.  The networks you mention get it wrong occasionally, sometimes they make corrections and sometimes they don't, but I don't see them starting from a place of deceipt like that site.  So yes, if you use a notoriously unreliable source as a base for your attacks on a particular person or industry, I am going to call you out on it.  Don't like it?  Get a better, more reliable source.  At least get a secondary source to support the first.

Seems this story itself is about attacking a person.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 21, 2012)

elder999 said:


> How many true southerners are going to see a movie with Lincoln as the hero, anyway? :lfao:



Well, any movie with Lincoln as a hero is fiction in my book....this one at least is obvious about it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2012)

Somehow I just can't take any discussion associated with the movie.... "Abe Lincoln, Vampire Hunter".... seriously.... Now... if it were... "George Washington, Werewolf Warrior"....that would be different


----------



## Steve (Jun 21, 2012)

Big Don said:


> In  short, attack the message, not the messenger.                 It is entertaining how even some of you who, frankly, I would have expected better from, resort to ad hominem attacks on any Brietbart reporting....


I don't think you can ad hom an organization.  By definition, an ad hominem is an attack of the person.  Or did you feel WC_lun attacked you personally?  Genuine question.  If you felt attacked, I can understand although I frankly don't see it.  

WC_Lun asserts that Breitbart is biased in the same way you assert just a few posts down in Post 10 that other major news sources are biased.  Are you resorting to ad hominem attacks on MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and any other news outlet that doesn't have an X in the name?


----------



## geezer (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't care about "ignorant southerners". God knows ignorance is an inexhaustible resource everywhere these days. Especially coming from actors, "celebrities", and especially, political talking heads. Besides, a movie about Abe Lincoln hunting vampires? I mean _come on_. Why not _Abe Lincoln, Early American MMA Champion_. At least there's a bit of truth to that.


----------



## Instructor (Jun 21, 2012)

I just want to say that I am from the South, I love Honest Abe and I hate mean people....


----------



## elder999 (Jun 21, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, if this statement by one of the actors in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," doesn't say "come and see my big budget summer movie," I don't know what does...
> Sooo...when is hollywood going to discuss the idea of not offending the people you want to shell out 12 bucks for your movie with their actors? Here is the articles author in response to* this actor's belief about "all" southerners*...
> Sooo...*all you southern, racist, homophobic and sexist types, which he apparenly feels is the majority of you*, his movie opens soon, make sure your first in line to shell out 12 bucks a head for the chance to see this wonderful actor strut his stuff on the big screen. *Sure, not everyone is a racist, sexist, homophobic southerner, but there are a lot more southerners who aren't racist, sexist, and homophobic who might think you are insulting them*. These southerners might just decide to not spend that 12+ bucks to see that movie. .



So, to recap, and reiterate. In response to this sort of  ("sort of," int that it's *not* a question) a question:



> *Your first lead was playing a gay artist struggling with coming out in Brother to Brother. Thats a pretty challenging role.*




The actor responded thusly:



> Growing up in the South, three things you grow up [sic]: homophobic, sexist, and racist. Its just innate and in your blood. Growing up and going to North Carolina School of the Arts and Juilliard, a lot of my friends were gay. So thats something that I wanted to deal with and move past in my own personal lifethat homophobia that I was raised with and that was prevalent in the community I grew up in.



Which really could be read, without the _sic_, as "_Growing up in the south, three things *I* grew up (*to be*):homophobic, sexist and racist."_-especiallyu i light of the end of the answer, and the question itself: he recognized he was homophobic, that he'd moved from a community where homophobia, sexism and racism were expected ingrained behaviors, and now had to deal with those behaviors in another community that was more diverse and accepting of viewpoints, and chose to change to accomodate them, and that one step on that, or the product of that, was playing a gay man coming out to his family (to get back to the question)

Seems like another Breitbart "Shirley Sharrod" sort of moment, only without the firing.

It must be very gratifying for the morons that swallow and regurgitate this swill to see that Breitbart's "Happy Warriors" will keep his stupid marching on.

_Mine eyes have seen the story, of the blogger's misplaced word,
he is distorting the facts to fit his own misguided world,
where "the left" does all that's wrong, and the right gets the last word,
his *stupid's* marching on...._ :lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2012)

Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter


----------



## Tgace (Jun 22, 2012)

As if the north isnt the home of the ignorant....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2012)

You realise that to the rest of the world you are just Americans? Wherever you come from, whatever colour you are you are American to us, only you care whether you come from the north, south or even Mexico what we see is Americans. People do that to the Brits as well I know, they don't see us as we see us.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You realise that to the rest of the world you are just Americans? Wherever you come from, whatever colour you are you are American to us, only you care whether you come from the north, south or even Mexico what we see is Americans. People do that to the Brits as well I know, they don't see us as we see us.



You would be hard pressed to find a country on the planet that sees itself the same way the rest of the world sees it


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> You would be hard pressed to find a country on the planet that sees itself the same way the rest of the world sees it



Ture enough but it's a shame really.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You realise that to the rest of the world you are just Americans? Wherever you come from, whatever colour you are you are American to us, only you care whether you come from the north, south or even Mexico what we see is Americans. People do that to the Brits as well I know, they don't see us as we see us.


That's because you're ignorant of the difference.  Saying that the various areas of the USA are "just American" is like saying that the people of great Britain are all just british.  

For what it's worth, most people I know are aware that England, wales and Scotland are different.  Why is it hard for you to understand that in a country much larger and more geographically diverse thn your own that there will be significant cultural and social differences from region to region?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> . Why is it hard for you to understand that in a country much larger and more geographically diverse thn your own that there will be significant cultural and social differences from region to region?



Less than a hundred years before we became a country, we had our first civil war, and that was less than 150 years ago itself-that issue alone has served to divide and define some of us during that 150 years, never mind issues directly related to it, never mind the whole "Christian/family values" Bible belt divide-all things that demonstrate the north/south dichotomy...



Tgace said:


> As if the north isnt the home of the ignorant....



Yeah, it's that whole "War of Southern Rebellion" thing....:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> That's because you're ignorant of the difference. Saying that the various areas of the USA are "just American" is like saying that the people of great Britain are all just british.
> 
> For what it's worth, most people I know are aware that England, wales and Scotland are different. Why is it hard for you to understand that in a country much larger and more geographically diverse thn your own that there will be significant cultural and social differences from region to region?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




Don't get tetchy and defensive, it's not an insult that people outside your country think of you as a cohesive people is it. America is 'marketed' to those outside as one country so why would you be surprised that people see you all as Americans? I would have taken it as a compliment that outsiders think America is a place where it's various cultures, peoples etc are united as one people, if you didn't see that's how I meant it I'm sorry but there's no way you can see it as an insult and jump down my throat for being nice about your country. If you have divisions among your people then non Americans don't see that, they see the United States of America and it's people, the Americans and *they admire that.
*
Scotland, Wales and England aren't just different, they are separate *countries* each with it's own governments and languages, I'd expect people to understand that they are separate *countries* but America is put forward to us as one country,if it's not you'd better tell everyone.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Don't get tetchy and defensive, it's not an insult that people outside your country think of you as a cohesive people is it. America is 'marketed' to those outside as one country so why would you be surprised that people see you all as Americans? I would have taken it as a compliment that outsiders think America is a place where it's various cultures, peoples etc are united as one people, if you didn't see that's how I meant it I'm sorry but there's no way you can see it as an insult and jump down my throat for being nice about your country. If you have divisions among your people then non Americans don't see that, they see the United States of America and it's people, the Americans and *they admire that.
> *
> Scotland, Wales and England aren't just different, they are separate *countries* each with it's own governments and languages, I'd expect people to understand that they are separate *countries* but America is put forward to us as one country,if it's not you'd better tell everyone.



