A Fantastic Little Corner

I'm sorry; you are whom? Public entry, sure, for the reason of being open to whomever. I just wonder where all y'all come from... Seems contrived, is all. New folks appear all across the internet suddenly. Gotta wonder...?

Your little link has what to do with the Nobel Peace Prize??

Domestic agendas - right. I'm the first out there to talk about how much he's expanded the scope and size and place of the federal government, and how much more he plans on doing. We get it: Obama wants control and is taking it from the rights reserved to the People. SNL was wrong when they said he'd accomplished nothing - we know. It's why we're in the streets.

Thing is the latest this submission of his name could have been was 1.5 weeks into his Presidency. He'd accomplished what, and in the Muslim arena of diplomacy, at that point? What exactly has he accomplished with any of the Middle Eastern countries? I'm not talking about some speech or conversation; I'm talking about action, which is what this Prize used to be about. There is none.

Not even the Nobel Committee paid any mind to his domestic ~~destructions~~ achievements in governmental overtakes in their remarks regarding their decision, so you can stop the spin. Again I ask, HOW has he gained the Nobel Peace Prize over, say... these folks?

Chinese Advocate Against Forced Abortions (http://www.lifenews.com/int1346.html)
A handful of names which include... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/08/nobel.peace.prize/)
- Sen. Piedad Cordoba of Columbia for securing the release of 16 prisoners from Marxist guerillas and continued works towards peace.
- Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan, professor at Jordan University in Islamic Faith who worked and is working with scholars across the globe on a "theological counter-attack against terrorism."
- Sima Samar of Afghanistan, doctor and human rights advocate who established the Shuhada Organization, which focuses on health care, particularly for Afghan women.

Huh. All these people seem to have actions attached to their submissions. Where are Obama's qualifications again??? An award for intentions that he might accomplish? How noble.

From:

nisie.livejournal.com

This really tells the story then- http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/. M

From:

Lol Nice. Both those lists are so incomplete, though.

From:

You do realise that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of Norwegians appointed by the Norwegian government, right? This isn't some conspiracy brought about by American liberals.

Edited Date: 2009-10-09 05:06 pm (UTC)

From:

O_o Why wouldn't I know that? The Nobel Peace Prize is global, not American, thus one of the reasons we on the right are afronted by the absurdity. The Vast ______ Wing Conspiracy is a belief the American Left clings to - the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. We've got conspiracy theorists on the right, sure, but I haven't ever bought into any of those...

No, the contention is that the World is far more liberal than America, and that the left is in awe of Obama. From Oprah to Chavez to Ahmadinejad, glowing words of praise for Obama, and he can do no wrong! Indeed, comedians couldn't even find anything funny about the man until last week because he is just so, so cool. Even in schools across the States, well... he's worthy of sung praise and child indoctrination, lyrics taken right out of religious songs such as Jesus Loves Me!

Nope. No conspiracies here; just some fruitcake liberals and their "good intentions" that show a pattern. - Not all liberals. There are several liberals over here that acknowledge the wrongness of this award, as well. - But this isn't good for Obama. Especially not with the NEA pushing his agenda through use of public funds and video after video of children being indoctrinated with his political platform while he struggles to get anything passed with his super majorities in Congress.

He needs to decline it in order to maintain some credibility here.

From:

I think your dislike of the man is too intense to see the situation for what it is. This fruitcake liberal has no desire to engage.

From:

I’ll agree as always to cease debate on any topic you no longer wish to discuss, so we can consider the Obama Topic dropped. However, this time, I won’t be dropping the Jackie Topic. Work is ridiculously busy though, so you probably won’t see my PM until tomorrow.

Regarding the fruitcake comment, I’d like to clarify the “some” definition: the definition applies only to those who see Obama as more than a man. I don’t recall at any point you ever elevating him to godlike status. (Not to mention that I thought you defined yourself as a conservative?) I am sorry you interpreted it as a personal slight; that was far from my intention towards you, nor was it meant as an indictment on anyone who aggress with Obama’s policies and/or his receipt of the Prize.

