so, the entire population?

also none of this applies to me, so i cite "personal attack" as per forum rules. take your trolling away from this thread.


or even letting those who haven't got the right health insurance get shoddy treatment. i recall someone from ubi and the situation with his 18 year old daughter. instead of expensive curative treatment the doctors were just going to go for a hysterectomy, on an 18 year old girl, simply because of them not having the "right" cover. worked every day of his adult life, had what he thought was a good policy only to discover the company found a loophole to avoid paying out.

private healthcare, when it's actually the level of care and not queue-jumping or comfort that you pay for, is dangerous on a societal level. calling national healthcare "wealth distribution" is disingenuous to say the least. i always wonder if people would change their tune should they find themselves bust out of luck, poverty-stricken and reliant on this "wealth distribution."

Because it stops you trying. This is the core of the right wing credo. (**** me, but here I go...) In the UK during the 80's we had a right-wing government which systematically destroyed public services. Their idea was that if the NHS and state education were bad enough, then people would look elsewhere. In order to do this, people needed to earn more money - ie work harder. Plus the economy would be boosted by people paying for said healthcare and education.

it always make me wonder when citizens of the US speak against "aid the poor" politics using the reason that it waste money.

they never mention military spénding (i know im generalizing and generalizing its bad logic),
that really intrigues me, becouse after all its not for the money. if it was they would go 1st for the military $$$$

fyi federal budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

note: 19% defense, 20% social security, 23% medicare/medicaid

The state and local governments also have significant budget dollars going to social welfare programs (e.g., unemployment insurance). Also, all the various charitable organizations (e.g., churches)

Really, being poor in usa is probably quite different than your expectations. Many "poor" in usa have good roof over there heads, food source, modern day appliances...etc. For the homeless, there are shelters and the cities usually accommodate their needs in some fashion. No one is starving to death here. There's actually a whole industry of professional panhandlers that pull scam and make a lot of money by playing the homeless sympathy card. They dress up in crappy clothes with a sign and stand by the freeway everyday and get tax-free monies that they don't report to the IRS. Some make thousands of dollars!

Now ask yourself, that 20% going to defense spending. Do you really think it is just going to defend the USA? Who is getting a free ride on that?

There is a difference between news and commentary. When you watch Sean Hannity you know you are going to get a conservative viewpoint. He states upfront that he is a conservative Republican.

Contrast that with Dan Rather, who always claimed to be objective, but was always anything but.

There is a reason why Fox news came to be and why they have much greater success than any other cable new channel. They serve a market that was apparently under served.

I'm sure this will start an argument from those who deny that the vast majority of all other American media is slanted left and those who arrogantly state "The truth has a liberal bias."

Here is one of your own who admits what is obvious to so many.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/168466360...ylist_id=86856

Watch the video before you claim "It came from Fox, has to be a lie."

MSNBC is at least the liberal equivalent of Fox, and I see more liberal guests on Fox than I ever see conservatives on MSNBC.

The bold part is the crux of the problem. News are not there to please market desires. If they start doing that, then they also will have to adjust their reporting to the likings of their viewers. That is in direct conflict with any kind of objectivity. That also is what tabloids do. Not saying CNN is better, but for sure more in line with western values outside this radical capitalism. I also noticed a tendency in the US to get rid of things altogether instead of fixing them, and ppl a) not thinking in terms of society anymore, but only "me". b) ppl not thinking long term anymore (future generations), but only "now".

This thread, by all means, is living proof of that development.

The US once was more grown up then this. And a more successful country back then.

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

Agreed here. But then it comes back down to cohersion of society. If everybody just choses to believe what he wants, without an agreement on at least some principles, a society won't work long. It may have worked back in the days when ppl and communications were more primitive and less interconnected, today it is potentially destructive.

What makes this even more of a concern is the global influence of the US; which has direct conseqences to the rest of the world.

What do think was the purpose of the ten commandments?

Look at todays economies and the rule they have over politics and tell me what relevence these commandments have nowadays.