Kim Jong Il Dies

Micrówave wrote:

America is statistically the worst with regards to:
Health care

>>Really?  I can look at those ads on TV about poor African countries.  If we’re so bad, how come they need $19 a month to feed 10 children?<<

I said "civilized countries."  Most of Africa (if not all) does not qualify.  So by implying that the US health care system is doing fine only when compared to Africa (and not any other civilized country), I think the flimsiness of the argument speaks for itself.

life expectancy

>>US currently ranks #36.  Pakistan at 135, Russia at 136. Ethiopia at 168.    67.2 is the world average, US is 80.8
WHAT LIST ARE YOUGOING OFF OF???<<

This one - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The US is ranked 50th, and nearly every other civilized nation is above them.

>>Ok, Al Gore.  Now are you getting this from his website or do you have facts?<<

Al Gore may not be perfect, but his stances on climate change are in line with 98% of scientists.  An overwhelming majority.  Most people can't understand the science, but they can relate to bullying, hence why guys like Gore are bullied.  Here's your science lesson:

Carbon dioxide, which humans emit into the atmosphere in great amounts, is a heat-trapping gas.  Storms have become more frequent and more violent (notice the disproportionate number of natural disasters lately?), and temperatures go up (average temperatures worldwide have greatly increased over the last couple decades).  Conservative estimates say Florida will be under water in 100 years, as the Arctic ice caps are melting.  This is the science.  The people spreading most of the anti-global warming propaganda are the same people who spread propaganda in the 60s saying cigarettes didn't cause cancer.  The only people who stand much to lose are the oil companies, because renewable energy cannot be taxed.

>>Urban SO2 Concentration:  Argentina #1, US #21, Russia #47   (not all data was available for all countries)
Energy Consumption (Per Mil. $ GDP)  {biggest wasters of the world} :  Denmark #1, UK #10, US #28, Ukraine #71
Environmental Regulatory Regime Index: Finland #1, UK #13, US #14, Mexico #48, #71 Paraguay<<

Fair play.  But try this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_199-environment-pollution-carbon-dioxide-1999

The US is #6 in CO2 emissions.  China is obviously #1, but they aren't on the list because their government doesn't measure it.  CO2 emission is by far the most important environmental measurement.

YourValentine wrote:

For example Ron Paul - surely an extreme ultra-liberal

=====================

Definitely not.  He's a real republican.  He's fiscally conservative, and he doesn't believe in evolution or abortion.  He rejects the military complex, and wants to pay off the debt by greatly reducing defense spending.  He doesn't speak with scripted talking points, and is therefore the only republican at debates who appears intelligent and passionate.  And above all, he's the only one who isn't bought out by corporate America.

He doesn't buy the idea that one must be pro-war to be a republican.  But for this simple reason he will never be elected, because war is big business.

"He doesn't buy the idea that one must be pro-war to be a republican. 
But for this simple reason he will never be elected, because war is big
business"

THEN AGAIN, one COULD hope after the Vietnam-like embarrassment that was the Iraq war (as well as the difficulties going on with Afghanistan), the American people will wake up and see that electing people to spend 1+ trillion $ on military ventures might not be such a good idea after all...fucking Bush-propping morons...

Bob - I do not know what "republican" means to describe a political view. Does it mean someone prefers a repbulic to a monarchy? I think that "ultra-liberal" is the correct way to describe Ron Paul's political views and I mean "describing", not "judging". Liberal meaning "small government" . For me it is extreme when someone puts small government above the welfare of the poorer part of the society but I do respect Ron Paul for sticking to his views over the decades notwithstanding who is in power in Washington. I totally agree with his views on the wars of the Bush regime and I agree very much with him in his views about the constitution and how it has been violated by the Iraq war . Ron Paul's speech about Julian Assange in the congress was a highlight for me last year. On the other hand I very much believe that a complex and civilized society needs mandatory health care - it may be liberal to let people die for lack of money but it is not human imo. Still - someone like Ron Paul who is honest and sticks to his views and does not compromise them is a welcome contrast to all the corrupt politicians with no values and no honour whose true agenda keeps being hidden from the public . We can always disagree and have a different view on the world but it must be discussed openly and then a society can make majority choices. And I am not referring to the USA - I am referring to my own country just as much.