From:

I didn't consider it a personal slight, I couldn't because what you're saying in this post comes across as a vaguely hysterical reaction that is blow out of all proportion - there is no political agenda in the award. All the same, I do take exception to your use of the term because it amounts to name calling and if your intention is to set out a reasoned argument, well, it only hurts your case. As for me being conservative, I'm not at all in the sense that you are. I am a Conservative, as in I am a supporter of our Conservative party, but I am a full supporter of public healthcare to the extent where I consider it backward and even inhumane not to have such a system, which is probably enough by itself to be classed as a socialist by your standards.

From:

If the improper use of a noun as an adjective to label a type of liberal amounts to name calling, then the use of the adjective "hysterical" in your first line counts equally. But I'm not here to play grammar police nor to keep a running tally.

I genuinely believe the existance of government run healthcare is a violation of human rights, thus the reason I'm so opposed to it. We have differing opinions of the government's role and differing opinions of what amounts to an Individual Right. But you assume too much if you believe I'm entirely opposed to any form of a (voluntary) governmental safety net. We'll never have a purist system, which would amount to a conservative utopia, and I'm not a libertarian.

As for a socialist... the door to that is through redistribution of wealth. A totalitarian regime or dictatorship could have public healthcare as easily as a democracy or democratic republic. Basing an opinion of socialism purely off government healthcare without looking at any other governmental piece would thereby be dependant on how it's funded.

From:

If the improper use of a noun as an adjective to label a type of liberal amounts to name calling, then the use of the adjective "hysterical" in your first line counts equally. But I'm not here to play grammar police nor to keep a running tally.

What? LOL. This is exactly why I should never comment to these posts of yours. What's this got to do with my point? Nothing. And why? I have to assume it's because you don't have a sensible response to my point, so you find something else to say to divert attention and confuse. This pushes my buttons more than any particular point of difference. If you want to get your point across, do it in a straight and reasoned manner - don't spin and twist words because you don't have an answer. That is the very worst of politics.

I cannot see how a system that gives free healthcare to anyone who needs it can be described as a 'violation of human rights' when the alternative is to leave people to suffer - that is the violation of human rights.

Edited Date: 2009-10-10 12:49 am (UTC)

From:

hahahaha

you said free health care

lolz

From:

You accused me of name calling when you did the exact same thing in your own post. - Only it was directed specifically at me. You called me hysterical. And you've done more than just that one. But I am not going there in this public post.

There was no spin: You said you didn't want to discuss the matter anymore, and I abided by your request. I answered your other points about healthcare and socialism; how much straighter can I be??

If you want an answer to my "hysterical" beliefs and opinions on this, then it can't come from me, because I've been plain in my complaints. As blinded as you believe I am by hatred for my president, I believe you are blinded to what I'm saying by what you think my opinions are.

This is an article from Time: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500 They're hardly what you would call center here. If they can even see issues with the President winning the NPP at this early stage in the game, why wouldn't I? He's a political adversary to me. The Left has been demonstrating a pattern in regards to his presence since the beginning of his campaign. - Not as a conspiracy, but as a set of "principles." Their "values," their "core" that influences their judgements. The prism through which they see things far differently than conservatives do. I am the last person who will ever insist someone's beliefs are not their own via some giant global plan. We are simply different. I measure things differently, and I see things differently. I don't like how they see things; they don't like how I see things. It's an age old story.

As to the human rights violations, that would come down to a discussion of what is an individual right endowed to us by our Creator, back to the Constitution. - Far too long for this discussion. - Suffice it to say that Life, Liberty, and Property are important rights to me.

My Life- my right to choose which doctor to see, when to see him, etc free of government meddling
Liberty- a doctor's right to have a practice free of ridiculous government regulations and free of the government as his boss when he is actually the government's boss
Property- The wealth of an individual is his/her property that should never be unjustly taken from that individual to be handed out to another. It's called stealing when the government doesn't do it.

And that's just a very brief glance. I don't say it lightly as a bumper sticker slogan if that's your impression.

