The Bush vs Kerry Debate

[honeybee]

I didn't watch the first one, just by chance went through the closing session of the second and out of curiousity checked the BBC page for feedbacks on the same. While whether Bush won or Kerry won the debate will always be debatable and subjective, Kerry did create a problem by talking about a plan and not telling what it was. It was very awkward, but again there may have been reasons for not telling about the plan. On the other hand, I was surprised to see the president of the United States acting as our local politicians act. To his merit he has got strong though controversial views (such as his opposition to abortion) as against Kerry's (a little too) flexible approach (which is more representative than Bush's though). But he clearly failed when he skirted some of the questions, the biggest being the three mistakes he had made. That was a typical political answer which is used when the truth is damaging. At least he could have used this opportunity to admit the mistake of trusting false and unverified intelligence reports and still justify the decision of Iraq invasion for all the other blah blah he is telling about it. By not coming clean about it when given a chance, I guess he doesn't want to confront the real issues.

All in all I guess if Kerry starts hammering home some of the points in his so-called plans, he might get a bigger lead, because that seems to be the only problem area in his campaign.

.

[mendhak]

You are probably right, but I don't see Kerry getting a lead.

[Something Else]

Originally posted by mendhak
You are probably right, but I don't see Kerry getting a lead.

Not with that wife of his!
He'd be best off if he pulled a clinton every now and then...
"a lead"? ohhh! Sorry!

Thought you said something else!

[CORONA BEER]

The commander in chief said there is more than one internet

[demotivater]

lol, I noticed that - internets. At least he didn't claim to have invented the internet ala Gore.
He did point out that the intelligence was the same intelligence that made Kerry vote FOR the war. I don't think a debate is the time to admit mistakes. When it comes down to it, a politician will attempt to talk their way out of just about anything, or talk circles around you till you just give up. But at the end of the day, Bush is a better choice than Kerry. IMHO of course.

[KodeShark]

But he clearly failed when he skirted some of the questions, the biggest being the three mistakes he had made. That was a typical political answer which is used when the truth is damaging. At least he could have used this opportunity to admit the mistake of trusting false and unverified intelligence reports and still justify the decision of Iraq invasion for all the other blah blah he is telling about it. By not coming clean about it when given a chance, I guess he doesn't want to confront the real issues.

I would have thought the same thing if I didn't think it was an unfair question to begin with. I mean, that was not a debatable question. That was a lose|lose situation for the president. And Kerry didn't claim his 3 mistakes (or did he). He critqued the president's answer......That was unfair to Bush in my opinion.

I really don't care who won. It doesn't really matter. Voters on election day decide who won overall.....Debates are just televised arguments...

[mendhak]

Originally posted by Something Else
Not with that wife of his!
He'd be best off if he pulled a clinton every now and then...
"a lead"? ohhh! Sorry!

Thought you said something else!

43...43...43.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I would have thought the same thing if I didn't think it was an unfair question to begin with. I mean, that was not a debatable question. That was a lose|lose situation for the president. And Kerry didn't claim his 3 mistakes (or did he). He critqued the president's answer......That was unfair to Bush in my opinion.

I really don't care who won. It doesn't really matter. Voters on election day decide who won overall.....Debates are just televised arguments...

I absolutely hate what I am posting below, as it's going to be a good idea for Bush, whom I hate.

Agreed, the three mistakes question might or might not have been planted. However instead of what Bush answered, he could easily have scored with an answer that went along these lines:

1. Admit he is a human and bound to make mistakes (which he did, but a bit arrogantly)
2. Admit that in the aftermath the intelligence they used for the Iraq invasion proved to be false
3. Still go on and justify that though the intelligence was wrong, the act of removing Saddam was right.

He lost the case when he said as a human he was bound to make a few mistakes, but went on and said he had done nothing wrong in the Iraq war. That's purely and plainly arrogant, as if he is above mere humans.

Of course he could always assume the question was more general and not specific to Iraq war, and proceed to list out a couple of minor things as mistakes.

About Kerry's response, I guess the question was only for the President to mention his three mistakes. Clearly it wasn't for the candidate, so he just exploited the opportunity. Had Bush mentioned one or two mistakes, Kerry would be hard pressed to find an opening, because Bush would appear honest to have admitted his mistakes and Kerry would be seen as too opportunistic to attack him on that answer.

I just went through the US election process the other day, and I am surprised at the whole structure of the electoral college. Isn't that a bit off the mark for a true democracy? Being a republican in a Democratic-majority state means your vote won't count?

