|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| BJWD wrote: |
I said:
| Quote: |
| And yes, you will reply about uninsured Americans, because that is what Canadians are programmed to do. There are only two systems in the world, in the eyes of the Canadian. The Canadian and the American. All we have to do is be better (as we define it) than "those Americans" and we could care less about real outcomes. |
You replied:
| Quote: |
| The Canadian system can improve but so can the U.S. system which is often inaccessible to those who don't have health insurance or the financial resources for it. Plenty also die in the U.S., because they don't have access. Even doctors say that. |
Ok. Honesty time. You don't read other peoples posts, right? You glance at them, and then assume their position and then respond to your assumption. Right? |
I read your post. I mentioned the Canadian health care system, because you mentioned going to Montana. I mentioned the fact that in many cases you can't get treated at all in the U.S. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you the one who wrote Montana? Yes or no. I read it correctly.
Anyway, why is it delusional for Canadians to be nationalistic and not for Americans? Are you of the same opinion for Americans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
I said:
| Quote: |
| And yes, you will reply about uninsured Americans, because that is what Canadians are programmed to do. There are only two systems in the world, in the eyes of the Canadian. The Canadian and the American. All we have to do is be better (as we define it) than "those Americans" and we could care less about real outcomes. |
You replied:
| Quote: |
| The Canadian system can improve but so can the U.S. system which is often inaccessible to those who don't have health insurance or the financial resources for it. Plenty also die in the U.S., because they don't have access. Even doctors say that. |
Ok. Honesty time. You don't read other peoples posts, right? You glance at them, and then assume their position and then respond to your assumption. Right? |
You wrote the following:
When I needed knee surgery, I went to Montana. When my brother needed a scan of his head ASAP we were told to wait 8 months. He flew to Montana that night. When my very cancer prone family gets another bout of Cancer, we go to America. And we are solidly middle class. We just can not afford to wait for months to have our health restored.
I responded to what you wrote above. You stated before you are against the Liberals. The Liberals, more likely, support universal health care.
You brought this up without saying what you would like changed in Canada. Would you like Canada to abandon universal health care in favour of the American system. I don't think you clarify your positions.
You threw the above out with proper explanation of your political views regarding the health care system. I hope your knee is fine, en passant.
I don't like people having to wait, either. I think the problem needs to rectified.
As far as Liberals versus Conservatives, both parties have had their poor leaders. I don't think one has a more stellar record than the other.
So despite the vogue in bashing Liberals, Conservatives have just as much room to be criticized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is absurd.
I said the health system failed me and I had to pay for real services in the USA. That is a negative judgment on Canada. I did not compare the two, that would be for another thread altogether. We all know that you can get what you want in America if you are willing to pay, but my point was that you held up the Canadian system as a good model. It isn't. And you have to look beyond North America for a good model. For example, Singapore.
Did you go to university? Which one?
You said:
| Quote: |
| You don't call yourself a Conservative, but you attack the Liberals. |
Mother *beep*. Do you think that there are only two possible sets of political and economic ideas? WTF is wrong with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Would you like Canada to abandon universal health care in favour of the American system. |
There are more than two models for 'health care'. It isn't either/or. Christ. Are you fucking kidding me?
Last edited by thepeel on Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, you didn't read what I wrote.
Here is what I said:
| Quote: |
You are suggesting that because I dislike Canadian nationalism I must like American nationalism? No. If religion is the opiate of the masses, nationalism is the opiate of the ultra dumb. |
And the reply from you:
| Quote: |
Anyway, why is it delusional for Canadians to be nationalistic and not for Americans? Are you of the same opinion for Americans? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
This is absurd.
I said the health system failed me and I had to pay for real services in the USA. That is a negative judgment on Canada. I did not compare the two, that would be for another thread altogether. We all know that you can get what you want in America if you are willing to pay, but my point was that you held up the Canadian system as a good model. It isn't. And you have to look beyond North America for a good model. For example, Singapore.
Did you go to university? Which one?
You said:
| Quote: |
| You don't call yourself a Conservative, but you attack the Liberals. |
Mother *beep*. Do you think that there are only two possible sets of political and economic ideas? WTF is wrong with you? |
BJWD, "I AD GRAECUM PI" is something Roman that can't be bleeped.. If you want to have that attitude, I have no desire to engage you anymore.