From:

You accused me of name calling when you did the exact same thing in your own post. - Only it was directed specifically at me. You called me hysterical.

I said your post came across that way, not that you were. Twisting my words again.

As blinded as you believe I am by hatred for my president, I believe you are blinded to what I'm saying by what you think my opinions are.

Well, I fail to see how the points in your original point are relevant to any argument about whether he should or should not have won the award. He inherited a war on two fronts; I'm quite sure the Norwegians have no desire to fawn or idolise your president, lol; an intention to close Guantanamo wouldn't be a sole reason but it's may well be a good indicator of the sort of man he is; and you don't even mention nuclear disarmament! So yes, forgive me for thinking you are blinded by dislike.

I'm sure you have deep and reasoned priciples for not believing in public health services, but as someone who lives in a country that is proud of the health service it has had for over fifty years, I can't understand why any country would not have one. To me it is absolutely terrifying that I could fall ill and not afford to go to the doctor, or worse, that my parents could fall ill and we'd not be able to afford full and proper treatment. To be clear, the NHS is far from perfect, it's an enormous system (the single biggest employer in the UK by quite a margin) of course there are some problems, but goodness me, they are small problems, indeed, to the prospect of not having it. At a higher level than that, above believing that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of whether they can afford to pay for it or not, I think that healthcare (along with electricity, water and gas) should NOT be associated with any kind of profit-making activity. It's like taking your car to the mechanic - if you're not a mechanic yourself, how do you know that the work you're told needs to be done is necessary? A doctor who is making a profit might only find it in his best interests to give you a diagnosis once he has sent you for every expensive test he could think to muster, before giving you an expensive, branded drug that he's being paid by the drug company to dispense instead of the cheaper generic option. This is one area where I'd rather be protected by the government.

From:

No worse than you're twisting mine.

In any case, I fail to see the difference between, "You sound hysterical," and "You are hysterical." But I suppose I should just be okay with the slight difference thereof as well as being called a hateful person too, right? (Honestly, I am, but I hate being held to a differnt standard.)

If the economy is his now, then the war surely is, as well. We aren't fighting to win it; we're fighting to fight it. He's paralyzed by going for either option - if he sends more troops, he enrages the left. If he pulls them out, he loses the support of the American people.He's not helping it; he's proloninging it and making it worse! It's obscene! And it was obscene when Bush was doing it! People are dying and he's paralyzed by politics!

I'm quite sure the Norwegians have no desire to fawn or idolise your president,

We can argue about that all day long, and neither of us would change the other's mind. But they DID want to slap the last one, and this was one way they could do it.

an intention to close Guantanamo

So they ARE rewarding intentions, like I said? And no, I didn't mention the nuclear disarmament because it's the same as Guantanamo: intentions. It's likely to lead me on a different tangent, so I left it out.

They say the difference between liberals and conservatives is the difference between good intentions and good actions. - A conservative is held accountable for his actions; a liberal is held only to his intentions.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." - President Barack Obama

Okay. Now even the President himself agrees that he hasn't DONE anything to deserve it. So forgive me if I'm offended for the ridculous accusations of "being blinded by dislike." (See: hate.) No, I just have an incapacity to understand what's really happening because I asked What and Why. Can the man never be questioned or criticized? Is it impossible that someone's intentions on that committee can be impure?

I wonder... Does the President dislike himself, too?

Let's clear up some myths about the barbaric United States of America:
1) Anyone in the United States can get healthcare with or without insurance, and with or without paying. Hospitals here that receive federal funding are REQUIRED to treat anyone that comes through the door. Unpaid medical expenses incurred by groups such as illegal immigrants are one of the contributing factors to our healthcare costs. NO ONE is arguing against this. Not a single. solitary. human being. - ~~or American, since we're not quite human~~ - with any possible credibility. It's a figment of the left's imagination! A way to demonize the opposition without having to debate the actual issue!
2) The 46 million uninsured - not untreated - is a farce of mythological proportions. An estimated 12 million are illegal immigrants. That brings us down to 36 million uninsured. About 18 million of them have an income of $50,000 a year; more than 9 million in this group make over $75,000 a year. In the United States, 83 million people are already on some form of government healthcare system - that's about 30% of our population. 14 million of America's uninsured are qualified for government insurance but have not applied. In addition, about 2/3 of all uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18-34: the invincible crowd. It's a risk they've chosen to take. Also something Universal Healthcare proponents will never tell you is that about half of those uninsured are only uninsured for 6 months to less than a year due to job changes and temporary situations. All in all, it's impossible to know the exact number of uninsured because some of these demographics cross, but it's at least dramatically less than the myth that 46 million Americans can't afford healthcare.

