0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:24 am
dyslexia wrote:

...the dems were knee jerking on this issue in much the same way as the repubs knee jerked about Clintons health care ideas, neither side offering an acceptable alternative. ..


Every scheme I've ever heard so far for solving America's medical problems amounts to throwing more money at our present system; that's like throwing gasoline on a fire to try to put it out. A real solution to our medical problems would amount to what Theodore Roosevelt used to call "trust busting" in several areas:

Medical schools which typically keep 40% of incoming classes should be told that henceforth, if they ever drop more than 15% of an incoming class of medical students, they will lose their accreditation.

Drug companies which charge Americans 20 times what Europeans are paying for drugs should have those same Europeans as competitors, or at least be threatened with such.

The half of our medical bills due to lawyering should be ended. A doctor who makes eggregious mistakes should lose his license to practice, while lawsuits against doctors should be ended.

That first item almost requires close-up observation to comprehend. When I was in grad school, we had a sizeable number of first year med students in the dorm I was in, and all were fully qualified to be doctors. All were 3.5 GPA students or better, all highly motivated, most from families of physicians. And all knew from day one that 35% were being retained. Naturally, they were working 25 hour days, sabataging eachothers experiments, and trying to do whatever it took to be part of that 35%. That system guarantees that you know several things about the guy working on your body:

  • You know that he costs too much (the point of the entire system).
  • You know that he's probably had no sleep in the last 18 hours since he's doing the work of the 65% of the doctors who are missing as well as his own.
  • You know that he's probably on drugs to deal with the lack of sleep.
  • Basically, you know that he's a survivor, and that that's very unlikely to be because he was better qualified to be a doctor than the people of the missing 65%


Me, I'd rather have that guy sleeping or playing golf, and have #45 or #65, having had a good night's sleep and without drugs working on my body.

But the biggest single piece of the picture is out-of-control lawyering. Trial lawuers of course are the most major financial support of the dem party.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:30 am
Spendius,

I think you are correct in your observation of the relative lack of a coherent political view among our political parties, certainly compared to most in Europe. I suspect it may be a result of our traditional two party system and separate elections of the chief executive. The European parliamentary systems appear to generally lead to more and finer differentiation among parties across the political spectrum, while ours try hard to at least appear to be all things to (nearly) all people. Moreover Americans have also traditionally been a bit suspicious of the extremes of both the political left and right (at least as we see them). It's true, we don't have a real left wing party in the sense that most European governments do. We also don't have a real right wing party in the sense that most European governments once had them.

I have the impression that this too is more or less the pattern that you have long maintained in Britain, despite the differences in your Parliamentary system. Two dominant parties with the very gradual replacement of one or another every century or so. In fact it isn't a bad system, and arguably is one of the better manifestations of the very pragmatic and moderate British political tradition, which we inherited. (See, it's really your fault!)

I don't agree with your characterization of the French revolution. It was original only in the sound and fury that delivered the Terror, Robespierre, Napoleon, Louis XVIII, and five or six republics - and little else. True the French captured the illusion of originality by talking and writing incessantly about themselves, (we do that more successfully now and that's why they hate us so.). Even their radical revolutionaries weren't original - an imitation of an earlier (and more admirable) one that occurred in Rome about 450 years earlier ( Rienzi was a far more admirable figure than either Danton or Robespierre.) The real lower middle class crusade started several decades earlier, in America. (They don't forgive us for that either.).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:40 am
spendius wrote:
MG:-

I'm a bit of everything.


I meant the other guy, the george o'flannigan or o'reilly or o'shultz or whatever the hell name his mother decided to take after the incident with the gypsy men.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:48 am
spendius wrote:
Georgeob(scene):-

That's disgusting.Talking to a Lady in that shameful manner.It was simply a figure of speech crafted to convey efficiently certain observations.To have failed to appreciate that suggests the fixation you refer to is one that springs readily to your mind.If Lola does have any fixations they are concerned with civilised values and care for her compatriots and the effort to take those forward.


So many things "spring readily to mind" and so often that I am at a loss to accept either this or any other characterization unvarnished. I've noticed a common trait among those who pursue psychology is to respond to disagreement with the disingenuous question, "How long have you felt this way?" It was in that spirit that I offered my question to the lady. (Otherwise I would never question LOla.)

