Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wow Obama and religion in the same thread..........Flame war in 5........4.......
Joking aside from what I have heard the current American system is good for really specialist healthcare (such as really rare conditions ect) but the British system of healthcare is better for the everyday stuff (if you catch my drift ).
The NHS is not perfect by a long shot but IMO is a more human way of doing things. The more we do for those in need the more we are defined as people in my opinion.
Isn't it kind of stupid to ask this question now? Who gives a damn what anyone thinks about Barack Obama...anyone expressing an opinion after only six months of a four-year term are either:
1) A Republican whose mind was already made up
2) A Democrat whose mind was already made up
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
If you asked most people how Dumbya was doing two years into his first term they probably would have said he was a great President; but now that we can look back on his eight years we can see pretty clearly that history is going to judge as one of if not the most retardedly-stupid Presidents of all time who wiped his nose with the Constituion, helped ruined the economy with his stupid play-to-the-base tax cuts, enabled the whacko right wingers which gives us the Birther and Deather idiocies (but which are good for Democrats as the Republican Party is poised to destroy itself and good riddance, time for a new proper moderate party and let the stuck-in-the-last century holdouts all die out so we can get this country moving into the 21st), basically pissed away the lives of thousands of American soldiers in wars that didn't make us safer while ignoring threats like Iran and North Korea which actually could be and ARE dangerous...
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...
"Success is moving from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." - Cliff Bleszinski
Cairnius wrote:Isn't it kind of stupid to ask this question now? Who gives a damn what anyone thinks about Barack Obama...anyone expressing an opinion after only six months of a four-year term are either:
1) A Republican whose mind was already made up
2) A Democrat whose mind was already made up
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
Aren't you the Buzz Killington, going around pointing out the obvious that doesn't matter. There are also people far more informed and educated on the subject then either of us and they give out opinions. Your list of possible people posters is woefully inadequate and ill-informed.
Although this thread seems to have gone off the rails a bit since it started. It has gone from 'what do you think of him?' and more 'what do you think of his administrations current policies?', which is a completely different thing.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I just love how so many right wingers were pointing out that you couldn't judge a president after their full term, it would take decades for people to fully understand the complexity of their position. So Bush may have just finished his eighth year in office but we should ignore those opinion polls. But we should taking opinion polls on Obama 200 days into his term as gospel.
As for Obama, he's just a charismatic centrist. His platform basically consists of a steady hand on foreign policy and the introduction of a few pieces of long overdue legislation to reform disfunctional parts of the US. These ideas have been met with panicked, willfully ignorant reactionaries. A lot of people seem to be assuming this is a racial thing but I don't think it is as the same vitriol is being shown towards all elements of the Democratic party. It seems to be the next step along, as the pundits say crazier and crazier things to outdo each other (remember when O'Reilly was the most hardline? Now I'm quietly waiting someone crazier than Glenn Beck), and the dedicated followers eat it up, no matter how ridiculous it is. Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
Meanwhile, GG you're an interesting cat. Your arguments here on healthcare have been really well put, and yet there's that ID thing. You remind me of a cousin of mine, where on a whole load of issues we can agree not just on the conclusion, but we POV we approach the issue from, and all the reasoning to reach the conclusion. Yet then we hit another issue and I cannot understand their reasoning at all. At some point down the line we're going to end up arguing about ID again, and somewhere in the middle of that conversation it may get a little heated. If that happens, just remind me of this thread.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Cairnius wrote:
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.
Wait, I thought part of living in a democracy was being ever-vigilant; always looking out for your own rights, and ensuring that your representatives understand what you want, or don't want done. That whole business pretty much requires forming an opinion on the current leadership (note that I am referring to the leader as defined by his policy, not his personality).
And, on that note.
Cairnius wrote:
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...
Meet...
Cairnius wrote:
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.