From:

3) Health insurance policies aren't astronomically priced. There are expensive policies, to be sure, and situations tie in to the pricing, but several insurance companies offer basic youth-oriented plans around $50 a month. Students can get it even cheaper.
4) Government already greatly affects the pricing of healthcare in this nation. They set the prices at which insurance companies and doctors base their expenses; they cannot choose what they want to charge. Additionally, the federal government has locked insurance agencies out from selling across state lines; this lack of competition and diversification only adds fuel to the rising costs of healthcare.
5) Much of the "rising costs of healthcare" in the United States can be attributed to advancements in technology, medication, and treatments. Sure, things were a lot cheaper in the 60's. But more people died for lack of medical advancements and medical tests that couldn't be ordered as a preventative stop gap to not only catch conditions early, but treat them as well.
6) Doctors in the United States do not, to combat President Obama's myth, rip out tonsils and amputate feet just to get paid. In fact, when a person's body part needs to be removed, often it is not the doctor who assessed such a need that performs the surgery. So how would they make a dime off it? Are there people that do it? Probably. And they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I could go on for a while actually, but it would be really, really long.

Profits are not evil; they're incentive. In a free market society, they provide a goal to work towards and competition. You have choice, and that choice creates competition which drives costs down and quality of service up: whether oil or healthcare or cars or computers, the basic needs of a business don't change. Greed exists, but again, there will never, ever be a perfect system in which crime does not exist. The drive to better oneself becomes essential to a business - better services, lower prices, better products - as things progress in the marketplace. Stagnation in a corporation leads to failure; too high prices or shady deals, etc defeat the needs of the business, and the same applies to doctors.

On the contrary, once corporations become giant, there is far more chance for corruption to take place not in absence of governmental intervention, but because of it. Government involving itself, placing arbitrary caps, handing things out, and providing safety for certain groups destroys innovation. The inability to fail strips away incentive: why be great when you can be mediocre and slide on by?

So you point out the fundamental difference very well: You see necessities as something that should be controlled by the government as a form of protection from the people. I see the same necessities being controlled by the government as a threat to the people, a way to make them wholly dependent on the government. There was an awesome quote I found the other day by Grover Cleveland, President of the United States in the 1800's. This dude was a democrat, but he may be my new favorite President...

"...though the people support the government, the government should not support the people."

The particular story this quote comes from is actually far cooler than the quote itself and very telling about not only government intervention, but the generosity of the American people. If left to choose whom to trust, the Federal Government or the American People, I would choose the People 8 days out of the week and twice on Sundays.

From:

Inhumane? To not be extend the futile failure of government run systems to into health care and thereby imprison ourselves as a nation of individuals indefinitely to the whims of a few elitists who place themselves on untouchable, unquestionable, unattainable pedestals??

I'm gonna get beat by Jacks -assuming she doesn't delete this post... Normally I stay out of her "stuff," but the whole health care scene I've recently discovered I take rather personally. -And personally, I find such fitting since I'm one of those pesky people who will be relegated to seeking health care on a regular basis for the remainder of my life due to a chronic disorder. -I'm not one of those healthy people who can say it doesn't really matter. Heaven forbid I care what system I'll be stuck with in the event a ~~liberalized~~ socialized agenda takes hold of the industry.

