Obama nearly there

[Welton Toffee]

I'll be back

 

[TX Bill]

I'll be back

Ah of course...sorry.

Unfortunately for him, he can never be President as he wasn't born in the USA.

 

[Welton Toffee]

Ah of course...sorry.

Unfortunately for him, he can never be President as he wasn't born in the USA.

Boooo, he would make an incredible President

Random President fact - Our very own Andrew Johnson was President in the late-ish 19th century. Unlike ours though he had hair and was a bit of a racist.

FACT.

 

[Dylan]

Ah of course...sorry.

Unfortunately for him, he can never be President as he wasn't born in the USA.

You obviously haven't seen Demolition Man.

 

[sotnas]

Sotnas,

Please be sure your opinions are FACT based before spouting them. The courts didn't "award" Bush the Presidency contrary to moonbat tinfoil hat liberals. You can thank your lucky stars Gore wasn't the President when 9/11 happened or we'd be in a world of hurt right now as he would have certainly wanted to "negotiate" with Al Qaeda vs. retaliate as Bush did. Kinda like Clinton when he negotiated the nuclear treaty with North Korea. Did you happen to see how that worked out?

I don't even want to know what Gore would have done to this country regarding his unproven "scientific" view on climate change.

In addition, two media outlets did recounts and found that had their been another recount, Bush would have won anyway. Renders your court opinion moot.

Third, the fact that you watch Jon Stewart tells me all I need to know about where you get your political knowledge. May I recommend a few political blogs that you might enjoy as well and are on par with the Daily Show:

1) Daily Kos
2) Democratic Underground

You'd fit right in with their political thinking (extreme left) and beliefs (conspiracy theorists).

With all due respect, when you talk about conspiracy theories, are you talking about the Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction? I'd rather call it a bedtime story if it wasn't for all the innocents that died from Mr. Bush "vision".

One other thing, although I understand the danger of having a fundamentalist country mastering nuclear power, it's pretty ironic that the only country in the planet that has ever used nuclear weapons is the one who preaches to be the world guardian. Oh, they did it twice.

Pardon me if I get worried about some election that happens in somebody else's garden, but everytime an american president sneezes it seems that someplace else will get a cold.

One thing the war hasn't helped was the american economy. So, the main fundament for such an idiotic intervention in Iraq was a complete fiasco.

The war has depleted the american economy and brought home many soldiers in a box.

If you take into account that many Iraqis lost everything, and they still haven't gained back any sort of security in their own home, I'd say it wasn't a surgeon's job.

Btw, wasn't Saddam a monster created by americans?

Maybe Bush has made some positive things in your country but the world has some regrets about his rules, which mainly are restricted to only one rule... no rule applies to him or to his class.

Maybe I'd like to see Obama in the chair just for the fun of the irony of it. A black man named Barack Hussein Obama...can you get more muslim than that?

Funny how the possibility of him being a muslim came to light... It's just funny... Once upon a time there were comunists who were the bogey man...now we have the muslims... Maybe americans should go to the libraries and try to find out more about the Al-Cora. I guess you'd be amazed about their tolerance towards other people with a different creed.

Pitty that americans decided to incentivate uneducated people to fight russians, instead of spreading education throughout the world. I wouldn't call it an "enlightment" policy.

You can't really say that USA haven't done anything to instigate the hate in the arabs, can you?

I wonder what would happen if the arabs decided to finance Cuba with the oil money. I wonder what would happen if cubans decided to invade USA to throw Bush out of his chair (The Bay of Pigs ring a bell?)

i don't think the foreign policy of the americans has changed dramatically over the years. Mainly, they've done the same things. And they upset those they can't control.

Thers is one big difference between us, my dear friend, you don't have to live with my government. But I have to live with yours.

Cheers, my evertonian mate.

 

[chicoazul]

I think he's trying to say you're a blert there Bill.

Dont thank me.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Woulnd't happen if Glyn Snodin was president.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Now if you start getting into specialized treatments, doctors, etc., that are outside of what your insurance will pay, then if you can afford a better doctor/specialist, then you'll gladly pay for it.

See, this is what I've got a problem with.

You're saying that because there exist different types of insurance, some of which must be clearly superior and, therefore, more expensive, then it will be virtually impossible for the poorest members of society to gain treatment from the better doctors. These people do not have the funds to go private, so we can hardly expect them to go private even if they would gladly pay the pittance that they have.

