|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 4, 2008 21:44:33 GMT -8
Of course the NHS has its flaws; waiting times are horrible, certain facilities and aspects of the service are desperately under-funded, and there is a lack of doctors and nurses coming through the system to provide the care itself - but at its core, the idea of a centrally funded healthcare system which provides the best quality of healh care it can to all citizens free of charge is one I subscribe to 1000%. In fact, I would say that the establishment of the NHS is one of the greatest things any British government has done in the last 100 years. I think these drawbacks sum up why it would be a terrible idea quite nicely. Plus, the facts don't lie. The survival rate of cancer in the UK healthcare system is half that of the US. This percentage would be devastating to US citizens. Let me explain. I'm from New Orleans, Louisiana. Louisiana has a full socialized, and state government funded health care system known as the charity system. There are a number of charity hospitals throughout the state, and ANYONE can go there and get treated for ANYTHING for FREE. Pretty much every doctor in his or her residency works at one of these hospitals. You are dealing with talented people, yet health in Louisiana is some of the worst in the country. I'd also like to point out that Louisiana's education system is also one of the worst in the country. If people were educated, they'd lead healthier lives. A lot of people in America take handouts for granted, and that is not a motivation to change your health. People who are educated well in the area of health understand the value and the utmost importance of it. This is the key to making America healthier. An ignoramus who eats McDonald's everyday isn't gonna give a shit about health, especially if free health care looms over his or her head. Giving free health care to millions of people that don't give a shit about or are utterly ignorant about health is not a solution. Education about health is. People will have no problem spending thousands upon thousands of dollars per year on entertainment, but scoff at any expenditures towards one's health. Why? Because people aren't educated enough to understand the value of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Sept 5, 2008 1:56:21 GMT -8
It's not "the damn foreigners, hate America", it's simply that your country has a very particular way of handling this issue. It's called leadership. Something the current European model threw aside long ago. Better than the moronic immaturity on parade outside the Democractic Convention. "Love, peace, justice! Love, peace, justice! Love, peace, justice!" Two seconds later: "Kill Michelle Malkin! Kill Michelle Malkin! Kill Michelle Malkin!" Furthermore: Palin was a terrific VP pick. I may not like McCain, but having her on the ticket is incredibly exciting. Really turned the tables on the Democrats and their message of "change." Obama picks a Beltway born-and-bred liberal who is nothing but more of the same and McCain picks a fresh, spunky, female governor who actually has executive experience. Yeah... I'm thinking McCain won that battle. Choosing Lieberman would have been a complete death knell to any chances of McCain being elected and he knew it. -Jockolantern
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Sept 5, 2008 8:17:14 GMT -8
I still can't get it out of my head that we have McCain who volunteered to stay in the NVA prison camp so another prisoner could go free vs. Obama. A community organizer (whatever that is). It's this type of attitude that really ticked me off during the RNC. Especially when Guiliani mentioned the name "community organizer" and the whole crowd erupted into laughter. It's just another sign that the GOP is out of touch with the poorer populations if they can't recognize the important of the community organizers. Just like how they kept talking about wanting parents to have a choice of what school their kids go to. There's no choice for families that can't afford to send their kids to a school farther away. McCain didn't propose anything for making college cheaper, either.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 5, 2008 9:19:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 5, 2008 13:29:05 GMT -8
If Obama showed that video, the media would be cheering.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Sept 5, 2008 13:50:50 GMT -8
Classy. Anyone else see the Iran cameo? WWIII, here we come! Yeah, it's like everything in the video is actually true or something. One would swear radical Islam does indeed pose a great threat to the known free world if left to their own devices; Iran included. It's like there's something somehow wrong about paying tribute to those we lost on 9/11. I never saw MSNBC or other networks bat an eye at showing reel after reel after reel of hurricane Katrina devistation for their own agendas... but somehow the RNC paying homage to the men and women we lost on 9/11 is a crime? Gimme' a break, Hook. Like Chris said, had this very video been shown at the DNC, dopes like Olbermann would have been cheering. But, they instead chose to give us a boring Spielberg war tribute that featured far worse acting than even Harrison Ford grumbled up for Indy 4. -Jockolantern
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 5, 2008 13:57:51 GMT -8
