RE: In the name of Fair and Balance

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In the name of Fair and Balance

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 3/31/2016 3:24:50 PM

Edwurde

Posts: 42
Joined: 3/27/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

I mention in another post that all lib mainstream media has done so far is incite hatred towards Trump. Media messages can be very subliminal. I can see it's clearly working.

Bernie being closest to Singapore government is a total joke. While I like Bernie and think his a cute old man and nice guy.

But we had oppositions proposing similarities to what Bernie proposed and they lost by 70%.

Majority of our people have voted AGAINST free shit like free education, free healthcare.

We like our low taxes and not willing to pay the price of increased tax for it.

Pointing out facts about a public figure's well demonstrated public behavior and business ineptitude (especially when he's been a publicity hound from the word go) does not constitute "hate," -it's called reporting-. And if not being selective enough about facts and tying things together in such way as to intentionally mislead (like Fox, e.g.) constitutes "lib" media in your estimation, then so be it. I subscribed to Anarchy magazine and Reason magazine for a year at the same time (long time ago), so, good luck with the "lib" thing in this corner. (I also subscribed to Steamshovel Press and Covert Action Quarterly, for at least five years, much more useful info there.) Your assumption that others are as easily influenced by media (of whatever sort) as you are is what's called 'projection,' and it has nothing to do with me. I go for days with out reading the news at all, just go to the library and skim through the WSJ and NYT sometimes, look on the net twice a week, glance at the latest thing we're supposed to be in fear for our life about, etc. 99% of the info I've got on Trump (along with most others in the US, thanks to his great efforts at keeping us informed for 30 years) was obtained long before he became a "political figure."

You keep going back to the well of fantasy, coming back with empty buckets. That's not going to change, no matter how many times you dip into that well.

"But we had oppositions proposing similarities to what Bernie proposed and they lost by 70%." I seriously doubt that you have much clue at all what Bernie proposes, rendering that statement meaningless from the start, but in any case, I was pointing out that Singapore and twenty-nine other OECD countries (but I did say "thirty," ooops) have a national healthcare plan, which the US doesn't. The present US plan can only be termed 'national' in the most generous use of the term. Yes, your country has to pay out of pocket for some of it, but your total cost for personal medical savings, insurance, and co-pay is much less than in the US, -because of heavy government subsidies-. Or is this the first you've heard of it? Not that that would come as a shock. In any case, it is a bonafide -national healthcare plan-, ministered and subsidized by the government, and that is why the costs are so much lower there, as in every other country with a healthcare plan worthy of the name.

University and post-secondary vocational education are subsidized in the US, but far less than in most countries. From my recent looking-it-up on Wiki and two different Singapore government web sites; one year (two semesters) tuition + fees at -every- public university in your country was ~6,280 USD (currency conversion from Bloomberg); my uni was (is) pretty 'cheap' in comparison to other public universities in the US- ~9,400 USD for the year. It's hard to get an accurate measurement of the US average, because it's such a crap shoot from one state to the next, and even within a state, but I can assure you the national average is a good bit higher than that.

The difference? Because of substantial Singapore government subsidies.

You act as though Singapore is like the old US frontier land, all done by personal perspiration and no intrusion from anybody, all by my own money, etc. blah blah. With a fantasy version of your own country such as that, no surprise you are held in thrall to even a bad story teller like Trump (as long as telling the story that matches your fantasy). Too bad you weren't born thirty years earlier. Reagan was a much better story teller.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 3/31/2016 4:31:30 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

A good point Peon, a very good point

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 3/31/2016 6:39:21 PM

Greta75

Posts: 9968
Joined: 2/6/2011
Status: offline

quote:

because of heavy government subsidies

We have government run hospitals. That are cheaper than private hospital. So these "subsidies" you talk about are only for those hospitals. Not everybody uses government hospitals as it's a very long wait most of the time to get anything done. 6 to 7 months or longer. So not only is it not free, it's a long wait, so most end up using private. You can also choose to pay non-subsidise price in a government hospital to be attended to first. And some people do that.
And most of all, it's not free. Bernie is all about free health care. And crazy tax rates.

Secondly, education, our public Universities are only for the elites of Singapore. Only the top 20% grades will ever get a chance to get into local public University, there are limited Universities and limited spaces, on top of that, they still accept foreign students. 80% of students in Singapore will have no access to this subsidy, because, it's like scholarships in any schools, only the top scorers gets some kind of financial aid, only top scorers will get in. The rest pay hefty tuitions like 30 to 40k per annum in private universities with zero subsidies.

