If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: Alan Minyard wrote in m: The religious "insight" of Rabin and Arafat had nothing to do with it. So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious insight whatsoever. They were not negotiating based on religion, they were negotiating on secular confrontation. If that was solely the case, they would probably not have signed the deal. You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US?? Living in your fantasy world again. If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush administration has failed to show any proof linking Saddam to 9/11. There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training camps for terrorists. Can you site any of that evidence? Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner statements. And there is quite a bit more to come. Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11? The Baathists were celebrating Well can you cite any of this "plethora" of evidence? http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03 _Press.pd f "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War" "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions. That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious from the fact that PIPA was involved. That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have any examples that show how these polls are supposed to be wrong? If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the outcome of a pole then you are a fool. And goverments can not manipulate, in your view? Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would? You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise a few critical questions in your mind? I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to look at their absolute control of the media during their campaigns for that. In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing" University with an obvious bias. But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view? The structure of the poll was such that a "misconception" was anything that did not agree with the views of said University. I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such. The "Program for International Policy" is very strongly against anything conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as an unbiased observer. Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view? A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it. Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to treat all people with respect, even those who might not deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every person has something positive to bring into our society. It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom, and supporting people who do not feel the need to work for a living. Not at all. Our unemploymentrate is 4%, lower than, say, the US. "Loss of freedom"? I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand the social constructs of small nations on the other side of the pond. First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every two weeks or "living off the system". The system or society in general doesn't encourage that, people work to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to "be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount. "Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means, for instance: free education (right through university), medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or $100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is treated equally. An example of a benefit that the state provides a place at day-care center for children, and in cases where this is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have this paied out in cash every month instead thus financing a private solution instead. I think it's around $450 per. child per. month these days. Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave for care of children (can't think of a better phrase). I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field, with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the parents. Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we can now. Regards... |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:39:13 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious insight whatsoever. They were not negotiating based on religion, they were negotiating on secular confrontation. If that was solely the case, they would probably not have signed the deal. It is easy to sign a document when you have no plans to implement it. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03 _Press.pd f "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War" "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions. That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious from the fact that PIPA was involved. That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have any examples that show how these polls are supposed to be wrong? If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the outcome of a pole then you are a fool. And goverments can not manipulate, in your view? Not the US Government, there is far too much in the way of "checks and balances" Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would? Actually he said that the best evidence available indicated that WMDs existed in Iraq You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise a few critical questions in your mind? The Administration is always under "heavy scrutiny", as were all administrations before, and all Administrations will be in the future. We call it a "free press". I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to look at their absolute control of the media during their campaigns for that. What "absolute control"? In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing" University with an obvious bias. But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view? No, it is unacceptable by either "side", but the US Administration is under scrutiny, while the left is unchecked. The structure of the poll was such that a "misconception" was anything that did not agree with the views of said University. I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such. Simply look at the document that you cited. The "Program for International Policy" is very strongly against anything conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as an unbiased observer. Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view? The White House is not a polling entity. A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it. Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to treat all people with respect, even those who might not deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every person has something positive to bring into our society. "Loss of freedom"? I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand the social constructs of small nations on the other side of the pond. Not at all, we simply do not see any advantage to them. First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every two weeks or "living off the system". The system or society in general doesn't encourage that, people work to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to "be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount. If you "are something" then the free market will reward you with a significant income. "Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means, for instance: free education (right through university), medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or $100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is treated equally. An example of a benefit that the state provides a place at day-care center for children, and in cases where this is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have The US has an excellent network of PRIVATLELY owned and operated day care centers. If you have children, you pay the bill, if you do not have children you are not required to pay for them. Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave for care of children (can't think of a better phrase). I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field, with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the parents. Same as the US. Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we can now. That must be why people are constantly trying to enter the US either legally or illegally. I do not recall Scandinavia having such a problem. People "vote with their feet". Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |