Artful Dodger: No, what you're saying is absolutely wrong ! I'm not in a socialist system ! As I said before I've just a little money (150 Euros) for my 2 children, but that's all. I must work to get money, I pay taxes and I had to ask a credit to buy my house. Where is the difference with the way you live ?
I agree with (V) when he says : " Have we at the moment any country that could be called strictly socialist or of a free market nature. "

Artful Dodger: No you didn't. But it's nothing I don't expect... An answer would be why you did think she'd make a good pres and no you don't.

As for Socialism.. "China is the fastest growing economy in the world. It's a State controlled economy...."

you are contradicting yourself.. Yet again!!

Artful Dodger: So if socialism does not work... why is China buying up so much of the USA debt..... It could be said that China has/is keeping the USA afloat.

It could also be said that no purely free market country works... but. Have we at the moment any country that could be called strictly socialist or of a free market nature.
... could you point out some so we can do a reasonable comparison?

As for Palin being pres...... why the change of heart? You've still not answered that. Just over a year ago you thought she would make a great president.... now you don't.

why is it that 1% of Americans take home 24% of monies earned?

Does this mean they are overpaid?

or does it mean the other 99% are underpaid?

Übergeek 바둑이: Your general analysis is rather good, and I thank you for this commentary, but I don't totally agree with, only on a few details :

- In France, the unemployement is about 10 % of the active population : sometimes less, sometimes more but the variation is little : about 1 to 1,5 %. We have also a system for counting unemployed persons which is different from other countries in Europe : example : if someone works 70 % of the time and says " I look for a job with a time 30 % more or else 100 % ", he's considered as un unemployed person. So, you see the notion of unemployement is very wide and I could give you other examples if necessary.

- When you speak about benefits when a couple has a child : paternity leave is very recent and the father gets only 11 days with the mother. And with only 1 child, there's no family allowance, it begins with 2 children and it's not very important (example : for my 2 children, I receive about 150 Euros (210 $) and my elder son is student and believe me, I don't make benefits !).

- About the last strikes in France : the problem doesn't come only from the retirement age. The president Sarkozy has a very authoritarian politics and rejects the dialog with the labor unions. When we see the opinion polls, people rather agree to raise the retirement age but not for the hard jobs, for example the building trade. But the government doesn't want to hear that.

- About the decrease in the statutory working hours (a shorter work week), it hasn't really changed for many people, because many companies have decided to maintain the same length and to give breaks. I'm in this case : I work during 38,5 h instead of 35 hours per week, and I've sometimes the possibibily to reduce this length. It gives me a benefit of about 10 days in the year, but some of these days are choosen by the employer.

As you can see, it's not simple !

Artful Dodger: The social welfare hasn't changed since many years. You know, in France, people are rather against the changes. However the government is (socialist or not), there are no big differences in your current life.

As I understand it, the current problems in France arose from policy decisions made in the early 1990s. Back in 1991-1992 the world experienced a massive recession (brought about by Reaganomics and the end fo the Cold War). Back then France experience two problems: high unemployment and a decreasing birth rate. In order to counteract those two problems, the French government decided to enact laws that would allow for lower unemployment and a growth in the population (seen as necessary to maintain economic growth):

1. Increasing maternity leave, paternity leave and other parental benefits when a couple has a child. France brought in what is one of the most generous parenting leave systems in the world.

2. Stimulate population and econmic growth through an increase in immigration. This saw an influx of immigrants from former French-speaking colonies, particularly from Africa.

3. A decrease in the retirement age so that yonger workers would have greater opportunities to find work, while the aging population would enjoy the benefits of an earlier retirement.

4. A decrease in the statutory working hours (a shorter work week) in order to help increase the number of available jobs per capita. France could afford to do this because France has the highest productivity per hour of all G8 nations.

These solutions worked well to some extent. France achieved what no other Western European country had been able to do. France increased its birth rate and saw a healthy growth in its population. In fact, since 2003 France's population growth has accounted for all "natural" population growth in the European Union. While other European Union countries have negative population growth, France achieved a positive population growth.

As the population has grown, a recession has taken hold in the European Union. This has meant that the employment rate has decreased and as unemployment rose, marginalized segments of the population saw themselves experiencing high unemployment. If any of you recalls, this led to rioting among North African immigrants.