Gee, let's think here... taking money from one group of people (you know, those ones who have a job and work enough to have tax deductions) to subsidize another group of people who don't do the former... Is that socialism?? I think, kids, it is indeed. That's what you call redistribution of wealth -taking one person's stuff and giving it to another person, whether the persons involved want to or not.

Let's check the dictionary: what is socialism, American Heritage?

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)

NOUN:

(1)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism

Yep. Sounds pretty socialist to me. So I guess that answers that.

And just on a health CARE level, I do have to admit that I'd prefer to leave my health needs in the hands of the licensed, experienced hands of DOCTORS rather than my government who sees me only as a series of 9 numbers in a long, growing, and unending list of 9 number-digits. I always thought that if a person wanted to be a doctor, they would... be a doctor... Not go into politics. I mean, if the government is a doctor or group thereof, why in the world are they a governing body in the first place?? But that's just me. I must be -what's the word? Oh, yeah- inhumane for thinking so.

From:

Ohhh snap. >.> You on healthcare. Please do not make this ugly...er. =P

When did you get here, Mini Coulter?

I mean... how long have you been following?

Edited Date: 2009-10-10 02:00 am (UTC)

From:

long enough.

and don't call me that.

<.<

From:

You see, I'm quite happy to pay a little bit extra (and it really isn't a great deal, for what I get in return) out of my pay packet to ensure that a) I have access to healthcare whenever I need it or my family needs it and b) that anyone less fortunate than me can similarly access the care they need to not suffer, and that's where the inhumane bit comes in. Could you stand in front of someone in pain and suffering and effectively say, 'Well, it's all your own fault, you should have got a job.' I couldn't - I couldn't condemn anyone to that fate, hence I believe healthcare should be available to all.

Obviously you have a problem with paying a National Insurance type premium, and that's a matter of principle that I can't really address, but the reality of, certainly our NHS (and there much better health services in other European countries) is that the doctors and nurses going about their daily work are not politicians, they're just men and women getting on with the job they were trained to do, and the majority of them are brilliant.

As for socialist, perhaps. I don't care on this one point, I really don't. There are far more insidious aspects to a socialist system to worry about!

From:

You know what I find fascinating about this debate is the leftward approach to it all. It's as if it's believed that health insurance somehow equals health care. Lol, sometimes I wonder if the left argument even understands firstly that there ARE differences between the two, and secondly, where the differences lie. I honestly don't think it does... and thus, it's fundamentally flawed from the onset.

I'll be honest: this is always the first thing I notice, but never the first thing I bring up. Reason being I wouldn't want to prejudge someone's quite-in-the-literal-sense ignorance (or state of not understanding) on the matter. Woohoo for more definitions! But these, I'll write myself.

Health Care -Simply the literal care you receive from various health practitioners. This would refer to visits or treatments received, etc. Those who work in this realm refer only truly to doctors, nurses, technicians, etc -the people who are trained in the medical field, and those whose overlying ethical model lies in the Hippocratic Oath.

Health Insurance -We use the word policy to describe its entity here; it is the certain something you pay for -an abstract something never seen, nor truly touched- that assists in the payment for your health care. Here, it's more akin to a contract; in socialized systems, well... it's quite a bit different. This aspect of the health field is purely cost driven. THIS what the debate is over -who should run this institution: free, independent companies, or government bureaucracies.

The reason this is important is because when you label it all as health care, you label me and those like me as persons who are against the treatment of individuals due to nothing more than economic status. Quite honestly, that couldn't be further from the truth or more disingenuous an assumption. -I've been in situations many times where I needed immediate health assistance, but had no insurance. And on a personal note, I live with pain every second of my life; I no longer know how to imagine what a painless existence or even brief moment there of feels like. I find it offensive to the nth degree that you would even suggest I'd wish such on anyone else. I acknowledge that you wouldn't have known that, but regardless, how could you accuse anyone of such a stance unless they were Hitler or some other such villian? There is nothing inhumane or heartless about my or anyone's stance against a socialized system.