I didnt see your ignorance as insulting.  I was just pointing out that if that simplistic description is how you view the USA, its no wonder you dont understand our politics.  Not defensive or tetchy, but frankly it sounds like you should take your own advice.  If you fail to understand the cultural and geographic diversity in America, that's on you.  Doesn't mean it's not there.  Every state in the union has its own government and its own constitution and laws.  And the differences between Massachusetts, Louisiana, south Carolina, california, and Washington are, IMO, as pronounced as the differences between the various parts of great Britain.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> I didnt see your ignorance as insulting. I was just pointing oit that if yhat simplistic description is how you view the usa, its no wonder you dont inderstand our politics and often. Not defensive or tetchy, but frankly it sounds like you should take your one advice. If you fail to understand the cultural and geographic diversity in America, that's on you. Doesn't mean it's not there. Every state in the union has its own government and its own constitution and laws. And the differences between Massachusetts, Louisiana, south Carolina, california, and Washington are, IMO, as pronounced as the differences between the various parts of great Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My ignorance? I see you are assuming it's me that's 'ignorant'. I said that outside America *people* think of you all as Americans, so you assume I'm the one that doesn't know anything about America because I didn't stress the differences you have? You'd be surprised by how much I do know actually and I also know you have taken what I said in the wrong vein. Despite the differences you have, people see what you have done to make it one country and admire that, but still some people can't take a compliment. You would rather stress the differences you have rather than see that to outsiders the fact that you have those differences but see yourselves as American citizens who pledge their allegiance to their country is a good example to others who find their differences destoying their countries rather than uniting them. that's why I said that people see you are just Americans, not foreigners or aliens in your own country. 'Just' in this case meaning 'simply, precisely or exactly', if you took just to be an insult you were incorrect.


----------



## billc (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez, I am on your side on this one.  You sort of have to work at seeing what you said as 1) ignorant (something about the word is insulting even when it isn't meant that way)  2) anything other than nice about the U.S.

Also, the differences are bound by Americaness.  At least for now.

Also Tez, I wish more Americans saw each other as just Americans, and not seperate racial or ethnic groups.  Once you take the oath, you are an American, no matter where your ancestors came from or where you ( the "general" you, not necessarily you in particular) were born.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> My ignorance? I see you are assuming it's me that's 'ignorant'. I said that outside America *people* think of you all as Americans, so you assume I'm the one that doesn't know anything about America because I didn't stress the differences you have? You'd be surprised by how much I do know actually and I also know you have taken what I said in the wrong vein. Despite the differences you have, people see what you have done to make it one country and admire that, but still some people can't take a compliment. You would rather stress the differences you have rather than see that to outsiders the fact that you have those differences but see yourselves as American citizens who pledge their allegiance to their country is a good example to others who find their differences destoying their countries rather than uniting them. that's why I said that people see you are just Americans, not foreigners or aliens in your own country. 'Just' in this case meaning 'simply, precisely or exactly', if you took just to be an insult you were incorrect.



I don't think even you can presume to speak for the entire world outside of America, tez.  

Once again, I'm not insulted.  I'm "just" trying to educate you about a subject I'm pretty familiar with, seeing as I live here.   it's very much the same as I've seen you do over and over when someone remarks on great britain or the uk.  You are quick to point out how diverse the various areas are, and admonish others for painting great britain or the uk with too broad a brush, and justifiably so.  To suggest that all the various parts of the united kingdom are homogenous would be incorrect and ignorant of the distinct cultures and rich histories, even though they overlap and intersect in a lot of ways.

Simply put, in a thread about the distinctions between the north and south of America, an assertion that, outside of our country, we're just Americans is ignorant, in the actual definition of the term.  And once again, it seems that you're the one insulted.  For someone who alleges to know so much about us, you seem to know very little about us.  That is what I mean by ignorant.  

And personally, I like that my country is diverse.  I would hate to see it become "just" America.  That's my opinion.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Tez, I am on your side on this one.  You sort of have to work at seeing what you said as 1) ignorant (something about the word is insulting even when it isn't meant that way)  2) anything other than nice about the U.S.
> 
> Also, the differences are bound by Americaness.  At least for now.
> 
> Also Tez, I wish more Americans saw each other as just Americans, and not seperate racial or ethnic groups.  Once you take the oath, you are an American, no matter where your ancestors came from or where you ( the "general" you, not necessarily you in particular) were born.



Ignorance is forgivable.  Stubborn ignorance is not.  And whether it was nice or not, it is a gross oversimplification.  

I see our diversity as a strength and part of what makes this a great country.  I see us Not as a melting pot like cheese whiz, but rather a dish in which every ingredient contributes individually to the overall taste.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2012)

OK let me see if I can clear up what an american is

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a American for the American's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "citizenship" than actual ethnicity. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Ms Tez...err ummmm Mr Steve.... sorry my inner Barbossa appears to have come out :uhyeah:



> Americans or American people are the citizens of the United States of America. The country is home to people of different national origins. As a result, Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship. Aside from the Native American population, nearly all Americans or their ancestors immigrated within the past five centuries.



And a quick unassocitted note on the Discovery of America and Columbus day. I belevie it was the one of the tribes of the Iriquoios in a response to an invite to a big columbus day pareade commemotrating the discovery of America....... Colub us Discoverd America...what did he discover....we knew where we were

And a quick unassociated note on the Discovery of America and Columbus day. I believe it was the one of the tribes of the Iroquois (likely the Mohawks) in a response to an invite to a big Columbus day parade in Albany NY....... Columbus Discovered America...what did he discover....we knew where we were


----------



## billc (Jun 23, 2012)

Hmmm...so we send a space shift out into space and find a new planet with aliens on it.  We say we "discovered" it because "we" didn't know it was there, and the aliens make fun of us by saying "what did they discover...we knew where we were."  Yeah, never quite got that saying.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

For what it's worth, I would really enjoy drinking a few beers with tez.  There is genuinely no malice on my side. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...so we send a space shift out into space and find a new planet with aliens on it.  We say we "discovered" it because "we" didn't know it was there, and the aliens make fun of us by saying "what did they discover...we knew where we were."  Yeah, never quite got that saying.



Well that is a little different but I guess you had to be there


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2012)

Steve, you're not getting this are you? You think it's about ignorance while I'm trying to pay Americans a compliment. I'll tell you what us non Americans see...
What if when America was a British colony no one had the vision of independance? what if it stayed a British colony, we would have probably expanded it a bit, other colonisers would have come across so you would have been made up of colonies, I doubt they would have got on, probably Europe would have had it's wars right across the country instead of on Europe? what if slavery hadn't been abolished because it was all colonies? America would be like Africa. Or if you had pushed the British out but no one had stepped up and thought about independance so instead you had various factions, warlords, 'emperors' etc running the country, wars, invasions, lawlessness on a grand scale like China before the communists. You had none of this, you instead took people from all over the world and made them into one people. A huge feat never attempted before in any country. 

Sure this a thread about people squabbling over differences because they come from different parts of your country but you don't see what we see which is a place where when you play your national anthem, everyone stands with their hand on their heart, everyone celebrates Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. The American forces defend you, you are proud to be Americans, the differences you have are interesting, no one should be Soviet like but its the sameness about you that people see, the unity, the togetherness which could have easily been something else but you melded into a country of people proud to be what they are. If you don't like how you are seen, and no I don't talk for the world but I am more aware perhaps than many of public opinions around the world. Perhaps you should be pleased rather than taking it the wrong way that so many do actually admire America and it's people for what they've done. 

The UK isn't the same as America, we are slowly splitting up, the Scottish government is preparing a referendum asking for support for a totally independent Scotland, they want to break away totally, have thier own military etc. If they do Wales will be next however the Shetland Isles, a very rich place will either stay with England, become independant itself or perhaps go to Norway. Wales will break away as well, then will be calls for Northern Ireland to join Eire which will be strongly resisted perhaps starting up the Troubles again. Cornwall will be next to clamour for independance. We aren't the only place this is happening in, it's happening in Spain and France, Belgium has two factions that live apart and would be glad to be rid of each other. Half of Europe has split into smaller countries. So enjoy your differences but also enjoy your 'sameness' that makes you strong.