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by demotivater
lol, I noticed that - internets. At least he didn't claim to have invented the internet ala Gore.
He did point out that the intelligence was the same intelligence that made Kerry vote FOR the war. I don't think a debate is the time to admit mistakes. When it comes down to it, a politician will attempt to talk their way out of just about anything, or talk circles around you till you just give up. But at the end of the day, Bush is a better choice than Kerry. IMHO of course.

Bush does appear more decisive than Kerry, as was evident in the question on abortions, however Kerry is not playing this point to his advantage. A better answer from him to the abortion question would have been to stress that as the US president his individual opinion didn't count, but that of the masses and he would be a truly representative president by taking some sort of referendum on the issue before deciding on it. Similarly instead of talking about having a plan (or a better plan than Bush) about Iraq, he should try to present the plan in a material way, for e.g. saying he will push for a new resolution in the UN or UNSC to get more troops and funds for Iraq.

Simply talking about getting more international cooperation won't get him anywhere. He should contrast his approach against that of Bush and try and convince how the decisiveness can easily turn into whimsical and often arrogant attitude and result in such grave unilateral decisions such as Iraq war.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
You are probably right, but I don't see Kerry getting a lead.

Probably because he still hasn't appointed me as his campaign manager

LOL seriously if he did present a material plan before the people, he would have left Bush out of the race much earlier. Instead of putting forth a solid proposal he is being a typical politician talking vaguely about his plans and solutions.

.

[DeadEyes]

Is that a wireless receiver in Bush's pocket or is he just happy to see Kerry?

[Xanith]

Originally posted by DeadEyes
Is that a wireless receiver in Bush's pocket or is he just happy to see Kerry?

If it was whoever was on the other end didn't do a good job

X

[DeadEyes]

What's the expression something like,
A craftsman is only as good as his tools.

[Ex-FB]

Well I watched the last debate last night. Both candidates did fairly well it seemed.

My thoughts were though:

Kerry needs to stop comparing himself to great US presidents (Rosevelt said this, Kennedy said that etc.), it makes him sound like he's riding on their coat tails rather than doing something new.

Bush needs to stop blatantly lying (both fudge the figures, but Bush keeps bare face lies about himself) - ("I own a lumber mill?" (apparently he does get money from them)/ "That is one of those eeeeegggggaagerationsss folks" (yet they've since shown a clip of him saying he wasn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden)/ "US health care is the envy of the world" (Sorry guys, we always just assumed you knew your health care system was the laughing stock of the world - maybe we should have mentioned it to you earlier)

Kerry needs to stop spending that 1% tax rollback to the super rich. in the last two debates he's spent it on health-care, education and the armed forces..... he probably can make the figures balance, but that 1% doesn't sound like it's going to cut it.

Bush needs to stop with the "I will stay the course". It sounds a lot like the British Generals in world war I. "It's a mistake to change course" - so they keep marching the troops into the machine guns.... that's baseless retoric, in business you have to be dynamic and respond to a changing world, I doubt that politics is any different. It sounds suicidal.

Anyway, I'm only interested at this stage to see how the US elections affect our relations with our Southern neighbours. I've given up caring what the American people do to themselves, they will vote in the president they deserve and they will pay the costs.

They seem so blinkered in their support of Bush that it's beyond me caring anymore. Hell, vote him in, at least it will leave Canada out of the mess, if Kerry gets in, there is a possibility that he may pull off his promise and get other nations to help out, and then it's going to be just as dangerous a world for Canada as Bush has made it for the US. That sad thing is, I'm not joking for once - I really think that they have screwed themselves over this time..

[Xcoder]

well I thought the debate was the best, but clearly Kerry won.

[demotivater]

On November 3, he can look back and say "welp, at least I won a debate, now where are those damn golf clubs?"

[Dillinger4]

Favorite Kerry quote from 3rd debate "Im sick of politicians that talk about family values but don't value families." I bet he couldn't wait to say that.

I did catch a slip up on kerrys part when he was talking about affirmative action. He was asked by the moderator if it was time to get rid affirmative action. Kerry said no because we are not far enough along. He then added that pres bush was hampering that progress. So it makes no sense to say that pres bush is against affirmative action but then say hes hampering the process of moving it along to get rid of it. If hes hampering the process then hes keeping affirmative action in place.

