The Grim Hamster lord

What's the point in getting married when the entire concept of marriage is of subservience to the man and of a male-female relationship? So if a couple just lives together, then there is no subservience? Not if they choose not to. If you choose to serve, then its your choice. In marriage, you have to swear to be subservient regardless of what you want, what you believe in and what happens in the future. I thought they took those words out of the marriage vows. Depends on which denomination you are and which Bible you use. The majority still stick to the traditional version. And of course, homosexuals are not allowed anywhere near the pulpit.

What's the point in getting married when the entire concept of marriage is of subservience to the man and of a male-female relationship? So if a couple just lives together, then there is no subservience? Not if they choose not to. If you choose to serve, then its your choice. In marriage, you have to swear to be subservient regardless of what you want, what you believe in and what happens in the future.

What's the point in getting married when the entire concept of marriage is of subservience to the man and of a male-female relationship?

Indeed it is terrible, Benazir Bhutto is a wonderful pro-democracy figure for Pakistan, and perhaps one who can help the country modernise and become more open. This attack is the same as the Burma (Mayanmar) Regime's crackdown on Aung San Suu Kyi's efforts to bring democracy to the country. Remember folks, no matter what FOX News says, OJ Simpson's trial is the not the only news going on.

Disgusting.

Apparently small, poor children are not allowed to be given health care through taxation on cigarettes because this would be "socialised healtcare." George Bush is now not only killing Iraqi children, he's killing American children. Why is this not provoking outrage? Why is it consigned to one section of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart? Also, can the CIA stop trying to kill Putin? I know a gang of suicide bombers blowing themselves up when he comes to visit Tehran next week would be tempting, but its the wrong move. Seriously now. Stop.

Profits are the pinnacle of human achievement now? You know, it is possible to have a word class healthcare system free at the point of use and have a healthy economy. We certainly manage it. Of course, only being ranked 5th might have something to do with that we don't manage to consume over a quarter of the World's Resources for only 4.4% of the World's Population. And Horatio, while I appreciate the Objectivism of American society will never die down sufficiently to allow such a thing to happen, I was curious as to your own personal feelings on such a system. My own personal feelings would be for a health care policy that combines the best of both worlds. For example, for all basic health care needs, emergency care and other life saving surgeries, then use the system you have. For electives, such as face-lifts and medical procedures that are desired, but not required, then the patient would have to pay for this procedure. I am not too sure of the details of your system, and need more information, but this is what I think we should have here. Let me think more and refine this plan, but that is kind of what is off the top of my head. That sounds very much like our system. Certain things like plastic surgery, non-necessary drugs and vaccinations you have to pay for, but treatment such as hip operations for the elderly, things which aren't necessary as such, but can improve the quality of life of people are free on the NHS. As Wikipedia says (you know it's true because anyone can edit it):

Profits are the pinnacle of human achievement now? You know, it is possible to have a word class healthcare system free at the point of use and have a healthy economy. We certainly manage it. Of course, only being ranked 5th might have something to do with that we don't manage to consume over a quarter of the World's Resources for only 4.4% of the World's Population. And Horatio, while I appreciate the Objectivism of American society will never die down sufficiently to allow such a thing to happen, I was curious as to your own personal feelings on such a system.

If you are referring to Clinton's plan, she has not included the insurance companies in her health plan. I do believe that good healthcare should be available to all, but I also believe that insurance companies need to put people before profits, something they are not doing at the present. That? National Healthcare? Hardly. That's just saying "You, poor people! Here is some money. Go spend it on Health insurance! Be grateful and vote Hillary in the primaries and national elections! Heil Clinton!" I'm talking the full "free at the point of use," government funded service here. Our and... Cuba's system basically. Curse Castro, he's making us seem like those awful communists you like to lynch Where you don't have to pay for treatment, prescription drugs are heavily subsidised, vaccinations are all state-funded and so on and so forth. Where you don't get chucked out on the street for not paying, where you don't have to go and sue in order to have Doctors accountable for their mistakes and you tend to live longer. No implicit judgement there. Is that possible given that the insurance companies are run by humans?

Out of curiosity, how many of you are: a) interested in the idea of a national healthcare service Support the introduction of a national healthcare service c) Are vehemently against a national healthcare service (come on Toto) And some opinions on your own privatised healthcare system if you would and the current state of it.

Sounds like a just and fair punishment to me.

Health Care is one of the biggest concerns for everyone and I do believe you will be seeing more creative plans from the other candidates. NO! NO! NO! Hillary must go! I would never vote for her even if she had the entire country pay zero taxes while she was in office. Unless it is a Cuban prevention-not-cure style socialised health care system, I will probably view it as being yet more punishment for the poor and for the African-American parts of society, which due to the whole "equal in law, but not in society" business tend to be the same people. Excuse me, I'm feeling exceptionally bitter towards the world at the moment, people are being too laissez-faire about that maniac Robert Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe and now even the French are arming for war against Iran. I'd ask for a God to help us all at this point, but I think he has been on holiday since JC died and since fallen off a cliff during some hiking. [/sarcasm] Because she is in it just for the power? And has a big butt?

Point: Hillary Clinton is giving $110 million to the poor via tax relief to allow them to afford health insurance. This is about the best you are going to get in your health care system which means no treatment without payment, no matter how life threatening is (rather throws up a conundrum for members of Pro Life abortion groups who are against the health care system us "European Bureaucracies" have) and has such public resistance to a national health service which is free at the point of use. Discussion: Does this mean Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to vote for on the issues of Health and Poverty, regardless of her failings (supposed or otherwise) in other areas? Other discussion point: Why are you so opposed to allowing people to have free health care?