Yes, but then he goes off the deep end too often with jewels like:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." –1992 newsletter on the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict

"AIDS sufferers enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." -1992 newsletter

YourValentine wrote: >>Bob - I do not know what "republican" means to describe a political view. Does it mean someone prefers a repbulic to a monarchy?<< No, nothing remotely that deep.  It's just the name of the more right-wing of the two parties in the US. >>I think that "ultra-liberal" is the correct way to describe Ron Paul's political views and I mean "describing", not "judging". Liberal meaning "small government".<< I can totally see that from a European perspective.  But in the US and even in Canada, "smaller government" is something conservatives rally for.  But it is just a talking point from their playbook... there's absolutely no truth to that claim in practice. Back to Ron Paul ... he is a conservative, in the sense that he wants to restore things to the way they once were, and stick to traditional values.  One meaning of conservative in the US sense is to be patriotic, and he is a constitutional conservative.  He is a fiscal conservative too.  That's what conservative is supposed to mean.  But over the past few decades, in practice it has greatly changed.  It now means putting money into the pockets of the biggest corporations (oil, food, pharma, etc) in whatever way possible, regardless if it's at the expense of the people or the environment.  I wish I was only describing the US, but Canada is pretty much the same thing now. As far as I understand, social conservatism in Europe isn't nearly as right wing as it is here.  Does your ruling party in Germany (even though it is "liberal conservatism") rule like a Green party in the sense that environmental considerations are often made when passing legislation?  I realize that in itself is a bit of a loaded question because you have a coalition government, and probably always will.  I can only admire that.  European governments continue to fascinate me and I want to learn.

Barb, I knew what you meant by 'ultra liberal' right away. :). The political term that would express that in the US is'libertarian'. Ron Paul is indeed a libertarian and conservative, though his ideas put him at odds with his own conservative party often.  Any form of 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' here implies left leaning/progressive views and generally a larger and more domestically interventionist federal government.  Ron Paul shares some positions with the left but few if any ideals.

GratefulFan wrote:

Any form of 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' here implies left leaning/progressive views and generally a larger and more domestically interventionist federal government.

===================

And that's just so ridiculous, because conservative governments are also interventionist (top of the list - they go out of their way to ensure corporations thrive in impunity).  They just purport not to be, and it keeps working on the apathetic and clueless public.  Talking point, smile for the camera, rinse, lather, repeat.

oops - looks like he supports racist views, as well?

Interesting how such labels are used differently . I cannot think of a German equivalent of "libertarian". In Germany a liberal is someone who promotes free, unregulated markets and very small government intervention. The liberals believe that the government hurts the basic rights of rich people when money is transferred to the poorer part of the society. Liberals never had much support in the voting public but they have more influence than voters due to being needed as a coalition partner.

Fiscal conservatism - I had to look that up and I think all our parties plead for debt control and spending control but when they are in power they increase the debt. The ruling Christian democrats are regarded as "conservatives" but that is only a label these days. They promote Christian values but the president is a divorced Catholic, the foreign minister  a married gay man and  pre-implantation diagnostics was recently allowed in a new law. On the other hand the social democrats, who uphold the principles os equal chances and social security was the party who made the deepest cut into our social security system since WW2. All parties believe in the protection of the environment  - climate change is universally regarded as a big threat that needs drastic action and saving of resources is a goal that is supported by goverment funding.

Patriots - a word that is hardly ever used in my country. Since the Nazis totally discredited such words there is no such value as "patriotism". I never owned flag in my whole life and the first time I saw German flags in the street was the football world cup in 2006. Loving your country just for the sake of it is a alien idea for many people.  We can be (cautiously) proud of our achievements but try not to be too happy about it in order to not annoy our neighbours with whom we want to live in peace in a big European family.

All in all I think that we are a moderate country with people not fighting in a way we can see in tbe USA. There is a much broader social consensus and a much broader middle ground although people are increasingly frustrated by politicians who create social decline as well as unthinkable dangers in favour of corporate industry and the banking system. For example people have the attitude that "if we have to bail out Greece, I guess we have to bail them out" but at the same time they are angry with "the politicians" who created that situation.  I cannot imagine we would see an opposition fighting the elected government with tooth and nails disregarding  the country's well being and calling themselves "patriots". That does not mean we have a perfect sytem - far from it. When I say (for example) we have universal healthcare and a broad consensus supporting it - it does not mean we have "perfect healthcare" - on the contrary. We spend much too much money on beaurocracy, medication is more expensive than in any other European country and the cost a are increasing each year. On the other hand when  my husband recently had a very critical heart condition he received prompt treatment and surgery on the same day and we did not need to pay a cent . I think this is worth a lot of compromises and tax raises knowing that your health problems are taken care of immediately with no risk of losing your lifetime savings.

Ron Paul reminds of nothing quite so much as of the Dixiecrats.

A story that appeals to big business ("small government", "fiscal responsibility" and all kinds of empty words like that) is used to hide a very simple agenda: States' Rights. Ron Paul wants only one thing - to kill federal government, so that the uncivilized States (roughly 35 out of 50) can drag America down unhindered.