Welcome to the original English language Poland and Polish discussion group board. This message forum is a place where English-speaking Poles, foreigners (expats) living in Poland, and anyone with a genuine interest in Poland can discuss and read the views of others concerning Poland. Subjects include: Polish news and current affairs; Life in Poland; politics; genealogy research; Polish culture and history; advice and tips on visiting Poland; Polish property and investment issues. The aim of our group is to increase awareness of wonderful Poland using the English language and allow and foster the honest debate and exchange of opinions on anything vaguely related to Poland and Polish - positive, negative and/or neutral! To state the obvious: all opinions and views expressed on this site are solely those of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of anyone else! Messages consisting of ads will be deleted.
"We have the wonderful human rights act in Europe. So if you insult the head of state you can say you were of your asserting your human right to freedom of speach."
Wrong again sweetheart. With exception of Great Britian it will land you in jail.
Anyway, this isnt up to debate. Read American Bill of Rights and point to another European nation (except Great Britian) that gurantees its citizens same basic rights.
Well Britain is in Europe Mike. I can't speak for other Euro nations and their leaders but I believe the human rights act is a hybrid of the European convention on human rights and therefore a pan euro invention. It's when British cases go to the Euopean court that they often get thrown out.
Slepo what about Hilary Clinton? She seems to have sound ideas about the way forward in the States. Can't be worse than the mortgage mess currently ruining many lives.
“We have the wonderful human rights act in Europe.”
“Under French law Houellebecq could be imprisoned for up to a year and fined if found guilty.”
“She seems to have sound ideas about the way forward in the States”
“Can't be worse than the mortgage mess currently ruining many lives.”
Yes it can. You didn’t want to have any equity in healthcare or pharmaceuticals when she meddled with socialized medicine in 1993.
Wrong again sweetheart. With exception of Great Britian it will land you in jail.
I think she is right.
As far as I know this only applies in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.
It is certainly not illegal in Germany or the Benelux countries.
There are many laws in the UK which are never applied. Mainly because they are outdated or would be impossible or impractical to impose. An extreme example is that it is apparently still legal to shoot a welshman with a bow and arrow in chester inside the city walls after midnight or something like that....
"Yes it can. You didn’t want to have any equity in healthcare or pharmaceuticals when she meddled with socialized medicine in 1993. "
Losing your home vs losing your investments....hmmm tough one that!
"“She seems to have sound ideas about the way forward in the States”
Well she is planning to make access to health services more affordable for a start. Someone has to do something about the problems with your healthcare system - in one of the richest countries in the world. I constantly read online accounts of people whose insurance does not cover this or that condition/treatment.
Ending the war in Iraq - well done Hilary. What exactly has it achieved for the average iraqi on the street? They are screaming for the return of Saddam.
She is planning to strengthen your immigration system and stop exploitation of foreign workers.
Fair and honest elections.
She also proposed a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures to help borrowers sort out their debts with lenders rather than lose their homes.
This all seems pretty sensible to me.
-“Losing your home vs losing your investments....hmmm tough one that!”
The persons with even a hypothetical chance of losing their homes are those who borrowed more than they could conceivably repay which is to say they spent beyond their means. As to the investments; the people who lost there were those who reasonably invested their pensions or savings as well as those whose jobs depended upon competitive healthcare markets. The difference is the difference between at-fault parties and innocent victims.
-“Well she is planning to make access to health services more affordable for a start. Someone has to do something about the problems with your healthcare system - in one of the richest countries in the world. I constantly read online accounts of people whose insurance does not cover this or that condition/treatment.”
She is not proposing (and never has) to make health care more affordable. She is proposing to shift the cost. And what about the supposed problem of healthcare access in the United States? As “The Lancet” reported; The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99 percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh rate is close to 71 percent. For the 16 different types of cancer examined in the study, American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European women. For women, only five European countries have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
One can say about American healthcare what Churchill said of democracy: “democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”
-“Ending the war in Iraq - well done Hilary. What exactly has it achieved for the average iraqi on the street? They are screaming for the return of Saddam.”
Polls show that very large majorities of Shia and Kurds (the majority of Iraqi’s) consider the hardships of ousting Saddam to be worth it and that Iraq is on the right track. Sunni’s -- not so much; apparently not being able to oppress others will take some getting used to.
What it has achieved for everyone else is the ending of a paradigm under which people of the Middle-east had no alternatives to repressive regimes. And regimes that did not have to answer to their own populace could foment foreign discord to distract their people from focusing on their own lack of freedom.
-”She is planning to strengthen your immigration system and stop exploitation of foreign workers.”
Wrong. She is in favor of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens thus ensuring an endless supply of undocumented foreigners rife for exploitation; this causing a suppression of wages for the lowest strata of labor which in turn limits social mobility for those legally within the United States.
-“Fair and honest elections.”
Actually, she is in favor of prohibiting voter identification and her campaign flooded the primary caucuses in Nevada with illegal aliens.
”She also proposed a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures to help borrowers sort out their debts with lenders rather than lose their homes.”
To whose benefit? By definition, those in danger of foreclosure are those that cannot make the minimum payments on their mortgage. So unless there is a dramatic increase in the income of the person that over-borrowed then the sole effect will be that there would be three more months of unpaid interest on the loan which would be taken from whatever equity the borrower has in the residence that they cannot afford. Thus there would be a greater likelihood that the borrower would be less able to emerge with funds with which to afford a subsequent residence priced more within their means.
”This all seems pretty sensible to me.”
Perhaps from far enough away it would.
Slepo...healthcare stats always depend on the quality of the underlying data. Data collection and the way episodes are recorded will vary greatly from country to country. The truth is that those at the poor end of the scale have poor healthcare in the states because they cannot afford adequate insurance. Just reinforces the view that greed is good.
Easy for you to say from a distance that the invasion of iraq was a good thing. The Iraqis being killed in violent clashes on a daily basis may not agree with you...
Easy to say that borrowers should not have taken out more debt than they could afford. But it is ok for the banks to lend out more than people can afford? I am sure the banks tried to talk buyers out of borrowing at exhorbitant rates ....Why should the banks not pay? If you have a culture that aspires to a certain lifestyle and pushes the merits of that lifestyle constantly down people's throats then couple that with easy credit, this is what you end up with. These people took out loans when america's economy was buoyant, now things have changed. Is the average american in the street responsible for that change or is it more to do with government economic policy?