[Rictor]

You can't spell "Phoenix Program" without "john kerry". Well, not really, but then again, I never was that good a speller.

--------------

Originally posted by Kazan
yes.. because im further center than you Rictor that makes me "conservative" except for the fact that i am left of center most decidedly

I have little doubt that, when it comes to domestic policy (healthcare, education, religion etc), this is  true. However, thats only half the equation...

---------------

On healthcare: it is a human right. There are certain things which should be considered before money. Doesn't matter who pay or why, just so long as people aren't dying from easily preventable dieseses.(sp?)

[Ford Prefect]

Personally I think healthcare is a basic human right and not a paid for privelidge.

Amen to that.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
On healthcare: it is a human right. There are certain things which should be considered before money. Doesn't matter who pay or why, just so long as people aren't dying from easily preventable dieseses.(sp?)

yes -- and i find the more equitable and fair way is making sure health care providers are not trying to be extortionists

[Zarax]

Kazan, if public healthcare is well managed everyone ends paying less for it.
Remember that a nation can use the benefit of large scale buyouts and so on...
And about healthcare being a short term thing...
I'm sure you know that many illness are not a short term thing, how do you consider chronical diseases, especially with elder people?
Do you think any insurance company would realistically keep that kind of customers?
In the end, you aren't paying other people bills, but you pay the insurance that your healthcare system won't drop you.
Something that you cannot say with any other system...
BTW, what makes you think that people can become dependant to the system? Hospitals are no theme parks...

[01010]

Kazan the amount that comes out of my wage for the healthcare system over here (NHS) is so small I don't even notice it. I don't care about paying for someone else because I know when I need it, I'll be able to get treated (I hope, ha ha).  Seriously, I'm pretty sure for most people it would  be a smaller amount to pay in the long run than medical insurance.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by 01010
Kazan the amount that comes out of my wage for the healthcare system over here (NHS) is so small I don't even notice it. I don't care about paying for someone else because I know when I need it, I'll be able to get treated (I hope, ha ha).  Seriously, I'm pretty sure for most people it would  be a smaller amount to pay in the long run than medical insurance.

Almost certainly. Insurance companies turn a profit. Government systems don't.

It's fairly obvious that a large chunk of that money everyone pays to insurance companies isn't going to any medical treatment but instead is going straight into the pockets of the company providing the health care.

The only people who would get seriously screwed by a public health care system are millionaires and billionaires. And lets face it after 4 years of Bush they've got it easy.

[Rictor]

Militarism a go-go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25812-2004Jul29.html

and some (more) censorship thrown in for good measure.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1327236

[Kazan]

A) the Washington Post is not a reliable source
B) Nothing knew, same old unacceptable garbage perpetrated by all parties

[Rictor]

Someting occurs to me Kaz. And that something is that you have not read thr article, and yet find it fit to comment on it. How do I know that you have not read it? Because registration is required, and I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you are not registered at the Washington Post. Oh go ahead and register now, just to prove me wrong, I don't mind, seriously. Which brings up the question, how many times have you done this in the past? You know you're right, so whats the point in even posting links or actually, you know, discussing. In one ear and out the other, or in this case, not even in one ear. It just so happens that this time, its quite easy to prove that you have no intention of even considering a viewpoint other than your own. And even so, its pretty stupid to say that the Washington Post is not a reliable source, especially when what they are commenting on is fact. If Person A was at Place B and said Thing C, thats a fact, and no amount of stopping your ears or shouting unreliable source is going to change that.

For everyone else, sorry, I don't know what happened. I was able to get to the article just fine when linked from another website. Here's the basic jist of it:

But Kerry tried to address a stickier military-political issue at his party's convention here, where he surrounded himself not only with former Navy colleagues but also with prominent retired military brass. The goal, Democratic insiders said, was to battle the long-held public perception that Republicans are tougher and more trustworthy in waging war and dealing with military matters in general.

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination himself, came straight to the point in his convention speech Thursday night. "Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people," he said. "John Kerry is a leader, a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief."

[Kazan]

Rictor it's well known that the washington times is a limbaugh-republicanist shill

the situation in iraq in ****ed up thnx to bush-- kerry's got to un**** it -- an immediate withdrawl would leave things ****ed up, not un**** them --- get real and learn about war before talking in relation to it

[vyper]

[q]the situation in iraq in ****ed up thnx to bush-- kerry's got to un**** it -- an immediate withdrawl would leave things ****ed up, not un**** them --- get real and learn about war before talking in relation to it[/q]

The situation in Iraq is exactly what your leaders expected it to be. It's only ****ed up if you believe we went in there to stop WMD proliferation.

[Rictor]

If you would be so kind as to read my posts Kaz, you will notice that at this thread was not made regarding the war. My views on that are, I think, quite clear.

What this thread is about is John Kerry, and the Democrats in general. If you want to talk about the war, go make a new post.

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor it's well known that the washington times is a limbaugh-republicanist shill

a) The article is by the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. Smart move.

b) Let me say this one more time. The article is reporting on things that actually happened. You know, physical reality and so forth. Their claim that Kerry surrounded himself with military figures at the DNC, and that so-and-so said such-and-such can not be disputed, becuase it, here's the punch-line, happened.

Also, I don't think you can seriously argue that Kerry is not playing up the military angle on his campaign. How many times has he brought up his Vietnam record? He's trying to outdo even Bush for jingoist bravado. Posing in front of the naval destroyer to copy (and hopefully one-up) Bush's aircraft carrier stunt. Promising to send 40,000 moer troops to Iraq? His whole campaign is just dripping with militarism.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't know if anyone has actually been watching the Democratic Convention, but Kerry specifically mentioned that he is calling for 40,000 more troops just to bolster the military, not to send to Iraq. And he said exactly that: "Not to Iraq."

[Kazan]

rictor: gotcha -- corssed Wash Times/Post there *goes back and reads*

ok, what's wrong with looking strong on defense?  

ford prefect: perhaps to station in the US? or to send to afghanistan where we should have been concetrating our attention?

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah. I don't know where he wants to put them. He just said that Iraq has caused the military to be spread too thin. And yes, Afghanistan has definitely gone by the wayside. (I think that Bush's administration had every intention of letting that happen.) I just hope that they don't magically catch Bin Laden sometime in mid-October.

[SadisticSid]

From John Kerry
"I support US participation in the International Criminal Court, but also believe that US officials, including soldiers, should be provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions."

The Republicans must have jumped for joy the moment Kerry got chosen over Edwards, who'd have a decent chance of usurping Bush. I can't believe the Democrat candidate could piss in the wind so blatantly.

[Ace]

Yeah yeah... this is a dem thread. However what is Kerry doing to get the beastiality vote?



It seems like Bush is definately trying hard to get that percentage of voters...

[Rictor]

ace: lvlshot is your friend. and everyone else's too.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
rictor: gotcha -- corssed Wash Times/Post there *goes back and reads*

ok, what's wrong with looking strong on defense?  

ford prefect: perhaps to station in the US? or to send to afghanistan where we should have been concetrating our attention?

Now, excuse my faulty mastery of the English language, but doesn't "defense" usually mean, you know, defending something. The US's territorial integrity has not been threatened for well over a century.

There's nothing wrong with looking strong on defense, if defense means putting a ****load of soldiers on your borders to guard them against invasion. However, I reject that "defense" in the way in which you use it (and pretty much everyone else uses it), means defense. The "defense industry", which is a nice way of saying military industry, has been used for nothing but offense in recent times (recent times being the past 100 years or so, and especially since WW2). And before you wring up WW2, that is the expection that proves the rule. Its only one of a number of US wars, and even then, it was not technically defense in the literal meaning, but rather defense of an ally, though most people (myself included) consider that to have been legitimate given the circumstances.

I thought that the Dems were supposed to be the doves on the US political scene. 95% (and thats a statistic Kaz) of the Democratic delegates in attendance at the DNC (not the protestors outside, the actual delegates at the convetion) were against the war in Iraq. And  yet, the Democratic party has chosen a pro-war figure as its candidate. Does this seem odd to anybody?

In past decades, the Republicans have campaigned for a stronger military and a "stronger America", which is a term worthy of Orwell for being so loaded with political spin, yet meaning nothing, the very characterisitics of Newspeak. The problem is, that when they say "a stronger America", that usually means "bigger military, which we will not be afraid to use to kick the **** out of anyone who looks at us sideways". And now, the Democrats have taken up the banner, and instead of denouncing Republican militarism, they have chosen to beat them at their own game.

[Ford Prefect]

Kerry actually voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war if the proper rationale were provided. Naive? Yes. But it's not the same thing as voting to go to war.