Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    The American people have been constantly lied to, misinformed, and kept in the dark by the Bush Administration. We are bombarded with DAILY terror warnings ranging from Code Blue to Code Red. Bush uses every chance in the spotlight to scare the American public by constantly and endlessly talking about and hyping up the terrorist threat to the American public. In essence, Bush used FEAR, LIES, RELIGION, and PROPOGANDA to win the election. He's not the first to do this, a few other names come to mind...
    Do you know a single person who actually pays attention to those warnings? New York City was affected by terrorism more than any other place in the US, and yet over 80% of New Yorkers voted against Bush. If Bush was engaged in fearmongering, it didn't have any noticeable effects.

    Bush's domestic policy harms on various fronts. First, health care has become an absolute joke. Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies charge ten times what the market value should be. You can literally cross the border into Canada and save 90% on doctor visits. 90% PERCENT!! On fukcing medicine! This is due in large part because of the governments backing of large pharmaceutical companies that donate heavily to our elected officials. Medicine should be available to all and with the problems we have now, this should be one of Bush's HIGHEST priorities. I find his lack of effort and willingness to solve this problem completely unacceptable.
    What makes you an expert in determining market prices? I think the markets can determine their own prices much better than you, me, or any economist. If the market couldn't bare the prices charged by the healthcare industry, the prices would be lowered. Might I also ask how the situation under Bush is any worse than it was under Clinton and if it did become worse why is Bush responsible for it? Our healthcare system is private last time I checked.

    Secondly is the death of social security. Bush constantly stated that Gore and Kerry were just trying to 'scare' senior citizens. Well it looks like, again, Bush is Fing liar. Social Security is pretty much dead, all because Bush doesn’t know how to balance a checkbook. The highest spender in American History, Domestic Spending (which excludes the military budget) has risen almost 30%. This again, is UNACCEPTABLE.
    Why is Social Security "pretty much dead"? Do you honestly think that any of Bush's proposals will be passed?

    Then lets talk about the Iraq war: Forget the constant lies, inaccuracies, and incompetence, lets just focus on the economic viewpoint. The US, as a country is going to go broke. Congress has had to meet three times already to increase the cap on government spending so that our pseudo-republican friend can bankrupt our country. I can keep going if you want...
    Our debt as percentage of GDP is still significantly lower than that of many Western European countries. Fiscal irresponsibility - definitely. Imminent bankruptcy - definitely not.

    Does it matter, who cares? Americans care about this!
    The person making the original remarks wasn't American.

    That is the weakest excuse I have ever heard. Since when does fear of embarassment impede democracy.
    Why did the US need election monitors?

    Most aid given out is given by individuals, if you include all aid given out by every country, the US still lags behind as far as GDP goes.
    Not true. America is the only country where private individuals contribute such a large portion of their income to foreign causes. Most other people rely on their governments to provide the aid. And while America is behind many Western European countries in giving foreign aid, it is far from the least generous country in the West. I should add that American military aid is not included in the foreign aid figure, even though without the aid of the American military, providing aid to Indonesia would be almost impossible after the tsunami.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    Yes, I know, but you still agree with him that Bush is a ******, which is his main point.
    I think higher of people who disagree with me for intelligent reasons than people who agree with me for dumb ones.

    IS anyone scared at all by the lack of homeland security? You should be freaked out Bismarck; have you seen the security on the power-plants in New Jersey. All a terrorist would need to do is lob a grenade from the street and all hell would break loose!
    I hope you don't honestly think that this is all that is needed to create a nuclear meltdown. I work under the assumption that if terrorists could have done something so devastating, they would have done so already. If they didn't, that means something is preventing them. And since improving homeland security inevitably leads to us having less rights, I'd prefer having a slightly higher chance of dying to giving up my rights to the government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't cause a nuclear meltdown, but it would hurt. And to say that the reason terrorists haven't terrorized is because there is no opportunities is pretty wrong. The most likely reason that they haven't done anything is because whatever they would do wouldn't be as important as 9/11 and could hurt the effect of 9/11.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    Okay, where are you from? What religion are you?
    Your earlier tirade did nothing to earn you the right to know such information, nor does it relate to the topic. You made a baseless assumption, which smacks of the intolerance that you profess to loathe oh-so-much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Prove me wrong by saying your a New York Atheist.

    Or prove that my pattern continues by saying that your a Pittsburgh Christian.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    It wouldn't cause a nuclear meltdown, but it would hurt. And to say that the reason terrorists haven't terrorized is because there is no opportunities is pretty wrong. The most likely reason that they haven't done anything is because whatever they would do wouldn't be as important as 9/11 and could hurt the effect of 9/11.
    The actual nuclear reactor is enclosed by several levels of walls and other material. I find it highly improbably that a grenade thrown from the outside would do more than damage a few windows.

    And I don't see how blowing up a nuclear reactor, which could harm millions of Americans would be any less devastating than 9/11.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    Prove me wrong by saying your a New York Atheist.

    Or prove that my pattern continues by saying that your a Pittsburgh Christian.
    You are incorrect, though I am not divulging the details to you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you know a single person who actually pays attention to those warnings? New York City was affected by terrorism more than any other place in the US, and yet over 80% of New Yorkers voted against Bush. If Bush was engaged in fearmongering, it didn't have any noticeable effects.
    I know that there are millions of people who are effected by these warnings. Our very own Douglas went on and on about these 'what-if' scenarios. "What if you were kidnapped by terrorists? Do you think Kerry would save you? Because I KNOW Bush would". They had a very subtle yet overwhelming effect on the american public. It is called PROPOGANDA. It works because it is subtle, yet effective.
    What makes you an expert in determining market prices? I think the markets can determine their own prices much better than you, me, or any economist. If the market couldn't bare the prices charged by the healthcare industry, the prices would be lowered. Might I also ask how the situation under Bush is any worse than it was under Clinton and if it did become worse why is Bush responsible for it? Our healthcare system is private last time I checked.
    Take an ecconimcs class, talk to ANY ecconomist. The prices are beyond inflated. Companies jack up the prices because the government allows them to do so. The very same medicine in America sells for about a tenth of the price anywhere else in the world, including countries like Canada, Britian, and Australlia. So many people go without doctors and medicine simply because it is so expensive these days. A recent trip to the doctor for a cold (2 minutes with the doctor, basic bloodwork, etc..) cost me over 1,000 bucks.

    Are you actually suggesting that everything is ship shape with our health care?
    Why is Social Security "pretty much dead"? Do you honestly think that any of Bush's proposals will be passed?
    It is pretty much dead because our government will not have the money or income to pay out senior citizens in about 20 years time. He denided it and denied it, well guess what? It was all true.
    Our debt as percentage of GDP is still significantly lower than that of many Western European countries. Fiscal irresponsibility - definitely. Imminent bankruptcy - definitely not.
    Not imminent as long as we get a responsible spender in the White House.
    The person making the original remarks wasn't American.
    Does that make it any less untrue?
    Not true. America is the only country where private individuals contribute such a large portion of their income to foreign causes. Most other people rely on their governments to provide the aid. And while America is behind many Western European countries in giving foreign aid, it is far from the least generous country in the West. I should add that American military aid is not included in the foreign aid figure, even though without the aid of the American military, providing aid to Indonesia would be almost impossible after the tsunami.
    We are getting on a tanget now, I doubt either of us have the time or resources to back these numbers up. Looking at straight GDP the US lags behind. You are right however that Military Aid, which is very costly and significant, is NOT included in our foreign aid numbers. This fact could nearly double what we give out each year.

    Lets look at the aid we are talking about though. For example the 15 billion dollars in the war on aids.

    The Bush administration is NOT listening to the doctors, researchers, and sociologist on the ground working in these areas. They are not employing the best methods. they are ignoring them. They preach from their own agenda- they are not even making an attempt at doing the best they can regarding this situation. The 15 billion has so many red strings tied to it that its a joke.

    A U.N.launched Global Fund allows and uses generic drugs which cost as little as $150 per person per year, these drugs are approved by the World Health Organization and by the UN. However the US refuses to allow US money to purchase these drugs (they must buy US patented drugs) even though the cost are much much higher. Because of the severity of the situation, every other country in the world allows their contributions to be used on the generic drugs over their own products- EXCEPT for the US. The cost discrepancies go like this: generic drugs cost about $150 per person per year, US FDA approved drugs go for $1000 per person per year. And now for the best part- a country can ONLY get these great benefits IF they adhere to a strict ‘abstinence first policy’. This is a faith based initiative implemented by the Bush team and involves a lack of education regarding basic sexual protection including condom use. One village that a friend visited found that the villagers had taken the condoms and put them on sticks around the village so as to ward off evil spirits. They were never educated about how to use them.

