What. on. Earth?

[fantastic_jackie]

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Do these extraordinary efforts of his include ignoring the troop needs in Afghanistan?

I'm serious. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd considered that.

Can someone explain to me what he's DONE to deserve this? Anyone at all?

Because, I'm just sayin', his name had to have been submitted for consideration back before February, just a week and a half after he was innagurated at the very latest. This is for not closing Guantanamo Bay but saying he will? For giving terrorist suspects all expense taxpayer paid vacations on sunny islands? What?

They're giving this to him for trying. Trying which, as of to date, has not resulted in Iran even opening up to have its SECRET NUCLEAR FACILITY inspected as it continues on an openly stated goal of Isreali genocide. Yeah... I'm seeing real progress there.

Not to mention that he is leading a nation that is engaged in a WAR on TWO fronts! How does that say Peace to anyone?

Seriously, this is just... Fawning. Pure, idolizing worship of a man. Anyone that defends this and all the indoctrination going around and the self righteous media... Oh dear fuzzy, the media. I'm sure CNN and PMSNBC have wet themselves with joy repeatedly over this. All the leg tingles... A sea of yellow... I'm afraid to check.

Let's just rename the Nobel Peace Prize to Best Liberal of the Year Award, huh? It's far more accurate to what it is they're rewarding, and it might actually help lessen the insults to the world persons who have actually devoted their lives to Peace. You know, those pesky people who have actually achieved something; that way, they know what it is the're up against.

Comments

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

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?

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

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!

[godricgal.livejournal.com]

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.

[patriot-jackie.livejournal.com]

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...