----------



## Steve (Jun 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Steve, you're not getting this are you? You think it's about ignorance while I'm trying to pay Americans a compliment. I'll tell you what us non Americans see...
> What if when America was a British colony no one had the vision of independance? what if it stayed a British colony, we would have probably expanded it a bit, other colonisers would have come across so you would have been made up of colonies, I doubt they would have got on, probably Europe would have had it's wars right across the country instead of on Europe? what if slavery hadn't been abolished because it was all colonies? America would be like Africa. Or if you had pushed the British out but no one had stepped up and thought about independance so instead you had various factions, warlords, 'emperors' etc running the country, wars, invasions, lawlessness on a grand scale like China before the communists. You had none of this, you instead took people from all over the world and made them into one people. A huge feat never attempted before in any country.
> 
> Sure this a thread about people squabbling over differences because they come from different parts of your country but you don't see what we see which is a place where when you play your national anthem, everyone stands with their hand on their heart, everyone celebrates Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. The American forces defend you, you are proud to be Americans, the differences you have are interesting, no one should be Soviet like but its the sameness about you that people see, the unity, the togetherness which could have easily been something else but you melded into a country of people proud to be what they are. If you don't like how you are seen, and no I don't talk for the world but I am more aware perhaps than many of public opinions around the world. Perhaps you should be pleased rather than taking it the wrong way that so many do actually admire America and it's people for what they've done.
> ...



Tez, with respect, perhaps you should speak for yourself.  Not for the world.  Not for non Americans.  Certainly not for me. 

 I get that you're attempting to pay a compliment.  Noted.  I get it.  I hear you.  Now, try to stop telling me what I should do or how i should feel or how much you think I don't know and how much you do know.  How about entertaining  for just a moment that it could be you who isn't listening or understanding me and not the other way around.

Edit to add, before you tell me I'm mad or insulted, let me assure you I'm not.  I only wonder what I've said or done that leads you to believe i know so little and that if I disagree with you it must only be because I don't understand.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> Tez, with respect, perhaps you should speak for yourself. Not for the world. Not for non Americans. Certainly not for me.
> 
> I get that you're attempting to pay a compliment. Noted. I get it. I hear you. Now, try to stop telling me what I should do or how i should feel or how much you think I don't know and how much you do know. How about entertaining for just a moment that it could be you who isn't listening or understanding me and not the other way around.
> 
> ...



Oh Steve you read my first post wrong so when I try to explain my thoughts you then make it personal, that's not fair of you. I don't speak for the world and you know it, I'm not telling you what you should think and you know that too, you read me wrong and won't say so. I don't know why you have to make it personal and try to make out I'm in the wrong. You know as well as I do that America is marketed as an entity and that slum kids in South Africa for example don't care about your diversty, they just see America just as the rest of us do, there's American cars, films, companies, an American President, things that come out of your country are labeled as American so how can people not see american as a whole, as one entity. No one is saying you don't have your diversity, that you are all the same but you can't get away from the fact that America the brand is out there. What would you have us think? We have an America Air Force base down the road from here, I go there often should I not call it American then? Should I not call them my American colleagues but find out where they come from and call one my Californian colleague or my New York colleague? To the rest of the world you are Americans, get over it.


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2012)

Simply put, the men and women at the USAF base are Americans and should be called such, but it would be ignorant to presume that the airmen from California are the same as the airmen from new York.  

I don't know how to say it more plainly and it's as true now as it was when I responded to your first post.  I didnt misunderstand you when I responded the first time, and you make that more clear to me with every post.   I'm really not trying to make it personal.  I am not the one telling you that perhaps you should do this or that, nor am I suggesting that I am more knowledgeable and worldly than you.  Both of those you have said to me multiple times.  

I understand that you're trying to pay a compliment, but a compliment stemming from ignorance remains well intentioned ignorance.   It's like congratulating a woman on her pregnancy only to find out she isn't pregnant.   (that last is intended to be a joke)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 24, 2012)

Steve, I gotta tell you, Tez is right. We really do see all American's as "American's", not particularly Northern, Southern, East Coast, West Coast, Mid West, Pacific Northwest, or anything similar. To us, if you're from New York, or LA, or Texas, the distinction isn't really particularly noted - you're American first and foremost. Internally, of course, the differences are noticable, particularly for those who are within the culture, but to those external, you do get lumped into one homogenized whole. Is it accurate? Sometimes, other times not. But it's the reality. I mean, if I was to ask you if you define Australians as Victorians, Tasmanians, West Australians, New South Welshmen, or anything else, could you honestly say you make such a definition? After all, we're as big (geographically speaking) as the US.

To put it another way, for non-martial artists, is there a perceived difference between karate systems? Or is it all just "karate"?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 24, 2012)

Wow, I just read the lion&#8217;s share of what this thread has become and to be honest I do not really want to be part of it anymore so I deleted whatI posted since it really would make no difference to what is happening here.

Here is the thing, after years of dealing with people and conflict face to face, in a job I happily left, I have come to the conclusion that there are at least 3 sides to every story. What person A &#8220;Knows&#8221; to be true what person B &#8220;Knows&#8221; to be true and some where in between there is the actual truth and it is next to impossible for person A and B to see that.  We tend to see things based on our point of view whether that point of view be right, wrong, 1/2 right or 1/2 wrong. We are not lying, actually we are telling the truth from our perspective....but it is not the truth. And I do realize I am at least person C or D in this with my very own view of truth

Good luck to you&#8230;I&#8217;m out
Final note -You do all realize that this entire thread was started pretty much based on the alleged views of an actor in the movie Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and to be honest I can't take anything based on the movie Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter


----------



## Tgace (Jun 24, 2012)

Its because you "foreigners" base your concept of American on media...the same accusation we face re being "ignorant Americans" with our opinions about other nations. A Midwestern American can be as different from a New Yorker as a Brit is from a Frenchman...and is geographically farther away.

Our states are called States for a reason.

What we all share is a common language and common American culture. Stronger than but similar to the common culture of the British Commonwealth nations.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Steve, I gotta tell you, Tez is right. We really do see all American's as "American's".


Chris, the point is simple.  I believe you when you say that you see us as "Americans" regardless of where in America we're from, and certainly, we all are American.   Okay?  Are we all clear so far?

AND (as in, building on that last statement), if you don't understand the profound distinctions that exist regionally in America, you are ignorant (as in 'lacking knowledge or understanding').  It is as ignorant as some Americans seeing all of Great Britain's people as British.  I don't see it as insulting, but it remains a simplistic, mistaken impression.  And, as I've said before, if the USA is seen in these overly simplistic terms, it's no wonder our politics are difficult to understand. 


> Internally, of course, the differences are noticable, particularly for those who are within the culture, but to those external, you do get lumped into one homogenized whole. Is it accurate? Sometimes, other times not. But it's the reality. I mean, if I was to ask you if you define Australians as Victorians, Tasmanians, West Australians, New South Welshmen, or anything else, could you honestly say you make such a definition? After all, we're as big (geographically speaking) as the US.


The key here is that I would not, in a discussion about Australia, presume to suggest to you that my ignorance of your country is a compliment to you and that you are the one who is mistaken.  If I were to say, "You do realize Chris, that outside of Australia you are all the same," this may be a true statement, but would it be accurate?  No.  It's an uneducated statement, even if it's true.  If everyone in the world believes that it is flat, they are all in agreement, but does that make them all right?  It remains an ignorant position, even if it is popular.  

Maybe I'm just really, really tired, and maybe Tez was tetchy about the use of the word "ignorant."  If that's the case, I apologize for use of the term.   I'm not offended.  I'm not angry at all.  I've reread my posts in the thread and I can't see how I can be more clear.  I'm not commenting on how the world sees America.  I won't presume to know what "the world" thinks about anything.  I'm not commenting how you or Tez see Americans.  I believe you and will take you at your word.  I'm strictly pointing out that if you fail to distinguish between Americans from geographically diverse areas of the country, you are mistaken.  The two individuals are as different as the Scots and the Brits and the Welsh.  The histories are different.  The demographics are different.  The cultures are different.  The food, holidays and traditions are different.  The laws and governments and constitutions are different.  And in some areas, the languages are different, too.  

So, in a discussion about the North and the South, while assuredly true, the statement that you see us as "just Americans" isn't insulting, but it is clearly uneducated and ill-informed (i.e., ignorant).  

In addition to all of the above, as I said earlier, I see this diversity as being a true strength of our country.  Homogeny is NOT in the best interest of the USA.  We're not a big vat of melted goo in a melting pot and that's a GOOD thing.


----------



## Steve (Jun 24, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Wow, I just read the lion&#8217;s share of what this thread has become and to be honest I do not really want to be part of it anymore so I deleted whatI posted since it really would make no difference to what is happening here.
> 
> Here is the thing, after years of dealing with people and conflict face to face, in a job I happily left, I have come to the conclusion that there are at least 3 sides to every story. What person A &#8220;Knows&#8221; to be true what person B &#8220;Knows&#8221; to be true and some where in between there is the actual truth and it is next to impossible for person A and B to see that.  We tend to see things based on our point of view whether that point of view be right, wrong, 1/2 right or 1/2 wrong. We are not lying, actually we are telling the truth from our perspective....but it is not the truth. And I do realize I am at least person C or D in this with my very own view of truth
> 
> ...