What university someone has attended does not reflect their ability to argue including someone like yourself who went off topic and then questioned why I brought in the U.S. system in comparison when you, the guilty poster, went off-topic and brought Canada into this mix. You are the dense one, I am afraid. You argue like junior and then think you are the knowledgeable guru and the others are the Liberal fools.
Bye... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
BJWD, "I AD GRAECUM PI" is something Roman that can't be bleeped.. If you want to have that attitude, I have no desire to engage you anymore.
What university someone has attended does not reflect their ability to argue including someone like yourself who went off topic and then questioned why I brought in the U.S. system in comparison when you, the guilty poster, went off-topic and brought Canada into this mix. You are the dense one, I am afraid. You argue like junior and then think you are the knowledgeable guru and the others are the Liberal fools. |
You live in the most frustratingly bizarre and childish world of political either/or I've ever seen.
Because I don't like Canadian nationalism, I must like the American version.
Because I don't like the Canadian health system, I must like the American.
Because I criticize the Liberals I must be a Conservative supporter.
Do you not see how retarded you are being?? Either/or either/or either/or. And even when I tell you straight up, you still don't get it.
I ask about what university for two reasons. 1) I don't know if you went. You just don't have the argumentation skills. You assign ideologies far too often. 2) If you did go. I do not want to send my kids there.
Bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for getting back on topic, but if Gonzalez, Bush, etc had simply said, "We fired these attorneys because we didn't like their politics", would they be admitting to doing anything against the rules? As far as I understand, these attorneys serve until the President says he doesn't want them to anymore and he's free to fire them for political and/or any other reasons.
That being said, I think Congress should be able to subpoena these guys and make them testify under oath if, in fact, they did anything against the rules. (I avoid using the word "wrong" because there's definitely something wrong with firing someone so they won't expose the corruption of others in your political party, which might've been the case with a few of these attorneys). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You have it right. They serve at the president's pleasure. He doesn't need a reason to fire them. And Congress and the Democrats and the Canadians can go pound sand if they don't like it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh WTCarl, glad to see you are paying attention as usual. The contraversy is over 2 things:
1. The president usually fires the attornies at the beginning of his term, not in the middle.
2. Bush said he wouldn't fire them to make it less like Bill Clinton. He broke his promise.
Oh and they were fired because Rove didnt like their politics.
In the end though, if you right wing futbars think there is nothing illegal or wrong going on you should have no problem with the Brain, Gonzo and Meirs testifying under oath, right? They didnt do anything wrong, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Before this episode only 10 such US attorneys had been fired mid-term, and only for serious incompetence or unprofessional behavior. Most certainly not because they had refused to use their office to influence elections. It's true that they serve at the president's pleasure but it is wholly unacceptable for the president to use them for partisan purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Before this episode only 10 such US attorneys had been fired mid-term, and only for serious incompetence or unprofessional behavior. Most certainly not because they had refused to use their office to influence elections. It's true that they serve at the president's pleasure but it is wholly unacceptable for the president to use them for partisan purposes. |
These attorneys were doing their job, and they were investigating possible corruption in the Executive Branch, and they were fired. It is different than simply replacing people as part of an election sweep, the simple work of the spoils system. Truth be told, there has been probably as much corruption in this government as the Harding Administration. And back then, Americans actually would have been enraged at their government. I also believe Bush has had about the same popularity as the Harding Administration according to an article I recently read. It was talking about how his polls has stayed so long below a majority. Whether or not, there was scandalous corruption going or not, the way these attorneys were dismissed at least gives the appearance to many of the Executive Branch having gone too far.
Glad we're back on topic.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| And back then, Americans actually would have been enraged at their government. |
Americans are enraged at their government, right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| And back then, Americans actually would have been enraged at their government. |
Americans are enraged at their government, right now. |
I don't think it is enough when compared to past generations. I mean in the old days you would have had so many people out in the streets rather than simply being angry at home. I think people need to start protesting the government and not just the war. It has gone too far. An investigation is needed or resignations. Some serious corruption is going on that is much more than usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