If Hillary becomes president, I am moving to Europe and saying that I am French. Come across anyway, we don't execute our citizens and we have this rather new [old] fangled thing called "free speech." Don't go to France though, they elected Nicholas Sarkozy who looks like the villain from Sin City. Go live in The Netherlands, in fact the Hague, as it has a wonderfully international feel to the place and its a good way to learn Dutch as most of the people speak English, but then there are the local people who cycle (cycle!) to work each day from the surrounding countryside and are all native Dutch speakers.

I spent 13th July until the 16th August in Madagascar. Then I spent one week in the world British town of Newquay, which is one of the best surfing towns I have ever had the fortune to visit. Horatio will punish me for not informing him before hand of this expedition, but to compensate, I give unto you my Malagasy sunset photo. In fact, why not have two or more:

I have tried to find it in my library, but no luck. I have already read the one on how the British Empire made the world and it irritated me slightly. It was quite a good history book, but at the heart of it I couldn't help feeling that there was a pro-imperialism set of ideas in it and a some very outdated ways of looking at the world. Certainly if the British Amazon description of Colossus is true, Ferguson has some ideals and beliefs which go right against my own convictions. The particular bit which rubs against me is that claiming empire is more necessary in the 21st century and that the American Empire needs to learn from the British Empire. He's certainly naive if he thinks that USA foreign policy is about: "spreading social freedom, democracy, development and the free market to the world."

Did someone mention that racist, white supremacist John Howard?

By Johnny Howard, I take it we mean John Howard that racist, paranoid madman who is currently trying to commit politically correct genocide in Australia?

If you never vote Independent, nothing is ever going to change. Its like saying that you shouldn't go on a protest march because only one million people are out of a country of 300 million. But wait, what if that protest march is on a key issue (yes it is coming) like Civil Rights? Still won't go?

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not. I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged. Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby. I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt. Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch. If only that weren't reality. >.< I have a solution: Don't vote Republican. Don't vote Democrat. Vote Independent or other party. Oh and don't watch, listen or read any of that propaganda Murdoch vomits out onto his various media networks. It's bull.

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not. I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged. Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby. I'm curious as to how the government can get away with being so corrupt. Quite easy, all the things relating to corruption go through a series of secretive bank accounts in Switzerland and if the media does find out about them they won't tell because its all controlled by uber-Fascist Murdoch.

Wait, but Connecticut just reelected Joe Lieberman into the Senate in 2006...does that mean he will leave the seat if he were to be elected president? I'm surprised I didn't know about this, but then again I'm me, so I'm not. I'm not entirely sure. The American political system confuses me due to its large amounts of bureaucracy and slightly sinister electoral system. Sinister in the sense that the electoral colleges smell easily exploitable and easily rigged. Fred Thompson... I don't know. He likes McCain (helping him in 2000), dislikes Cuba and Michael Moore, led Citizens United and made this stupid statement: "When people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask, what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us -- before 9/11." Helped Bush pack the Supreme Court, serves on the International Security Advisory Board and helped the now convicted felon Libby.

*checks jeans* Are we defining Girls Pants as being tight fit, skinny fit or slim fit? As in not skin tight, but skinny enough so that you can see the shape of the legs?

That's a great point you made there. Now that I've seen the democratic contenders together, it doesn't look very exciting on that side. Although the republicans are not too much hotter. Who's the other independent guy? I need to find more information on both of them, actually. One is former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and the other is (socialist) Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Both announced after the mid-term elections that they would usually vote Democrat in the House unless it was something particularly offensive. I say this: Don't vote Edwards. Don't vote McCain. Don't vote Clinton. Vote Bernie! XP I wonder... Horatio, will you endorse any particular candidate for the Democrats or Republicans? Say who you think is the best from those two parties?

I failed to mention that I think that Edwards is a pathetic opportunist who will do anything in an attempt to seize votes? In this debate at least he is. And Clinton may also be an opportunist, but at least she's got a decent senate record behind her in terms of what she has done for New York that is. Look, the 3 main runners are as follows for the Democrats: Edwards Obama Clinton Edwards is an idiotic, limp popularist and opportunist. So no Presidency for him. Obama is too inexperienced, he wasn't even in the Senate when Iraq was being voted on. That leaves us with Clinton which, while she has plenty of negatives, may be a good thing if she keeps on doing what Bill did up until his Lame Duck years. Clinton for President, Obama for Vice-President. Let Hillary have her years in office, then when she steps down, put up Barack Obama who will be experienced from 8 years of Vice-Presidency and lead America with some enthusiasm and liberalism. Best option available. Well actually, not quite... You know the socialist member of the House? I forget his name, but he is one of the two independent candidates. He should be President. Why? The socialist bit. XP You have no idea what you are missing out on with a free health service and functioning welfare state. The Laissez-faire attitude of the Republicans on social and economic issues leads only to inequality, destitution and exploitation after periods of hollow economic glories. The 1920s serves as an excellent example of this; Supposed prosperity for Americans followed by a disastrous and spectacular economic crash which destroys the economy until a convenient war breaks out which allows you to exploit your allies. The prosperity was a myth for a start, as ethnic minorities and farm workers and members of the old industries suffered in the 1920s, and what everyone forgets is that this meant that over half the population was living in poverty, while the other half got rich on consumerism and even that didn't last that long.