Please don't compare this to Bernie plan for free public University for everybody. Our government definitely had only intention of subsidizing the elites in intelligence.

(in reply to Edwurde)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 3/31/2016 8:00:54 PM

Edwurde

Posts: 42
Joined: 3/27/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

because of heavy government subsidies

We have government run hospitals. That are cheaper than private hospital. So these "subsidies" you talk about are only for those hospitals. Not everybody uses government hospitals as it's a very long wait most of the time to get anything done. 6 to 7 months or longer. So not only is it not free, it's a long wait, so most end up using private. You can also choose to pay non-subsidise price in a government hospital to be attended to first. And some people do that.
And most of all, it's not free. And crazy tax rates.

Secondly, education, our public Universities are only for the elites of Singapore. Only the top 20% grades will ever get a chance to get into local public University, there are limited Universities and limited spaces, on top of that, they still accept foreign students. 80% of students in Singapore will have no access to this subsidy, because, it's like scholarships in any schools, only the top scorers gets some kind of financial aid, only top scorers will get in. The rest pay hefty tuitions like 30 to 40k per annum in private universities with zero subsidies.

Please don't compare this to Bernie plan for free public University for everybody. Our government definitely had only intention of subsidizing the elites in intelligence.

Are you trying to tell me that the students who test for being better suited for technical trades, or for being accountants, have to pay 30-40k per year, for being educated in what they are suited for? In any case, the 'Bernie plan' only goes on the fact that all should have whatever education up to their own level, not that plumbers should be subsidized for Phds and post-doc grants. Germany has been going this for decades, as have other more advanced countries (paying for education to their level, I mean).

" Bernie is all about free health care."

It is not hard to take from that quote of pure fiction that you find yourself disappointed in not being one of those who made it to the university. Again, he only said that no one should be denied healthcare because of, or controlled by, financial condition, not that healthcare should be free to all billionaires as well as street people. ALL healthcare is allocated in some way ore another, in every country, any regime, under whatever plan or non-plan, and the US record for medical outcomes indicates that when healthcare is run (or more accurately stated, run over roughshod) and allocated purely by the private sector, the cost/benefit equation comes out for the worse, and it's not even close. The cost of private healthcare in your country is held in check by the government clinics and hospitals. This is just (the most basic) economics at work, here. In the US, the only competition is to see who can charge more, especially when it comes to drugs.

Fine, everything you say is true about the healthcare situation in your country, and it's like that in other countries too. What I am telling you is that the situation is much worse in the US. There, you have to worry about waiting in line if you don't have the money for private. In the US, it's ALL private, you pay a bunch of money to the insurance companies, and if on a low premium plan the private sector tells you to wait in line. Yeah, huge difference there, except the wait in line for countries with a national healthcare plan is a lot less expensive than the wait line in totally private healthcare 'plans.' If you ever get in line to begin with.

The point is; if your country is not doing things quite up to the level of, say, Sweden or Germany (different systems from each other as they be), that might be understandable given the population and history. But the US, in current form, is NOT a country you want to emulate, no matter how lovely the cowboy or mafia-themed pleasant fantasies that might bring to your head.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 3/31/2016 8:12:48 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Actually the crux of my purpose of that is more to encourage more responsible sex among people.

Yet you have told us you will fuck, anyone blind and deaf enough to go out with you, on the first date.

Another example of you never attacking people, eh?

Pay attention simpleton...she is calling for people to engage in responsible sex while bragging about having irresponsible sex.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 4/1/2016 4:22:39 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Transcript from the whole section on abortion
Full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rPIpdifWqw

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/30/35330907-full-transcript-msnbc-town-hall-with-donald-trump-moderated-by-chris-matthews?lite

MATTHEWS: OK, look, I'm monopolizing here.

Let's go, young lady?

TRUMP: Hello.

QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?

TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand?

MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?

TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value. But what should be the law?

TRUMP: Well, you know, they've set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it's a real tipping point.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...

MATTHEWS: I understand.

TRUMP: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what's the law, nobody knows what's the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.

MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.

TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.

MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it.

TRUMP: Which it is.

MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?

TRUMP: Well, it's human life.

MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?

TRUMP: Look...

MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.

TRUMP: It's a -- no, no...

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?

TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."

MATTHEWS: How about you?

TRUMP: I would say that it's a very serious problem. And it's a problem that we have to decide on. It's very hard.

MATTHEWS: But you're for banning it?

TRUMP: I'm going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about?

MATTHEWS: Well, no, I'm asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

TRUMP: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.

MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?

TRUMP: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.

MATTHEWS: Yes?

TRUMP: But you have to ban it.

MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.

TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think...

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position?

MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here's my problem with it...

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?

MATTHEWS: It's not funny.

TRUMP: Yes, it's really not funny.

What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong.

MATTHEWS: They're allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe...

TRUMP: No, but...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?

TRUMP: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I don't know.

MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.

TRUMP: Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It's a very complicated position.

MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.

TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about my religion.

TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this...

MATTHEWS: I didn't say very good. I said I'm Catholic.

(LAUGHTER)

And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President.

TRUMP: No, no...

MATTHEWS: I'm not.

TRUMP: Chris -- Chris.

MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?

TRUMP: I'm not going to do that.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I'm not going to play that game.

MATTHEWS: Game?

TRUMP: You have...

MATTHEWS: You said you're pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.

MATTHEWS: But they don't control the -- this isn't Spain, the Church doesn't control the government.

TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the...

MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Don't ask me about my religion.

TRUMP: No, no...

MATTHEWS: I'm asking you. You want to be president of the United States.

TRUMP: You told me that...

MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.

TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...

MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you're pro-life.

TRUMP: I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: What does that mean?

TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life.

I have not determined what the punishment would be.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I haven't determined it.

MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...

TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...

MATTHEWS: OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.

TRUMP: You don't believe in what?

MATTHEWS: I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.

TRUMP: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).

MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it's a woman's choice.

TRUMP: So you're against the teachings of your Church?

MATTHEWS: I have a view -- a moral view -- but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.

TRUMP: But then you are...

MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.

TRUMP: I know but I've heard you speaking...

MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn't able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn't be familiar with.

TRUMP: But I've heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

TRUMP: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: What do you say to your Church?

MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what's in the Constitution, and we live by that. That's why I say.

TRUMP: Yes, but you don't live by it because you don't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it.

MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in.

By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?

TRUMP: It will have to be determined.

MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

TRUMP: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.

Matthews held trumps feet to the fire, not as strong as I would like to see but stronger than ANY Other interviewer has. Either in the debates or townhalls OR his shows where he just phones it in.
The man made the statements, He tried to back it off by changing it about "punishing doctor" not women
NOW??? He is accusing msnbc of cutting out parts of his interview, which is hysterical, if he had some proof, he would have posted it....
Just like he is wriggling out of the story by michelle fields.
He cant take responsible for his own mouth???
You think any woman of childbearing age would go with, "punishment" for practising her legal constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion.
Have you seen the separate laws just out this week against womens rights?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/health/utah-abortion-law-fetal-pain/
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/03/31/arizona-doug-ducey-signs-abortion-bills/82492378/
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/25/mike_pences_sadistic_abortion_law_indiana_passes_draconian_anti_choice_bill_geared_towards_humiliating_and_bankrupting_women_who_have_abortions/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/floridas-rick-scott-signs-drastic-anti-abortion-measure-law

If a republican gets in, wether its cruz, kasich or trump, it will no longer be legal.

PS Leftist media, is a crap out.... ALLLLLLL the media have been against him, even fox, drudge, national review, and people are pissed at the mess all around the country and the world.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 4/1/2016 4:51:05 AM

blnymph

Posts: 1610
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

well there are most likely the releases from Team Trump still to make him look good

pity Greta won't tell us more about it

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 4/1/2016 5:03:13 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Here is the fox interview with bohlert regarding the editing of the tape(video and info.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/01/trump-on-abortion-remarks-it-could-be-that-missipoke.html
the first s4 minutes are his views on the RNC Meeting, the part about the matthews interview starts at 4.45

Am I the only one noticing the last word in the url?.... missipoke

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to blnymph)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: In the name of Fair and Balance - 4/1/2016 6:00:41 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Secondly, education, our public Universities are only for the elites of Singapore. Only the top 20% grades will ever get a chance to get into local public University, there are limited Universities and limited spaces, on top of that, they still accept foreign students. 80% of students in Singapore will have no access to this subsidy, because, it's like scholarships in any schools, only the top scorers gets some kind of financial aid, only top scorers will get in. The rest pay hefty tuitions like 30 to 40k per annum in private universities with zero subsidies.

Please don't compare this to Bernie plan for free public University for everybody. Our government definitely had only intention of subsidizing the elites in intelligence.

It is pretty clear that they had no intention of educating you.

(in reply to Greta75)

Profile

Post #: 89