On the forth comming war & the "liberal" media

I've never been to Canada, or Norway for that matter, but from my friends who have been there and my teachers that have been there i have learned that many Canadians are not really happy with the government or system of Canada that much. They have very liberal immigration laws and encounter a lot of trouble because of that. I've also heard that many Canadians have a severe inferiority complex because of their geographic location so close to the US.

If one is sucessful and works hard in America, you can afford to spend your money on what you want and whats best for you. Bureaucracy is generally inefficient and the tax burden would be much greater than the benefit for most people under a national health care service in America.

Look at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles for an example. For simple things like getting a driver's license, it can take hours of waiting and filling out forms. National health care could very well be much worse.

I would rather have low taxes and greater independence and choice than a government controlled lowering of standards for everyone. I've heard that many canadians come to the US to get surgery because of the greater standards, just like many in the US go to get medicine from Canada due to the lower standards and cheaper prices.

 

I have never experienced to wait hours just to get my drivers license, never heard of anyone that have had to do so.

Anyway the us is too large to go on minimanaging itself like what we do here in norway. Sure we hear about some people that dies because of bad treatment at hospitals or that some other shit but in general it works.

I dunno of the liberal imigration laws in canada, the are rather liberal here in norway to, but that is going to change soon. A little to much i think, but it looks like it.

I would rather have a system where there is not to large differences between rich and poor, and if the rich have to pay for it so what? They have enough money, and evryone that has to much money usualy say that money is not everything.

 

You see, therein lies the rub. How does one put a dollar value on health? The medical profession is supposed to be there to help people, to heal people. Higher prices? Cheaper prices? Lower standards? These are things that simply do not belong in the health care industry.

No one, from the exceedingly wealthy, to the dirt poor with naught but the clothes on their back should have to pay for health care. As it stands now, with the laughable state of the health insurance empire, only the wealthy can afford quality health care. If you haven't paid an outrageous premium to an insurance company, who's splitting the take with the doctor or hospital.

I never said anything of lowering standards. The freedom to choose, is the freedom to walk into a doctor's office and get the same level of care as Donald Trump. Without having Donald Trump's bankroll.

Yes, that's quite true. However, unless you are born into money, becoming successful takes time. What does one do in the meantime?

I damn sure can't argue that. However, that is the burden of both the government, and the people to take steps to make it more efficient.

And many people, rich or poor, say "As long as you have your health, etc, etc."

So again, I say, how does one fix a dollar amount to health?

 

Speaking of Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C ... %2C00.html

I'm sorry, a miniature fuel-air bomb issued to each soldier?

No more room to room fighting? Oh good.. mass destruction without the inconvenience of having to check for survivors, or to even see what you're frying.

Use less ammunition? If you want to use less ammunition, be more bloody accurate!! You're supposed to be trained for crissakes!!!

So in the next war...or maybe even the same war, all those battle-weary troops will be issued their very own Weapon of Mass Destruction. Pocket-sized. So a combat-stressed soldier can hear a noise in a building, drop one of these bombs and roast a hiding family.

That is FAR too much indiscriminate killing power for any one soldier to have, let alone an entire army.

 

Then again "all is fair in love and war". Wich means that the us will not care wether they blow upp civilians with their bombs, as long as it saves the live of the americans soldiers.

 

Wtf? Civilians get killed in wars. It's very sad, and it shouldn't happen, but it does. But your claim that American soldiers kill civilains on purpose is unjust. They are told not to target civilians.

 

I don't claim that they will kill civilians on purpose, but i think that the US army will value the lifes of their soldiers more than the lifes of those civilians that might be around that corner or hiding in that bulding.


There is however a different problem that i have not seen mentioned, if they were going to go through bagdad in a way like that they would have to have a huge arsenal of bombs, and i think that they would probably run out of bombs shortly if they are going to use these bombs on any house that shoots at them.

 

That is true, soldiers are *told* not to target civilians. But I'm not naive enough to think that those orders are strictly followed. I've been in the military, and the nationalistic fervor, and bigotry is rampant within the service. Both lead to war crimes and sheer inhumanity. Again, give a jumpy grunt a nice big bomb, that they can carry in their pocket, and that simply paves the way for heinous, heinous war crimes. To quote our beloved Virgil. "Accidental hits hurt just as much as intentional ones."