Your argument against forming opinions with respect to the current President has roughly the same amount of worth when applied to recent Presidents. It almost seems as if your entire list was constructed as a form of self-critiquing projection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/14 05:29:25
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote:I just love how so many right wingers were pointing out that you couldn't judge a president after their full term, it would take decades for people to fully understand the complexity of their position. So Bush may have just finished his eighth year in office but we should ignore those opinion polls. But we should taking opinion polls on Obama 200 days into his term as gospel.
As for Obama, he's just a charismatic centrist. His platform basically consists of a steady hand on foreign policy and the introduction of a few pieces of long overdue legislation to reform disfunctional parts of the US. These ideas have been met with panicked, willfully ignorant reactionaries. A lot of people seem to be assuming this is a racial thing but I don't think it is as the same vitriol is being shown towards all elements of the Democratic party. It seems to be the next step along, as the pundits say crazier and crazier things to outdo each other (remember when O'Reilly was the most hardline? Now I'm quietly waiting someone crazier than Glenn Beck), and the dedicated followers eat it up, no matter how ridiculous it is. Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I'm not a huge fan of him (I didn't vote for him), but he doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly stupid or immoral.
Considering I don't usually like politicians anyways, I guess that puts me in the "approve" category.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
sebster wrote:
Right now there are people saying that the healthcare bill will have death panels to decide if you're worthy of healthcare, and there are idiots out there believing it and heading out to protest it. Intellectual honesty has been utterly forgotten.
I work at a health club as a personal trainer/desk staff. When I'm on desk staff duty I read a lot. Mostly stuff on political theory (shocking, I know). I get asked multiple questions (I assume this is because of my reading preferences), daily, about my position on national healthcare. I always answer "no" because its work, and I need my job. Invariably it breaks down like this:
Dude: Really? Well, did you hear that the bill advocates euthanasia?
Me: I've read the House bill, at least 4 times, and it does no such thing.
Dude: Well, you're just naive.
Me: Right. Literacy is equivalent to naivete?
sebster wrote:
It basically reduces the right wing to obstructionism, with no capability for contribution. It means that there is little informed, honest debate of the proposals for healthcare reform, and looking at many of the proposals debate is badly needed. It means if a bill gets passed it is unlikely to address the core issues driving the cost blow outs (outrageous admin costs, profiteering on vital drugs), nor the core issues leading to so many deaths (little access to preventative care, insurance companies denying care). It might stop so many people being bankrupted, though.
Amusingly enough, this plays into the standard right-wing critique of the state as a body of people interested only in the acquisition of power.
sebster wrote:
It's a shame, one of the strengths of democracy is debate leading to improved legislation. If the Republican opposition spent their time pointing out the compromises in the current bill that won't lead to savings, such as the agreement not to use bulk buying power to secure lower prices for drugs from pharmaceutical companies, you might end up with a better bill. But instead you just hear complaints that the bill is 1,000 pages, there's death panels and it's socialism.
A lot of this has to do with matters of scale. The US is the largest established democracy in the world (India has similar problems, and is not yet what I would consider established) so one can expect simplification for the masses.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
It depends how you look at it. If you accept centrist as the centre point of politics, then by US standards he's centre left. By the standard of Western style democracies he's centre right (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
On the other hand, you can ignore tha political axis and just look at his politics. 'Centrist' is often used to describe someone that looks to build support for their politics by building conensus support, who doesn't argue from ideological frameworks. That describes Obama's approach pretty well, I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I work at a health club as a personal trainer/desk staff. When I'm on desk staff duty I read a lot. Mostly stuff on political theory (shocking, I know). I get asked multiple questions (I assume this is because of my reading preferences), daily, about my position on national healthcare. I always answer "no" because its work, and I need my job. Invariably it breaks down like this:
Dude: Really? Well, did you hear that the bill advocates euthanasia?
Me: I've read the House bill, at least 4 times, and it does no such thing.
Dude: Well, you're just naive.
Me: Right. Literacy is equivalent to naivete?
I liked Pat Buchanan's effort, he was saying how dangerous it was to have concepts such like those in the bill. When it was pointed out no such concepts were in the bill, he retorted 'it's 1,000 pages!' Who could know what's in the bill, reading it is unthinkable.
Amusingly enough, this plays into the standard right-wing critique of the state as a body of people interested only in the acquisition of power.
That's been the joke for a while. Politicians running on a platform of how corrupt and incompetent politicians are will almost always do everything possible to prove it once they're elected.
A lot of this has to do with matters of scale. The US is the largest established democracy in the world (India has similar problems, and is not yet what I would consider established) so one can expect simplification for the masses.
We're only a little country over here but you wouldn't find too many people here reading a 1,000 page bill. Not many would even read a summarised version (and there are summarised versions of the healthcare bill available). But even without reading the bill in any form, I think everyone has the critical faculties to know that there won't really be a clause in it about death panels. But people want to believe such silliness, other people are happy to sell them such lies, and so they are told and they believe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/14 08:35:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
I mean, he is black
sebster wrote:
I liked Pat Buchanan's effort, he was saying how dangerous it was to have concepts such like those in the bill. When it was pointed out no such concepts were in the bill, he retorted 'it's 1,000 pages!' Who could know what's in the bill, reading it is unthinkable.
That made me sad, because normally I respect Pat.
sebster wrote:
That's been the joke for a while. Politicians running on a platform of how corrupt and incompetent politicians are will almost always do everything possible to prove it once they're elected.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
sebster wrote:
We're only a little country over here but you wouldn't find too many people here reading a 1,000 page bill. Not many would even read a summarised version (and there are summarised versions of the healthcare bill available). But even without reading the bill in any form, I think everyone has the critical faculties to know that there won't really be a clause in it about death panels. But people want to believe such silliness, other people are happy to sell them such lies, and so they are told and they believe.
Sadly, I'm forced to agree with you. The sadness isn't from your agreement, but from the agreement of Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris. Stains.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/14 08:54:49
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ahtman wrote:This isn't how you feel about Obama, this is how you feel other people feel about Obama.
He's only a centrist if your center is a bit left of center. He is no where near as left as some want to make him out to be, but he does lean a bit left.
It depends how you look at it. If you accept centrist as the centre point of politics, then by US standards he's centre left. By the standard of Western style democracies he's centre right (one of the more bizarre things in recent politics is the number of left wing youngsters around the world falling over themselves to show support for the guy, when if he was a local politician he be far too right wing for them).
Strangely enough I am looking at the American President from the point of view of an American voter under American Politics. Whether China thinks he is right wing because he is right of their politics is unimportant to me. He is passing legislation through the American system and thus has to deal with the unique qualities of it as such. In that context he is left, the only one that really matters.
sebster wrote:On the other hand, you can ignore tha political axis and just look at his politics. 'Centrist' is often used to describe someone that looks to build support for their politics by building conensus support, who doesn't argue from ideological frameworks. That describes Obama's approach pretty well, I think.
That is one possible way of looking at moderate but not the only one. Even by this definition though his dialogue is more moderate than the reality of his politics. He talks a mean bi-partisan game but I'm not sure it is playing out beyond that.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I think that's probably a bigger factor in his international popularity that it is in his domestic popularity. But there's also the point that he's not Bush.
That made me sad, because normally I respect Pat.
Really? I mean, he's said some pretty outrageous stuff over the years. He's also said plenty of reasonable stuff, and is valued because he does speak his own mind and not parrot party position, but I'm surprised you'd have that much time for him. Interesting.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
If hypothetical Dogma ran for hypothetical election I would hypothetically vote for him.
Sadly, I'm forced to agree with you. The sadness isn't from your agreement, but from the agreement of Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris. Stains.