It's important to understand as well that when government gets involved on the health insurance front, it inevitably leads to a single payer system. Private insurance companies cannot hope to compete with an ever-growing public option, and additional provisions will be present to assure they have no chance. This CANNOT be ignored; its very existence will deny Americans choice, and I'm not sure about Europeans, but freedom is something we value very, very highly here. It's even more important in the health field as this system will inescapably mandate the social justification of certain medical procedures which WILL deny treatment to persons with certain conditions or ages. This is unavoidable. -You have to understand that period, no matter what system you use, there will be people who fall through the cracks. The difference is who will decide who does: individuals themselves, or an obscure government agency who has no choice but to be a heartless bureaucracy by its very nature.

All that being said, most Americans left and rightward recognize our system needs improvement. The way in which to do it is where we differ.

From:

First of all, I think it's fair to say that I understand the realities of a public healthcare system far better than you could, simply because I live with one - you can't tell me that our system doesn't work, nor seriously suggest that 60,000,000 Britons are all simply wrong, along with the populations of most Western countries. A lot of what you're writing here seems to be a fear of something unknown, the reality is a system where you know what you're getting from whom, and that when you get new treatments, it's because they have been proven to be of genuine therapeutic benefit, rather than just benefiting the practitioner's pocket. I do accept that there is the flip side of the coin here, where there might be a difference of opinion on what is beneficial, etc., but don't imagine that the NHS isn't under a great deal of public scrutiny, more so than any other public service, because it is so important to us (any government, left, right or centre knows that the NHS is our sacred cow - those crazy Brits!) and so I think that forces the continual questioning of policy. Also, you do know that we have a thriving private healthcare industry, too? Huge companies who provide insurance and healthcare, as well as smaller private practices, so the NHS has done nothing to impede our freedom of choice - it's the best of both worlds!

how could you accuse anyone of such a stance unless they were Hitler or some other such villian?

You share your sister's way of twisting words. What I actually said is this:

Could you stand in front of someone in pain and suffering and effectively say, 'Well, it's all your own fault, you should have got a job.'[?]

...which is a question, not an accusation, is it not?

From:

suggest that 60,000,000 Britons are all simply wrong

Well, it wouldn't be the first time we decided y'all were wrong..... lol ;) Are 300,000,000 Americans wrong?

I'm not going to debate your system, but. I have to say that Daniel Hannan doesn't quite agree with you on this...

"You should learn from our mistakes. I mean, the single biggest area where I could see you making this mistake is on this thing of the nationalized health-care system. I mean, I hope that sanity is going to prevail. I know it's been kicked around before and it hasn't happened. I love my country even more than I love yours, you know, but God, I would love to get rid of our system and have something that puts patients in charge rather than putting doctors' unions and bureaucrats in charge. That's the single biggest thing."

Edit: Wow. That was a lot of Americans!

Edited Date: 2009-10-10 08:31 pm (UTC)

From:

Well, it's 60,000,000 Britons plus most of the rest of the free world, and clearly there are a good proportion of Americans who agree with us or those strongly against wouldn't feel so threatened. ;)

Daniel Hannan has probably destroyed his chances of ever being elected again for that comment, at least, he has certainly dashed his chances of ever making it to the House of Commons. It's a shame because he could have been great.

I don't think our system is perfect - far from it, but it is in a matter of implementation rather than the principle that is at fault. For example, most people pay for each prescription they are given, which is charging people who actually need the system, while there are a lot of people who visit a GP unnecessarily, so if you made the charge for seeing a GP, it would pay for all the prescriptions AND raise a lot more revenue besides.

We won't agree, of course, and when I unwittingly brought up this explosive topic, it was not specifically to the US system that I was referring - there are plenty of other countries where you are on your own when you get sick, mostly in Asia and Africa, of course, and I do believe that help should always be available.

I can't go into it any more, hostile debate is wearing and not productive, so I'm done. You both seem to think that I'm accusing you of being bad people or something, which I'm not, you've just read that in a very frustrating way, which is probably a failure to communicate effectively on my part for which I am sorry. Kate, over and out.

From:

clearly there are a good proportion of Americans who agree with us or those strongly against wouldn't feel so threatened.

