I just saw a clip of Howard Dean at a town hall meeting yesterday and said "...the system in Britain was actually put in by one of the most conservative Prime Minister's in Britain's history, Winston Churchill."
The UK national health service started in 1948 when Clement Attlee was the PM. This is textbook liberalism by altering the facts to send their message. At least Dean isn't a Czar.
14 comments:
This is more typical of fascism actually.
Or maybe Howard Dean was just mistaken. He's not really very smart after all.
OK, it appears that you are right, but Churchill set up the commission that led to the National Health Service, and then lost the first election after the war. But he supported and continued the NHS, as did Margaret Thatcher later. Thatcher in fact had to pledge to continue the NHS, so popular is it with Britons.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/08/14/healthcare/
From the same source, Churchill in 1944:
"Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."
A policy I think all conservatives should support. But no, you think it's fascism (because you're crazy).
gary suffers from confirmation bias.
I think everyone does to some extent. I try to compensate by regularly looking at conservative sources. There are conservatives who are worth reading. William F Buckley and Thomas Sowell come to mind. Even Robert Bork had a few good points. Ann Coulter (apparently a favorite here) I found to be horrid, mean-spirited and factually challenged.
Too many so-called conservatives seem to be very rigidly ideological. Confirmation bias? Take a look at Rhino's global warming posts. Any source, no matter how disreputable, is credible if it supports his view. No source, no matter how credible, is acceptable if it does not.
So, getlive, which liberal authors or blog do you read?
personally i don't need to read anything from anyone because i truly know it all, however i read all the angles.
What i've observed from reading both sides and arguing both sides(including at a townhall tonight)is that conservatives make factual arguments and are considered mean spirited and evil by their counterparts whereas liberals tend to make emotional arguments and are considered pussies by their counterparts.
But keep reading gary because some of those guys (especially sowell) can teach you quite a bit.
Some conservatives like Sowell may make intellectual arguments. Coulter obviously does not fall in that category. She just throws emotional red meat to the base. I have heard the argument before though that conservatives are more intellectual and liberals more emotional. The problem is that I've heard it from clowns like Savage and Limbaugh. Accordingly, I don't think it's true. More the opposite I would say.
my experience has been that liberals argue from an emotional standpoint.
that was certainly the case last night at the townhall i attended with the donkey.
For the record it was congressman Tim Bishop's town hall meeting and he's a pussy.
gary, I don't read blogs, I make them. I use my own thoughts, knowledge, ideas and beliefs. I don't read anyone else's. Unlike most, I use facts and formulate my own thoughts. Hence, I do not suffer from confirmation bias.
You don't read blogs? Why did you read The Aurora? Do you read books? How can you form an opinion on a subject like global warming without reading, short of getting a Ph.D and doing original research?
Of course not, I already know everything there is to know. My IQ is 142 so i don't need a Ph.D.
I see. Another know-it-all. I guess that puts me at a disadvantage. I have to actually learn stuff in order to know it.
Bummer. That's probably why Rhino recruited me.
Probably so. Rhino I think pulls his opinions out of his ass.
Post a Comment