Sure. Nor is it only the rightwing believing in nonsense, but lately it seems their nonsense is more ridiculous and more commonly believed. Maybe there isn't a great sweeping cause, maybe it's just hard to be a Republican in the wake of Bush, and they really need to believe some horrible things about the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Strangely enough I am looking at the American President from the point of view of an American voter under American Politics. Whether China thinks he is right wing because he is right of their politics is unimportant to me. He is passing legislation through the American system and thus has to deal with the unique qualities of it as such. In that context he is left, the only one that really matters.
Whereas, strangely enough, as I'm not an American I am looking at an international leader from the point of international politics .
That is one possible way of looking at moderate but not the only one. Even by this definition though his dialogue is more moderate than the reality of his politics. He talks a mean bi-partisan game but I'm not sure it is playing out beyond that.
That's a fair point, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced it completely works out that way. Obama's plans of consensus building have fallen over, but I'm not sure that's because Obama never intended it, but because of the realities of US politics right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/14 10:10:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Time for me to get elected. Elect me Dakka! I hate Gwar!(that seems to limit my vote-field a great deal).
Feth the elections, with that sort of wide ranging policy and portfolio you got my vote, from now on I'll be calling you El Presidente, I'll bring in the tanks and prepare a firing squad. You'll get the biggest hat and most medals. Change everyone can believe in...Or else...
No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
BTW a key reason for the popularity of Obama among lots of non-US people is that he isn't Bush.
Right-wingers in the USA don't realise how unpopular Bush managed to make himself, and his country.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong or that anyone in the US should care about it.
His preference for Marvel over DC comics saddens me greatly.
And he seems to at least to be able to relate to people in a way that Brown just cannot.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
well it is actually. Going around apologizing. No thanks apologize for yourself not for me. Hate the USA? Fine we can hate you back.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:well it is actually. Going around apologizing. No thanks apologize for yourself not for me. Hate the USA? Fine we can hate you back.
It's nothing to do with "hatin" the USA or not, it's, at the very least, just basic manners which goes along way to getting things done.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
You mean like sending ships to and bilions to help the victims of the Tsunami; sending armies to defend muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia; getting good men killed trying to keep murders from stealing food meant for people starving to death in Somalia; taking out a dictator who's kids got their jollies putting people into wood chippers? Have 40,000 troops in some pissant country to keep Dear Leader from invading again? Yea we're freaking evil and bad mannered. You mean like risking the lives of every man, woman, and child in the USA to provide a nuclear shield so Europe could sip coffee and declaim how boorish and bad mannered we are?
Nuts and get over yourselves. Obama's gone around for six months sucking the world's lower regions and no additional aid has come to stop Iran, to help in Afghanistan (despite that whole NATO treaty thing), anything. You cluck cluck how oh the world likes us but don't do gak different. Forget you we should go our own way. None of the rest of the world is worth one US serviceman's life, except UK/Australia/Canada who have been allies throughout.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Kilkrazy wrote:No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
You miss the point. they make huge documents so that they get passed through without true scrutiny.
Same reason why dictats are handed out in healthcare and education. they are so big a lot of damaging junk gets carried through. Most of all this gets passed onto local government. Sometimes the long bs gets translated down into something simple and nasty, such as 'you need to pass your budgets through us now'. knownin g some town and county councils (from two different parties and in several different areas) I am seeing a very nasty control trend. veiled under an enormous pile of junk.
The New Labour junta, yes it is one has passed a lot of laws on the backs of unrelated bills. other bills have transparnet double meanings.
If anyone wants to get all ignorant over this let me expalin this , anecdote, <smiles>. Q. How did Gordon Brown deal with the icelandic banks funds. A. Prevention of terrorism act. Now even the most ignorant dogma swallowing denier will have to accept, or should accept that Icelandic banking was not a terror issue. nevertheless a principle remains Dakkites should be familiar with the Law is RAW, intent means squat, furthermore some beleive the intent is to veil the laws.
Best, as in most frightening example is the new Mental Health act. The RAW initially allowed the state to detain ANYONE on the opinion of a single uncorroborated 'Mental Health Professional' who could be anyone appointed for the task by the Home Secretary. The victim (my term, but refering to whoever the state considers mad) has no appeal, even through thier doctors, and no doctor can overturn the 'Mental Health Professional''s verdict, and the verdict listed as his 'opinion' in the act need not be openly defended. Once detained the 'Mental Health Professional' can set strictures in up to IIRC six areas assuming the victim is released at all. These include limits on where the victim can go, who they can see, what they can do and stipulations on where they must live. These strictures have no expiry date built in and can be made permenant. Failure to adhere to any of these strictures places the victim at risk of arrest (thus making it a criminal law issue).
This Bill was passed in the Commons in 2007 but defeated and heavily ammended in the Lords. Undetered the government is trying to bring it back.
Crap like this gets passed because its heavily veiled in lengthy documentation, or in the case of the Mental Health act processed quietly. BBC doesnt cover it, the only way you get to find out is if you bother to read the acts yourself. The UK is sleepwalking into Stalinism, and most poeple are too blind to see it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/14 14:02:47
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Lots of the kind of stuff you are talking about was discovered and covered by the better quality media e.g. Radio 4 and The Grauniad and warned about before the bills such as Terrorism Act 2000 was passed into law.
Parliament passed the Acts, probably by use of the government's majority, and they became law despite the warnings against them and problems have come up since as was predicted.
But on Obama, let's just quote "You're the President? I didn't vote for you.".
I mean he has said some good things like how education is the key to the future. However that doesn't make up for the fact that Mrs. Obama went to england for fish and chips on the taxpayers expense or how they used air force 1 to get a better look at the fireworks. Couple that with him saying that we all need to cutback expenses makes him look like a deustch.
It actually makes you wonder if healthcare reform would have a better chance if the Dems *didn't* have the large majority. That'd mean Pelosi and co. might have had to work in a more bipartisan manner up to this point, which might mean a GOP that didn't feel so backed into a corner and thus more willing to actually debate this particular issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @halonachos: The great irony is that some of the same people that told Gore supporters to "GET OVER IT" now say "Obama's not MY president."
Barack Obama is your president, just as George Bush was and just as Warren Harding or James Buchanan would have been if you'd lived back then. You don't have to respect the person, but you have to respect the rank/position.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/08/14 14:26:19
reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?
Hussein wasn't violent?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:No-one has time to read a 1,000 page bill. There simply isn't time to read that much verbiage and get on with the rest of your job.
There was a cabinet minister (UK) on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago discussing this very issue and she said she was unable to read anything more than summaries except of the most crucial legislation she dealt with.
One answer to the problem is not to write 1,000 page bills. Another is to let the details get sorted out through the committee stages.
You miss the point. they make huge documents so that they get passed through without true scrutiny.
Same reason why dictats are handed out in healthcare and education. they are so big a lot of damaging junk gets carried through. Most of all this gets passed onto local government. Sometimes the long bs gets translated down into something simple and nasty, such as 'you need to pass your budgets through us now'. knownin g some town and county councils (from two different parties and in several different areas) I am seeing a very nasty control trend. veiled under an enormous pile of junk.
The New Labour junta, yes it is one has passed a lot of laws on the backs of unrelated bills. other bills have transparnet double meanings.
If anyone wants to get all ignorant over this let me expalin this , anecdote, <smiles>. Q. How did Gordon Brown deal with the icelandic banks funds. A. Prevention of terrorism act. Now even the most ignorant dogma swallowing denier will have to accept, or should accept that Icelandic banking was not a terror issue. nevertheless a principle remains Dakkites should be familiar with the Law is RAW, intent means squat, furthermore some beleive the intent is to veil the laws.