This is where my support of the military falters. I realize that in order to do their job, they need reliable, effective equipment. But does each solider need the killing power of a small nuke? That they can fire from their rifle? Hell no. What the hell would that do to the 'friendly fire kill' ratio??

Technology, no matter how effective, is no replacement for training. All technology does is detach the soliders from killing. Makes it impersonal. That is just wrong. Humans are guided by conscience and actions. At least ones that *have* consciences. Detach soldiers from the killing, and conscience plays a much smaller part in their actions. It turns war into a giant video game. Conscience being what it is, this reinforces the 'those aren't human beings I'm killing' out-clause. It reinforces bigotry, and causes soldiers to forget that the people they're killing are in fact people.

I'm frightened that the military is taking this route. Lower training standards, and better technology turns the military into poorly-trained thugs with big bombs. Ill-disciplined rabble with WMD.

Ill-disciplined rabble with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Isn't that the reason we've been fed for this war with Iraq? It's ok for the US to employ ill-disciplined rabble with WMD in their military, but it's not ok for hussein to do the same. He's a terrorist. But we gots a bunch of good ole boys, with big cojones, and even bigger bombs.

Besides sheer numbers, what exactly is the difference?

 

Imagine a bomb so small that it could fit into a pocket and kill all the people in a ordinary house, then give this to terrorists, hamas for example. I cannot say i like that thought.

 

Nor do I, my friend, nor do I.

 

I find it funny that Retard never had any comments about this article That DU posted a long time ago.

He didn't comment this either:

 

That is quite an interesting little story. And you know, it never occured to me that the same people who were running the show back then, are running the show now. Just had their titles swapped around a bit.
(Granted, I wasn't in the position to follow the war then, as I was all but homeless, squatting on my buddy's floor, and eating at soup kitchens, trying to work hard at being successful, but not having much luck. Since I couldn't afford to pay auto insurance, or put fuel in my gaz-guzzler, and there was no work to be found in the town..and no public transportation because the auto and oil industry did a damn good job in post ww2 of dismantling decent public transit in order to...*gasp* sell more oil.)

Left-wing-conspiratist me all you want, but that damn sure sounds at least a little suspect. Noo, bush's election couldn't possibly have been a planned coup.

But hey, our great president of our great nation and yaddayadda propaganda me to death-so-I-get-so-blinded-and appalled-that-I-can't-see-what's-really-going-on can't possibly be wrong.

Shadygrove brought up an interesting point a few posts back. Maybe even the same post. I meant to respond sooner but got a little caught up in the discussion.(gah! since I'm in edit mode, I can't see the topic summary)

What was it..The American way is gonna get me some? Or something...Like I said, I'm in edit mode and can't see the summary.

That's rather true in a sense. A system founded on capitalism ingrains a certain selfishness. I'm gonna get what I want and screw who I have to step on or squash to get it. Look at the early industrial era. Slavery, children working countless hours right alongside the adults around machinery that wasn't designed with the slightest thought given to safety. All for some wealthy republican to make his fortune. This is still true today, even tho' it's obviously been scaled down some. We're all willing to scratch and claw our way to the top, regardless of whose back we're stabbing, whose family we're taking bread from, whose home we're forcing them out of. It's ironic, that many people voted republican after Clinton, because the administration moved away from morality, perhaps their idea of god. Yet there's nothing moral about forcing a family to live on the streets because your corporation wants to drill for oil, or build a big business multiplex. Perhaps that's an extreme example, but it was a common practice not so long ago. There's nothing moral about screwing another human being out of their rights to live as human beings for the sake of profit.

That is *just* as horrible as beating a person for the color of their skin. Or a pocket full of spare change.
Or a bottle of booze.
Or because they have a different opinion than you.

 

If you find America so horrible, why don't you move to a country that's not extremely conservative? (Denmark is one of them as soon as we get rid of the current, moronic government..)

 

I'd love to see the world. And if things get as bad as I fear, I may. Denmark might be a little chilly for me, tho.

But you see, I love my Home. I'd leave it only when left no other choice.


Like all the things I fear coming to pass. My Home, my Freedom being taken away by my own government. Soldiers armed with small nukes enforcing Law on my hometown's streets. Not in America.

And I will raise my voice and question every event, every policy that leads closer to that end. On these shores or on others, in my name.

I would rather try to affect change, and make my home a better place than leave her to languish in chains.

I am an American. I have that right.

My Ancestors died for that right. And I will not have their memories tarnished by oppression..