The recession has also meant that the government has experienced a shortfall in taxation revenue. In order to account for the deficit, the govenment has tried to mdify some of the benefits that the population has received. The government has tried unsuccessfully to increase the working hours per week, and to raise the retirement age. In backtracking from policies of the past, the government has alienated the population and this has led to the strikes that we saw in the last few months.

To say that France is a "total disaster" is a reflection of a lack of understanding of the French economy. After all, France still is the 5th largest economy in the world. France is also the smallest emitter of carbon dioxide among industrialized nations. About 80% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear plants. France is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. Like any other country, it has its problems, but it is far from being a disaster.

Artful Dodger: No, I can't let you say this, for 2 reasons :
(1) actually, the french government isn't socialist but UMP (on the opposite) since several years,
(2) you absolutely don't know how it works in our lives everyday.
Please, don't say generalities about France which can be wrong, but give accurate examples we can speak about.

Artful Dodger: Do they??? If a certain companies had their way at the moment, the government spending and interference that has caused some of their products to be severely criticised. The aimed market as such was not one that could easily protest... especially when the products could lead to neurological damage or death.

without government spending, the fact that they lied about the effects of their products would be hard to check into because of the budget and infrastructure needed to analysis and check these products.

But I guess you are saying that as such the free market protects us from frauds who'd quite happily let people be die or be damaged mentally beyond what medical science can fix in the name of profit.

Artful Dodger: But......

Politics (Artful Dodger, 2009-07-04 21:55:11)

4. July 2009, 20:55:11
[Artful Dodger, United States, Brain Rook (forever), Male] Artful Dodger (hide)
show this user posts | show thread | link
Subject: Re:Bush is a republican, McCain a republican, Palin a conservative, Reagan a Conservative
Vikings: Spot on. Many Republicans are talking about returning to their conservative roots. Palin would make a great President. Obama will ruin the economy and put us into so much debt I'll be long dead and we'll sill be paying back from his reckless spending.
Reply (box)


************************* Do I understand you now that you think Palin is crap as a potential VP or President???

......... If so... why the change of heart??

Artful Dodger: Yes, true. And being disrespectful of Americans was not my intention either.

Indeed, I believe, one of the most important qualities, other than values and beliefs, of a president (any leader) is to put together an effective team. Without an effective team in place, all those beliefs of small government, less taxes and central spending (good imho), will not get implemented.

What does she propose to do to the Fed? Will Bubbles Bernanke remain or will real change be seen? Obama promised it, but the old team remains.

(V):



Facts: Sarah Palin is stupid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irklZ-iZjhI

Fox News Proves Sarah Palin Is Dumber Than Bush - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c&feature=fvw

Sarah Palin Thinks Humans & Dinosaurs Co-Existed - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-4ZgxosiKY&feature=channel


The 10 dumbest Palin quotes - http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm


Africa is a country, not a continent etc.
This is hilarious, but the Americans seem to have a wonderful knack of choosing the dumbest canditate for president. The clever ones get assinated!

Artful Dodger: You don't really care that Palin who is (as it appears) is going for being the next President of the USA, and that she is as about as qualified for the job as a monkey is to run a nuclear reactor!!

mmmmmmmm

Experienced Politician =
Know how to lie
Always have a fall guy to take the blame
Give credible platitudes
Know how to spin spin spin
Be able to waffle
Be able to manipulate their expenses
Talk down your opponents and their ideas, no matter how good they are.
Know how to smile
Know how to look sad
Hold a baby
When all goes fails, bring out national pride and raise the flag
Be able to say "it is the right thing to do" with a straight face, whilst all others think you are living on a different planet.

Hmmmmm, sure you can add to the list :)

Artful Dodger: So he was there all the time the Senate was in session??

Artful Dodger: How much experiance compared to Obama?

Artful Dodger:

> He had very limited political experience. So no, that stuff doesn't count.

I suppose 7 years as state senator and 3 years as US senator does not count. But then, nothing Obama could do is right or good. To admit that Obama could have any redeeming qualities is next to impossible.

Bwild: "yomama" ?

Artful Dodger: Palin has no real experiance.. when asked, a senior Republican from Alaska (after pausing) could only come up with two reasons why Palin should run for VP..... one of them was that she was the right age!!

rod03801: .... I wouldn't be surprised at that... Quite frankly some of what was said in olde days to get the blood up.. well.. .. being in league with devil was a common fear inducing tactic.

