[Rictor]

I use John Kerry's name and the DNC (Democratic Nation Congress, not the convention) intergengably. Which is, I think, not unfair, considering that he exemplifies everything that the Democratic party has come to stand for, and since it is he who is recieving the nomination.

That like saying "Bush's assult on civil liberties". Technically, its John Ashcroft, in theory Bush has no part in it (though in this specific case, he and Ashcroft are particularly chummy) but people get the point. Same deal here.

[Gank]

Meh, you're replacing one mason with another, what do you expect?

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rictor
-Supported the Iraq War

not in the way you're trying to make use think he does

-Supports sending more troops to Iraq, around 40,000 or so.

because that's what's required to un**** this situation

-Supports the PATRIOT act

show him supporting this act, past it's initial passing (which was in the days that you would be instnatly branded a traitor for disagreeing with bush

-In favour of unconditional support for Israel

_WHINE_

-Supports the policy of pre-emptive war

documentation pls

-Supports neo-liberal economic policies world-wide

documentation of what the **** you're talking about

'neo-liberal' no such term

-Supports the overthrow of sovereign governments if it suits US interests.

docuemtnation please - put in context please

-Commited war crimes in Vietnam, and actualy brags about it.

A) atleast he has the guts and honesty to admit what he and other soliders were _ORDERED_ to do was wrong

-Little respect for freedom of speech and assembly, as seen above.

he didn't order the "freespeech zones", almost certainly the SS (wow.. fitting abbreviation) did

-Supports the illegal detentions in Gitmo

documentationp lease

-In the pockets of the same multinational corporations as Bush

proof please -- especially since his economic plans will hurt these corporations -- oh then there is the fact that since he/his wife are their own successful business persons they will be much less easily bought -- unlike bush who bankrupted every business he owned

-Cabinet made of all sorts of despicable characters, from Madeline Alright to Rand Beers (who asserts that FARC was training with Al Queda) to Welsley Clark.

A) What is your issue with Albright?
B) Who os Rand Beers and wtf is FARC
C) We all kno Wesley Clark is a ****ing moron, your point being?

Just because a cabinant member is less than ideal can be made up for with a more intelligent president

-Has stiffled dissent from within the Democratic Party (Kucinich et al)

oh.. wow, because the other's lost in the primaries then Kerry is guilty of stifling dissent... oh the humanity

except for NOT - you're being retarded (Kucinich was a ****ing retard btw)

-Is not is favour of gay marriage

We know, nobodies perfect -- he alteast supports civil unions -- which is a lot better than bush

Perhaps he's even fence sitting on that issue to get moderate convservatives

-Environmental policies differ only slightly from Bush's

*Cough* bull**** *cough*
documentaiton

-Is not in favour of universal health-care

waaaaa, waaaa, waaa - almost nobody in the US is in favour of it

There's more, though I'm too lazy to look it up. This is just off the top of my head.

we all know how accurate lazy biased utlra-socialists are

[Ford Prefect]

But Kazan, tell us how you really feel. Don't be shy.

[ionia23]

we all know how accurate lazy biased utlra-socialists are

[Zarax]

So, wanting public healthcare is being lazy biased ultra-socialists?
I don't think so.
Having the very basic services (healthcare and education) offered by the state, and have them a decent level should be the foundation of every advanced democracy.
Healty and well educated people == political awareness == better protected civil rights.
This usually works unless you managed to buy the media (Italy).
Let's not mix up egoism with politics.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Zarax
So, wanting public healthcare is being lazy biased ultra-socialists?
I don't think so.
Having the very basic services (healthcare and education) offered by the state, and have them a decent level should be the foundation of every advanced democracy.
Healty and well educated people == political awareness == better protected civil rights.
This usually works unless you managed to buy the media (Italy).
Let's not mix up egoism with politics.

The two have nothing to do with each other (wanting healthcare and being ultralib).  Ultra-liberalism and ultra-conservatism may have different platforms but the same ultimate agenda.  My Way Or The Highway.

As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me.  No way.   Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time.   As a co-worker of mine in our office in Vancouver put it "That which don't spend in money you will spend in time."  Good words of wisdom.

 Not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with the right of public assembly, which some people believe is under attack.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan

'neo-liberal' no such term

Seriously, read a dictionary

neo-liberal

neoliberal adj : having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values n : a liberal who subscribes to neoliberalism

[Slasher]

B) Who os Rand Beers and wtf is FARC

You've never heard of FARC?  They're some left-wing guerilla group in Columbia giving the government a lot of trouble.  For a couple of decades now they've been locked in a death struggle with the feds, and a lot of bystandards have died in between.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3810803.stm

[Ford Prefect]

Ultra-liberalism and ultra-conservatism may have different platforms but the same ultimate agenda. My Way Or The Highway.

Indeed. That characterizes just about anything taken to the ultra degree. But then again, what is extreme is also subjective. Mike Savage would say I'm an extremist, but I would say he's a fascist pig. There is no objective standpoint.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by ionia23



As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me.  No way.   Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time.   As a co-worker of mine in our office in Vancouver put it "That which don't spend in money you will spend in time."  Good words of wisdom.

Why should anyone spend his lifetime savings (provided there are with the credit card system) for getting healthcare?
There is plenty of non emergency needs that should be covered by the public finances...

[vyper]

[q]As for free public health care for non-emergencies, you've got to be kidding me. No way. Not at our present stage of development and certainly not in this country at this time.[/q]

You've hit your peak already, what more do you want? Ah... thats it, no poor people to bother you with thier lack of opportunities and upward mobility...  silly me.

[ionia23]

Hm.  I see the real message isn't getting through, so I'll try again:


"What you do not pay for in money you will pay for in time."

It's not a 'rich vs. poor' thing, it's supply vs. demand.

[Zarax]

Supply versus demand cannot be applied for the social environment, it only screws up things by hugely increasing social disparities...
And you will have to explain the time thing...
The top two world healthcare systems are public ones, so...
And the third one is not US

[ionia23]

okay, fair enough.  Not that any of this has anything to do with Public Assembly....

What discourages people from seeking health care?  Cost.  Even though I do have health care coverage through my employer, it's still a financial issue.  Do I really want to blow 15 bucks on this?  That sort of thing.

yes, I'm aware of what doctor care costs without insurance.

Now, health care IS available to everyone, everywhere.  Question is, can they financially afford it?  Not in many cases.  Keeping it as is means you spend money, but you save time.  Less time in line (obviously I haven't been to emergency care any time in distant memory).

With health care free of charge, as far as money goes, you can count on insane waiting periods to receive even routine care.  Long waiting periods for appointments bounded by long waits in line once you get there.  I don't know about the rest of you, but my time is money.  Wasting my time is committing murder against me, just a little bit at a time.  

There are a few 'free' clinincs here paid for by donations, grants, etc.  Waiting periods of 18 hours or more just to see a doctor are not uncommon.

Supply vs. demand.  There simply aren't enough physicians available to cover it.  More to the point, for what physicians are expected to pay for malpractice insurance, I can see why people would want to stay out of the health care game.

See what I mean?

[Lonestar]

Can i ask why the US built a fort for this Democratic Convention? Its like "i work for the people, but i dont want the people around"

Seems the rights of the US people are being slowly taken from them....

[vyper]

You don't seem to get it either, with the same amount of money put into healthcare though tax as there is in private insurance the waiting times drop. The quality increases. Your precious time is saved and the poor kid with lukemia actually gets treatment and lives. End of debate.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Kazan
_WHINE_

Think you're misunderestimating the importance of this one Kaz. Kerry is a freemason, who trace themselves back to the men who built the temple of Solomon, on the spot where the dome of the rock now sits. One of the aims of freemasonry is the rebuilding of the third temple, which puts them into the same boat as christian zionists, ie people who are trying to start ww3.

[Zarax]

I'm sorry but i can only half subscribe your point of view.
It's truly hard to have an efficent public healthcare system, but when you have one then the problems you list have a lesser impact.
Sadly, i have a pretty good knowledge of my healthcare system (italian), but i can assure you waiting times are not really a big issue...
Sure, you cannot get an appointment like with a private doc (If you want to get that kind of service you still can) whenever you want, but you get reasonables times and emergencies are handled quite fast...

[Zarax]

Gank?
This theory is pretty new to me...
Massonic lobbies can go only as far...