And anyone out there who would classify me as un-American, a traitor, or an ingrate can choke on those words. I am a Patriot. I'm a different kind of Patriot, I just don't feel the need to constantly cram my nationalism down everyone's throat, and I firmly believe that government should be held 100% accountable for any undertaking in its citizen's names.

And I'm damn tired of people giving me the evil eye whenever I speak out. I'm tired of seeing people afraid, yes afraid, to speak their mind. Not in America.

"Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns--the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angirly. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet." --Hon. William O. Douglas, 1972

 

Wow..guess I killed the thread...

 

The Supremes stopped & restarted the count as thy saw fit. The last time it was stopped was because, "to keep the recount going would cause irrepairable harm to George Bush."

This story was published first in the N. Y. Times. Motto: "All the news fit to distort." It was picked up & run unmodified throughout the country. If you had bothered to read as far as the fourth paragraph, you would have found out that Al lost (by about 400 votes) only if the recount was limited to the 4 counties he originaly asked for a recount in. If the whole state was recounted, he won by 800 or so.

Flordia law allows for recounts. To stop the recount is beyond the power of the federal government. 10th admendment.

Glad you think so. But didn't you admit he lost the popular vote? Then the American people did NOT elect him.

Hittler was not elected either. O. K. he was elected, but not Chancelor & certanly not dictator.

When Mayor daley stole Chicago, & IL for JFK, he did not prevent people from voting. People were encoraged to vote, even dead people. The officals of the state of Florida kept over 10,000 people from voting. Part of the problem.

Then there is the way the "liberal" press convinced reasonable people, like yourself & Retard, that boy George really won. Legitimitly. Not that I wanted Gore in there either. But you are right, boy George is the president, like it or not, & the only one we have. JUst keep those fingers in ypur ears & keep saying "No, he really won it all on his own."

But the question I raised was "why call it a liberal media?" All you are doing is proving my point. The media is a wholy owned subsiduary of the neocon wing of the Rebublican party.[/quote]

 

Under US law, set forth in the Constitution, President Bush was elected, by the people. He wasn't the first elected without a popular majority and their election results were not contested.

Florida law said they were to file the results by a certain date, a date which was passed, and extended, but finally the government in Florida drew the line. Some tried to further extend the time, and the Supreme Court overruled that change, since it would violate state laws.

 

Hey jinxed, heard that there is polish special forces in iraq. have the news of that changed the support for the war amongst the polish?

 

Liberal media huh?

DREAMWORKS EXECS TO ROCK: NO BUSH BASHING

**Exclusive**

Comedian Chris Rock has been strongly advised not to engage in any Bush-bashing during the promotion of his new film HEAD OF STATE, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Rock once said of Bush: "He's not stupid, he's just drunk," adding, "All the black people who voted for Bush are both on his cabinet."

MORE

DREAMWORKS is preparing to release the comedy wide on Friday. There are deep concerns that Rock may unleash a fresh diatribe on President Bush and the Iraq war, studio insiders reveal, which could ignite a public backlash and boycott of the film.

In the movie, Rock plays a character who is the Democratic party's choice for its 2004 presidential nomination. Rock is also director, producer and co-scenarist.

"We are confident Chris knows this is not the appropriate time to make jokes about war and the president," said one top studio source. "We don't want to get Dixie-Chicked, or anything like that, out of the gate. We've invested tens of millions of dollars in the making of the movie and its marketing."

For his part, sources say Chris Rock has decided to maintain a neutral point of view on Bush if he is prodded to comment during any press promotion for HEAD.

On a recent guest spot on OPRAH, Rock cautiously offered: "Ah, the war, ah, well, maybe if we Americans really knew what a war meant, ah, then maybe we wouldn't be so eager in waging or supporting it."

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2003
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

 

I agree... American News channels are so damn pro war biased. It seems like I can't switch to CNN without hearing something that "glorifies" the war in some way and makes the U.S. look like "holy liberators" trying to purge the "evil" saddam; whom the U.S. helped put in power in the first place. here In Canada, the CBC, the main news channel is CBC (government controlled) and refreshingly shows both sides of the coin. Anyway... if the American news channels weren't so biased maybe their people would know that Iraq has little connection with terrorist groups (Iraq is one of the arab countries that produces the least ammount of terrorists)... That the u.s. is there to exploit Iraqi people for their own economical interests (oil).... and so on....If only the media in THE STATES weren't guided by a corrupt government...maybe the United States' people would know the truth.