... But I was referring to ads used in the mid term campaigns.

I read/saw today Palin's new ad....... "We're going to get back to the time-tested truths that made this country great,"

.. That is I must admit, genius in terms of empty could mean absolutely anything talk... some of the best "fill in with own imagination talk" that I've heard in a long while.

Artful Dodger:

> Yeah, like Obama.

Let's see. Obama ... Harvard Law School... Juris Doctor magna cum laude... Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School ... As senator, member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee ... As member of the Foreign Relations Committee he made official diplomatic trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Eastern and Central Asia, and Africa.

I suppose all those things don't count at all since he did them all BEFORE becoming president.

Earlier this week Brazil elected Dilma Rousseff as its president. This is the first time that Brazil has elected a woman to be president. Rousseff is a former Marxist-Leninist guerrilla fighter, and she is the protege of outgoing president Ignacio Lula DaSilva.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101101/wl_afp/brazilvote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilma_Rousseff

Dilma Rousseff garnered 56% of the vote. The outgoing Ignacio Lula DaSilva had an 80% approval rating, but was barred by the constitution from running again for president.

In the 1970s Dilma Rousseff had been imprisoned and tortured by the CIA-backed dictatorship of General Emilio Garrastazu Medici. After her release from prison, she took a less radical political stance and joined the Brazilian Democratic Labour Party (social democrats) and slowly climbed the ladder of power until becoming Lula DaSilva's chief of staff in 2005.

Dilma Rousseff is inheriting a booming economy and an overvalued currency. She will have to implement austerity measures to curb inflation and lobby with China and the US to stop artificially lowering their currencies to stimulate their own economies.

It will be interesting to see how the Americanj overnment deals with the increasing influence of the left wing in Latin America. Democratically elected left wing governments will put their own national interests ahead of those of foreign powers and corporations. The US and Europe will have to work with these presidents for improved relations and greater trade while accepting the increasing shift to the left in Latin America.

Bwild:
Like I said, it would be foolish to underestimate Sarah Palin. She is a lot smarter than people give her credit for. If she has a weakness in politics, it is her lack of experience in foreign policy and running an economy on a national scale. If she can convince the public that she has qualities that overcome her lack of experience, then she will be a serious threat to Obama. However, if she fails to do that, she will lose the election. I think it is why Obama has to chose Hilary Clinton as his running mate. Another factor will also be who becomes Sarah Palin's running mate. She has to chose somebody that makes her look good in the voter's eyes.

The Col: lol...unless your on an airbus...you'll be wanting a qualified mechanic!
as far as Palin....over half those she supported were elected(36 out of 52 I think) how'd yomama do?
to me thats a pretty good bite.

Quotes should be attributed to a source, I only noticed it cuz I've never seen it not done before..........the anti intellectual fad that has been in vogue on the right is a head shaker.It's almost like a Harvard degee is to be mocked, and politicians with zero experience, or little education are in.I've done ok without a degree, but I respect education. If I'm boarding a plane,I want a qualified pilot.............Palin has appeal to a very small segment of the voting public, her bark is bigger than her bite country wide.

The Col:

Some of the quotes I posted are from Yahoo News, which they probably got from Reuters. One things is true. Both Democrats and established Republicans capitalized on previous statements or relatively minor wrongdoings of Tea Party candidates. As always, there was a lot of negative advertising and character assassination. On the other hand, having a "news commentator" like Sarah Palin support individual candidates is really a conflict of interest. After all, the media and political parties are supposed to be independent of each other (now I can hear everyone going "Really?!").

Well, representative democracy is not about electing capable individuals or intelligent individuals. Representative democracy is a pseudo-popularity contest in which individuals are elected based on how much media exposure they can buy for themselves. and how much negative media bias their opponents can raise against them. To some people some of the things that Tea Party candidates might do or say might seem too far to the right, but obviously a large portion of the American public does agree with them. Otherwise, why would they vote for these candidates?

If Sarah Palin runs for the presidency, it is likely that she will face a fate similar to that of Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle and Ken Buck. I think that Sarah Palin attracts a lot of people and reflects their values, but ultimately established Republicans and the public at large will question her ability to be president.

The next Republican elected into office will set about to repealing the Healthcare Reform Act of 2010. That president will also be responsible for undoing the financial nightmare that started with the Bush administration and was aggravated by Obama's bank bailouts. That person will have to raise interest rates while at the same time dumping billions of dollars of treasury bonds that the Federal Reserve has been buying back in order to prop up unemployment below 10%. That person will also be responsible for continuing the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, keep Communist expansion in check, and deal with left-wing Latin American governments, which continue to be unbeatable in Latin American elections. That president will have to deal with the increasing power of the People's Republic of China, techonologically more advanced and nuclearly-armed North Korea and Iran, plus the never-ending mess in Israel-Palestine.

It will be a huge job and the question is, can Sarah Palin do it? It would be unwise to underestimate her. She is a lot more intelligent than she is given credit for, but she lacks experience in foreign policy and managing the national economy. She will also face a Congress and Senate that are incapable of changing and constantly mired in bipartisan politics and lobbying.

If Democrats can capitalize on her lack of experience, while making Joe Biden retire while Hilary Clinton becomes the vice-presidential running mate, it is quite likely that Obama will be reelected. Obama has two years to improve his image, and at this point he has nothing to lose be being more aggressive in his policies. In fact, the more aggressive he becomes, the more it will look like the failure of the government to achieve anything is due to Republicans blocking important bills. Having a minority now might actually be advantageous to the Democrats at the next election because now they can blame Republicans for failing to cooperate in congress.

It wil be interesting in two years time. In the meantime, while the American government is busy with infighting, hard left-wing governments are winning elections by landslides in Latin America. Democracy is a funny thing. People vote, and they rarely get what they really want!

(V): "Recent Ads"??? I saw examples tonight of negative ads from even back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It's hardly a "recent" phenomenon. I can't remember now who it was about, but they had ads about a candidate's mom being a "whore". I bet we wouldn't even see something THAT nasty, now.

The Col: Infighting ... if recent ads I've seen are an example of the way politics can get dirty .. then it'll get even worse.

The USA seems to be having one hell of a lot of problems at the moment. Our dollar this morning was at a dollar to the USA 99.1c...90 minutes later..the USA dollar was worth 100.55c....first time in living memory. I think it is about time Somebody took things more seriously in the USA when it comes to the selection of your politicians....well after the elections last week it looks like a good start LOL

Übergeek 바둑이: Who stated the quotes?
I think O'Donnell being blissfully unaware of the contents of the First Amendment, and the video of here exposing that gaffe, cost her.........Angle was a gift to Reid..........the fun is about to begin, as Tea Party and Republican winners try and co exist, not to mention the Republican primary debates with Palin.Up until now Republicans have shyed away from challanging her, just wait till they face her in debates

In the race for the Senate, Democrats won 51 seats. Republicans won 46 seats. 3 seats are still open. With 51 seats the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Some Republicans are accusing Tea Party candiadates for losing the Senate race:

In Nevada:
"Republicans originally backed former state party chairwoman Sue Lowden for the race, but Angle beat her this summer in a surprise primary win. Angle ran a conservative campaign that caused many detractors to characterize her as an extremist -- and Reid used this image to his advantage. Reid labeled Angle "crazy," "dangerous," and "extreme" in his ads, and by his own account, the strategy of persistently pushing Angle's image as a fringe figure worked."

Senate majority leader Reid was re-elected in this one. I suppose that the rather extreme right wing views of Sharon Angle disenchanted many voters who opted for Reid. Angle suggested that the US should withdraw from the United Nations. The US should ban same-sex marriage. Abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest because those children are part of God's plan. She opposes the separation of church and state in the US Constitution. She believes that healthcare should be completely privatized and supported a bill that would exempt insusrers for paying for mammograms and colonoscopies. She believes that the Social Security system should be "transitioned out". She does not believe in Global Warming and completely rejects the belief that man-made pollution is a cause for any climatic shanges. She wanted to repeal regulations that ban offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sharon Angle wants the border with Canada clamped down citing that it was through Canada that the 9-11 terrorists entered the US, this in spite of the fact that both the FBI and the CIA have rpoven that none of the terrorists came through Canada but directly from third countires with visas issued by American embassies.