This isn't conflict, Xue.  This is how Tez and I talk.  At the end, I promise we'll still be friends.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> This isn't conflict, Xue. This is how Tez and I talk. At the end, I promise we'll still be friends.



Quite true, I'm not arguing with Steve, I'm explaining why I'm right!  try that one on your other halves, I can guarantee you'll be sleeping on your own that night rofl!

I don't think we can have a productive discussion on Abraham Lincoln as a vampire hunter to be honest, it's a fictional film, though last week a Victorian vampire hunters kit was sold at auction just up the road from me for quite a bit of money. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/23/victorian-vampire-slaying_n_1620652.html

We do sometimes a bit of a problem with vampire sheep up here.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Its because you "foreigners" base your concept of American on media...the same accusation we face re being "ignorant Americans" with our opinions about other nations. A Midwestern American can be as different from a New Yorker as a Brit is from a Frenchman...and is geographically farther away.
> 
> Our states are called States for a reason.
> 
> ...




Actually we do know that but that wasn't the context in which I was referring to you as Americans, people were squabbling here about the north v south ( the word stupid was even used to describe one side), I was pointing out that you are all Americans, a thing greater than little arguments about which side was right in your civil war and other things. We see you as Americans, *a united people not a divided one*. This was my point not that you aren't different from each other which frankly you'd have to be an idiot not to know, and we aren't idiots trust me.


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually we do know that but that wasn't the context in which I was referring to you as Americans, people were squabbling here about the north v south ( the word stupid was even used to describe one side), I was pointing out that you are all Americans, a thing greater than little arguments about which side was right in your civil war and other things. We see you as Americans, *a united people not a divided one*. This was my point not that you aren't different from each other which frankly you'd have to be an idiot not to know, and we aren't idiots trust me.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## billc (Jun 24, 2012)

Well,  here is more on HBO a whole network that doesn't seem to like the U.S.  How can you tell, well the programming for one thing...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...Not-The-Greatest-Country-In-The-World-Anymore



> *Jeff Daniels, who stars as anchor Will McAvoy in HBO&#8217;s critically un-acclaimed &#8220;The Newsroom,&#8221; debuting Sunday nught, agrees that &#8220;America&#8217;s not the greatest country in the world anymore.&#8221; *
> 
> Daniels and Aaron Sorkin, the show&#8217;s creator, were on &#8220;Piers Morgan Tonight&#8221; on Friday discussing the show when Morgan played the much-publicized clip in which McAvoy is asked by a college student why America is the best country in the world and goes on a tirade against America that is reflective of the scornful and shameful way in which Hollywood liberals, mainstream media elites, and academics in ivory towers  feel about the greatest country known to man, which Abraham Lincoln referred to as &#8220;man&#8217;s last, best hope.&#8221;
> (It is worth noting that the elites hypocritically benefit from America&#8217;s freedoms and way of life and choose to reside in a nation they feel is so terrible and the root of all that is wrong with the world.)





> > Daniels then says the speech &#8220;resonated&#8221; with him and the speech was &#8220;gold&#8221; for an actor like him.
> > Sorry, Mr. Daniels. Will&#8217;s words and premise are demonstrably false and only believed by those who do not think America is exceptional and is no different or better than Brazil, Turkey, Canada, China, Spain, Kenya, or Azerbaijan.
> > And despite the prevalence in the dominant popular culture of people like Sorkin and Daniels, who pal around with liberals like President Barack Obama, America still remains a shining city upon a hill. And if, God forbid, America ever ceases to be exceptional, it will be because of those in Hollywood, academia, and the mainstream media who, like Daniels, cheer McAvoy&#8217;s words and believe in their bones that McAvoy's sentiment about America is true.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 24, 2012)

As more and more northers keep screwing up places like new York and mass with high taxes and the people keep moving south you will see less and less of a difference.  Shoot I know people that refer to south east Fla as south New York.  And northern VA is not much different then Massachusetts anymore


----------



## elder999 (Jun 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, here is more on HBO a whole network that doesn't seem to like the U.S. How can you tell, well the programming for one thing...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...Not-The-Greatest-Country-In-The-World-Anymore








_How is he *wrong?

*_


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 26, 2012)

I have seen something like the rather stark statistics noted above before and, altho I have no proof of it whatsoever, I cant help but think if the military expenditures aspect has something to do with the other more problematic stats?  

Well that and the insistence that the 'Free Market', which I assure you is a myth for those who have accumulated the serious wealth, is the best way to organise a society ... devil take the hindmost is not a viable strategy for a compassionate and cohesive community really.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 26, 2012)

I love my country, but when comparing it to other modern industrialized countries, we have some areas we definitley need to improve.  I could see where someone looking at those numbers would get a negative outlook.


----------



## billc (Jun 27, 2012)

One thing he is wrong about and probably more...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/break_the_news_OpUXQeozLUjthLmAlaf9DN




> As far as I can tell, Sorkin took this lie from one of several  raggedy unsourced leftist websites. Or he visited the CIA Factbook,  which put the US at No. 173 in infant mortality, and got the number  wrong by five.
> 
> But wait: The CIA survey is in reverse order. So  No. 1, Afghanistan, is the worst country for infant mortality. The best,  Monaco, is No. 220. That puts the US at No. 47 (while other surveys put  us slightly higher, in the 20s).
> Still alarming, no? Not really.  As the identity of the winner hints, a lot of the states ahead of us are  not so much countries as country clubs. It&#8217;s hardly fair to compare a  diverse continental power of 300 million souls with a rich city  (Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau all beat us) or a tax haven (Isle of Man,  Jersey, Luxembourg). You might as well break off New England and count  that as a country.








> Cuba beats us, but Cuba is a dictatorship that lies about everything.  I doubt Sorkin would want his next child delivered in Cuba.
> 
> Still, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan beat us. Why is that?
> Because  doctors in other countries look at a premature fetus and think &#8220;medical  waste.&#8221; Our doctors think, &#8220;life to be saved,&#8221; because in fact ours is  the greatest country and that&#8217;s how we roll.
> ...




And for now, as far as defense spending goes, all the other countries on the list use the U.S. as their primary source of military protection.   If any of them had to provide for their own defense, in a realistic way, they would not have the luxury to have welfare states that are currently bankrupting their countries.  

American education, Sorkin and his lefty friends are the primary reason our scores are so low.  They defend the teachers unions which are the main obstacle to education reform in this country.  They fight school vouchers, one of the proven methods of improving education and condemn American school children to poor quality educations which affect their entire lives.  

Add to that being the first on the scene to most if not all natural disasters around the world, funding about every third world basket case with food, money and other support and I have to say yes, America is still the greatest country in the world.
​


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 27, 2012)

Maybe second greatest ... or perhaps third ... or maybe fourth ...


----------



## billc (Jun 27, 2012)

Which country gives more to charity, on top of all the rest of they do for the world...

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html




> Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of  gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations. But why?
> 
> It would be nice to believe that as a group they are just more generous. Of course, it's more complicated than that.
> For  instance in the U.S., which is notably religious among wealthy Western  nations, about a third of all charitable giving goes to houses of  worship. Some of that money, in turn, goes to projects that have an  obvious benefit to the needy, like soup kitchens. But some does not,  rather going toward paying the church secretary and the rent.
> Volunteerism also complicates the picture. The Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project  at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies compiled a  ranking of private philanthropy in 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Based  on giving alone, the U.S. comes first, giving 1.85% of GDP, followed by  Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. But based on volunteerism alone,  the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S.





> Indeed, America has a culture of giving that goes far beyond tax breaks.  While the wealthiest citizens give the most in sheer dollar  amounts--the top 10% accounting for at least a quarter of giving, according to Arthur C. Brooks--it's in fact low-income employed Americans who give the highest portion of their income, or 4.5%.





> For all its polyglot shifting, U.S. culture is unique when it comes to a  belief in philanthropy. It's a value that may be rooted in Christian  tithing, but has spread to the secular world. Maybe it's a recognition  that with individual freedom comes responsibility, too.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 27, 2012)

I don't think you really want to play that game seriously, BillC.

The charity 'stat' is a nice feather to wear it is true and I would not dream of denigrating anyone for doing such a thing.  Altho' I would say that bragging about how generous you are rather undermines the point.

The "what we do for the rest of the world" aspect tho, I wouldn't beat on that drum too loudly.  You can quite happily think that in your own head if you wish but I have no doubt there are those who would dispute that international-philanthropy stance quite vigorously.


----------



## Instructor (Jun 27, 2012)

I am proud of my country but also freely admit that it has plenty of room for improvement.  All of us want a better country but getting there that's the hard part.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 27, 2012)

It would be interesting to see those charitable stats if you took away dues to organizations. I can tell you that of my charitable giving, nearly half are the dues to my synagogue.


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2012)

One stat he missed, more Nobel prizes in medical innovation came from the United states than for the rest of the world combined.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 1, 2012)

"Still, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan beat us. Why is that? 
Because doctors in other countries look at a premature fetus and think medical waste. Our doctors think, life to be saved, because in fact ours is the greatest country and thats how we roll. 
Premature birth, which is the leading cause of infant mortality, is much higher in the US than in other countries  65% higher than in Britain. The National Center for Health Statistics calls this the primary reason Western Europe has better numbers.
The World Health Organization notes it is common practice in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time. If the baby draws one breath outside the womb in the US, thats a live birth. A lot of these babies dont make it and drive up our mortality numbers. "


A singularly nasty and vicious thing to say, and most emphatically not true. To say that doctors here will leave a premutre baby to die? That's a disgusting thing to say, Bili you should be ashamed of yourself what type of human being are you that you can post that and actually think it's true? All over Europe there are specialist medical staff who fight to keep premature babies alive, no one thinks they are medical waste, the thought that someone can write that turns my stomach. Whatever you think the WHO says there's no European country that has a law that says babies have to be alive for any specific time to be counted as a live birth, what lies you believe. I've never liked your political views but now I think you really have reached to the lowest point possible, saying that medics here leave babies to die and treat them as waste, it's horrifying and shocking that you and anyone else can think this.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/default.aspx?id=915

http://www.rtcnorth.co.uk/news/detail.asp?ntag=792

http://www.liverpoolwomens.nhs.uk/blogger.aspx?id=99

Neonatal medicine is highly advanced in Europe treating babies that are extremely premature, I don't doubt the same is true in Canada, Australia and Japan. Germany has the most premature baby ever to have survived, I don't see that as throwing babies away as you allege.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...credible-infant-weighed-cup-coffee-birth.html

Now, you are going back on ignore because frankly, and I don't care if it's against the rules, for posting that we callously let babies die, you disgust me.


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2012)

He's talking about how they count for infant mortality.  Read a little more closely next time please.



> The World Health Organization notes it is &#8220;common practice&#8221; in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time.



Besides, when they abort/kill an innocent, unborn human life, they do consider it an unviable tissue mass, right?

I see unborn human beings, at the time of conception, as human beings who deserve a chance at life...do you, or do you wait until they reach a certain number of weeks to be seen as human beings?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> One stat he missed, more Nobel prizes in medical innovation came from the United states than for the rest of the world combined.



I'm pretty sure the U.S. has simply won more Nobel prizes in general than any other country-we are, after all, the most "advanced" one with the largest population-this is simple mathematics in a way.

Of course, as in physics, chemistry, economics and literature, those prizes in physiology/medicine are often won by U.S. residents who were born in other countries........just to be fair. 

And don't get me wrong, billi, I love our country, and I've been just about everywhere-there's no where I'd rather live (though there are a few places I wouldn't mind going to _die_) -but we're not "the greatest," on so many levels-in fact, I'm betting the only level on which any country is guaranteed to be the greatest is that it's _ours_-just as true for England and Zimbabwe as it is for us, if you're from England or Zimbabwe, that is.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> He's talking about how they count for infant mortality. Read a little more closely next time please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, the foreign country's practice is more inline with Biblical statutes than yours is, and other civilized and religious standards seem to follow about the same standard, but hey-we can't let little details like the fact that a four month old fetus isn't viable, or an "infant" get in the way of things. 

I mean, if you think that counts as a baby, then you have to live with us b eing where we are in the world in terms of infant mortality-you can't say that the stat is "artificially inflated" or that country's are artificially lowered-you just have to live up to your own imposed standard.....sorry, that just seems more than a little hypocritical to me.....


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2012)

Of course the USA is the best..I live here. 

On a serious note..all the self-loathers would still find something to complain about even if we were #1 in all of those categories. Of course Im skeptical of many "studies"; far too often we are unaware of what sort of criteria they are based on. Like all the crime studies that use Hispanics as either black or white to support an obvious bias by the those conducting the studies.

In the end..any major civilization is going to be far from "perfect" not that we shouldn't try to improve where we are lacking, but the self-hatred thing? Go pedal your angst elsewhere.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 1, 2012)

You know there is a country has many of the things modern day American conservatives want the US to have.  It has no universal health care, a death penatly that is used often, homosexuality is against the law, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman only, strict controls on abortion, religion is not seperate from the state, no enviromental protocals, strong private schools with religious focus, and lots of oil drilling.  The name of the country is Iran.  Something to think about.


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2012)

Well, conservatives want the death penalty for murderers, not people who disagree with the state.  Conservatives want everyone to have healthcare, just not inefficient, corrupt, bloated government controlled health care.  No one wants homosexuality against the law, they just don't t want marriage as an institution redfined.  Abortion is the killing of an unwanted human being so I imagine liberals would support that as well.  Conservatives want a clean environment, but they don't want environmental extremists making the rules.  Conservatives want school choice so Parents can send their kids to the school that offers the best chance of a good education, where as liberals prefer to keep the poor and minority children trapped in bad schools, as long as their union supporters get their benefits.  And Conservatives want oil, coal, and natural gas, you know, the energy sources that actually work, so we aren't dependent on places like Iran.  If we have enough energy, through the sources that actually work, then the ones that don't work, wind, solar and electric cars can be used by the extremely wealthy to show how superior they are to the little people who use the sources that actually work.

Remember, American conservatives want limited government, as defined by the founding documents, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.  The liberals see those documents as obstacles to increasing government power, the conservatives see them as bulwarks against the imposition of tyranny against the people.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> He's talking about how they count for infant mortality. Read a little more closely next time please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's you who didn't read my post, 'he' and you are wrong as I said, there are no laws that say a child has to be alive for any set time before it's considered viable. You are still disgusting for saying we kill premature babies. You are making things up to suit yourself, your post wasn't about abortions it stated quite plainly that we leave premature babies to die.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2012)

But he's onto a valid point about infant mortality statistics Tez..I suggest you read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas



> Underreporting and unreliability of infant-mortality data from other countries undermine any comparisons with the United States.In a 2008 study, Joy Lawn estimated that a full three-fourths of the world&#8217;s neonatal deaths are counted only through highly unreliable five-yearly retrospective household surveys, instead of being reported at the time by hospitals and health-care professionals, as in the United States. Moreover, the most premature babies &#8212; those with the highest likelihood of dying &#8212; are the least likely to be recorded in infant and neonatal mortality statistics in other countries. Compounding that difficulty, in other countries the underreporting is greatest for deaths that occur very soon after birth. Since the earliest deaths make up 75 percent of all neonatal deaths, underreporting by other countries &#8212; often misclassifying what were really live births as fetal demise (stillbirths) &#8212; would falsely exclude most neonatal deaths. Any assumption that the practice of underreporting is confined to less-developed nations is incorrect. In fact, a number of published peer-reviewed studies show that underreporting of early neonatal deaths has varied between 10 percent and 30 percent in highly developed Western European and Asian countries.
> 
> Gross differences in the fundamental definition of &#8220;live birth&#8221; invalidate comparisons of early neonatal death rates. The United States strictly adheres to the WHO definition of live birth (any infant &#8220;irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which . . . breathes or shows any other evidence of life . . . whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached&#8221 and uses a strictly implemented linked birth and infant-death data set. On the contrary, many other nations, including highly developed countries in Western Europe, use far less strict definitions, all of which underreport the live births of more fragile infants who soon die. As a consequence, they falsely report more favorable neonatal- and infant-mortality rates.
> 
> A 2006 report from WHO stated that &#8220;among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.&#8221; The Bulletin of WHO noted that &#8220;it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth&#8221;; those who did not survive were &#8220;completely ignored for registration purposes.&#8221; Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show &#8220;any evidence of life,&#8221; even the most premature and the smallest &#8212; the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths &#8212; it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not.



Statistics.....

Which is why I am skeptical of many of these other supposed "facts" about my country that the self-flagellating libs like to throw about on their television shows.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 2, 2012)

Tgace said:


> But he's onto a valid point about infant mortality statistics Tez..I suggest you read this:
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas
> 
> ...




However what was said had nothing to do with statistics, what was said was that *we allow premature babies to die considering them to be medical waste*. That's what is unforgiveable, an accusation of that type has no place in any debate or argument. No one believes statistics but his comments weren't about that, they were how great America was because you didn't allow babies to die, not that you record them differently.


----------



## billc (Jul 2, 2012)

Tez, it was all about statistics since the silly HBO show rambled off a bunch of statistics attacking the United States.  One of those very statistics was infant mortality.  Thank you Tgace for adding to the information on infant mortality statistics.  It supports the main idea of the rebuttal column on that show.

For emphasis from Tgace's article...



> A 2006 report from WHO stated that &#8220;among developed countries, mortality rates may reflect differences in the definitions used for reporting births, such as cut-offs for registering live births and birth weight.&#8221; The Bulletin of WHO noted that &#8220;it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth&#8221;; those who did not survive were &#8220;completely ignored for registration purposes.&#8221; Since the U.S. counts as live births all babies who show &#8220;any evidence of life,&#8221; even the most premature and the smallest &#8212; the very babies who account for the majority of neonatal deaths &#8212; it necessarily has a higher neonatal-mortality rate than countries that do not.



Apparently, you should read a little closer Tez, even the guy in the article doesn't specifically name Britain as a country that calls murdered, unborn humans medical waste.  True, he does say that Britain is one of the countries that statistically beats the U.S. but does not specifically say Britain treates murdered, unborn humans as medical waste.  He actually says, "other countries."

And the author of the column points out...



> The World Health Organization notes it is &#8220;common practice&#8221; in Western Europe not to count a delivery as a live birth until the child has survived for a set period of time. If the baby draws one breath outside the womb in the US, that&#8217;s a live birth. A lot of these babies don&#8217;t make it and drive up our mortality numbers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 2, 2012)

Stop wriggling Bili, what you posted was unacceptable. It had nothing to do with stattistics and everything to do with a crass disgusting accusation that there are people who leave premature babies to die, firstly you said it was about abortion now it's about statistics, make your mind up. what you posted was disgusting, no amount of blaming me for not reading it properly or saying that 'statistics show' bluster from you will mitigate your crossing the line into indecency.
Your post had nothing to do with a country being great, nothing to do with national pride, nothing to do with anything other than you posting a disgusting accusation. Your post didn't say murdered unborn babies it specifically said* premature babies were left to die and thrown away as medical waste. Not unborn, it said premature babies.*


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 2, 2012)

http://www.bliss.org.uk/help-for-families/you-and-your-baby/

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Premature-Babies-and-their-Problems.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/pregnancy/pregnancy_prematurelabour1.shtml

And you think we leave them to die?  there's not a country in the world that leaves premmie babies to die, not everywhere has the facilities that Europe, Australia, New Zeland Japan etc and America has but no one just thinks of them as medical waste.


----------



## billc (Jul 8, 2012)

As to Cuba beating the United States in healthcare...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/castrocare-in-the-time-of-cholera.php



> Abe Greenwald cites a report from the Miami Herald that &#8220;the first cholera outbreak in Cuba in a century has left at least 15 dead and sent hundreds to hospitals all but sealed off by security agents bent on keeping a lid on the news.&#8221; CastroCare is, Greenwald reminds us, Michael Moore&#8217;s model heathcare system.
> Cholera, which was supposed to have been wiped out in Cuba around 1900, is only one of many Cuban health crises. The Herald reports that &#8220;during one 24-hour period in January, three flights from Cuba to Toronto arrived with groups of passengers suffering from nausea, vomiting and fever.&#8221; There&#8217;s also &#8220;an acute soap shortage,&#8221; and &#8220;rumors of an increase in dengue, a disease transmitted by mosquitoes that thrive during the hot and rainy months of summer.&#8221;
> Greenwald diagnoses the problem in his usual trenchant manner:The people of Cuba can&#8217;t get proper treatment because they are being penalized for the worst precondition going: Communism. The same pre-condition has prevented them from even speaking of their misery: &#8220;a hospital employee reported that doctors are signing death certificates saying that the victims died from &#8216;acute respiratory insufficiency&#8217; rather than cholera.&#8221;
> 
> ​



The Miami Herald story...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/06/2885410/cholera-reportedly-kills-15-sickens.html

*



People in Cuba say hospitals are chaotic and being controlled by security agents who don&#8217;t want alarming reports to get out.
Re​

Click to expand...






Manzanillo human rights activist Tania de la Torre, the wife of Marquez, said residents were boiling their water but could not wash their hands as often as they wished because the city of about 130,000 people has an acute soap shortage.
Calls from El Nuevo Herald to the Celia Sánchez Manduley Hospital in Manzanillo, the biggest health institution in the region, were answered by women who said they were not authorized to comment.
Martínez told El Nuevo Herald that he had gathered his information from residents and health workers in the region. Some of them called him from public phones because police and state security agents are trying to block reports on the cholera outbreak, he added.

​​

Click to expand...


Yeah Jeff Daniels, you are so right about America.  Perhaps you could fly down to Cuba the next time you get a cold...*


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> that calls* murdered, unborn humans *medical waste. True, he does say that Britain is one of the countries that statistically beats the U.S. but does not specifically say Britain treates* murdered, unborn *humans as medical waste. He actually says, "other countries."
> 
> And the author of the column points out...



Again, this is logically and scientifically fallacious.

Humans are born.

The "unborn," are neither human, nor can they be "murdered." except under certain narrow legal defintions, such as murder of a pregnant woman. 

Otherwise, abortion doctors and women (note that I don't say "mothers," because they're *not* ) that obtain abortions would be tried for murder-and they aren't. They weren't even tried for murder when abortion was largely illegal in the U.S. In 1979, in California, an abortionist named William Waddill was tried twice for strangling an infant aborted in 1977-I say "infant," because this was a 28-31 week fetus, clearly viable, clearly outside the guidelines of what was acceptable to abort, and aborted by saline-basically "born." As disgusting as that is, the jury deadlocked twice, and the charges were eventually dismissed.

Not born. Not human. Not murdered. Sorry-I'm mostly on your side with this, but that's where it stands, legally and scientifically. I mean, in a society where a _doctor_ can strangle a baby-_on the fourth attempt!_-in front of witnesses, and not be convicted of murder, there is clearly no such thing as a _"murdered, unborn human_."

"Higher standard," indeed......


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 9, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Again, this is logically and scientifically fallacious.
> 
> Humans are born.
> 
> ...



What Billi has accused us of doing however has nothing to do with abortion, nowhere near it,in fact the complete opposite, he's says we leave premature babies ie babies..wanted babies mind you..who for one reason or another are born too early, that's a kick in the teeth to any parent whose baby was born prematurely. These aren't mothers who've gone for abortion these are mothers who have the awful trauma of watching their babies being born early, placed in incubators with the medical staff doing everything they can. 
I take it there's no apology for this accusation coming from Bili? to accuse people of leaving premature babies to die is wicked, he can't cover it up by saying he actually meant aborted featuses because he didn't, he said and meant premature babies.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I take it there's no apology for this accusation coming from Bili? to accuse people of leaving premature babies to die is wicked, he can't cover it up by saying he actually meant aborted featuses because he didn't, he said and meant premature babies.



Apology? :lfao:

Not .


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

No apology tez, the statement that you are complaining  about came from the author of the article I was using to show the difference in how each country measures infant mortality, in the discussion of the jeff daniels rant against the U.S.  The difference pointed out is true, his other statement may not be but that was not what I was using the article for.  So again, no apology.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> No apology tez, the statement that you are complaining about came from the author of the article I was using to show the difference in how each country measures infant mortality, in the discussion of the jeff daniels rant against the U.S. The difference pointed out is true, his other statement may not be but that was not what I was using the article for. So again, no apology.



Well that shows your true colours, you post something that accuses us of leaving premmie babies to die and no apology. You post something that contains false information that you purport to be true and no apology. Disgusting behaviour, no one of any sensibilty would post such rubbish up in the first place, you seem ignorant of what you are pushing people to believe. To say it's nothing to do with you is ingenous and just plain nasty. Shame on you.


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

You know, perhaps the author of the article read this from Great Britain, before he wrote his article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html




> Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
> 
> Sarah  Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks  and five days into her pregnancy  -  almost four months early.
> They  ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national  guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical  treatment.








> Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
> 
> In  fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that  babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than  23 weeks.
> The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not  compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very  premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not  'standard practice'.
> ...






> *What the medical guidelines say...
> *
> 
> Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.
> ...







> Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.
> 
> Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.
> The  argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time  limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in  line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the  womb at a younger age.
> ...





Soooo...before you lecture me, and before you lecture the author, perhaps you should write the Daily Mail, the NHS and lecture them on their story and the policy of the NHS.  Is this story true, you tell me.  If it is, then I think you'll be waiting a long time for an apology from me.  Perhaps you should google a little more before you try lecturing people on what they post tez.

And before you pull the "it's only the Daily Mail," line...here we go from the vaunted BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm




> Professor Margaret Brazier, who chaired the committee that produced the  guidelines, said: "Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even  if the baby's chances of survival are low.
> 
> "However, we don't think it is always right to put a baby through the  stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get any  better and death is inevitable."
> The inquiry also looked at longer-term support for families, and resource implications for the NHS.





> Do not revive' earliest babies
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And another look at NHS guidelines on premature babies...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...er-when-premature-babies-should-be-saved.html



> During a two-year inquiry, its working party took evidence not just from    doctors and nurses in neonatal medicine, but from professors of philosophy,    and religious leaders.
> 
> 
> But however carefully the debate was handled, the categorical nature of its    final recommendations had an incendendiary effect.
> ...




Sooo, perhaps the author was simply reading the NHS guidelines...so if you have a complaint, take it up with the NHS and the folks who make those decisions...

The actual guidelines can be found online...


> *D.    Gestation 22 weeks or more, or uncertain gestation with detectable FH in labour*
> 1.    Manage on delivery floor
> 2.    Inform the consultant obstetrician.
> 3.    Obstetric and paediatric registrar or consultant, visiting patient together if possible, should counsel patient and partner that:
> ...



Oh, what was that again...for added emphasis for you tez...



> c. If, at delivery, the baby is clearly pre-viable, no active resuscitation will be attempted


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

About Micro Preemies...

http://preemies.about.com/od/preemiehealthproblems/f/What-Is-A-Micro-Preemie.htm



> A micro preemie is a baby born weighing less than 1 pound, 12 ounces (800 grams) or before 26 weeks gestation. Because they are born months before their due dates, micro preemies face long NICU stays. Although many extremely premature babies grow up with no long-term effects of prematurity, others face severe health problems throughout life.
> Babies born after 26 weeks are called very premature,moderately preterm, or late preterm babies.
> *What Is the Survival Rate for Micro Preemies?*
> 
> ...



And from the Houston Chronicle on the care of micro preemies...

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/a...-preemies-are-surviving-in-u-s-but-savin.html



> "Sometimes I think we go too far," she says. "But I know it's easy to say, `Oh this person shouldn't go to such extremes' but I don't know how I'd feel if it were my baby. I know I don't like to see the babies suffer through invasive procedures, like getting stuck over and over for blood draws or going through numerous surgeries in which they almost die and come back over and over. The surgeons can get their egos involved, and the parents really don't know what they're in for."
> The hospital is working to improve communication between parents and the neonatal team, says Artle, who is serving on the committee to carry out that goal. It worries her, she says, that NICU staff members sometimes feel parents are a burden.
> "I tell my nurses, `Imagine this is your baby,"' she says.
> Artle also finds herself reminding parents to remember it is their baby, and to believe in their own decisions.
> "I come off sounding pessimistic," admits Fleisher, "and a lot of what we see is strikingly miraculous compared to five years ago. But there's no guarantee about how the babies turn out."


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> About Micro Preemies...
> 
> http://preemies.about.com/od/preemiehealthproblems/f/What-Is-A-Micro-Preemie.htm



Is there no level you won't sink to? these are the very babies you accuse us and the Europeans of leaving to die and treating as medical waste and you have the nerve to post up this....


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Did you read the NHS guidelines...

from the NHS guidelines...



> c. If, at delivery, the baby is clearly pre-viable, no active resuscitation will be attempted
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 9, 2012)

In this case, BillC, I have to say that maybe it is better to take a step back and take a moment to think.  I have to say that in this case I agree that the mangling of context indulged in to try and make some political point undermines your position.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

A little perspective, if I might.

I was born June 28, 1960. I was due Sept. 15. I was born around 27 weeks gestation. *In 1960.*

I'm thankful my parents had good coverage and financing, and I'm thankful that they were who they were, and weren't about to just let me die. I'm very thankful for my life, which has been mostly good, in spite of a childhood filled with ailments-a great number ofwhich were directly attributable to my early birth, and some of which are still with me.

I live with about 1/3 of a lung. Somehow, I've managed to thrive-and be happy-in spite of a childhood I wouldn't wish on anyone, what with the constant testing, near death experiences, doctors and family telling me I wasn't going to live very long, not being allowed to go outside and play, not being allowed to eat things other kids did, not being allowed to play with other kids, not being allowed into the sun, 106 degree fevers, convulsions, trips to the hospital. etc., etc., etc. I've managed to do all those things I wasn't allowed to do, and more-wonderful things, really, some that I can brag about, and some that I can never say a thing about, but it's been a good life.

And, of course, now I've reached a point in my life where I see some old guy with an oxygen bottle or generator in Walmart, and I know I'm seeing a vision of my future-maybe not my _near_ future, but one I am inexorably closer to, day after to day-I know it when I go climbing, or sing and my niotes fall short, and with that knowledge comes the reminder that if I don't perish in a car wreck, or have a heart attack, or fall from a cliff, or sink my boat, or get shot by a jealous husband, or smashed by a toilet from outer space falling to earth, I'm likely to die slowly and painfully, drowning on dry land, in my own bed.....

....all because some doctor had the hubris to keep me alive, when maybe I should have just been allowed to die.


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Sukerkin, Tez came at me over the article.  The author made strong comments about foriegn countries and their treatment of premature infants.  Tez was offended by it and came after me.  If you look at the various article I have found in casual looking around the net, I have found several and there are more, about various policies by the NHS and its officials that make what the author said less unfounded.  Do all Doctors in the NHS follow the policy of the NHS, no, but the policy is the policy and there are obviously officials in the NHS who support that policy.  Talk to tez about her attitude and how she approaches a discussion, and then we might move forward.

Perhaps the author of the article on the "News Room," also saw this piece on the NHS...

http://community.babycenter.com/pos...l_some_premature_babies_should_be_left_to_die



> A prominent British health care official associated with the country&#8217;s socialized medicine agency NHS is set to make a disturbing admission in an upcoming documentary: she thinks premature babies born at 23 weeks gestation should be left to die. Why? Cost concerns.&#8220;If it was my child, from all the evidence and information that I know, I would not resuscitate,&#8221; Dr. Daphne Austin says in the BBC program_ 23 Week Babies: The Price of Life_, reports London&#8217;s Daily Mail.She continues: &#8220;We are doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers. I can&#8217;t think of very many interventions that have such poor outcomes. *For me the big issue is that we&#8217;re spending an awful lot of money* on treatments that have very marginal benefit. *I would prefer to free up that money to spend on providing support to people who have much more lifelong chronic conditions*.&#8221; [Emphasis added]In even more stunning comments, Austin says that while parents should get a say, in reality they don&#8217;t speak for the baby: &#8220;There&#8217;s a lot of emphasis on the parents&#8217; views and what they want. But somewhere in there, there needs to be an advocate for the baby.&#8221; The Assumption seems to be the baby would rather die.​





> Austin isn&#8217;t the first British woman to promote killing children as the compassionate choice. As wereported in October, UK advice columnist Virginia Ironside said she would even go as far as to smother a suffering child:



And this article...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/techno...ealth-service-failing-premature-babies-384537



> First-time mum Emma Green knows all too well the effect  of a shortage of specialist care for premature babies.
> When she gave birth to her son Harrison nine weeks early, she experienced it first-hand.
> She says: &#8220;Within two hours of being born, Harrison was being transferred to a hospital 40 miles away, which was the closest one with a ventilator.
> &#8220;Our local hospital simply didn&#8217;t have the facilities to care for him.&#8221;
> ...


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Moving outside of Britain to another European nation and their policy toward preamature infants...

http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7299/1383.1.extract



> The leading centre for the treatment of premature births in the Netherlands has decided in principle to stop the active intensive treatment of babies born before 25 weeks' gestation because of research showing poor prognosis.
> Neonatologists at the University Medical Centre in Leiden argue that many babies born before 25 weeks do not survive and those who do are likely to develop serious problems in later life. Elsewhere in the Netherlands, treatment is not offered until 26 weeks, though in neighbouring countries and in the United States there are limits of 23 or even 22 weeks.



And another story from Britain...

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews....mature-surviving-twin-goes-home-with-parents/



> An article in yesterday&#8217;s Daily Telegraph, &#8216;Premature baby survives after doctors advised abortion&#8217;, tells the story of Jacob McMahon, who became Britain&#8217;s most premature surviving twin after he was born on February 22, just 23 weeks into pregnancy, at a weight of 1lb 4oz. [Seewww.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/07/preemie-jacob-mcmahon-escapes-recommendation-for-abortion-now-home/]
> Doctors had advised Miss Fisher to abort Jacob after his twin sister, Emie, died when she was born at 21 weeks and six days due to an infection.
> But Jacob followed eight days later, twelve hours before doctors would have demanded a final decision from the family on whether to terminate the pregnancy.
> The legal upper limit for abortion is 24 weeks, but Jacob is one of a growing list of babies who survived despite being born before the threshold.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Moving outside of Britain to another European nation and their policy toward preamature infants...
> 
> http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7299/1383.1.extract
> 
> ...



See, this is the kind of thing that usually drives me nuts. Rather than even _trying_ to address anything anyone else has to say, these posts are just a relentless copy and paste of links and content to support your position, such as it is.

In that second story, for example, much like mine, does "healthy enough to go home" mean "healthy enough to thrive?" Or "Healthy enough to be happy?" or "healthy enough to live to 3?"

Or just "healthy enough to go home and never learn to feed himself?" Maybe "healthy enough to develop cataracts?" (Actually this last is another real hazard I might be facing, due to weeks under a UV lamp, but so far so good...)

"Healthy enough to go home *to die*?"

Just because a baby is "viable" doesn't mean that it _should_ live.


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Yes, that would have been a good discussion.  tez didn't make it.  She attacked the author of the article and me, I don't respond well to being attacked.  My posts point out the fact that the author of the article had plenty of information available on NHS policy toward premature infants and in a quick search, the Netherlands.  If she had just countered it with her articles and information, in a polite way, then we could have discussed how accurate the author was.  I can see where you would be of two minds on the topic, life doesn't seem to have been easy for you in a medical sense.  I think I remember that you have kids, though, surviving the ordeal allowed them to have a chance, which is a benefit, though hard won one, on your part.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 10, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, that would have been a good discussion. tez didn't make it. She attacked the author of the article and me, I don't respond well to being attacked. My posts point out the fact that the author of the article had plenty of information available on NHS policy toward premature infants and in a quick search, the Netherlands. If she had just countered it with her articles and information, in a polite way, then we could have discussed how accurate the author was. I can see where you would be of two minds on the topic, life doesn't seem to have been easy for you in a medical sense. I think I remember that you have kids, though, surviving the ordeal allowed them to have a chance, which is a benefit, though hard won one, on your part.




You miss the point: my viewpoint *is* nuanced because of my experience. I'd never have an abortion (obviously) or be party to one, and raised my children to have one or be party to one. Beyond that, I'd *never* call someone who did have one, or performed them a "murderer of unborn human babies," pretty much regardless of gestation period. I'd never call someone who had a live birth at 23 or 24 weeks that they chose not to save with extraordinary medical care a "murderer of unborn human babies," nor would I call a doctor who was involved in making that decision. I'd never call someone who provided medical care to such a live birth a fool, a dreamer, a Bible-thumper or wasteful, though I might question their decision making based on the prognosis-it might just be cruel to allow a blind and crippled baby to struggle through life, but it also might not-of course, it's not *my* decision.

The other point you miss, of course, is that you insulted Tez and Mark's country directly: not their medical policies, which we both might _question_, but their nation and almost all of the European continent-whether this was done to deliberately contrast with U.S. policies (where medical care *still* might be withheld from an early term delivered fetus, depending upon the state it took place in) or to attempt to expose U.S. infant mortality statistics as being slanted doesn't matter: you insulted their country, and you should say you're sorry-it's always the same with your posts-being right is so much more important than how you treat people, and what you have to say is so much more important than how you say it-or what anyone else has to say-that it doesn't even seem like you're even remotely interested in a "good discussion." 

In fact, it seems as though you have no idea what a "good discussion" is at all-time after time, you'll insist on being right when presented with facts that contradict your viewpoint, refuse to admit when you're wrong, and never acknowledge that it might be that you've hurt someone's feelings, or even that they have any. Your posts are the product of someone who thinks of Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart.com as valid political discourse, and that constantly shouting down the other person with a barrage of refutation is a valid debate technique. 

Predictably, rather than address what I have to say, you'll likely post another COPYPASTA and quotes to demonstrate how you're right-it gets, frankly, quite tiresome, and makes genuine conservative viepoints, or even liberal Republican viewpoints, get lost in the constant din of inanities.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2012)

elder999 said:


> You miss the point: my viewpoint *is* nuanced because of my experience. I'd never have an abortion (obviously) or be party to one, and raised my children to have one or be party to one. Beyond that, I'd *never* call someone who did have one, or performed them a "murderer of unborn human babies," pretty much regardless of gestation period. I'd never call someone who had a live birth at 23 or 24 weeks that they chose not to save with extraordinary medical care a "murderer of unborn human babies," nor would I call a doctor who was involved in making that decision. I'd never call someone who provided medical care to such a live birth a fool, a dreamer, a Bible-thumper or wasteful, though I might question their decision making based on the prognosis-it might just be cruel to allow a blind and crippled baby to struggle through life, but it also might not-of course, it's not *my* decision.
> 
> The other point you miss, of course, is that you insulted Tez and Mark's country directly: not their medical policies, which we both might _question_, but their nation and almost all of the European continent-whether this was done to deliberately contrast with U.S. policies (where medical care *still* might be withheld from an early term delivered fetus, depending upon the state it took place in) or to attempt to expose U.S. infant mortality statistics as being slanted doesn't matter: you insulted their country, and you should say you're sorry-it's always the same with your posts-being right is so much more important than how you treat people, and what you have to say is so much more important than how you say it-or what anyone else has to say-that it doesn't even seem like you're even remotely interested in a "good discussion."
> 
> ...




Thank you, I was going to reply to his post but yours is much more succint and truthful than anything I could write in my pain. I've lost two babies born too early and the medical staff were amazing, never appropriate, never giving up until there was literally nothing more to be done. I can't speak highly enough of them.
I have two wonderful healthy children ( children? ones 35 the other 27 lol!) and am grateful everyday for them. Billis off onto ignore, I really can't stand anymore, and Elder thank you again.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 10, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KVa_KipxRw&feature=player_embedded


This baby is the niece of one of the ladies in the Military Wives Choir, we all got involved because one of the mums in my daughter's Cheer Squad is also in the Mlitary Wives Choir, it's a story of hope and love. Have some tissues handy I warn you. I don't know what the equivalant organisation for transplants is in the US but perhaps this will encourage people to sign up. 


If you don't know the Military Wives choir this is them at the annual Festival of Remembrance last year, all the husbands are in the military and were in Afghanistan when the choir formed. One husband didn't make it back. They are due back in Afghan to relieve our Brigade (who go this Septemeber) in March next year. 





Are we the greatest country in the world, I doubt it but by god we have some wonderful people in it.


----------

