Aller au contenu

GoMontreal

Membre
 Afficher le profil  Parcourir son contenu

  • Compteur de contenus

    495

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    2

 Type de contenu 

Tout ce qui a été posté par GoMontreal

  1. GoMontreal
    En fait, les libéraux, le NPD, et le Bloc forcent tous la main des conservateurs pour qu'ils dépensent plus en «stimulus» sinon ils forcent des élections. C'est triste que les conservateurs laissent la gauche les menées a dépenser. Blâmer les conservateurs de cette manière est pas complètement «accurate».
  2. GoMontreal
    Quoiqu'avec Obama, les choses sont en train de changer à un rythme épeurant...
  3. GoMontreal
    Update: Van Jones, the marxist/communist, has resigned this morning. Can you believe he was not fired? Obviously he wasn't because Obama probably holds the same beliefs and doesn't see anything wrong with it. This editorial was written on friday, therefore before he quit. The 'Green' Trojan Horse By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT Domestic Policy: Among the many controversies swirling around the White House's "green czar," none is more disturbing than his plan to use the green movement to socialize the economy. Read More: General Politics Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles. "The green economy will start off as a small subset" of a "complete revolution" away from "gray capitalism" and toward "redistribution of all the wealth," he said. "And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society." A self-described "communist," Jones caught heat recently for calling Republicans "a**holes." He's also a 9/11 "truther" as it turns out, one of many red flags in a radical past that, remarkably, didn't disqualify him from shaping domestic policy in this White House. Jones apologized for his "inappropriate" remarks concerning Republicans while distancing himself from the nutty people calling for an investigation of the Bush administration for bombing the Twin Towers on 9/11. Jones signed a petition pushing for such a witch hunt, even though the Ivy League lawyer claims he didn't know what he was signing. But he hasn't been made to answer for his communist beliefs, which are even deeper than first thought. Trying to change the subject, Jones insisted his work at the White House is "entirely focused on one goal: building clean-energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources." That doesn't tell the full story. As the president's "green-jobs czar," it's clear Jones has a hidden agenda. Judging from his own words, his environmental concerns appear to be a front for creating a massive new welfare program — complete with paid job training and counseling — for criminals. Jones has a shockingly soft spot for felons. Before joining the White House, he agitated against "the punishment industry," which he claims profits from a "racist war" against people of color. He has called U.S. prisons "slave ships on dry land" and has served on panels calling for an end to prisons and the freeing of all inmates. The former Oakland, Calif., community organizer has said he wants to "build a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy," including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices. He secured grants to start a Green Job Corps in Oakland. In his 2006 memoir, President Obama proposed government-subsidized green jobs "to hire and train ex-felons on projects" such as "insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient." Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who worked with Jones in California as a congresswoman, has already put such plans in motion. Jones' "green jobs, not jails" program is but a "radical kernel" of what Jones says he wants to reap. He intends to use the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy. "Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to 'eco-capitalism' where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet," Jones said. "Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether." Beyond our system of capitalism to communism, is what he means. Though Obama's father was a Marxist, there's no indication the president subscribes to Jones' vision. But Obama and Jones share a common background in the same Marxism-steeped faith: Black Liberation Theology, which we first warned voters about years ago. The father of the movement — James Cone — believes that by merging Marxism with the Gospel, African-Americans will be liberated. "Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society." Cone mentored Obama's longtime preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a big fan of Marxist regimes. Wright has made a number of comments over the years that have been described as anti-capitalist and anti-American, and that suggest he believes deep conspiracies drive American politics. We also warned that it's dangerous for a presidential aspirant to surround himself throughout his career with a coterie of radicals. They could wind up in the White House making policy. Van Jones is Exhibit A.
  4. GoMontreal
    Wishful thinking! Ce n'est pas dans la tradition de fonctionnaire d'être productif, c'est contre nature pour un fonctionnaire typique.
  5. GoMontreal
    Le protectionisme est vraiment stupide et va contre toute les lois de marché, d'offre et de demande, et évidement du vrai capitalisme. D'après moi, il a raison de dire ça. Par contre, de dire qu'il doivent agir vu de l'incertitude politique du Québec est un peu ridicule...
