chicot
-
Posts
1,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chicot
-
-
When was the last time you observed me cheerleading some U.S. military action? Furthermore, aren't you from France?
No, I live in the UK.
Ok, fair point. I can't recall a time but I certainly wouldn't have taken you for an advocate of non-violence either. I'll rephrase that to "if I find you cheerleading some US military action"
-
Ask Ghandi or MLK.
As I possess neither the power of time-travel nor the ability to resurrect the dead that may be somewhat difficult. I never realised you were such a passionate advocate of non-violence but I'll remember it the next time I find you cheerleading some US military action.
-
Far more accurate analogy: was Francis Marion a statesman?
Perhaps it is but my knowledge of American revolutionary history is somewhat less than yours so I chose Washington as an obvious example of someone who I would expect many to describe as a statesman but resorted to violence to force change.
-
3) Is it a statesman-like thing to do, resorting to violence to force change?
Which, really, is the point of the thread.
In that case, was George Washington a statesman?
-
In June 1961, Mandela sent a letter to South African newspapers warning the government, that if they did not meet their demands, the Umkhonto we Sizwe would embark on a campaign of sabotage. The letter demanded the government accept a call for a national constitutional convention.[40] The demands were not met by the government and beginning on 16 December 1961, the Umkhonto we Sizwe with Mandela as its leader, launched a bombing campaign against government targets with the first action of the campaign being the bombing of an electricity sub-station.[41] In total, over the next eighteen months, the Umkhonto we Sizwe would initiate dozens more acts of sabotage and bombings. The South African government alleged more acts of sabotage had been carried out and at the Rivonia trial the accused would be charged with 193 acts of sabotage in total.[42] The campaign of sabotage against the government included attacks on government posts, machines, power facilities, and crop burning in various places including Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban. [43]
Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK, the organisation co-founded by Mandela, waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid government in which many civilians became casualties.[37] For example, the Church Street bomb in Pretoria killed 19 people and injured 217. After he had become President, Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements mentioning this from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[44]
That's a statesman?
Are you a pacifist? If no, then I have two further questions:
1) Do you agree that apartheid was an evil oppressive system that it was right to fight against?
2) Please enlighten us as to how exactly you would have managed to combat apartheid without anyone getting hurt?
-
I live in Canada and I believe we have the same system that you guys have.
On our side, there has been increasing issues with regards to
1) Being able to get treatment in a timely matter (long wait periods for major surgery)
2) Hospital emergency rooms constantly at overcapacity
3) Impossible for people to get a family doctor unless you had one for a very long time
4) People opting to pay for semi-private since they can't get a family doctor or important tests a doctor might deem unnecessary.
This after I'd estimate at least 40% of tax revenues (federal/provincial) are set aside for healthcare.
To help reduce abuse of the system, the province tried to implement a $25 fee for every hospital visit which led to protests and a lot of pressure. They eventually scrapped the idea and just added a mandatory $200 medical fee on tax returns.
Have you had the same issues?
1) This is definitely becoming an issue with costs needing to be cut due to the economic situation. Procedures that are needed urgently are still carried out asap but there is becoming an issue with things that are deemed not so pressing such as cataracts and hip-replacements.
2) Certainly accident and emergency can get very busy and I can remember having to wait for a couple of hours to be seen when I went in with a dislocated shoulder. However, I think the nurses do a pretty good job of prioritising so if your condition is serious you will be seen right away. A few years ago I was mugged walking home from a nightout - I woke up on the pavement to find my jaw broken in 3 places and a few of my teeth swimming around in my mouth. Despite it being Saturday night (a very busy time in A&E!) I was seen right away. I don't think this is a big issue.
3) No issue at all here. Registering with a doctor is a piece-of-cake. Check your local directory, go along with your bottle of urine for the initial checkup and that's it. Getting an NHS dentist is another thing though...
4) I don't think many people opt for private care. Certainly some may do so if they have problems as regards point 1) but I've never had to (except for dental work) and I don't know of many people who have had to either.
Overall, I would say that the system over here is nowhere near as bad as you describe in Canada and I doubt that the Canadian problems are an inevitable consequence of a universal healthcare system but more to do with problems that are specific to Canada but you'd know a lot more about that than I do.
A recent survey showed a record fall in satisfaction from 70% to 58%. However, things were always going to get difficult with cutbacks having to be made and 90% of patients would describe their care as being good to excellent.
-
Go ahead, take a survey. Ask people how much they pay for NHS. I'd like to know what you get as responses. I may be completely wrong but I bet you get a lot of people who tell you "nothing".
I think, if pressed, most people would correctly answer that it was paid for by taxation. I think the confusion is that people often refer to their treatment as being free. Technically that is correct inasmuch as you pay for the system and not the actual treatment you receive. Someone who is ill all their life and whose treatment costs a small fortune would pay no more than someone who is healthy all their life and whose treatments cost far less (assuming they were in the same tax bracket). As I understand the US system, insurance rarely covers the entire cost of treatment so you do have to pay something for the treatment you receive. Is that not the case?
-
I preferred your earlier funnier posts.
-
I think he was saying those who think it's free would be incorrect, and if so he's right, and that's the irony. All the people who think some rich ass hole is going to pick up the tab don't realize that they pay taxes which are built in to the prices they pay for everything else. They'll still have to pay, they're just relinquishing what little control they still have over their coverage.
The rich ass hole will actually pay more towards it than those less well off as he will pay more tax and if you were poor enough that you were under the tax threshold you would technically get it for free. Yes, you relinquish control over your coverage but, on the other hand, you know that however bad your financial situation gets you will still have access to healthcare.
Well no **** they would be incorrect thinking it's free because nothing is free. The fact is many of them in fact DO think it's free and that would be the reason they'd prefer the NHS versus the "paid" system. Maybe the line should be "people love **** that perceive as being free."
And maybe the line is just plain wrong and should be done away with altogether. I very much doubt that anyone save the very stupid is unaware that the NHS is paid for by taxation. There are other reasons for the preference which I've attempted to explain to you but for some reason you choose to ignore in favour of your snappy one-liner.
-
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and said "people like free ****"
I thought I just explained that it's not free. Oh well...
-
Why do you think they choose not to?
Because private care is seen as unnecessary and, in most cases, it is. If you are ill or are injured in an accident then you can receive pretty decent treatment from the NHS. Sure, you can go private and get a nicer bed and better food (maybe hotter nurses
) but there won't be that much difference in the actual treatment. The NHS is not all things to all men - given the rising costs of healthcare and medical advances it can't possibly cover absolutely everything and for things that are deemed to be not a priority you will have to wait, but for the purpose it was designed for, that is to provide a certain level of care to the entire population, it does a pretty good job.There's also the fact that we all pay for the NHS via taxation. Why pay extra for something that you don't actually need?
Finely a real answer. But my next question is- Do they really know anything about the alternatives? This cradle to grave thing has been going on since labor took over in 1945. Is it possible that people just are comfortable with the way things are since they where children or sit back and say there are problem's here? I go with comfortable.
You could argue that but you could also use that same argument about resistance to changing the US system. Over here, healthcare is seen very much as a basic human right and that everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care whether they live in a cardboard box or a mansion. Any attempt to move away from that basic principle would encounter massive resistance. Of course there are problems. There are always going to be problems with every healthcare system in the world. However, you said it yourself - people are comfortable with the way things are. Why are they comfortable? If lots of people were encountering these problems then you would expect them to be less comfortable. The fact is that most people find that the NHS meets their needs and also fits their view of what a healthcare system should be.
-
Oh good. Your family approves. That answers my question perfectly.
Regarding your mouth piece chicot, does he have any data to back up his claim?
Which one - regarding the British population preferring the NHS to the US system or that there are plenty of people over here who can afford private care but choose not to? As I've lived in the UK for virtually all of my life I'm probably closer to this issue than most on this board (just like you'd know far more than I do about how Americans feel about gun ownership). As to the first point, there's really no question - poll after poll show that the population most definitely do not want creeping privatisation of the NHS and all the major parties go out of their way to reassure the public that the NHS is "safe in their hands". Any party that went into an election offering to replace the NHS with the US system would be wiped out. As to the second, I know plenty of people who can afford private medicine but choose not to. Hardly a wide sample I know, but sufficient I think to refute the claim that everyone who can afford private care does so, which was the point I was replying to.
-
Sorry to intrude into your happly liberal fantasy land with a little reality. I know in the world of the hippy everyone gets unlimited access to the finest doctors and the most advanced medical technology known to man, but in reality those resources are scarce and need to be allocated some way. A system based on a free market model (which we've not had in this country in decades) with governmental and charitable subsidies for those who can't afford basic care would undoubtedly be the most efficient model to give the best care to the most people. That offends your liberal sensitvities because it irks you that the person who produces health care (i.e. he who pays) gets first dibs, because hey, in matters of life and death that shouldn't matter, right? The problem is that in your alternate world an unaccountable bureaucrat gets to decide for the market. This disrupts the economic forces that would otherwise be in play which stifles efficiency and leads to greater costs for less service, ultimately leading to the middle class and above getting lesser care rather than the poor getting better care. But let's look at the Brits. Sure their public health service sucks ass and anyone who can afford it gets private care, but hey, the Brits had kids in hospital beds as part of the Olympic ceremony, so that settles it; socialized medicine is the way.
Actually there are plenty of people who can afford private care who don't bother. I was offered private health insurance with my last job. Didn't need it, didn't want it and didn't take it.
-
I don't recall having a vote in any US opening ceremony. Did the British? Are opening ceremony's a accurate gauge of national opinion?
No, opening ceremony's are not a gauge of national opinion but he is correct in his assertion that most Brit's would rather have the NHS than a US-style system.
-
That and the pig's fat make nice gravy.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2009/10/general-pershing-on-terrorism.html
"General Pershing on Terrorism
Want to defeat terrorism? Our government should try the following approach, via Press Democrat:
How to Stop Islamic Terrorists.... It Worked Once in Our History
"Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists.
In response, General Pershing had 50 terrorists captured and tied to posts for execution. He had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists.
As you know, Muslims detest pork, believing them to be filthy animals, which they refuse to eat, touch nor use the by-products of. To them it is believed that doing so will bar them from paradise and their 72 virgins, dooming them to hell.
The soldiers soaked their bullets in the pigs blood and then proceeded to execute 49 of the 50 terrorists by firing squad. Next the soldiers dug a mass grave, dumped in the terrorist corpses and covered them in pigs blood, entrails and body parts. Next, they released the 50th terrorist. For the next 42 years there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world."
From the guy who thinks their threats toward Israel are all just a mis-translation. Yes, they are so advanced that they still stone rape victims for adultery, brand people and cut off limbs for certain offenses.
Even if you believe that garbage what you were proposing was different to that. You were suggesting to coat munitions in pigs blood prior to use (might be difficult for the Israeli's to use such an imaginative tactic). Call me sceptical but I really don't believe that the Iranians are going to run screaming from the battlefield at the prospect of facing bombs or bullets smeared in pigs blood as opposed to the conventional kind that will just blow them to pieces. I'm no Islamic scholar but I suspect you might actually get a free pass on the pigs blood thing if your exposure to it came as a result of waging a jihad.
The Pershing story is pretty dubious at best.
-
They are masters of duplicity and not worthy of any trust whatsoever. They need a good come to Yahwew talking to and a promise that if they proceed to build nuclear weapon capability, or try to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, they're going to be visiting their final resting place. Then inform them that all ammunition, bombs, grenades, whatever will be dipped in pig's blood before we send it their way. This is the language they understand. You can't play nice with them.
You seem to have some sort of weird fascination with pig's blood. Do you go to bed at night dreaming about it?
-
Thoughts & prayers to the victims and their families.
Tighter gun control, more gun laws, or taking away peoples 2nd amendment rights would not have changed the outcome. Bottom line criminals do not follow laws! Every time after a shooting spree some limousine liberal always want's to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it! It's not the answer to the problem.
This was a senseless act of violence and its unconscionable that someone would set out to do this. I'm a supporter of the death penalty. I think the death penalty might do more to deter acts of violence than passing more guns laws.
Since these sort of mass killings often (though not in this case) end in the death of the perpetrator I'm not sure that the death penalty would make any difference.
-
So, would you prefer that crazy uses an ax or a chainsaw on his victims, because he can't buy a gun? Yeah, you solved crazy by taking away a tool. Great job!
The guy has wired up his apartment with chemicals and tripwires....should we ban chemicals and wire now? He was quite educated, especially in chemistry. Should we ban the teaching of chemistry now? This guy was trying to be like the bad guy in Batman(I saw a preview and the bad guy has tactical gear...and a gas mask on...sooner or later somebody will get this)...should we ban all bad guys in Batman? Should we ban all Batman movies? Should we just get it over with, and ban the Bat? (Yeah you are the joker....but not the way you think)
The fact is that there's a hell of a lot more to gain in the US, than in Norway, in general. Even crime can pay, and therefore, so can murder.
There's no reason to kill anybody if they don't have any more than you do, we are all half-assing at jobs that don't pay much, and our economy relies solely on selling our natural resources = Norway
That's why Norway's murder rate is what it is. It has NOTHING to do with guns.
I don't know about you but I'd prefer to take my chances with someone with an axe or a chainsaw rather than multiple firearms. I think I'd have a far better chance of getting away from someone armed with something that he needs to get up close and personal to use rather than something that can drop me from a distance.
-
Do you watch Peep Show? I love it.
The first few seasons of Peep Show were absolute genius but I think it's gone on a bit too long now (what are they on now - 7? 8?). It's still funny but it feels like they've done everything now and are starting to repeat themselves.
-
Without going into private body parts like some of the people here seem fixated on, wouldn't you agree that the overall sub-par hygiene in Europe made this ruling imminent? Let's face is, most Euro-chicks have the armpit hair of a lumberjack. The teeth of Brits and Canadians look worse than the teeth in most pre-historic skulls, the average euro-toenail is so desperate for help that the healthy cells re-align to spell out "GIVE ME LAMISIL" and a full two thirds of dudes and one-fifth of women have visible ear wax in their sideburns. There is other stuff like the fact that french people wipe their butts with water fountains and things too disgusting to mention. I will say that I am going to invest in Charmin and try to bring it to Europe. I think people will like it once they use it and I will have made my $$$$$ by the time the sewage infrastructure, built in 1284, bursts from cloggage.
Given all of these facts it is unsurprising that some judge would want to force everyone to have disgusting nether regions. I don't agree but partially see the point in having a matching body either all gross like a Euro or all clean like an American.
If only you Americans could do something about your obesity epidemic then you'd all be completely perfect. I'm not sure that your perfect teeth and superb bodily hygiene will be the first thing to get noticed when you're 20 stone overweight
-
Muslims and Jews unite......................
That would make them "Mews"
.
Juslims?
Religion aside, its more sanitary and an uncircumcised pecker looks like crap.
Its not mutilation by any means.
The sanitary justification is debatable. There are plenty of doctors who believe it to be unnecessary in most cases. I'm not much of a judge of pecker aesthetics so I'll defer to your expertise on the second point.
-
... to fight for their right to mutilate children.
A pox on both their houses. As far as I'm concerned, the Germans are right about this. If someone decides they want to chop bits off themselves to uphold some millenia-old tradition then fair enough, but it should not be decided for them long before they are capable of making such decisions.
-
They made it look easy.
Wow.
Dead inside.
I think it was just a game too far for the Italians. That and the fact that they were playing probably one of the greatest ever international sides at the top of their game. Still, just making the final is a considerable achievement for Italy considering how dismal they were at the last World Cup.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing that.
I'm betting the disagreement is on defining a healthy work/life balance, and defining the level of productivity desired.
Well, it's pretty hard to know exactly what DaveInElma was arguing since all he did was link to the article with the single statement "Europe will never learn".
The concept of the "statesman"
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I'm not the one advocating non-violence here. There are some things that should be fought against and, as far as I'm concerned, apartheid certainly falls into that category. If you're going to limit the definition of "statesman" to include only those who have used and advocated non-violent means then you going to be left with a very short list indeed.