Besides, I thought that moving from stick replacements to the destruction of forests was taking the metaphor much too far. Something had to be done!

Its true, I'm Irish. Bernie is right..
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:57 am
Geogebob1:-

It was just a bit of bar-room politics old boy.

You have the jump on me in the history detail.I'm a broad brush slapper.There has been a lower middle class revolution.Dead boring innit?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 07:00 am
MG:-

I'm still a bit of everything.

What a cracker though.I bet you're tough in a slanging match.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 07:07 am
spendius wrote:
Geogebob1:-

It was just a bit of bar-room politics old boy.

You have the jump on me in the history detail.I'm a broad brush slapper.There has been a lower middle class revolution.Dead boring innit?


It's ob, not bob - O'Brien, not o'schultz as Blatham put it.

But I like bar-room politics!

I've been around too, long to accept modest protestations at face value. I agree, the lower middle class revolution is a bit boring. However it is alsoa good deal sturdier than it's alternatives. Besides, you can't trust the froggies.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 07:21 am
GB1:-

Don't we know it.

They have a few great writers though.Maybe a population of assholes produces that effect.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 07:33 am
Quote:
Have you had this anal fixation for a long time Lola?


yes
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 07:38 am
So do the Italians, Spaniards, Russians, British, hell, even the Irish. Montagne, Stendahl, Balzac and Maupassant were the best of them, and , except for Stendahl, all have their equals in the literature of other countries. In the 20th century they produced only fakes. (except for Camus, and even he palagarized his best work, "the Stranger" from the Russian Lermomntov's "A Hero of Our Time, written a century earlier.)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 12:47 pm
http://www.newyorkpost.com/delonas/2005/02/02032005.jpg

.....worth a thousand words.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 01:01 pm
worth one word = "president"(s)
http://www.rpp.com.pe/imagenes-rpp/2004/06/Bill%20y%20Hilary%20Clinton.jpg
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 01:07 pm
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050203/i/r1359225606.jpg

"Rhett, Rhett... Rhett, if you go, where shall I go? What shall I do?"
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 01:31 pm
vote early, vote often, vote Kucinich
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/kucinich.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 09:02 am
I thought it was high time someone acknowledged our favorite general operating in the Iraqi theatre...something to speak to his contributions and his values. It's a little thing, an oom pa pa song he can sing to new recruits arriving under his fatherly command.

oom pa pa
oom pa pa
oom pa pa
oom pa pa

Panty-waist peace or
delicious dispute?
You're gonna love the killin'
the soldier's pursuit
Watch that Eeraqi's head explode
like a fruit
Ain't nothin' quite like it
It's a hoot to shoot

I'll make no bones
'bout the fun that you'll feel
detachin' bones
with your knife and your heel
It's glorious destiny
Let's stand and salute
Freedom is marching
DC to Beirut
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 09:58 am
Actually, anyone who follows Iraq news knows Mattis is a 1st class rascal. Courageous, competent, but a rascal...definitely a Patton for our time.

Next issue, please....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 10:15 am
Some folks just don't grasp the concept that war is all about breakin' stuff and killin' folks, and is conducted by folks who do understand that.

Pollyannas are upset utopia ain't here. Pragmatic realists understand it ain't ever gonna be here, but go ahead and work toward gettin' as close to it as can be managed anyhow.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 10:21 am
Yeah. The "new" paradigm catagorizing political players and events as Realist or Idealist--sort of goes like this:

"Idealists operate as if the world is as they wish it was; Realists operate in the world as it is."

The Idealists will serve us up as someone else's lunch...which is why they'll have a damn hard time getting a President elected in the US.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 10:43 am
Here's the deal: a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it.

A war is not worth fighting if you'd rather maintain your cushy lifestyle and let others do the dying for you. A war is not worth fighting if you're willing to let other families lose their mothers and fathers and spouses and children.

It's that simple. Those of you in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, Stateside Regiment Exclusively, and your brethren in the Republican Corporate Media fail this very easy test of the sincerity of your convictions.

timber, I am grateful for your family's service to our country. I want your son home right now, safe and sound.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 12:11 pm
Gee PDiddie: Are you a firefighter? No? You just don't really think fires really need to be put out, eh?

You are using the logic of an idiot. Want more proof?

Oom pa pa
Oom pa pa
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 02:52:43