[Xanith]

(Sorry guys, we always just assumed you knew your health care system was the laughing stock of the world - maybe we should have mentioned it to you earlier)

You're from Canada right? I guess that is why all your doctors and nurses are working here huh? Or why anyone who has any serious illness or problems come to the US instead of taking their chances under the Canadian Health System. Not to mention the people who have to wait long periods of time for any kind of extrodinary care. Sure it's free but it can't help you if you die waiting for treatment.

No offense but Canada's system is hardly a model for the world either, another perfect example of why socialized medicine doesnt work. Canada's health care system is great as long as you dont get sick

But this thread was about the debate. To be honest I think Bush won the 3rd debate and the 2nd while Kerry clearly won the 1st. Of course it doesn't matter who wins the debates but who wins the election.

X

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
You're from Canada right? I guess that is why all your doctors and nurses are working here huh? Or why anyone who has any serious illness or problems come to the US instead of taking their chances under the Canadian Health System. Not to mention the people who have to wait long periods of time for any kind of extrodinary care. Sure it's free but it can't help you if you die waiting for treatment.

No offense but Canada's system is hardly a model for the world either, another perfect example of why socialized medicine doesnt work. Canada's health care system is great as long as you dont get sick

But this thread was about the debate. To be honest I think Bush won the 3rd debate and the 2nd while Kerry clearly won the 1st. Of course it doesn't matter who wins the debates but who wins the election.

X

I'm sorry, but your facts seem to be somewhat hilariously distorted. I've never heard of anyone (in Alberta) having any complaints. I bust both my arms a few years back, and the care was exemplary. My father had a heart atack here two years ago and they were brilliant, straight into intensive care, really good, stents etc.

He's got a bit of a cold that's causing him to wheeze a bit when he coughs, so they're taking him in for a CAT scan. How long did he have to wait for this non-critical use of expensive equipment.... two weeks (and part of that is they're waiting for blood tests to come back).

You can keep repeating the mantra that free public health care (the term socialised sounds like a bit of an American political thingy) is bad, yet you talk to anyone who actually goes through it and I think you'll find it's invaluable. You see, there is still private care if you want to go that way, but at the end of the day no-one is left out of the system. How do you justify a doctor not treating someone because they can't afford it, this is (IMHO) disgraceful.

Almost all western countries practice free public healthcare with the notable exception of the states. The US system is third world (again IMHO). As for charging $10 for an aspirin etc. How does that benefit anyone? Face facts, there's lots of great things that Americans should be proud of (NASA etc.) but your 3rd world health care system isn't one of them.

But, unwittingly I seem to have touched upon one of the crux's of the many problems faced by your country. You see, most other countries will admit that there's things terribly wrong with their countries (Britains health care system has been underfunded for a few years now, the military have been very heavy handed in NI etc. Canada's government is weak on foreign policy, and the election system is hopelessly flawed) Yet, it's very rare that you see an American admit anything is wrong with their own internal systems (as opposed to their government). They appear to be so hung up with national pride that it doesn't let them focus (and therefore fix) internal problems. You've been telling yourselves that having no public healthcare is good for so long, that now you honestly believe it. You've convinced yourself that allowing all your citizens to own guns is a really good idea, you pride yourself in a policy that strenghtens Castro's hand in Cuba, and convince yourself that it's going to work someday.... It might make things clearer to take off the rose coloured spectacles and take a long hard look at the US from the real world.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Yet, it's very rare that you see an American admit anything is wrong with their own internal systems (as opposed to their government). They appear to be so hung up with national pride that it doesn't let them focus (and therefore fix) internal problems. You've been telling yourselves that having no public healthcare is good for so long, that now you honestly believe it. You've convinced yourself that allowing all your citizens to own guns is a really good idea,

I admit things all the time . I don't know about the healthcare thing. I mean it sounds like a good idea actually, as long as i dont have to pay for it if I want to do private healthcare. I don't know if another gov't program would help though (as if we need another one).

BUT the gun thing, I stand FIRM with. I will never, ever, give my gun to the government because they think it will be safer. This will lead to unarmed violence where the criminal is the only one with a gun. I will, as many others, illegally own a gun as will the criminals that use them for bad reasons. You CANNOT send a persons self defence 2 and 3 centuries behind that of a criminal. Its insane. You would have to change something else. You can't take away the 2nd ammendment. Why not raise the price of a bullet or something. Don't screw around with what makes this country golden.

Bush vs. Kerry
Kerry owned Bush first round, I'd say tie second and Bush won 3rd. Nuff said, doesn't matter anyways. It looks like Bush is going to go in 4 more years. I hope we are closer to getting out of Iraq than we are today because its looking mighty bleak as it is now. We will undoubtedly(sp) be going to Iran or some other country. And from the looks of it, terrorism will never sease. As long as someone knows how to make a pipebomb, were screwed. Just kill as many as you can when they pop up.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

BUT the gun thing, I stand FIRM with. I will never, ever, give my gun to the government because they think it will be safer. This will lead to unarmed violence where the criminal is the only one with a gun. I will, as many others, illegally own a gun as will the criminals that use them for bad reasons. You CANNOT send a persons self defence 2 and 3 centuries behind that of a criminal. Its insane. You would have to change something else. You can't take away the 2nd ammendment. Why not raise the price of a bullet or something. Don't screw around with what makes this country golden.

Owning a gun is pointless if the other person already has it in his hand. This isn't the wild west, quick drawing a weapon isn't going to do anything but get you killed. I agree that part of the problem is that guns are already in the hands of the criminals, and that's going to be tricky to reverse, but all-out gun ownership is not a good solution. You see, you're young, bright with a good future ahead of you. The last thing you want to do is get into a shooting match with a druggy who has bugger all to lose. Despite what the moves show you, that's not bravery, that's wrecklesness.

If I am placed in a situation where I find a burglar in my house, I'm pretty certain I can either beat the snot out of him or at least prevent him from taking anything from my house. It's not an ideal situation, but it is one that I am prepared to handle. Either way, I only have to wait until the cops arrive.

Now if that guy comes into my house with a gun (rare up here), but if he does, I also reckon that he probably isn't going to shoot me because he knows that I don't have a gun (or so he thinks ), he also probably doesn't want to escalate from burglar to murderer, so again I have a chance of stalling him till the cops arrive.

Now, the third scenario is that if we both have guns. The bullets are going to start flying. The internal walls in my house are not going to do much to stop a bullet. So I have 3 young children, me and my wife, a hit on any one of which would be a massive tragedy for my family. even if I kill the guy, it's no-victory.

No, arming everyone is not an answer. Taking the guns away is (IMHO) a better (yet tougher move) but one that will take a few years to pay off.

If the cops stops someone and they have a gun on them. At present, they're probably legally entitled to keep hold of that weapon, which they can later use to rob someone. That victim probably has a gun as well, so given that the criminal has the victim under gun point, the criminal now gets hold of the victims gun. He then goes off and gives/sells that gun to a mate. So now we have two guns in the hands of criminals.

Now, if guns were illegal. The cops stop the criminal. Find he has a gun on him, take the gun off him and throw him in jail. Problem solved. Now, I know it's never going to be that simple, but it does prove that fallicy that arming everyone is the only option.

[KodeShark]

A burglar is a burglar because he/she doesn't care about you. Granted, most burglars wont murder but some will. And what about women who walk around during night time downtown? Prone to rape without a weapon. You would be suprised at how many women walk around with a weapon near Atlanta. Or they drive around with one in their car. ( I sure would ).

I think it would be crazy for the government to set up, yet another program, to take all the guns away. Would they take crossbows too? Just as lethal as a gun~

By the way if a robber was to be in my house and have a gun, and I have a gun, I would shoot him... probably in the torso or limb. I wouldn't go for a head shot because I don't wana kill anyone. But I will stop him/her, for sure.

Taking guns away wouldn't solve anything. It would just make matters worse, because then civilians would be left defenseless against criminals that did have them.

p.s. Don't forget the 2nd ammendment now.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
A burglar is a burglar because he/she doesn't care about you. Granted, most burglars wont murder but some will. And what about women who walk around during night time downtown? Prone to rape without a weapon. You would be suprised at how many women walk around with a weapon near Atlanta. Or they drive around with one in their car. ( I sure would ).

There's a lot to be said for being aware of your situation. If I walk past a woman with a hand gun in her bag, and I turn and thump her in the back of the skull, that weapon is useless (and now in my hands).

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I think it would be crazy for the government to set up, yet another program, to take all the guns away. Would they take crossbows too? Just as lethal as a gun~

But a crossbow is much harder to conceal, and therefore less of a danger. If a burglar is wandering around looking for a house to break into with a crossbow in his hand, then he would surely arouse suspicion.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
By the way if a robber was to be in my house and have a gun, and I have a gun, I would shoot him... probably in the torso or limb. I wouldn't go for a head shot because I don't wana kill anyone. But I will stop him/her, for sure.

But what if he returns fire, and one of those bullets kills your child. It's not worth it.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Taking guns away wouldn't solve anything. It would just make matters worse, because then civilians would be left defenseless against criminals that did have them.

As stated in my previous post, the idea is that you take them away from everyone. if your found with an illegal hand-gun, you go straight to prison. Simple as that. Hopefully you get people before they commit a crime with it.

Hand guns make small insignificant people powerful, simply because they do not have as much to lose as you do. Imagine that it was feasable to wave a magic wand and get rid of all the guns from criminals and law abiding citizens and start afresh. Would you say that was a good idea?

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

p.s. Don't forget the 2nd ammendment now.

Mmmm. I don't think we should arm the bears, that will only make them steal more picnic baskets.... and then Ranger Smith will be ticked.




P.S. As always it's a pleasure debating with you David.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by Ex-FB

There's a lot to be said for being aware of your situation. If I walk past a woman with a hand gun in her bag, and I turn and thump her in the back of the skull, that weapon is useless (and now in my hands).

Good point. I didn't give a good example....

But a crossbow is much harder to conceal, and therefore less of a danger. If a burglar is wandering around looking for a house to break into with a crossbow in his hand, then he would surely arouse suspicion.

Again, good point. I'd rather all the criminals have crossbows too. But some wont. There will be more with guns (because there are so many in the US already it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get all of them. There would be a US blackmarket for guns. Not to mention most of the criminals are crafty and could probably make there own. (Order parts out of country, get a diagram from internet, assemble)

But what if he returns fire, and one of those bullets kills your child. It's not worth it.

This is a valid point but if you take the guns away from the civilians and victims. Burglars have nothing to fear.

Most people that get robbed would say that the burglar isn't hostile. He just wants your goods. So should we just let him/her take them to keep your family safe? The thing that keeps burglars from stealing is self-defense. They are scared to get shot.

As stated in my previous post, the idea is that you take them away from everyone. if your found with an illegal hand-gun, you go straight to prison. Simple as that. Hopefully you get people before they commit a crime with it.

Not all people with a gun are going to steal or kill with it.

Hopefully you get people before they commit a crime with it.

What if you don't?

Hand guns make small insignificant people powerful, simply because they do not have as much to lose as you do.

It also makes small insignificant victims powerful, too.

Imagine that it was feasable to wave a magic wand and get rid of all the guns from criminals and law abiding citizens and start afresh. Would you say that was a good idea?

No. People would end up gettings guns. It's just a matter of time. Unless you take all the guns out of the world which you might as well say lets just jump back a century or two.

Mmmm. I don't think we should arm the bears, that will only make them steal more picnic baskets.... and then Ranger Smith will be ticked.

Does Ranger Smith have a gun?

P.S. As always it's a pleasure debating with you David.

I'm learning to enjoy it. It's nice to get other point of views. Especially when I haven't truly made up my mind yet.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

This is a valid point but if you take the guns away from the civilians and victims. Burglars have nothing to fear.

Really? I pity the poor burglar who I catch in my house, he ain't going to get off lightly.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Most people that get robbed would say that the burglar isn't hostile. He just wants your goods. So should we just let him/her take them to keep your family safe? The thing that keeps burglars from stealing is self-defense. They are scared to get shot.

You do have a point that it can be a detterent, but it's obviously not a good one. The us still has a large amount of robbery and muggings... more so than most countries that don't allow gun proliferation.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Not all people with a gun are going to steal or kill with it.

True, but in the main, if the police are trying to get guns off the street, why is someone wandering through down-town new york with a gun in their pocket? so what are they doing with it if you have already removed the self defense reasoning?

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
What if you don't? [catch people before they commit a crime]

You're no worse off than you are at present if you don't catch them, exept that now, you have a chance of catching them before the crime, where-as if they are legally entitled to wander around with a gun, you have zero chance. So, you're better off, but at worse, you're no worse off than the current situation.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
It also makes small insignificant victims powerful, too.

In a few circumstances yes. But onthe whole someone doesn't know they are going to become a victim until it happens. By then, a gun is often useless. If you're worried about protecting your home, get a burglar alarm and/or dog. Sleep with a golf club underneath your bed (I find a putter gives me a nice short sharp swing )

The last thing I want is to have one of my kids shot because they happen to be walking down the street and some shop owner comes running out and starts taking badly aimed shots at a fleeing robber.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
No. People would end up gettings guns. It's just a matter of time. Unless you take all the guns out of the world which you might as well say lets just jump back a century or two.

The many countries that don't allow gun proliferation show statistics that would argue against that point. Gun crime in Britain and Canada for example is considerably smaller than in the US. Sure, some people will get a gun, but for most it is too big a risk. If you're caught with it, your either going to prison, or more likely going to get shot by the police.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I'm learning to enjoy it. It's nice to get other point of views. Especially when I haven't truly made up my mind yet.

So you should. A lot of these debates are hypothetical anyway. I doubt if any US president would be able to succesfully repeal the gun laws at this stage, but it's a fun mental excersise. Thanks for joining in.

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Does Ranger Smith have a gun?

Actually, he has a mattabooboo.

[mendhak]

Isn't this like a catch-22? Normally, a person would fear for their lives, and for the purpose of defense, keep a gun with them. In case of a conflict, the bullets fly and that does instill fear into others, who then go out and get a gun too. The muggers and robbers and the other people we tend to classify as t3h ev|7 would then replace their crowbars with guns for meeting their purposes and their defense too. So each side's gun count just keeps going up until we feel the need to start carrying mini-nuclear deterrants in our pockets in addition to the pepper spray and tazer.

So to take away the guns, though theoretically viable, now would be incorrect. It's too late.

[mendhak]

The last time I saw a crime in Canada was when someone stole a bottle of maple syrup. They caught him, and the judge sentenced him to a scolding by his mother.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Ex-FB

They seem so blinkered in their support of Bush that it's beyond me caring anymore. Hell, vote him in, at least it will leave Canada out of the mess, if Kerry gets in, there is a possibility that he may pull off his promise and get other nations to help out, and then it's going to be just as dangerous a world for Canada as Bush has made it for the US. That sad thing is, I'm not joking for once - I really think that they have screwed themselves over this time..

Sh*t, you are actually producing valid and reasonable excuses to elect Bush again. I don't know if I should be happy or not about it

About the health-care part, my uncle residing in the US recently narrated an incident about his heart attack. Just because he was not showing any of the common symptoms for a heart attack, he was not diagnosed and treated for close to 19 hours. No senior doctors attended to him for many hours. They also gave him some wrong treatment meanwhile. Finally when he was diagnosed for a heart attack and was taken to another hospital that specializes in cardiac treatment (in New York) he found to his horror that the ambulance carrying him didn't have a flashing light/siren and so couldn't get through the heavy traffic, and the driver and one accompanying paramedic didn't know the way to the hospital. My uncle had to give them directions all the way. The cardiologist told him he was lucky to stay alive after 19 hours just because he had been observing his diet for all these years.

And instead of asking where Canada's doctors are working, how about thinking why the US has to "import" trained doctors and nurses from countries such as India? Speaks a lot about the education system there. Where in India parents consider it a duty to educate the child at least till graduation, we hear stories about the kids in the US who can barely make it to highschool because they can't afford it further.

.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by honeybee
Where in India parents consider it a duty to educate the child at least till graduation, we hear stories about the kids in the US who can barely make it to highschool because they can't afford it further.

Riiiight, doesn't happen in India...

[DeadEyes]

With regard to Health Care they were talking about a report on the news a couple of days ago. They measured 22 developed countries Ireland came out 21st America was 22nd. I can't remember who came top because they were concentrating on why Ireland's performance was so poor.
HoneyBee your Uncles problem was that he didn't need plastic surgery, "US tops the world in plastic surgery procedures."

And as for the gun thing, maybe they need them. "Americans top the world in the category of crimes. They also have the greatest number of burglaries, car thefts, rapes and assaults."

Fun Stats from
Nation Master

[seismicweasel]

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
p.s. Don't forget the 2nd ammendment now.

The 2nd ammendment was created to ensure that THE GOVERNMENT wasn't able to screw the people. The whole idea was that if the government wasn't doing its job, there should be another revolution to kick them out of office.

It had nothing to do with the right to shoot civillians, its all about shooting politicians

[yrwyddfa]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As I understand the 2nd Amendment does NOT give individual an abosolute right to bear arms (or arm bears!)

IN the US vs Miller (1939) the US supreme court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was designed to preserve state militias and not to grant an individual any particular right other than that needed to form a militia.

Further lower courts cited Miller when they ruled that the Morton Grove banned ownership of handguns did not violate the 2nd Amendment (1983) The Supreme court let this decision stand without comment as they did in the 30 other cases of this nature.

As an aside the Bible, I believe, says that I should not steal my next door neighbours cow. I do not have a cow, nor does any of my neighbours; so one would assume that this sort of 'rule' is irrelevant.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted the only big standing army was of others who wanted a piece of the American Pie. State militias were clearly a method of maintaining natural law and order.

Is this part of 2nd Amendment relevant today? I don't think so.

[KodeShark]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As I understand the 2nd Amendment does NOT give individual an abosolute right to bear arms (or arm bears!)

It doesn't arm bears. I already hate hearing that. A bear doesn't need to be armed, it will just eat your f**** head off. Anyways, I think it does give an individual the right to own a gun. If it didn't, why wasn't there punishment back from about 1800 to the mid 1900's. Because the 2nd ammendment said the government can't take your right to bear arms.

As an aside the Bible, I believe, says that I should not steal my next door neighbours cow. I do not have a cow, nor does any of my neighbours; so one would assume that this sort of 'rule' is irrelevant.

Um...the Bible was written waaay back in the days. You are suppoed to use the Bible as a tome. A guide. Not as a modern day book on law.....

Is this part of 2nd Amendment relevant today? I don't think so.

So we should just get rid of it? I say no. This country is founded on the laws that the founding fathers layed out. This country is still an experiment. You can change, add, remove laws already. Don't take what made this country live as long as it has away.


P.S.
What would you do now? Take the guns away from the people? It is too late now anyways. SOOO many people have them it would be a MMAAAJJOORR disaster to do that. I say leave the original documents and laws alone. This country was also founded on the belief Christianity I might add and people are trying to take that out of this country too. Just because we support and encourage freedom of religion, etc. Doesn't mean we should change our system to suit their wants. Get over it. You are tired of looking at a ten commandments statue in a court house? Then dont look at it....(I know this will be used against me in some way, shape, or form, But I HATE that. I may have my doubts on everything. Everyone does. BUT leave it alone...

Ok....im done. heh....

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by seismicweasel
its all about shooting politicians

The wisest words I've ever seen in this forum.

[nemaroller]

Originally posted by honeybee

how about thinking why the US has to "import" trained doctors and nurses from countries such as India? Speaks a lot about the education system there. Where in India parents consider it a duty to educate the child at least till graduation, we hear stories about the kids in the US who can barely make it to highschool because they can't afford it further.
.

HOLD UP!

The US doesn't import doctors, they come here for work, because the pay is extravagantly superior. I think you'll notice there is a huge aging population in the US and even the current graduates of American born citizens doesn't meet the demand.

As far as children barely affording high school, you must have misrepresented your opinion with that statement, since secondary education is free. You must have meant post-secondary (college) education. Education at that level is supported for low-income families to a certain degree by the federal government. Any slack that can be obtained is given by the State of your residence.

In Wisconsin for example, if your family cannot afford college education, the state will pay half your tuitions costs. Between that and federal Pell grants (and later Stafford loans), you basically have a small cost of education. Btw, certain states actually have free college education... Hawaii , for example.

Again however, its hard to label the US as being one way or the other, because each State can be so different in its own laws.

Some states allow concealed weapons, some states don't. Some states have stricter abortion laws, others don't.

As far as healthcare, you can go and get a complete CT heart scan the same day if you want to pay for it out of pocket, without so much as a recommendation to do so from a doctor. Medicare and most PPO won't allow it. The ranking of US health care as 22nd, encompasses those who cannot afford it. Last I looked, outside of Germany, most european countries do not have significant immigration.

BACK TO TOPIC:
The main problem with the current president Bush is he has too much executive power. Its time for the Supreme court to shut his ass up.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I'm sorry, but your facts seem to be somewhat hilariously distorted. I've never heard of anyone (in Alberta) having any complaints. I bust both my arms a few years back, and the care was exemplary. My father had a heart atack here two years ago and they were brilliant, straight into intensive care, really good, stents etc.

He's got a bit of a cold that's causing him to wheeze a bit when he coughs, so they're taking him in for a CAT scan. How long did he have to wait for this non-critical use of expensive equipment.... two weeks (and part of that is they're waiting for blood tests to come back).

You can keep repeating the mantra that free public health care (the term socialised sounds like a bit of an American political thingy) is bad, yet you talk to anyone who actually goes through it and I think you'll find it's invaluable. You see, there is still private care if you want to go that way, but at the end of the day no-one is left out of the system. How do you justify a doctor not treating someone because they can't afford it, this is (IMHO) disgraceful.

Almost all western countries practice free public healthcare with the notable exception of the states. The US system is third world (again IMHO). As for charging $10 for an aspirin etc. How does that benefit anyone? Face facts, there's lots of great things that Americans should be proud of (NASA etc.) but your 3rd world health care system isn't one of them.

But, unwittingly I seem to have touched upon one of the crux's of the many problems faced by your country. You see, most other countries will admit that there's things terribly wrong with their countries (Britains health care system has been underfunded for a few years now, the military have been very heavy handed in NI etc. Canada's government is weak on foreign policy, and the election system is hopelessly flawed) Yet, it's very rare that you see an American admit anything is wrong with their own internal systems (as opposed to their government). They appear to be so hung up with national pride that it doesn't let them focus (and therefore fix) internal problems. You've been telling yourselves that having no public healthcare is good for so long, that now you honestly believe it. You've convinced yourself that allowing all your citizens to own guns is a really good idea, you pride yourself in a policy that strenghtens Castro's hand in Cuba, and convince yourself that it's going to work someday.... It might make things clearer to take off the rose coloured spectacles and take a long hard look at the US from the real world.

First I never said there was nothing wrong with the American health care system. My point was all systems have their problems and its hardly the “laughing stock” you claim it to be. As far as where I get my facts I am currently dating a Canadian nurse who is working here in the US so I have first hand information from someone who has worked in your health system. Why do you think she came to the US like many other of your doctors and nurses?

Aside from my GF I have many friends and relatives in Canada (my grandparents were Canadian) and I hear all the time how the health system is bogged down and how it takes a long time to get tests and treatment. Not to mention the extreme shortage of doctors and specialists due to the fact that most move to the US to practice so they can make above a living wage.

People from across the world come to the US for treatment they cant get anywhere else, they come to the Mayo Clinic and John Hopkins. Doctors and nurses from your county flock to the US to work because in your system they are not able to make any money. Somehow your portrayal of the US having a “third world” medical system doesn’t seem to have any ring of truth, if it does what does it say about your medical system if all of your doctors, nurses, and people needing special treatment all flock to the US?

Nowhere do people get charged 10 bucks for aspirin nor do uninsured people get turned away from hospitals. People without insurance still receive medical treatment because its against the law in the US to refuse treatment to anyone regardless if they have insurance or not. I am not saying the US system is perfect, its far from perfect and needs to be tinkered with but its hardly what you seem to be portraying it as, sorry.

X

[demotivater]

Carry and conceal was just legalized in my state. We all smile and wave alot more now.

FB - you sound like a lot of crime victims. "I can handle an intruder" *thud* *whack* *ouch* *oof* "honey call the police, I think I've been shot! What? He took the phone? Aw, Canadian bacon!!"

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater

FB - you sound like a lot of crime victims. "I can handle an intruder" *thud* *whack* *ouch* *oof* "honey call the police, I think I've been shot! What? He took the phone? Aw, Canadian bacon!!"

That my friend, is where you are very wrong.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Ex-FB

Actually, he has a mattabooboo.

Damn, I can't believe this one didn't get a bite....

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
First I never said there was nothing wrong with the American health care system. My point was all systems have their problems and its hardly the “laughing stock” you claim it to be. As far as where I get my facts I am currently dating a Canadian nurse who is working here in the US so I have first hand information from someone who has worked in your health system. Why do you think she came to the US like many other of your doctors and nurses?

Aside from my GF I have many friends and relatives in Canada (my grandparents were Canadian) and I hear all the time how the health system is bogged down and how it takes a long time to get tests and treatment. Not to mention the extreme shortage of doctors and specialists due to the fact that most move to the US to practice so they can make above a living wage.

People from across the world come to the US for treatment they cant get anywhere else, they come to the Mayo Clinic and John Hopkins. Doctors and nurses from your county flock to the US to work because in your system they are not able to make any money. Somehow your portrayal of the US having a “third world” medical system doesn’t seem to have any ring of truth, if it does what does it say about your medical system if all of your doctors, nurses, and people needing special treatment all flock to the US?

Nowhere do people get charged 10 bucks for aspirin nor do uninsured people get turned away from hospitals. People without insurance still receive medical treatment because its against the law in the US to refuse treatment to anyone regardless if they have insurance or not. I am not saying the US system is perfect, its far from perfect and needs to be tinkered with but its hardly what you seem to be portraying it as, sorry.

X

Sorry, I should have been more explicit, I didn't mean that the standard of health care was 3rd world, but that the method of implementing it was. i.e. Payment required for getting sick.

It's much the same as fire fighters, after they put out a fire at your house, they don't send you a bill to cover their expenses. Why should health care be any different.