Her views were a bit too much for many people, and it is not surprising that Reid would win in spite of his being unpopular. I suppose it was better to vote for an unpopular man than for somebody with extreme right-wing views.

In Delaware:
"... to the detriment of the GOP's fortunes in the general election. Republicans wanted former Rep. Mike Castle, an established statewide GOP leader, to vie for the open Senate seat. But tea party candidate Christine O'Donnell took the primary in an upset and went on to lose handily in Tuesday's election."

O'Donnell's case was something else too. Things and comments she did during her youth really hurt her chances. As a young girl she dabbled in "witchcraft" and her opponents seized on that to try to shatter her image as a good Christian. Her comments on masturbation were held to riducule and many of her views were rather extreme, as was the case of Sharon Angle. For example, O'Donnell proposed bringing biblical principles into law-making and government policy, thereby ending the separation of church and state. She opposed abortion and sex education in schools. She also opposed teaching the Theory of Evolution in schools and replacing it with creationism. Her oponents also used her financial troubles and misuse of campaign funds against her. According to polls, in July of this year she was ahead of Chirs Coons by 41 to 39%. By August she was trailing by 10 points, and by September she was trailing by 15 points. The final result favored Coon with 57% of the vote while O'Donnell had 40% of the vote. I suppose her opponents capitalized on her past and some of her extreme views. In this case Coons was clearly the more popular of the two candidates, even though O'Donnell seemed to have more media attention focused on her.

In Colorado Ken Buck lost. He called global warming a hoax, took a homophobic stance and opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Mr. Buck also made sexist remarks that later allienated women Republican voters. Democrat Michael Bennet won that race.

Alaska seems to be still up in the air. The election was too close to call. Joe Miller (Tea Party favorite) was leading the polls until mid-October when his staff detained and handcuffed a journalist illegally. The journalist asked Miller about his being disciplined while working as a lawyer for the Fairbanks North Star Borough (county). Miller's supporters and security guards detained the journalist and handcuffed him. Miller refused to address publicly the issue of his problems with the Fairbanks North Star Borough and that probably hurt him. Miller also held some extreme views such as eliminating the federal minimum wage, unemployment benefits and farm subsidies. He also said that the Berlin Wall was an example of how a nation could deal effectively with problems of illegal immigration. Another Republican, Lisa Murkowski, mounted a write-in campaign. At this point it seems that Murkowski might be ahead with 41% of the vote, Miller with 34% and McAdams (Democrat) with 24%. Hnad-counting of the ballots will start on Nov. 18, so it might be a while before official results come out.

The race for the House of Representatives was entirely a different matter. Republicans have officially won 240 seats (218 required for a majority). Democratx have officially won 184 seats. 21 seats are still under review. It is here where the Republicans won big and where the Democrats will have a hard time passing laws. Many laws will probably go to the Senate, and Obam's administration will have a really difficult time getting anything done now.

In the governor races the Republicans won 28 governor seats, the Democrats 15, 1 independent and 6 still under review. Probably 3 more states will have Democrat governors, and 2 more will have Republican governors. The Republicans won big in here too.

In seeing this, I suspect that there will be finger pointing and some Republicans will probably blame Tea Party candidates for splitting the vote in the Senate race. It seems that people did reject the more notorious far right-wing candidates. This is interesting for Sarah Palin because those were some of the people that she supported publicly. It will give her a hint of how to chose a better strategy for the 2012 presidential election.

Artful Dodger: Too bad it won't be bye bye Reid

seemingly a 15% swing....that should make a difference shouldn't it?

rod03801:

....."....pretty much only helps with the MOST basic things, as in a reasonable co-pay for routine visits to your primary care physician, and reasonable co-pays on prescriptions. If I need anything "special", I pay for it all, until I reach $3000 of money spent out of my pocket...."

That's it!!!! O.M.G!!

(V): Well, you MAY have a point with this statement : "Because they know you'll blame the government rather than the old system first."

BUT, what I DO know, is my policy would not have gone up 89% this year, if the Anointed One had not put his horrible plan into action.

I am not going to get out the information on my old policy and list features. It's not necessary. It was an "ok" policy. Not covering every little thing, but yet still covering the most used, most important things.