  6. GoMontreal
    Ya, it's kind of like Ted Kennedy and his crimes, how was he able to get away with it? And then there's Harry Reid with his preferential treatment for his home mortgage from friends in the biz. There's also Charles Rangel who on the finance committee (or something like that) who has 'forgotten' millions of dollars in income when declaring for income taxes. Nancy Pelosi with her millions in stimulus going to her husband's business. Ya, I totally understand what you mean.
  7. GoMontreal
    Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state Well ya, business does it better, why should government have the monopoly over these things? Well, there would still be taxes, don't get too excited. Crime prevention and defense are not things I would put companies in charge of, but what's the problem with developers building roads and sidewalks in neighbourhoods, owning them and maintaining them, kind of like a privately owned city? There are plenty of large neighbourhoods in the US that operate this way and they are among the best places to live. Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. What a great example! USPS sucks and the only reason FedEx and UPS can survive is because USPS completely sucks. If USPS didn't exist, believe me that FedEx and UPS or others would get into the business of daily mail. The only reason USPS still exists is because it offers services at unreasonable prices, for no profit, kills it's potential competition, and operates under large deficits and gets bailed out by the federal government every year. It's ridiculous, how is this sustainable? More later... back to work for me.
  8. GoMontreal
    No problem, I can agree with that. I agree that Obama has done a lot of reform. Yet the reform that I wish for would be that he would get out of toying with the economy, get out of stimulus/subsidies, get out of health care, get out of social security, get out of defining marriage (churches and other groups can do that and then we wouldn't have any gay marriage problems), etc. That would be real change. Conservative politicians don't even have the balls to do that. Besides, once government gets into something, it's virtually impossible to take it out of, which is why government shouldn't get into anything because it does everything badly. I know that and I am also open minded. However, my core beliefs of freedom will never change. It took me a while to get to this belief and I would never choose a social safety net over pure freedom, because with my freedom and my hard work, I believe I can do better than the life the government offers me. Yet when the government gets into health care, like here in Canada, if I'm a millionaire (which I'm definitely not) and want better health care, I am not allowed to have. Right now, people have the choice to go to the states for care, but not for long. Government will kill insurance companies, kill innovation and competition in the US and the whole world will suffer for it. That's good. As for me, I base my opinions on this fundamental principle: does this take someone's freedom of choice away? If yes, it's bad. For example, government run health care (monopoly) in Canada doesn't give you the choice to take your money and go elsewhere therefore it's bad. Government also has a monopoly on highways and bridges, if I want to drive on a 4 lane no-pothole highway with less traffic to go to Quebec city and am willing to pay for it, too bad, the government has the same low standard for everybody. Right, yet people's need for freedom won't ever change and that is the foundation of my beliefs. Things can evolve etc, but freedom will always be guiding my stance on something (does it or does it lead to taking away freedom). Well first, here is the definition of socialism (first two paragraphs) as found on wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Contrary to popular belief, Socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism, allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved. Now explain to me how GM, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and soon, the health care system do not fit into this. To start, look at Van Jones background (green jobs czars), he's an admitted marxist. I'm sorry but will have to continue answering the rest later as I need to go to work now. :-)
  9. GoMontreal