Best, as in most frightening example is the new Mental Health act. The RAW initially allowed the state to detain ANYONE on the opinion of a single uncorroborated 'Mental Health Professional' who could be anyone appointed for the task by the Home Secretary. The victim (my term, but refering to whoever the state considers mad) has no appeal, even through thier doctors, and no doctor can overturn the 'Mental Health Professional''s verdict, and the verdict listed as his 'opinion' in the act need not be openly defended. Once detained the 'Mental Health Professional' can set strictures in up to IIRC six areas assuming the victim is released at all. These include limits on where the victim can go, who they can see, what they can do and stipulations on where they must live. These strictures have no expiry date built in and can be made permenant. Failure to adhere to any of these strictures places the victim at risk of arrest (thus making it a criminal law issue).
This Bill was passed in the Commons in 2007 but defeated and heavily ammended in the Lords. Undetered the government is trying to bring it back.
Crap like this gets passed because its heavily veiled in lengthy documentation, or in the case of the Mental Health act processed quietly. BBC doesnt cover it, the only way you get to find out is if you bother to read the acts yourself. The UK is sleepwalking into Stalinism, and most poeple are too blind to see it.
What he said on the US front.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/08/14 14:28:53
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Actually, I don't have to respect the position seeing as though he's supposed to be our servant, not the other way around. Sometimes I believe the government should just go to hell, get burned down, and get rebuilt.
I respect the Constitution, not the government that supposedly represents it.
gorgon wrote:It actually makes you wonder if healthcare reform would have a better chance if the Dems *didn't* have the large majority. That'd mean Pelosi and co. might have had to work in a more bipartisan manner up to this point, which might mean a GOP that didn't feel so backed into a corner and thus more willing to actually debate this particular issue.
Yep. That or he didn't leave it, like the budget and stimulus nightmare, to the left wing of the Democratic Congress. Its like Bush leaving an amnibus security/snooping bill to be crafted by the Captain Frazzled and the Four Paranoids dance troop. What comes out is going to be slanted and unusuable. The fact its so long and full of nightmarish side bits is the exact product of that pureblood methodlogy.
What you're getting now is the heavy counterattack. If done properly that will even out the nonsense and we'll get something smaller but more productive. This is democracy in its finest form. Its nonviolent democratic WAR at its finest. I love the smell of chaotic republicanism in the morning! It smells like...victory.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @halonachos: The great irony is that some of the same people that told Gore supporters to "GET OVER IT" now say "Obama's not MY president."
Barack Obama is your president, just as George Bush was and just as Warren Harding or James Buchanan would have been if you'd lived back then. You don't have to respect the person, but you have to respect the rank/position.
You can respect the office, but think its current occupier could use improvement.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You mean like sending ships to and bilions to help the victims of the Tsunami; sending armies to defend muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia; getting good men killed trying to keep murders from stealing food meant for people starving to death in Somalia; taking out a dictator who's kids got their jollies putting people into wood chippers? Have 40,000 troops in some pissant country to keep Dear Leader from invading again? Yea we're freaking evil and bad mannered. You mean like risking the lives of every man, woman, and child in the USA to provide a nuclear shield so Europe could sip coffee and declaim how boorish and bad mannered we are?
Nuts and get over yourselves. Obama's gone around for six months sucking the world's lower regions and no additional aid has come to stop Iran, to help in Afghanistan (despite that whole NATO treaty thing), anything. You cluck cluck how oh the world likes us but don't do gak different. Forget you we should go our own way. None of the rest of the world is worth one US serviceman's life, except UK/Australia/Canada who have been allies throughout.
Ok this is where I get all Republican on ya'll. I agree 100% with Frazz on the issue of Bush Hate and America hate. Was Bush perfect? Nope..Is America Perfect...Nope. Bush made mistakes in the people he selected to "help" him govern. Especially Rumsfeld, and Cheney. However much I am personally disapointed in the way the Iraq war was handled, the thing people seem to forget is that when you wake a sleeping giant, trees tend to get knocked over. Is it right..not saying it is, I'm just being a realist.
On to the America hate...people seem to forget that the U.S.A. was the only country in 1945 with atomic bombs. If we really wanted to, we could have held the world hostage or bombed our way across every capital city in the world.
).
.
