Has anyone read George W's response to the DNC yet?

[Arshad]

The canadian healthcare system has its share of issues (lack of adequate funding for hospitals, long waiting lists, etc), however it also has a LOT of benefits as well.

A couple of my recent second-hand experiences with the american health care system:

1) My father in law lost his job and was paying over $1200/month in health insurance for himself and his wife, and that was still partially subsidized by his previous employer! Once the subsidy ran out, he actually dropped the insurance because he couldn't afford it and for a few months they held off on going to the doctor etc until he found another job. Ridiculous!

2) My wife's grandfather was in a private hospital for a week with around the clock care (no surgery or anything) and was presented with a $40k bill. Unbelievable!

You'll never see that kind of stuff in Canada.

Just like in the US, if you are brought into a hospital in critical condition they are not going to ask for your insurance information or your health card. However, if you waltz in with non-life threatening injuries and claim to have a card, then yes, they will ask you to present it.

 

[Eric5273]

In most European countries, healthcare is free for everyone -- no card needed. My parents were in Spain on vacation a few years ago and my mom got sick -- some sort of food poisoning from food she ate. Well, they went to the hospital where she was treated and given medication, all for free -- and they are not citizens of Spain, just tourists.

 

[Bear]

"This thread has died and gone to hell. Let's move on...."

Please take your own advice..

 

[Brian2by2]

In most European countries, healthcare is free for everyone -- no card needed. My parents were in Spain on vacation a few years ago and my mom got sick -- some sort of food poisoning from food she ate. Well, they went to the hospital where she was treated and given medication, all for free -- and they are not citizens of Spain, just tourists.

Well she got lucky in Spain because my grandmother JUST got back from the Queen Mary II in Europe and a girlfriend of hers got very sick in Britain I believe and they would not treat her unless she paid for her treatment.

 

[JChoice]

I don't love Bush, he isn't the smartest man out there, but I like his clarity and willingness to stand behind his decisions. He is tough on terrorism and won't raise taxes. Will Kerry do either of these?

I think the latest polls say it all, Kerry has gotten no boost from the DNC.

So, let me get this straight... you like the fact that someone is making less-than-intelligent decisions AND is willing to stand behind those dumb decisions?

 

[nkb]

You honestly can't take the position that because France And Germany (nice little acronym there)...

Now I understand your knee-jerk reactions to things. This statement alone speaks volumes about your maturity.

I'm skeptical of the "murder" aspect here.

I guess the government doesn't quite agree with your skepticism. That is why there are a few dozen investigations into wrongful POW deaths going on as we speak.

Yes, we shoudl accept it because thats how countries work!... For some reason the trend lately has been to villianize both the incumbent president and big corporations.

Are you seriously telling me that it is not possible to NOT run a deficit? You don't think there are thousands upon thousands of ways to cut government waste, curb overall spending, while still providing all the necessities to the citizens, and not get further in debt?
There is a very distinct reason for the "trend": people don't like back-room deals between government and corporations. It's really not a trend, it's a reaction to what people see.

You could contend such a feat, but honestly the numbers dont support your arguement. France has always had a problem with us, as had Germany for the last 10 years.

So, your explanation for why there was opposition to an invasion of Iraq by other industrialized countries is that they just don't like us? It isn't possible that they weren't convinced by the evidence (and were ultimately proven right), and weren't willing to commit to a war based on what they considered inconclusive evidence? You're right, your explanation is much simpler, it must be the right one. Countries like France and Germany base their national policies on emotions.

And finally, I attempt to back up my opinions with fact, rather than just display them and make a decision based off them.

If we were meeting eye-to-eye, I bet you would try to pull this statement off with a straight face.

Let's take a look at some of your "fact" based opinions:
1. POW torture - generally accepted fact that the torture involved far more than playing naked twister, and dozens of murders are being investigated.
2. Budget deficit - go back and read your original statement. The current administration has projected budget deficits for the last 3 years. It has nothing to do with the economy unexpectedly tanking, and creating financial shortfalls. Where do you come up with this simplified world view?
3. No-bid contracts - it is a generally accepted fact, and has been confirmed by the Bush administration, that Halliburton subsidiary companies received no-bid contracts, in some cases before the war even started.