Yeah! They're all in Congress and the White House!! ;)

Oh really? You think y'all will be letting him go? *rubs hands gleefully* We'll have to start a lobby for him to switch his residency to Texas and citizenship to the US!

We won't agree, of course...

Well, any debate that starts off with the premise that either system is an abject failure is destined to become embittered and go nowhere. Obviously, both, for instance, the US and the UK have fully functioning and good healthcare systems. Otherwise, people would literally be dying in our countries' respecitve streets, and neither of our systems and healthcare services would be envied, yes? So really this is a debate over which system is better, which is always going to be subjective; it's always going to come down to what we are willing to give up in exchange for the assurance of something else. (Though I still contend there's no reason that having a free market health care system and having health care access for all must be mutually exclusive.) But this being the case, I have a question for you, rhetorical if you want: Why does the UK need private insurance if it has the NHS? In other words, why give private industry, which you suggested can't be trusted, any place in your market when the government can do it better? Sincerely, I don't understand why so much emphasis is spent on the "irreversable ills" (shortly put) of privatized healthcare systems only for the promise to be brought up that it still does/will exist. (But truly, it won't in the US if the House Bill is passed. We will go further than y'all - it won't exist. It will be outlawed.)

While intense and distinctly uncomfortable at times, I'd have to say that at least from my experience, this wasn't a hostile debate. -And I mean that as a compliment to you, especially since it became you vs 2.- I've been in far, far, far worse situations (of my own contributions to bring it there), and Terri... Well, I don't call her "Mini-Coulter" lightly... even if she hates it. lol So we both appreciate - but me especially - you keeping it to the issues exempting the word-twisting game tangent. You challenged me to examine and then word my beliefs, if not always articulately, which is the best kind of debate there is. - Especially if we can walk away as friends. :) We all need to be taken out of our comfort zones at times, and I'd much prefer it to be with a buddy.

I don't think you believe we're bad people or ignorant or hateful or anything else. In fact, I'm pretty well confident enough to say I know you don't. The point was that my opinions of events are not based in "dislike" or "hate." I know you're not an American, so you might not know, but that is what everyone in Washington, the media, and a very large portion of the American Left accuses us of every time we say a word against the President. We're called haters, racists, mobs, violent, assassins, nazis, too stupid, fearmongers... the list goes on and on. Anything to discredit our opinions to be based off some irrational reaction rather than a valid difference of opinion. So when you began suggesting, even in the slightest, the ignorance and hysterics and dislike, you were pretty much stepping on a landmine. Thus the reason I reacted the way I did, because I am completely exhausted of it. And that's not your fault, so I'm sorry you unkowningly walked into that after I'd decided not to let it go anymore. I made the decision because that's never been the person I am; I very carefully consider all my positions before speaking on them. It probably would have been better of me to explain that to you in the first place...

From:

adaon6.livejournal.com

This will shock you, Obama is the best one to win the award.

The award is given to someone who is Anti-capitalist (gore, UN global climate), Anti-semite (carter), and pro-globalization(*liberal globalization, ala the UN which has won like 6 of them).

Further, the award is in part designed to go for the person who has done the most to reduce standing armies. Which means clinton got completely gipped.

The problem ultimately is with the so-called presitge of the award. It is NOT given to great humanitarians or else Mother Teresa would have multiple!

From:

Coming from that perspective, yes, exactly right. Glenn Beck (and Stu and Pat) said it on his show today when they said that Noam Chompsky should have been awarded; took the thought right out of my head. Seriously, if it was about peace, Ghandi would have gotten the NPP back in his day!

But they do really need to change the name of the award. It's just... I think it's disrespectful, especially to the participants who are genuinely qualified for the description of the Prize, not to mention the previous winners of the Prize before it became so politicized.

From:

Dude.

I feel bad for Alfred Nobel.

His ideal is so perverted now -especially with crap like this and Gore last year.

From:

mrstater.livejournal.com

The Nobel Prize is like the Oscars. Who gives a hoot who actually wins?

From: