You Can Have the Red States

Well some good discussion, Oh I doubt Hillary can be considered a moderate.

As for what is going on in the rest of the world, can I say we see now what terrorism is, based on what has happened in London too ??

Or will that be considered too inflamatory and exploiting the event,and demeaning to the root causes, and using the event to further one's own political viewpoints. (Let's forget about the terrorist act ??)

 

Interesting opinion about health care too., don't really know there, but still strongly wanting free choices in healthcare, which Universal healtcare probably would not provide. (Hybrid we agree on something!!). Not all right wing "republicans" feel the way the right wing "majority" do. You see fractionalized votes and compromises on the republican side all the time. When was the last time mainstream democrats fully jumped ship., ie to the point of stopping their side 100% on an action or legislative initiative ? As for the WT., you all think this paper is biased ?? Good, at long last one paper is balancing the bias from ASSociated Press and NY times (All the news WE see fit to print), do if you think the WT is a biased paper good, need more like them to counter the vast majority of liberal press in this country. Oh I do sleep real good at night, and Coke is bad for you so I don't like carbonated and sugar beverages, except my coffee in the morning. LOL

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"105144)</div>

Universal health care is health care for all people. Why would that automaticaly lead to overworked medical professionals? This suggests that because (for the most part), we don't have to wait in line when we go see our doctor, it's because there are others who don't get in the door.

One does not automaticaly lead to the other. Canada has delays for some services as a form of "rationing". But if you think American health care is not also rationed then you don't know American health car. In Canada, the rationing is supposed to be based upon how sick you are. In America, the rationing is often based upon how rich you are or how good your insurance is.

Now which version should be the ideal version in a rich, purportedly "Christian" nation?

(Don't misunderstand, American Health care is quite good for most of us, and there are certainly problems in Canada. But make no mistake about it, rationing exists in both countries.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"105155)</div>

According the the US Governments own statistics, international terrorist events, and death rates from those events, diminished every year from 1993 till bottoming out in 2000. Since 2001, they have gone UP every year and in 2004, they were many times higher than they were in 2000.

So you are right, we do see what terrorism is, and sadly, it is expanding.

 

I have direct personal experience of (a) "universal" healthcare under the UK's state-run National Health System in the late 90s, after being run down for years by Tory governments; and (B) similar procedures under US healthcare provided by the top-rated HMO in the country for the year in question.

Guess what? The two were about equal. Wait times were bad for both, quality of treatment was about the same. The only major difference was that the US healthcare was vastly more expensive.

It's really amazing how effective a job the US healthcare industry does of persuading people that universal healthcare means poor quality. Most Americans seem to believe it without question.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105171)</div>

According the the US Governments own statistics, international terrorist events, and death rates from those events, diminished every year from 1993 till bottoming out in 2000. Since 2001, they have gone UP every year and in 2004, they were many times higher than they were in 2000.

So you are right, we do see what terrorism is, and sadly, it is expanding.
[/b][/quote]Gone up every year that the Bush adminstration has been in office. Hmmm.

 

"So you are right, we do see what terrorism is, and sadly, it is expanding"

Gee Hybrid., all I was trying to get you to say was that terrorism was wrong or evil.,

Do you think any other course might have yielded better results? You probably do, my OPINION is that TERRORISM should not be a means of getting better results under any circumstance. I do not believe you can negotiate or do anything, at the point of a gun or at the point of fear. I much prefer direct challenge to terrorism then any placating or acommodation.

When these people unequivocally reject their brand of terrorism, in their own language and to their own kind, as well as to us, then (like in Libya) progress can start in terms of relations and development of rights or recognition. That is why you still see the attacks and radicalism, because they know, their way will not work, without fear, and terror. I can never bow to such people, no matter what our actions, right or wrong when they resort to such actions against the civilized world.

 

Ah Thank you Deh2k., know Bush was behind it after all

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"105194)</div>

Yes I do as a matter of fact. I think GW stopped the war on terror to go fight in Iraq. I think it would have been wiser to finish the job and get Bin Laden.

Bin Laden killed 3000 on 9/11. Saddam killed 0 on 9/11.

Recruitment to terrosim has greatly expanded world wide in the last 4 years, and world terrorist events have greatly increased in the last 4 years.

And now the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan. Why? Because the actual war on terror was put on hold, at least for the US, because we took a diversion into Iraq.

And now terrorists are pouring into Iraq to kill Americans, and then when they get a certain amount of on the job training, they head to London.

So under GW's leadership, the world is less safe, there are more and better trained terrorists, and more nuclear fuel is missing in the world, thanks to John Boltons mismanagment of the American department in charge of that.

So yes, I do think there could have been a better result. A monkey could have had a better result.

I'm all for the war on terrorism. But I'm against GW's gross mismanagement of that war. Sadly, it just may require Condi's prediction about a "mushroom cloud" to prove it to some Americans.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"105195)</div>

No. It went down every year of the Clinton administration because of Reagan.

And it went up every year in the GW administration because of Clinton.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"105208)</div>

Absolutely true. The port of NYC, one of the busiest ports in the world, got their first container sized geiger counter in May of 2004.
And why are there not portable geiger counters in all our airports? (Actually some of our Customs entry ways into the USA DO have geiger counters, but they got them only in the last 6 months!! And they don't have them at all entry places yet.)

And how about anthrax detectors? How come we aren't tripping over them in our airports and shipping ports?

I'll tell you why. Those protections will help the "little people", and this administration is all about protecting the corporations and elite. The rest of us are just the hired help, and the foot soldiers to die in Iraq.

Speaking of the foot soldiers in Iraq, some of our foot soldiers in Iraq STILL don't have proper body armor, and that story first broke in April of 2003!!!!!!

The mismanagement of this administration in all this is truly criminal.

But he does make at least some people FEEL good. So that's why they love him. And the corporations sure love him, seeing how GW has allowed them to steal the company store. And they have so much money that they can continue to "dupe" many into loving him. Although polls show that he may need a new war soon if he wants to get his poll numbers back up.

 

It's a matter of personal perspective. [you] is moderate and those who don't agree are either wacko left or wacko right.

 

When did I refer to anyone as a wacko? I try to confine the points that I make to the points that others make. I try not to call people names. And I may at times call a person's ideas "extreme", but that is not the same thing as calling them personally "extreme".

I actually think people like R Taylor and IA are honorable people and that they mean well. I just think they are wrong. And I say that even though IA has more than once questioned my honor, decency or love of my country. And for the most part, he stays away from my points.

I'm not always successful at refraining from calling people names in some way, but I try.

 

ARRGHH!!!!!

You got me!!!!!

You used the ]you[ trick!!!!!!!

After I posted, I re-read you post as I wasn't sure what you meant. (Although I still wrote a response. Not too smart on my part)

That's when I found out how I was snookered!!!!!

Congrats!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"105195)</div>

You said that, not me. But terrorism is worse than when he took over and I think he bears a lot of responsibility by mismanaging the situation.