You really need to be careful about pointing out other people's ignorance.

 

[nkb]

By the way, for those of you who are interested in getting an unbiased analysis of some of the political rhetoric going back and forth, go to www.factcheck.org.

They dissect and analyze both Republican and Democrat advertisements, and point out truth and/or lies, or elaborate on misleading statements or omissions.

Very interesting reading, but also very demoralizing to see where the political process has sunk to.

 

[paladin]

Regardless of if/how people died due to torture, its hard to put the president responsible for such actions. You could say attacking the man at the top for what the man at the bottom did is just as much a knee-jerk reaction.
Besides, alot of that was not done by u.s. troops, but private security contracters.
And if a few terrorists have to get tortured in order to squeel the information we need to keep us and our troops safe, well its not something i really need/care to know the details of.
Just Get 'er dun

And come on, shame on me for bringing a little crude levity into such a sophisticated forum of debate. I really brought our class down a notch with that one..... yea......

 

[Brian2by2]

Has there ever been a president that balanced the budget and put our country in the green with a crisis as big as 9/11?

How'd FDR do after Pearl Harbor?

Can you honestly blame the economic struggle of this country solely on Bush? Hell, if Clinton would have done something after the '93 attack instead of sitting around with his thumb up his @$$, maybe there wouldn't have been a WTC pt. II.

And as paladin said: these are TERRORIST. The Geneva Convention does not apply to them, and yes, if we have to beat some ass to get some answers, than SO BE IT. The world isn't lifting a finger to help our soldiers that are being tortured, or newsmen, or journalists, or even tourists and employee's of outside companies working to improve certain aspects of living. Why not do something about that?!

And no, Bush is not in control of torturing these soldiers, but hey everybody: lets blame him!!!!

You find me a company that can do what Halliburton is doing (as effeciently) and for a similar price. I dont think we know all the details. Maybe that no-bid contract locked up a phenomenal deal? I don't know....I am fairly ignorant when it comes to that situation.

And as far as WMD in Iraq: We've put in and pulled out so many times that Iraq has probably achieved multiple orgasms already! If Hussein couldn't hide WMDs and Chemical agents in that amount of time, he should be shot for being lazy and stupid.

And did we not find plans and blueprints to make WMD?? So they didn't have any right then and there. I'm not about ready to wait 20 minutes for them to find something on the black-market and whip it together and throw it our way. Maybe you are...kudo's for you...do you also have a fall out bunker in your backyard??

 

[nkb]

Regardless of if/how people died due to torture, its hard to put the president responsible for such actions. You could say attacking the man at the top for what the man at the bottom did is just as much a knee-jerk reaction.
Besides, alot of that was not done by u.s. troops, but private security contracters.
And if a few terrorists have to get tortured in order to squeel the information we need to keep us and our troops safe, well its not something i really need/care to know the details of.
Just Get 'er dun

And come on, shame on me for bringing a little crude levity into such a sophisticated forum of debate. I really brought our class down a notch with that one..... yea......

It is interesting how you completely avoid addressing the fact that you insulted minervoflorida by calling him ignorant, yet showed that you are the one spewing ignorant opinions.

Your arguments on POW treatment are now completely different from your original statement (all they were made to do was play naked twister, right?). Despite your previous assertion that all they did was humiliate them, it IS ok to torture and kill them.

Sorry, I'm such a killjoy, I really need to lighten up. Maybe you can follow up your "little crude levity" with some racially insensitive remarks?

 

[nkb]

Can you honestly blame the economic struggle of this country solely on Bush? Hell, if Clinton would have done something after the '93 attack instead of sitting around with his thumb up his @$$, maybe there wouldn't have been a WTC pt. II.

Ah, of course, it can't possibly be the Bush administration's fault, so maybe it was Clinton's. But, wait a minute, how can you lay the blame solely on Clinton?

And no, Bush is not in control of torturing these soldiers, but hey everybody: lets blame him!!!!

I don't think anyone is blaming Bush directly for the torture. In my opinion, it is one of many indictments of how poorly the government planned this war. Short of going in and bombing the crap out of Saddam Hussein (which was obviously done efficiently), we were just not ready for it. It is painfully obvious to me that the people in charge did not grasp the immensity of the task.
That is why we had unqualified reserves taking care of prisons, with no oversight (assuming you believe that these were isolated incidents).
By the way, in case you didn't know this, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, so he is responsible for failings of the Armed Forces.

You find me a company that can do what Halliburton is doing (as effeciently) and for a similar price. I dont think we know all the details. Maybe that no-bid contract locked up a phenomenal deal? I don't know....I am fairly ignorant when it comes to that situation.

Well, it's tough to find another company, at any price, if you don't look. If you want to blindly believe the government that Halliburton was the only one up to the task, knock youself out.
Maybe we locked up a phenomenal deal. But, maybe we got taken to the cleaners. What's the more likely scenario? We'll never know, since there was no competition.

 

[Brian2by2]

Ah, of course, it can't possibly be the Bush administration's fault, so maybe it was Clinton's. But, wait a minute, how can you lay the blame solely on Clinton?

I don't know...the left-wings have no problem laying it all on Bush...

I don't think anyone is blaming Bush directly for the torture. In my opinion, it is one of many indictments of how poorly the government planned this war. Short of going in and bombing the crap out of Saddam Hussein (which was obviously done efficiently), we were just not ready for it. It is painfully obvious to me that the people in charge did not grasp the immensity of the task.
That is why we had unqualified reserves taking care of prisons, with no oversight (assuming you believe that these were isolated incidents).
By the way, in case you didn't know this, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, so he is responsible for failings of the Armed Forces.

Of course I knew he was Commander In Chief. Does that automatically make him responsbile? Is a police chief responsible when a hot headed cop decides to beat someone? Nope. That individual is dealt with and thats that. I do believe those accused of these war crimes have been convicted. Once again though: Who governs war-time POW actions against an enemy who blatanly disregards the Geneva Convention?? Are they thus protected by it?? Would you feel safer beating a terrorist in order to get information that could save many lives...possibly a few thousand?? We don't exactly know all the details on this so its a touchy subject for any lay citizen to comment on without having access to highly classified information...and I don't think either of us have that access.

Well, it's tough to find another company, at any price, if you don't look. If you want to blindly believe the government that Halliburton was the only one up to the task, knock youself out.
Maybe we locked up a phenomenal deal. But, maybe we got taken to the cleaners. What's the more likely scenario? We'll never know, since there was no competition.

Are you seriously asking "whats the more likely scenario?"?? You must not own a business. Ultimately, the government is a business and I don't know too many companies that are all about giving out money or overpaying for something, regardless of what Cheney was receiving on the side. If a 'no-bid contract' was signed, I would be willing to be quite a bit that it was either because A) they were the only company that could execute the necessary actions to the satisfaction of our gov't or B) they performed the necessary work with satisfaction and at a great price if the no-bid was signed.

 

[paladin]

Your arguments on POW treatment are now completely different from your original statement (all they were made to do was play naked twister, right?). Despite your previous assertion that all they did was humiliate them, it IS ok to torture and kill them.

Whether or not they are tortured and even killed is irrelevent to my point. Pretty much the only aspect of the POW's that the media focused on was how they were being unfairly humiliated, and i say that is stupid. It would be one thing if they made murder a point (or even found statistcs on how many died in prison) but when all you have is the pictures and you try to make an issue out of that... I am simply amazed.
I'm against the fact that we're scrutinizing that aspect as a society. My own feelings on how far the line should be drawn are my own personal beliefs, which are somewhat irrelevent.

 

[xsn]

I would like to end this post by referencing the Bible:

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day....Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

Exactly what Bible are you referencing?

 

[xsn]

Brian, I would still be fascinated to learn which Bible you are referencing with your quote.