    You are probably wondering who decided all this?? Well Randy Tobias, the head of the Bush AIDS program, is the recently retired CEO of the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, a corporation with close ties to the Republican party and the Bush Administration Lilly contributed more than $1.5 million to Republican campaigns during the 2002 election cycle, and spent $234,000 in mailings to shareholders on behalf of Bush's campaign in 2000. Lilly recently collaborated with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and other key Republicans to insert a rider in the eleventh hour to the Homeland Security Bill that would give the Eli Lilly immunity from families suing Lilly with charges its vaccines causes autism. What the hell does this have to do with Homeland Security???

    Every doctor I have heard form regarding this situation, working for these aid groups is very much in favour of the generic drugs- there have been no cases of UN/WHO approved drugs being inefficient or detrimental to those who take the medicince. The US is very much in the way here and should allow the money they contribute (like everyone else) to go to generic drugs. And as for the abstinece first agenda- it is considered a joke by the entire world. Can you imagine using the same logic in the Sudan or Isreal- "Its easy... just dont kill people " You have to address the issues themselves, consult with the doctors and sociologists and learn the most effective way to help deal with the problem. Bush thinks he is above this and refuses to cooperate in any way with international releif agencies. That is one of the reasons why Tobias was booed of the stage at the last AIDS summit. I would boo him too.

    Bush's trade agenda has focused on increasing patent rights for drug companies, even in poor countries, where patent monopolies result in higher cost and decreased access. The emerging free trade agreement between the U.S. and the Southern African Customs Union, for example, would inhibit access to low cost generic versions of important patented medicines. In Nigeria and Uganda the U.S. has pressured local officials to enact national patent policies that exceed the strict rules of the WTO and would restrict countries' rights to break patent monopolies to reduce medicines cost. Aids victims in Africa are dying at the rate of 6,000 a day and the Bush administration’s sole concern is the quarterly profits of its pharmaceutical companies. And you wonder why I hate the *******….
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The actual nuclear reactor is enclosed by several levels of walls and other material. I find it highly improbably that a grenade thrown from the outside would do more than damage a few windows.

    And I don't see how blowing up a nuclear reactor, which could harm millions of Americans would be any less devastating than 9/11.
    What I'm talking about is not nuclear plants. It's the chemical plants, which are much less tightly guarded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    You are incorrect, though I am not divulging the details to you.
    Regardless, I don't like you. Whatever side you are on will lower when I find out which one it is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    Regardless, I don't like you. Whatever side you are on will lower when I find out which one it is.
    How very mature. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I know that there are millions of people who are effected by these warnings. Our very own Douglas went on and on about these 'what-if' scenarios. "What if you were kidnapped by terrorists? Do you think Kerry would save you? Because I KNOW Bush would". They had a very subtle yet overwhelming effect on the american public. It is called PROPOGANDA.
    You make it sound like he wouldn't vote for Bush anyway. Do you know any person who decided to vote for Bush due to the supposed fearmongering?

    It works because it is subtle, yet effective.Take an ecconimcs class, talk to ANY ecconomist. The prices are beyond inflated. Companies jack up the prices because the government allows them to do so. The very same medicine in America sells for about a tenth of the price anywhere else in the world, including countries like Canada, Britian, and Australlia. So many people go without doctors and medicine simply because it is so expensive these days. A recent trip to the doctor for a cold (2 minutes with the doctor, basic bloodwork, etc..) cost me over 1,000 bucks.

    Are you actually suggesting that everything is ship shape with our health care?
    As someone who just got their degree in economics and political science last week, I think I have taken more than one economics class and talked to more than one economist. By definition, prices can't be inflated unless there is external (i.e. government) intervention. The government "allows" the pharmaceuticals to charge as much as they want because...*drum roll*...we have a private healthcare industry. It's not the government's role to set prices.

    The reason drugs cost most in the US than in other countries is because we don't have price controls in the US. On the other hand, that's also the reason why we have the largest and most efficient pharmaceutical industry in the world. If Americans didn't pay the prices they did for the drugs, the pharmaceutical companies would have much less incentive to invest in research in development, which both provides high-paying jobs to Americans and allows us to remain at the forefront of medical breakthroughs.

    There are many problems with the current medical industry, but they have not appeared under Bush. Neither is Bush responsible for the costs charged by private firms. We need a more market-based approach to healthcare, and Bush's proposed healthcare savings accounts are a step in that direction. Wasting a $100 billion a year to subsidize drugs for the elderly is not going to help our healthcare much, but it certainly won't make it worse (though the money can be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all for that matter).