My new one, pretty much only helps with the MOST basic things, as in a reasonable co-pay for routine visits to your primary care physician, and reasonable co-pays on prescriptions. If I need anything "special", I pay for it all, until I reach $3000 of money spent out of my pocket. Sure, fine, whatever, but it's STILL almost 50% higher than my old "half way decent" plan was!

If this jerk was not president, with his silly disciples in Congress, it would not have happened. I'd still have my old "half way decent" insurance, with the usual smaller yearly increase.

Can't wait for 2012 when we can get rid of HIM, too.

rod03801: I have answered.. PROFIT!!!!

Certain practices (if you read the 2011 implementations, etc) cut the ability of the health insurers to rip you off, and to stop them ripping off the government.

... semi decent????.. what do you get for what you pay?

Artful Dodger: So it's like death panels is it?? A human life is only worth so much!! So you agree with those companies cancelling child health plans on grounds such as "you had leukaemia before you started the policy" ... "well it wasn't manifesting.. I didn't know" is ok?

As for the increases.. Sure.. some maybe due to insurers having to actually properly cover children and adults. But the majority I doubt is.. the companies, etc just thought it would be a good idea to hike the prices to make you angry.

... Because they know you'll blame the government rather than the old system first.

Ferris Bueller: wouldnt have happened withOUT obamacare though.

rod03801:  Most of Obamacare does not take effect until 2013.  Your rediculous rate increase likely has more to do with your greedy, unregulated insurance companies arbitrarily hiking up your policy and raising your deductable for an outrageous profit.  Obamacare is an easy smoke screen to cover their inexcusable greed.  

I can't wait for TUESDAY!!!!! And even more.. .I can't wait to see all the bummed out dems on Wednesday!

THOUGH, they better do a better job than they did before. Hopefully they have the message loud n clear of what most people want.

(V): You don't address the REAL LIFE story I have mentioned at least twice. I guess it isn't convenient to your argument?

MY health insurance went up EIGHTY NINE percent. WELL above any increase in ANY other year.
I am now forced to have an absolute horrible policy that doesn't cover any major tests until I meet my $3000 deductible. And THIS horrible policy is close to a FIFTY PERCENT INCREASE over my old semi decent policy.

And how does the American right wingers here stand on that sevral of USA health insurers are withdrawing child only health policies. How do you feel that Asthma is treated as a pre existing condition...


... how do you feel that this is a response to Children having a bill of rights which prevents health insurers refusing them treatment through pre-existing conditions?

Artful Dodger: It seems insurance rates have been going up for years above inflation. It appears looking there is more than just "Obamacare" being responsible.. maybe it's profit margins.. or that in the future the health companies can claim money from the government regarding rates.

As for private enterprise keeping prices down... why is it then the cost of getting to wind tunnel tests of the American version of Concorde cost via private contractors £1.5 billion.. yet the UK and French government built Concorde for £1.5 billion??

And (as you probably read) the running costs of the USA current system is giving you less actual care per dollar than our *cough* socialist (actually it's a mix of NHS/Private/Charitable) run system.

But such points you do not tend to address.

Artful Dodger: .... ????? All the talk regarding the new healthcare system is that of the 40 million uninsured is that they will be able to have affordable insurance, so yes they WILL be able to contribute and by law (see 2014 new rules) WILL have to through state insurance exchanges or by paying a tax.

Also that right wing speech you posted neglects to talk about the practice of rescission that is in practice a "cancel coverage when you get sick" system.

... Did you not hear about Wellpoint and how they actively targetted women with breast cancer to find a way (via the small print) to cancel their health coverage?

Artful Dodger: ... The health care providers in the USA already think like this...

"If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing?"

... everyone paying into the system.

"This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system."

.. so it's a case of lets leave 30 million without the same quality of healthcare as we get...... sounds like nimby talk!! A class system.

BP have been in the news again over the cement used to line the drill hole... Claims have been made through testing that the cement used was not upto standard and that both BP and Haliburton knew it. Also that certain tests to confirm the stability of said cement once in place were not done.

... The test is a basic safety test laid down in the "how to drill safely" manual.

Pedro Martínez: The policeman is still suspended till the inquiry next year.

Yet.... there is a matter of forensics... some weird stuff going on this subject.

.... some a bit suspicious ....

Artful Dodger: I imagine the same way some Conservatives fill their head with nonsense.