    Ok but Limbaugh's opinion is that socialism is bad and therefore, he wants socialist policies to fail along with whoever is pushing them. Socialism has never succeeded anywhere for a very long period because its counter to human nature and unsustainable. Human nature also dictates that those with power always want more which is why the general public always gets deceived by both left and right no matter what change they promise or what they promise to not do. Socialism, in my opinion, can never succeed because government is not effective in creating wealth, jobs, or taking care of health care system, etc. So how can you ask a guy like me (who is absolutely convinced that socialism will make the country fail) to hope that Obama succeeds in pushing his socialist policies? It doesn't make sense. I hope that Obama succeeds in fixing health care, the economy, the world, etc, but I disagree with the way he's going about it and think that his fixes will be temporary and make it worse in the long run, therefore, I prefer that his attempts fail right now so that we can move on to fixing things the right way. I agree, I want the US to succeed and to continue to be the example they have been in the past to the rest of the world. I also thank Bush for keeping the country and others safe, but that's about all he did right. And what he did wrong, Obama is doing the same or ten times worse. That's not change, that's more of the same. I don't mean to accuse you of not knowing your stance on your issues but it's hard for me to understand how you can say "If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic!" It tells me that you don't believe in your liberal ideology if you think that he can succeed when doing the opposite of what you think he should do. And don't get me wrong, it's perfectly ok to not have a stance on everything yet, I surely don't. However, when it comes to capitalism vs socialism, government stimulus vs no stimulus, I sure as hell know what I stand for and I'm convinced of it. I'm open-minded on subjects in which I haven't yet decided where I stand but on things that I know where I stand, I'm closed-minded if you will. I don't think it makes me unpatriotic to stand for what I believe in is right. I disagree, just look at the background of all his czars to see what kind of people he chooses to advise him. Look at judge Sotomayor who he just appointed. There is plenty of evidence that Obama is a socialist. His ideology is far left, and his voting record as a senator, according to statistics, made him the most left wing senator of all of them. It's true that the general population is way more to the right then most countries, however, it's false to say that Obama and most democrats are not as far left as many other countries. You need to differentiate between the people and the politicians, they are two different species. I don't think so. Just having the government offer health care is a socialist idea so I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Obama is a socialist and I know what true socialism is. He is pushing socialism but that doesn't mean that it's all implemented or that he's succeeding at it yet either. As for Obama's health care plan giving full freedom, that's ridiculous. They are going to crush the competition by making it uninteresting for people to go with none other than the government's plan and soon enough, there will be no private sector left. There's plenty of evidence in their bill and I can prove it.
  10. GoMontreal
    Actually, if you listen to the whole clip, Rush Limbaugh (whom I also am not a fan of, but feel the need to set facts straight anyways) said that if Obama keeps pushing socialist ideas, that he wanted him to fail. I think there's a distinction here. He didn't say he wanted Obama to fail, he wants Obama to fail in his socialist push. I don't think that makes Limbaugh unpatriotic. Quite the contrary actually. The US was founded on the ideas of freedom, liberty, prosperity and personal responsibility. Socialism goes against freedom and liberty, it definitely goes against prosperity and takes away personal responsibility. Whether Limbaugh says this or anyone else, the person saying it is a true patriot in my mind, standing for the constitution and what the country was founded on.
  11. GoMontreal
    Et les terroristes méritent quoi eux? Je suis pas un grand fan de Bush mais au moins, de ce côté là, il a fait sa job. À parler comme tu le fais, tu ne mérites pas le luxe et la liberté dans lequel tu vis. We need to fight for freedom to keep it. Quote from who knows who (?!): Evil reigns when good men stand still and do nothing.
  12. GoMontreal
    Nouvelles du jour: source: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1905981 Canadian doctors open to private health care Janet French, Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 SASKATOON -- After heated debate about the slippery slope of pursuing private health care, Canadian doctors voted Tuesday to push governments to look more closely at allowing competition for public health dollars. As part of a plan to create a "blueprint" to transform this country's health-care system, the Canadian Medical Association approved a resolution to implore governments and health authorities to "examine internal market mechanisms, which could include a role for the private sector, in the delivery of publicly funded health care in Canada." "The vast majority of Canadian doctors believe there is an urgent need to fix Canada's health care system," outgoing association president Robert Ouellet said later at a news conference at the organization's annual convention, which is being held in Saskatoon this year. "The physicians of Canada are serving notice that we are tired of the dogmatic, ineffective and faux public/private debate continually derailing any and all attempts to build a health-care system that serves patients." Doctors speaking in favour of the resolution Tuesday said "competition" should be invited into health care. "Competition is not a negative thing," said Dr. Tim Nicholas of Aurora, Ont., speaking in favour of the motion. "Competition is good." "Competition" is already happening in Ontario, where hospitals are rated based on how their patients fare, he said. He said more competition will help create more access in a system that often leaves patients waiting. Dr. Ouellet said "competition" doesn't just mean providers battling for dollars -- it could also mean publishing information such as hospital infection rates to see how institutions measure up. B.C doctor Victor Dirnfeld told delegates they shouldn't confuse the idea of competition for public health dollars with the introduction of private care. "What I see is the fear of the dirty word, ‘private,' " he said. "We already have extensive private involvement in the publicly funded system. "Let's not confuse, and let's not contaminate the discussion on this proposal with the fear and anger of the private system." Doctors should be "at the forefront" of setting direction for what kind of competition is appropriate in health care, since it's happening anyways, Dr. Bill Anderson of Alberta said. Canadian Doctors for Medicare, however, are concerned decisions may be made without debate by association members. "This isn't, as far as we can see, going to be done in a transparent way," said Dr. Robert Wollard, vice-chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, a group dedicated to advocating for the public health-care system. While the motion passed with 85% approval, several doctors at the annual convention also spoke against it, saying competition could jeopardize the quality of care patients receive. Several doctors cited Britain's experience with the introduction of some private health-care providers, which has prompted the British Medical Association to mount a campaign against such competition for public health dollars. Another doctor argued competition could pit one hospital against the next, eliminating chances for the kind collaboration that has been shown to improve patient care, such as the life-saving Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. An additional concern was that patients would begin to be seen as "commodities," not humans, in a competitive system. Dr. Claudette Chase of Thunder Bay, Ont., said patients are becoming suspicious of doctors and the medical association for considering private care as an option. "I know from the public they already question our values as we move closer and closer to private care," she said. The discussion among delegates is the organization's attempt to create what it calls a "blueprint for health transformation." In a background document, the association says many other countries have undergone meaningful health-care reform, but that Canada -- despite repeated promises from federal and provincial politicians -- has yet to budge after nearly a decade of talk. The blueprint won't be the first document the association has produced to prompt health-care reform -- since 2002, it has authored five other reports prescribing change. When asked what it is about the blueprint that will finally prod politicians into action, Dr. Ouellet said that change has already begun. He pointed to Alberta Health Services CEO Stephen Duckett, who recently said the province would move from a model of block funding to paying hospitals according to the number of patients served and procedures performed. Dr. Ouellet said the medical association will take resolutions passed at this and last year's general council meetings to develop a policy, which the organization's board will review come the fall. Delegates also voted for the association to develop a discussion paper on other countries' experiences with "pay-for-performance" family medicine -- when governments provide doctors or clinics bonuses for patients' positive outcomes. Other health-care reform motions passed Tuesday included a move to lobby governments to develop stringent requirements within the year to protect patients' privacy and personal health information. Doctors are also asking governments to consider their teaching duties when allotting time in operating rooms. Many of the ideas up for discussion came from an association study of health-care models in England, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France.
  13. GoMontreal
    Un autre éditorial intéressant sur notre système de santé par Nathalie Elgrably. Un traitement de chien Le Journal de Montréal, p. 29 / Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy, 13 août 2009 Dans ma chronique de la semaine dernière, j'attirais l'attention sur le système de santé britannique, car il nous renseigne sur l'ampleur du rationnement des soins que nous pourrions subir si, à l'instar du Royaume-Uni, nous préservons notre médecine étatisée. Or, même si les pronostics sont terrifiants, certains affirment que nous n'avons rien à craindre, que le système britannique est un cas extrême auquel nous n'arriverons jamais. Or, rien n'est moins sûr. Cette semaine encore, on nous annonce que les hôpitaux fermeront 800 lits de soins de longue durée. Combien de mauvaises nouvelles nous faudra-t-il avant d'admettre que nous nous enfonçons chaque jour davantage dans les sables mouvants du rationnement des soins? Quel martyre les patients devront-ils subir, et combien de vies devront être sacrifiées pour que l'on comprenne que notre modèle est insoutenable? Malgré tout, on nous dit que le monopole public doit être préservé, car la santé n'étant pas un bien comme les autres, on ne peut s'en remettre au marché. Mais cette affirmation est-elle fondée? N'est-ce pas au marché que nous devons les médicaments, les pansements, les chaises roulantes, les lits d'hôpitaux, les prothèses auditives, les lunettes, etc? Les pharmacies ouvertes 24 heures par jour ne sont-elles pas le produit du secteur privé? Et n'est-ce pas lui qui conçoit et fabrique tout l'équipement médical, du stéthoscope le plus rudimentaire jusqu'à l'appareil de radiothérapie ultrasophistiqué? Or, s'il repousse chaque fois les limites de la technologie pour nous offrir des équipements toujours plus performants, pourquoi serait-il incapable de dispenser efficacement des soins médicaux? N'est-ce pas également ce même secteur qui nous fournit la nourriture de manière tout à fait convenable? Pourtant, ne constitue-t-elle pas une forme de soin de santé dans la mesure où elle est indispensable à notre survie? Certes, l'appât du gain motive l'entrepreneur. Et après? Qu'importe qu'une clinique fasse des profits, l'important n'est-il pas d'être soigné vite et bien, et de sauver des vies? Il suffit de quelques jours pour subir une chirurgie de la cataracte en clinique privée alors qu'un hôpital impose plusieurs mois d'attente. Aujourd'hui, les traitements de correction de l'œil et les chirurgies esthétiques sont plus abordables et plus accessibles qu'elles ne l'ont jamais été. Nous pouvons choisir notre dentiste et la date de notre rendez-vous. Pourquoi n'en serait-il pas ainsi pour les soins médicaux? Alors qu'un hôpital impose des délais d'attente de 10, 20 et 50 semaines pour passer un test de résonnance magnétique, subir une chirurgie de la hanche, ou encore une neurochirurgie, la revue Maclean's nous apprenait récemment qu'on peut obtenir ce type de soins en quelques heures à peine à condition d'être … un chien, et de se présenter chez le vétérinaire! Est-il donc justifié de diaboliser la médecine privée alors qu'elle réussit à donner un nouveau sens à l'expression «un traitement de chien»! Le marché n'est pas parfait, c'est indéniable, mais rien ne justifie la hantise que nous éprouvons à son égard. En revanche, l'État est responsable de l'entretien des routes et des réseaux d'aqueducs, et nous voyons les résultats. Il perd nos épargnes, gère l'argent de nos impôts de manière plus que douteuse, s'endette de manière compulsive, et peine à offrir des places en garderies et des logements sociaux. Et il faudrait lui faire aveuglement confiance en matière de soins de santé uniquement parce que le profit est un concept tabou!?! Notre système de santé est malade. Tristement, rien ne changera tant que notre haine du profit l'emportera sur notre amour de la vie! Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy est économiste senior à l'Institut économique de Montréal.
  14. GoMontreal
    En plein dans le mille! Et comme on voit dans les statistiques de l'article, les dernières années ont voit que des cadres sont engagé presque 2 fois plus que des nouveaux docteurs. Ridicule! L'ajout de cadre augmente la lourdeur de la bureaucratie au lieu d'engagé les vrais producteurs (les docteurs. Ayant déjà travaillé pour un gouvernement, j'ai vu les patrons multipliés les effectifs sans arrêt. Il parlait constamment de comment ils avaient doublé la taille du département comme si c'était une bonne chose. Et ce, sans vraiment avoir plus de projets. Et avec tout ce beau monde qui sont nouvellement dans le département et qui font de bons pions, et bien, il faut les garder, donc on leur donne permanence à vie, ce qui biensur va à l'encontre de toute forme de motivation professionnelle. Une fois la permanence reçu, en autant que tu violes pas la voisine, t'es correcte pour la vie, pas besoin de travailler fort pour garder ta job, ta job est assuré et ton syndicat est là pour défendre ta lâcheté. Dans le privé, il y a toujours une certaine menace de perdre son emploi donc c'est un incitatif de performer, innover, arriver en temps, être respectueux, etc. Quand la business fait pas d'argent, tu arranges le problème sinon tu meurs (ou, dans le cas des amis du gouvernement, tel que AIG, GM, Bombardier, tu recois des bailouts/subventions). Ça me semble tellement logique mais il y en a plein de monde qui semble pas comprendre.
  15. GoMontreal
    Où s'en va votre argent? La santé et les services sociaux Année après année, la part du budget provincial réservée à la Santé au Québec est toujours la plus importante. Et elle augmente. Elle était de 20,9 milliards de dollars en 2005, elle est rendue à 26,8 milliards $ cette année. Elle approchera le 30 milliards $ l'année prochaine. Malgré tout cet argent, les files d'attente sont longues, les pénuries ne sont pas résorbées, des milliers de Québécois n'ont toujours pas accès à un médecin de famille, etc., etc. L'année dernière, dans un éditorial sur la question, André Pratte nous apprenait qu'«au cours de la dernière décennie, le budget du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux a été augmenté de 11 milliards. Onze milliards! Quiconque prétend qu'il manque d'argent aujourd'hui dans le réseau de la santé devra d'abord expliquer où sont allés ces milliards supplémentaires!» Il ajoutait qu'on compte aujourd'hui presque 2000 médecins de plus au Québec qu'il y a une décennie et qu'il y aurait 1700 infirmières de plus qu'il y a cinq ans. («L'urgence: sortir la politique des hôpitaux!», La Presse, 20 novembre 2008.) Et selon des chiffres obtenus par La Presse Affaires, «le réseau québécois de la santé a engagé plus de 1500 cadres au cours des cinq dernières années. Ces embauches équivalent à un nouveau cadre par jour de travail entre 2003 et 2008 et à une progression de 16,2% du nombre de gestionnaires. [...] À 78 167$ comme salaire moyen, les cadres supplémentaires ont engendré des débours additionnels de près de 120 millions l'an dernier.» («Embauches à la Santé: un cadre de plus par jour», La Presse, 15 août 2009) Comment expliquer qu'avec tous ces milliards dépensés et qu'avec toutes ces ressources ajoutées, la situation ne se soit pas drastiquement améliorée? Où va tout cet argent? La réponse tient en grande partie dans la gestion de la structure. Comme une image vaut mille mots, voici l'organigramme du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. (Cliquez le lien pour mieux apprécier l'ampleur de la situation. Merci à Sébas pour avoir porté la chose à notre attention.) Source: http://www.leblogueduql.org/2009/08/où-sen-va-votre-argent-la-santé-et-les-services-sociaux.html
  16. GoMontreal
    Touchy, touchy?!?!?!%?%*)*@ Ha ha... I did think that you were commenting on my posts as opposed to the video... Oh well.
  17. GoMontreal
    D'après moi, il y a deux problème. Premièrement, vu qu'on a pas de déductible à payer (style assurance d'auto lors d'un accident), les gens ne se gênes pas de remplir les urgences parce que c'est gratuit. Deuxièmement, vu qu'il n'y a pas d'intérêt à plaire sa clientèle pour qu'elle reviennent comme dans une business, les employés de l'hopital sont moins motivés et servent moins bien leur clients. Par contre, je pense pas que l'attente dans les urgences est la seule partie de l'histoire, il y a une très longue attente pour les opérations, ce qui rends la vie difficile pour beaucoup et en plus, certains meurent sur la liste d'attente. C'est innaceptable. Articles intéressant: 'Canadian Health Care imploding' (President of the Canadian Medical association) http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw 'Thousands of surgeries may be cut' http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor 'Need to see a specialist fast? Too bad you're not a dog.' http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20080501_103008_103008&page=1
  18. GoMontreal
    Actually, I believe in cooperation, I don't think it's stupid. However, I don't believe in compromising on your beliefs because what does that say about your beliefs. The United States was based on the ideas of freedom and prosperity, personal responsibility and limited government. Today, republicans and democrats have both shred the constitution in their own ways and they are both guilty of it and it's sad to see the country being destroyed in such a small amount. The US used to stand for freedom, freedom applies to gay marriage as much as choice in health care. Having the gov't run health care is taking a person free choice away. Look, nobody forced you to read that article. I said that you should because it highlights a lot of what happened with the subprime crisis and how it was caused. I'm not closed minded. If I was, I wouldn't have the views and ideology that I have. I'm a libertarian and that is the most open political ideology you can have. Of course I believe I'm correct, but so do you and so those everyone else. Everyone realizes that they were wrong on something many times in their life and that's normal. I'm not trying to make you acknowledge anything, I'm just pointing out what I saw and read. If you don't want to discuss anything, why do you even bother writing on this board? Finally, when I said 'immature' it was not in reference to you proving me wrong, it was in reference to your overreaction. Besides, with which facts and figures did you prove me (in your opinion) wrong on? I have evolved in my thinking as well and that happened because I was open to other ways of thinking as opposed to what you're saying about me. At first, as a teenager, I was a lefty. When I saw all the hypocrisy and lies of the left, I became a conservative. After being disappointed by conservatives as well and on many levels, I became libertarian. As a libertarian, I embrace the left wing ideals of free speech, and the right wing ideal of free markets and fiscal conservatism. I stand for freedom and prosperity and with which inevitably comes personal responsibility. Government constantly works to take away freedom, prosperity (taxes) and personal responsibility disappears by default.
  19. GoMontreal
    Yes I do, it's fun! I like to piss people off. No but seriously, it bugs me to hell when people misunderstand problems, the economy, politics, and so yes, if I am a shit stirrer, than so be it. I saw this quote recently and I find it pretty funny and quite accurate: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”
  20. GoMontreal
    Wow, you're seriously over reacting. It's kind of immature. It's my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours. Get over it. Of course, the guilty always claim innocence. Did you read the rest at least? The whole thing screams guilty except for that sentence pretty much.
  21. GoMontreal
    LOL Too easy...
  22. GoMontreal
    Oh come on, easy exit to not answer the rest of the post. That's just lazy. Real bipartisanship doesn't really exist and that's my opinion, not a fact. I think that people that give in to concessions in politics don't believe that much in their cause or else they would never concede to compromises. If you believe that the country needs universal health care, your going to fight for it and if you compromise, it's only in the hopes of going further with it later on. The person that is against universal health care and then gives in to a compromise is an idiot that goes against his own beliefs. Your either for it or against it, you can't be neutral unless you don't understand your own position, which, in politics makes you an idiot. Sorry, but people vote for reps that have positions, if you don't have a position, what are you in politics for, the benefits? Come on! Now, please don't be lazy and go read the wikipedia article on CRA and make sure to concentrate on it and then come back and comment on it.
  23. GoMontreal
    So if the american health care system is not the best in the world, why do a whole bunch of stars, presidents, kings, queens, etc all flock to the US when in need of care... they sure don't come here. I'm not saying that it's perfect, it's got faults, but it definitely is a much better system than anywhere else in the world. To make it perfect, what they need to do is get government completely out of health care. That will reduce costs, create more competition and more innovation in better medical devices and drugs. Bipartisan? Give me a break! Only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for. Show me some numbers, show me statistics. It was definitely a complex problem with multiple factors leading to its inception. Republicans (and everyone else in power for that matter) is guilty of not doing enough to stop the ridiculous and economy damaging Community Reinvestment Act. Did you read the wikipedia page? By the CRA, the government forced banks to lend to people that shouldn't be able to borrow for many reasons (low credit score, no job, etc.). They actually got banks to not force the customers to provide employment info. That's insane. How can you expect anything but a market crash when loads of people are borrowing for houses when they either don't have enough revenue or don't even have a job. Insane! The reason the bubble got bigger and bigger is because it was so easy for all these people to get mortgage loans, the demand for houses grew and therefore prices were inflated. People started to default on their loans because after the first 3 years, people had to start paying capital whereas during the first 3 years of the loan, they only had to pay interest. All of a sudden, all these low income people that bought bigger houses than they could afford were unable to make the payments. The Community Reinvestment Act was first instated by Carter and then strengthened a lot during Clinton's administration. I know lefties don't like facts, but facts are still facts. Although the media doesn't want to blame democrats because they are in bed with them, it doesn't mean that it's not their fault. You can very easily put all the pieces together and figure it out quite quickly. It's simple math and simple understanding. Blaming Democrats for the housing bubble is simply stating facts, it's not shallow and it's not false. Open your eyes and look for yourself Whatever! I'm not cheering for the right. I'm just stating the facts. The facts don't lie. The left-wing media though does quite a poor job putting the pieces together, on purpose, because they know that it's their friends in government that are responsible. I just wish that they would stick to the news instead of giving us biased news all the time and not giving us the news that is inconvenient.
  24. GoMontreal
    Haha! That's funny! Aren't you the one that said the following (earlier in this thread): So are you questioning anything that I said or are you just go have a light ridiculizing comment like Habsfan? Please, question me and I will show you the facts... what of what I said do you think is untrue? I'm anxious to post links...
  25. GoMontreal
    I'm glad I could provide this entertainment for you.
×
×
  • Créer...