It's this type of attitude that really ticked me off during the RNC. Especially when Guiliani mentioned the name "community organizer" and the whole crowd erupted into laughter. It's just another sign that the GOP is out of touch with the poorer populations if they can't recognize the important of the community organizers. I don't even understand what you're trying to say. I seriously don't know what the hell a community organizer is. Is it something in the communist party? Where I come from when you need something done in the community you get off your ass and do it yourself. Our church has given out dozens of cars to single mothers, etc. All the cars donated by community and church members as well as the repairs done in the community garage and by church members. Most of these people are off welfare and have good jobs now because we gave them a car to get off of their feet. We didn't need some "expert" like Obama to tell us what to do. We saw a problem and dealt with it ourselves. "Community Organizer" just sounds like some made up title that sounds good on resumes or in political campaigns. Unless by "community organizer" we mean registering poor people to vote democrat or registering dead people to vote. ACORN being investigated in 12 states and convicted of voter fraud in a few, but I suppose that's not the ACORN Obama knew. Seriously. He's telling us he should be president because he was a community organizer. That's his experience. Working for a community organzing group that has been convicted in some of the biggest voting fraud cases in history! Okay, I'm confused. We want to pay off the national debt yet we want national healthcare and universal college education (Obama wants at least $4,000 for everyone to go to at least a community college). Not saying you said universal college education Cheno. I'm just making a point (supposedly). If Obama showed that video, the media would be cheering. And in all 57 states! (not including Hawaii and Alaska of course): www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIwsI don't want to hear how "dumb" George Bush is anymore. Okay, I'm done for the day.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Sept 5, 2008 14:15:21 GMT -8
It's this type of attitude that really ticked me off during the RNC. Especially when Guiliani mentioned the name "community organizer" and the whole crowd erupted into laughter. And rightly so. I'm not bashing on community organizers, mind you, but we're talking about becoming the President of the United States here. Obama hardly has the experience, qualifications or wherewithall to remotely qualify for such a position. In a sane political environment, he wouldn't stand a chance at becoming elected... Hopefully he still doesn't. Like them or not, his two earlier primary opponents, Clinton and Edwards, had worlds more experience than Barack currently does. Even more ironic is the fact that McCain's own VP has more executive experience than either Obama or her [/i]own[/i] presidential running mate. I'm still stunned as to how we ended up with two senators as the contenders for the presidency. Governors fit the bill much, much better simply because they have the kind of executive, bureaucratic experience and responsibilities over a state akin to running an entire nation of them. No, it's a sign that we want the government out of people's lives and encourage those lesser-off individuals that if they work hard, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, stay financially responsible and commit themselves to being upstanding citizens... then the sky is the limit! This is the greatest land of hope and opportunity in the world and I am damn sick and tired of liberals treating it otherwise. What on earth does that have to do with school choice at all? If they can't afford to send their children to a school far away and want a better education for their children than a local public school, than perhaps they should look into homeschool their children. Or if they really want that child to go to that far away school, then they might try and find a way to relocate closer to that particular school. There are many options well within the realm of personal and familial responsibility. All we conservatives ask is that the parents of the children be given direct responsibility for the education of their own child, wherever they choose to have them educated. They are the parents, after all, and should quite well know best how and where they want their child to receive an education! Because that has nothing to do with the government! Shouldn't, at least. Why don't colleges slash budgets so that they can help make college more affordable for their students? All I see my local university do is build more and more each year whilst raping students of their life-long finances (and parking space, I might add; it's probably a subversive tactic to get people to stop driving, knowing the liberal university mindset ). Keeping people in debt for life seems to be what colleges do best. And if big oil is so eeeeeevil because of the profits they make... why the hell isn't big university bad?! The profits my own university reaps from its students just get fatter and fatter by the year! Good heavens, a tank full of gas has nothing on an average $$ per credit hour charge! -Jockolantern
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Sept 5, 2008 14:53:31 GMT -8
No, it's a sign that we want the government out of people's lives and encourage those lesser-off individuals that if they work hard, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, stay financially responsible and commit themselves to being upstanding citizens... then the sky is the limit! This is the greatest land of hope and opportunity in the world and I am damn sick and tired of liberals treating it otherwise. You seem to be equating liberalism with the lack of hope and opportunity; this offends me. Working hard, being financially responsible and being an upstanding citizen is something that everyone should aim to achieve, liberal or conservative. I absolutely agree with you on this point, with the proviso that access to services, resources and other such opportunities are given on an equal footing. However, as it stands right now this is not the case - there are millions of families who, despite working hard, being financially responsible and being an upstanding citizen, will never have the same opportunities or services that the more well-off will have, through no fault of their own. This is where the government MUST come into play - a strong, financially responsible, thoroughly ethical government must step in and ensure that education, health care, public services, and all the other cornerstones of life are accessible and available to ALL people, equally. Otherwise the system just continues to support those who have the majority of the wealth, and screw everyone else. What on earth does that have to do with school choice at all? If they can't afford to send their children to a school far away and want a better education for their children than a local public school, than perhaps they should look into homeschool their children. Or if they really want that child to go to that far away school, then they might try and find a way to relocate closer to that particular school. There are many options well within the realm of personal and familial responsibility. All we conservatives ask is that the parents of the children be given direct responsibility for the education of their own child, wherever they choose to have them educated. They are the parents, after all, and should quite well know best how and where they want their child to receive an education! Unless both parents are working full time jobs and can't afford to give up one of them to homeschool, or can't afford to relocate to another location because it would cripple them financially with the way the housing market is right now, or it would mean even more stresses on strains on the family budget because one or both parents would have to commute further to their jobs. Hmmm, what should I buy with my salary this month? Gas to get to my job, or food to fee my kids...? You said that "All we conservatives ask is that the parents of the children be given direct responsibility for the education of their own child, wherever they choose to have them educated." What you don't seem to realize is that, for far too many people, there is simply no choice.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 5, 2008 16:13:42 GMT -8
Yeah, it's like everything in the video is actually true or something. One would swear radical Islam does indeed pose a great threat to the known free world if left to their own devices; Iran included. It's like there's something somehow wrong about paying tribute to those we lost on 9/11. I never saw MSNBC or other networks bat an eye at showing reel after reel after reel of hurricane Katrina devistation for their own agendas... but somehow the RNC paying homage to the men and women we lost on 9/11 is a crime? Gimme' a break, Hook. That's paying "homage"? With the creepy music and the sly edits to black? And why now? Why does this video surface at a specific point in time where you need votes to get elected? You can pay tribute to the victims of 9/11 any day of any year, but they do this now to play on your emotions and your most basic fears. Everyone knows Osama is the bad guy, but what's the point of reminding you of that when you're clinching your party's nomination? Do you really think it's not a politically charged statement designed to imply whatever your audience's biases are? If Sara Palin comes out tonight holding her baby out in front of the public, it doesn't matter how real that baby is, that doesn't make her the fucking Lion King, she's making a statement about her pro-life views and using the kid as leverage. If Obama had done this I would find it just as disgusting. Instead, they leave me a little colder with lesbian folk singing. I don't care about Olbermann, that's the best version of the video I could find at the time. The guy is a self-righteous, smug complex of a man who thinks he's the Edward R. Murrow of our times. But still, my sensibilities guide me in such a way that human tragedies never appear to me as a good way of asking for votes.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 5, 2008 19:24:54 GMT -8
And rightly so. I'm not bashing on community organizers, mind you, but we're talking about becoming the President of the United States here. Obama hardly has the experience, qualifications or wherewithal to remotely qualify for such a position. In a sane political environment, he wouldn't stand a chance at becoming elected... Hopefully he still doesn't. Like them or not, his two earlier primary opponents, Clinton and Edwards, had worlds more experience than Barrack currently does. What are the qualifications for becoming President? The last time I checked there were only two - one has to be a certain age and one has to be a natural-born citizen. I don't understand why so many folks are infatuated with this so-called "presidential" experience nonsense. Btw, what the heck makes up presidential experience? A lifetime in the Senate? Two terms as a mayor of New York City? A presidential pedigree? What? What exactly makes one experienced to become the POTUS? Okay, presidents have four main job duties, setting a legislative agenda, foreign affairs duties, making appointments, and performing head of state duties (attending ceremonies, signing treaties, etc). Just because some one has "executive experience" it does not mean they will become a good president. Jimmy Carter was a governor, and so was Dubya? Did there executive experience make them good presidents. I've come across a good site, so I will quote from there. "Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder. Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say." So, how did Lincoln become a great president despite having such little "political" experience? Hmmm, maybe lawyers have certain skills that would "qualify" them for being president. In fact, more than half of the POTUS have been lawyers. In case folks don't know, after Obama became a community organizer at age 23, he then went to Harvard Law School, and he became a lawyer. Really guys, don't put to much stock into executive experience. Jocko, even if John Edwards has more "experience" than Obama, do you honestly think he would be a better president, especially after observing his two presidential campaigns? Does Edwards have the ability to set a legislative agenda? Does Edwards have the ability to make sensible appointments? (Who was in charge of his campaign again?) Does Edwards have more "foreign affairs" knowledge than, say, a President Clinton, or a President Dubya? Damn this is too long, so onto...
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 5, 2008 19:29:45 GMT -8
No, it's a sign that we want the government out of people's lives and encourage those lesser-off individuals that if they work hard, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, stay financially responsible and commit themselves to being upstanding citizens... then the sky is the limit! This is the greatest land of hope and opportunity in the world and I am damn sick and tired of liberals treating it otherwise. So, there shouldn't be community organizers? Community organizers = more government. I'm confused. So, onto ... They can't afford a private school tuition, so they'll be able to afford to work as a non-profit homeschool teacher? Ha! Oh, they'll be able to move to a more expensive, exclusive community that has a better public school system. The rent might be three times their income, but they'll be able to afford it. Ha! So, you want to make education a fundemental right?
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 5, 2008 19:38:54 GMT -8
I'm beginning to see the light. It's gonna get dark in here! McCain didn't propose anything for making college cheaper, either. Because that has nothing to do with the government! Shouldn't, at least. Why don't colleges slash budgets so that they can help make college more affordable for their students? All I see my local university do is build more and more each year whilst raping students of their life-long finances (and parking space, I might add; it's probably a subversive tactic to get people to stop driving, knowing the liberal university mindset ). Keeping people in debt for life seems to be what colleges do best. And if big oil is so eeeeeevil because of the profits they make... why the hell isn't big university bad?! The profits my own university reaps from its students just get fatter and fatter by the year! Good heavens, a tank full of gas has nothing on an average $$ per credit hour charge! What happened to the conservative report and the power of the individual to pay for his own education. The government should not be in the business of giving out handouts to students. The Pell Grants have just made lower-income students dependent on government assistance. There are options out there. Work hard, save your money, obtain scholarships, pick a college with lower costs (see the University of Phoenix). Move if you have to! Also, the government shouldn't be handing out favorable loans to students and then wasting tons of money on these "loan forgiveness" programs. (This is probably a subversive tactic to get people to join the Peace-Corps, knowing the liberal mindset). In you choose to go in debt, you should work your way out of it and not depend on the government to bail you out. Education is not a fundamental right. Economically, university's shouldn't be forced to slash their growth because some folks are willing to work hard enough to pay the average $$ per credit hour charge. If a college didn't make profits, they wouldn't be able to compete for quality high-priced professors, offer tons of services, and so forth. Jocko, it costs a lot of money to run a university. The academic and athletic budget is tremendous. The growth you see around you helps to keep costs down. By building more (buildings, laboratories, etc) the university is able to take in more people, and this helps to lower to "cost of living (operating) expenses. Less growth means fewer people and this would mean that fewer people would have to pay more, so thank God for growth! Also, a lot of state-run University's are experiencing budget cuts, due to the tax-less and cut more philosophy of state legislatures. If the univeristy's did more budget cuts, how could they charge less for tuition? -CG
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Sept 5, 2008 20:07:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 6, 2008 0:52:12 GMT -8
I like how now one has addressed or challenged anything I have said.
|
|