We can wrap this up in all sorts of pretty paper, and put a couple of bows on top, but effectively you are saying that if you are poor, there are certain treatments that you will not be able to have, merely by virtue of the fact that you are poor.

I'm not a fan of Cuba, for example, but even there with its corrupt regime, it is possible to get decent medical assistance regardless of where you are in the "food chain".

In most of Europe, whilst you can go private, there is an outcry when it appears that people are being denied treatments on the national health system. It happens here, often due to the fact that funding is limited and certain hospitals are reluctant to spend on certain diseases or afflictions. Thus, the health authorites create particularly long waiting lists in order that funding is diverted elsewhere. But when this does occur, there is an almighty fuss about it. We don't merely take in our stride as being necessary and right that people are refused treatment. We get mad about it.

We see it in a similar sense that you guys view your constitution. It's a sacred and fundamental right of all citizens to be able to show up at their local surgery or hospital and receive care without filling in forms, checking that they're covered and generally going through whole lot of worry about the trivial matter of money when they need to be focusing on getting well.

But insurance will still cover the basics and that's not to say that you'll be lacking as the USA has a good hospital/medical facility system. Many plans also have some sort of copay system where regardless of coverage, you'll bear some of the costs, say 10-20%.

See, imagine that I have this copay system on my policy. I need expensive treatment for a disease like cancer. The cost of my treatment is $100,000, which is entirely possible. My life is threatened, I'm no longer in employment, I've got payments on my mortgage to make and then I'm landed with a bill of up to $20,000 on top of all that. When I look across the pond to our friends in Europe and see that these guys are not getting billed for the same treatment, then I'm pretty pissed off. I'm also starting to wonder why it is that we have a system where it's not just the drug companies making profit out of sickness, but also insurance companies as well.

Mind you, I do still love you crazy Americans.

 

[McBain]

Moral of the story, just dont get sick in the U.S or your screwed.

As for the Presidential debate, im as over it as this seasons transfer window.

As if Obama will get elected. Things in the U.S dont happen unless the biggest voice in the room with the most money says so. And he's not through selling weapons yet.

Theres two men waiting on the grassy knoll for that tall poppy ill bet my missing 7 million points on that one.

Can you see Guantanimo Bay from your place chico?

Sat Gday to the World Police from me.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Nebbiolo, the thing that most seem to forget however is that someone has to pay for everything. If your poor person can't pay for their treatment, someone else will have to (in the NHS model). Should that be something that is forced upon an individual? If someone in my family struggled to pay for their healthcare I'd do all I could to help them, but why should I have fiscal responsibility/obligations to people that I've never met?

I guess our essential difference lies in how we regard people biologically. I believe that with effort and hard work that people can make the most of their lives regardless of their genetic weaknesses. I get the impression that you believe some people to be born with poor genes and are cast on the scrap heap as a consequence and no amount of elbow grease will prevent that individual being dumb all their life, and presumably therefore relying on handouts from others to survive.

 

[Nebbiolo]

[W]hy should I have fiscal responsibility/obligations to people that I've never met?

You are part of a society, not a single entity operating outside of the social world. You've no choice but to enter into a relationship with the wider world, and it is in your interests to so.

You are afforded with protection, housing, roads, cars, health care, education only because a society exists and its members are paying taxes, and agreeing in principle, that we all need to put our back into improving and bettering the world we live in.

Furthermore, since society has decided that it wants co-operating members then you've no option but to co-operate. If you don't (E.g. you stop paying tax) then you'll be punished. You might not like that, but you're not strong enough on your own to do much about it.

We flourish when we co-operate, we wither and die when we only think of ourselves and families.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I've no doubt that we live in a social world, but you of course neglected to mention all the other facets of society such as agriculture, finance, communication, clothing etc. that all work on voluntary contributions based on what you consume. I've no doubt that certain types of service are only valid because enough people demand such a service to encourage companies to offer it, but that doesn't require forced contributions to a one size fits all service and it certainly doesn't mean that these products and services should be provided by one company and one company only. Each of those industries I mentioned above work well in the private sector and each is crucial to the functioning of a society.