    It is pretty much dead because our government will not have the money or income to pay out senior citizens in about 20 years time. He denided it and denied it, well guess what? It was all true.
    Actually, it's the Democrats who are claiming that there is no problem (I'm inclined to agree). Bush is the one claiming that there is a problem, though his approach is unlikely to solve it. But as I already mentioned, Bush's plans won't get passed. And Bush neither caused this supposed problem nor did he make it worse.

    The Bush administration is NOT listening to the doctors, researchers, and sociologist on the ground working in these areas. They are not employing the best methods. they are ignoring them. They preach from their own agenda- they are not even making an attempt at doing the best they can regarding this situation. The 15 billion has so many red strings tied to it that its a joke.
    That's certainly true, and I do blame Bush for allowing his private views to influence our foreign policy.

    A U.N.launched Global Fund allows and uses generic drugs which cost as little as $150 per person per year, these drugs are approved by the World Health Organization and by the UN. However the US refuses to allow US money to purchase these drugs (they must buy US patented drugs) even though the cost are much much higher. Because of the severity of the situation, every other country in the world allows their contributions to be used on the generic drugs over their own products- EXCEPT for the US. The cost discrepancies go like this: generic drugs cost about $150 per person per year, US FDA approved drugs go for $1000 per person per year. And now for the best part- a country can ONLY get these great benefits IF they adhere to a strict ‘abstinence first policy’. This is a faith based initiative implemented by the Bush team and involves a lack of education regarding basic sexual protection including condom use. One village that a friend visited found that the villagers had taken the condoms and put them on sticks around the village so as to ward off evil spirits. They were never educated about how to use them.
    That's rather hypocritical of you. You don't want Americans to pay high costs for drugs, but neither do you want other countries to pay for them. If neither Americans nor foreigners pay the full price of the drugs, why would pharmaceutical companies want to develop them? Do you think they do it for charity?

    Bush's trade agenda has focused on increasing patent rights for drug companies, even in poor countries, where patent monopolies result in higher cost and decreased access. The emerging free trade agreement between the U.S. and the Southern African Customs Union, for example, would inhibit access to low cost generic versions of important patented medicines. In Nigeria and Uganda the U.S. has pressured local officials to enact national patent policies that exceed the strict rules of the WTO and would restrict countries' rights to break patent monopolies to reduce medicines cost. Aids victims in Africa are dying at the rate of 6,000 a day and the Bush administration’s sole concern is the quarterly profits of its pharmaceutical companies. And you wonder why I hate the *******….
    See above.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    After talking to a typical *******, non-New Yorker, non-Californian, Christian prick, my opinion on the matter is reinforced. Thank you.
    The Burg' *****?? You can disagree with someone without attacking them personally. I didn't like Clinton's policies, but don't hate anyone for voting for him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I didn't like Clinton's policies, but don't hate anyone for voting for him.
    You better not. His wife is probably going to be the next president of the US. :p:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    He got more electoral votes. Regardless, Bush got over 50% of the vote this time election, something that Clinton wasn't able to do in '92 and Bush Sr. wasn't able to do in '88.
    Bush Sr. got 53.4% of the popular vote in 1988. Clinton wasn't able to get the majority of the popular vote in '92 or '96.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Bush Sr. got 53.4% of the popular vote in 1988. Clinton wasn't able to get the majority of the popular vote in '92 or '96.
    My bad. I forgot the loser that Bush Sr. ran against. To be fair, even I would have gotten 53% against Dukakis.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You better not. His wife is probably going to be the next president of the US. :p:
    You're probably right about her standing a good chance of becoming our 44th president. She's a very shrewed politician and one of the few that has discussed adressing our porous border problem. That's an issue that both parties have inexplicably ignored.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    You're probably right about her standing a good chance of becoming our 44th president. She's a very shrewed politician and one of the few that has discussed adressing our porous border problem. That's an issue that both parties have inexplicably ignored.
    She seems to have abandoned her left-wing rhetoric and adopted a more pragmatic position on most issues, which is what got her husband elected.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    She seems to have abandoned her left-wing rhetoric and adopted a more pragmatic position on most issues, which is what got her husband elected.
    Or she's adopted more pragmatic rhetoric so that she can be elected... And then the REAL Hilary shall emerge again... Cue the thunder and lightning bolts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Or she's adopted more pragmatic rhetoric so that she can be elected... And then the REAL Hilary shall emerge again... Cue the thunder and lightning bolts.
    I doubt it, especially if Republicans retain control of Congress (which is very likely). I'll be paying close attention to what she'll be doing in the next 3 years to look for signs of her leftiness (seeing that she's NY's senator). I'll keep you notified of any setbacks.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.