I also agree that we as a society flourish when we co-operate, but I dare say we have different ideas about that. I think that co-operation is a natural thing and markets are the ideal means of enabling co-operation because they provide incentives to both parties to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges. I fully appreciate that it doesn't work that way all the time, but governments lose all the power of that co-operation because there is no real exchange there. You get what you're given or nothing at all.

We flourish when we co-operate, we wither and die when we only think of ourselves and families.

Surely there's a level of involvement though? I doubt there are any here that will give greater consideration to a stranger than they would their own family. I would think one is far more likely to give unconditionally to those close to you than those you don't know purely by virtue of limited time and attention span. Theories such as emergence, game and chaos provide stark evidence that such seemingly selfish behaviour works just fine at producing a successful system, or society. Of course it's in the governments own interest to dictate that society could not function without them, why would they ever say anything different?

Furthermore, since society has decided that it wants co-operating members then you've no option but to co-operate. If you don't (E.g. you stop paying tax) then you'll be punished. You might not like that, but you're not strong enough on your own to do much about it.

We're moving from topic a bit here, but considering at the last election less people voted than didn't vote one could use that as indication that people are royally pissed off with the status quo. No doubt this will be construed as people being idle layabouts however

 

[TX Bill]

With all due respect, when you talk about conspiracy theories, are you talking about the Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction? I'd rather call it a bedtime story if it wasn't for all the innocents that died from Mr. Bush "vision".

One other thing, although I understand the danger of having a fundamentalist country mastering nuclear power, it's pretty ironic that the only country in the planet that has ever used nuclear weapons is the one who preaches to be the world guardian. Oh, they did it twice.

Pardon me if I get worried about some election that happens in somebody else's garden, but everytime an american president sneezes it seems that someplace else will get a cold.

One thing the war hasn't helped was the american economy. So, the main fundament for such an idiotic intervention in Iraq was a complete fiasco.

The war has depleted the american economy and brought home many soldiers in a box.

If you take into account that many Iraqis lost everything, and they still haven't gained back any sort of security in their own home, I'd say it wasn't a surgeon's job.

Btw, wasn't Saddam a monster created by americans?

Maybe Bush has made some positive things in your country but the world has some regrets about his rules, which mainly are restricted to only one rule... no rule applies to him or to his class.

Maybe I'd like to see Obama in the chair just for the fun of the irony of it. A black man named Barack Hussein Obama...can you get more muslim than that?

Funny how the possibility of him being a muslim came to light... It's just funny... Once upon a time there were comunists who were the bogey man...now we have the muslims... Maybe americans should go to the libraries and try to find out more about the Al-Cora. I guess you'd be amazed about their tolerance towards other people with a different creed.

Pitty that americans decided to incentivate uneducated people to fight russians, instead of spreading education throughout the world. I wouldn't call it an "enlightment" policy.

You can't really say that USA haven't done anything to instigate the hate in the arabs, can you?

I wonder what would happen if the arabs decided to finance Cuba with the oil money. I wonder what would happen if cubans decided to invade USA to throw Bush out of his chair (The Bay of Pigs ring a bell?)

i don't think the foreign policy of the americans has changed dramatically over the years. Mainly, they've done the same things. And they upset those they can't control.

Thers is one big difference between us, my dear friend, you don't have to live with my government. But I have to live with yours.

Cheers, my evertonian mate.

Haha...don't even know where to start with this so I wont.

Being liberal is punishment in and of itself.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I've no doubt that we live in a social world, but you of course neglected to mention all the other facets of society such as agriculture, finance, communication, clothing etc. that all work on voluntary contributions based on what you consume.

The market has much responsibility in running these ventures. But Bruce, they're not merely products of a free market. Take, for example, agriculture. It has been common place for farmers to be given grants in order to keep farming ticking over. With communication, the British government has dome much to promote the use of the internet. With finance, we're currently seeing Northern Rock subsidised by central government in order that a banking crisis is averted (Bradford and Bingley seems to be on the verge of something similar). These industries are all, in one way or another, likely to receive government attention and are in no way merely operators in a free market.

I've no doubt that certain types of service are only valid because enough people demand such a service to encourage companies to offer it, but that doesn't require forced contributions to a one size fits all service and it certainly doesn't mean that these products and services should be provided by one company and one company only. Each of those industries I mentioned above work well in the private sector and each is crucial to the functioning of a society.

Okay, now many of the industries are fundamental to society. But there are many ways to organise a society. Free market capitalism, which is less free than you seem to think, is just one way. We've got socialism, communism, anarchism amongst many methods to use. I think we've found the best way, though. That is, we permit markets to do what they do best, which is providing the impetus to people to do things for financial gain.

In saying that, your "trickle down" capitalism is inadequate to deal with creating a society that is fair and just. It also makes no provision for such things as funding the arts. You try getting people to fund, on a voluntary basis, such things as the wonderful museums that we have, particularly in London. I want a dynamic Tate and Natural History Museum. We get these by allowing central government to take the institutions outside of the market where they operate under conditions that operators in the market cannot.

The fundamental problem with your brand of right-libertarianism, with a hint of anarchism, I think, is that it assumes that people are kinder and more altruistic than they really are. I fully expect that if we adopted it, this would happen within 20 years:

Life would be just dreadful. The poorest would die young, the richest would, in order to protect their interests, take increasingly brutal methods to keep it. Contracts would cease to be honoured. He with the most wealth simply buys his way to the top. Minimal government means minimal law. It means no petty civil servants paid to keep the fabric of society ticking over. There would be little in the way of the arts, no education to speak of and, importantly, no proper health system. Even the rich might suffer here because, with an education system funded merely voluntarily, it seems likely that there would never be provision to train doctors beyond a rudimentary level. Add to that the probability that research into disease would grind to halt, and we're left with a pretty nasty society. To coin a phrase from Hobbes: "Life [would] be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Not that I'm being alarmist or anything

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not that I'm being alarmist or anything

Wouldn't dream of it

Take, for example, agriculture. It has been common place for farmers to be given grants in order to keep farming ticking over. With communication, the British government has dome much to promote the use of the internet. With finance, we're currently seeing Northern Rock subsidised by central government in order that a banking crisis is averted (Bradford and Bingley seems to be on the verge of something similar). These industries are all, in one way or another, likely to receive government attention and are in no way merely operators in a free market.

I agree that the government does have a say in the markets you mention, but I don't think it should do. The use of agricultural subsidies in America and Europe has probably done more than anything to consign Africa to a life of poverty as it effectively bars these markets for sale of African produce. Add in the politically motivated support of the biofuel industry and you have the current food situation, especially when you consider that the barring of GM food in Europe is a political issue.

Likewise with finance. You won't find me advocating the free market as a permanent bed of roses. I fully expect certain companies to go bust, but the key thing is that it allows people to learn from their mistakes. I believe the government should have let NR go to the wall. They knew full well what they were doing and messed up. Tough titties as far as I'm concerned. Do you think the financial sector will be quite as scared about making similar mistakes again now that the treasury have effectively said they will bail out any failing institution in future?

As for telecoms, if you go back to the pre-millenium years when broadband was trying to be rolled out, the main stumbling block was BT, the ex government monopoly, that still acted like it was a state monopoly and tried to hold back smaller broadband companies in order to protect its own position. Look up local loop unbundling if you want to find out more.

In saying that, your "trickle down" capitalism is inadequate to deal with creating a society that is fair and just. It also makes no provision for such things as funding the arts. You try getting people to fund, on a voluntary basis, such things as the wonderful museums that we have, particularly in London. I want a dynamic Tate and Natural History Museum. We get these by allowing central government to take the institutions outside of the market where they operate under conditions that operators in the market cannot.

Well that's kinda conjecture isn't it as we have precious little change to trial such a service. You mention museums, I was reading just this morning about universities in Europe and how massively underfunded they are compared to American universities, with of course most US universities relying on the privately funded contributions from alumni. Now no doubt you'll say how American universities exclude the poor or something, but the very same article stated how around twice as many Americans have degrees as Europeans.

So it would seem to be possible wouldn't it? When you also consider the number of cultural institutions that were built and funded by the Rockefellers of this world in the 1900's. As mentioned in previous threads, when the government take several hundred billion from Britons in taxes each year for 'charitable' causes then is it really surprising that individuals don't have as much spare money to contribute themselves? As it is individual philanthropy is worth some £8bn a year, with FTSE 100 companies adding in excess of £1bn to that total. Not bad considering our tax take is far in excess of what it is in America.