|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 17:58:56 GMT 1
Keep up PA. Poor old Jean is not very well and our thoughts are with her. And Jean, the NHS is not rubbish. They have saved many a life, including mine. Some would say that maybe that was unwise, but I have a different opinion. I.m sorry top hear Jean is unwell, of course. The NHS is rubbish, however. I've been exposed to it at almost every level for the past three months, with my relatives variously subjected to two heart attacks, bowel cancer, the complications of knee replacements, and a purported stroke. It's a disaster, a shameful panoply of incompetence and mismanagement. I know I'm talking about the IOW in this instance, which is already, not for the first time, under "emergency measures" - but it in no way differs from my experience of this organisation for more than forty years, in half a dozen counties. It's rotten to the core.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:05:49 GMT 1
Keep up PA. Poor old Jean is not very well and our thoughts are with her. And Jean, the NHS is not rubbish. They have saved many a life, including mine. Errr... that's their job, isn't it? It was their job in the 19th Century or in Roman times too, and its practitioners no doubt saved lives then. The point and value and occasional success of that particular effort is not the issue.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:11:41 GMT 1
I don't mind feisty, but I do mind him blubbing about and exploiting his child, and generally losing it, unjudiciously. I'll try that the next time I have an interview for a job that carries great power and influence. I do worry about the ten-year-old. She looks at her father with fear, not admiration. Why did she want to"pray for the woman" if she had no experience of attempted rape? Possibly because no one has ever questioned whether she had had such an experience? It's her unsupported identification of the alleged perpetrator that's in question. As for your accusation that his daughter looks at him "with fear" - grotesque nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:13:41 GMT 1
So MR wouldn't care if they had purportedly been torturing people. Riiiight. Are we questioning the "existence" of species too, now?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:17:46 GMT 1
My 'poor intellect' isn't as poor as your reading ability, intensified by your being overly literal-minded. I haven't focused on proving the judge committed sexual assault and I'm not swayed by either side's allegations. My reaction is to the judge's behaviour in front of the Senate, tout court. I have the same problem with Boris aspiring to higher office. His "behaviour" seemed fine to me. Same goes with Boris. I'm not interested in such attempts to impose Victorian codes of conduct on people, or to institute rule by thought-police.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:19:42 GMT 1
Don't be a prat, aqua. The typical job interview does not involve accusations of sexual assault. The whole procedure was a partisan set-up. Shame on your poor intellect for not recognising it as such and for swallowing it whole like the gull you are when it comes to political correctness and politics. I don't care what people purportedly did as teenagers unless they were routinely torturing animals. Neither should you. Neither should anyone with any intellect. That you should take at face value the machinations of American politics disqualifies you from any rational discussion. He takes it at face vale when it suits his prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:23:12 GMT 1
If you had been wrongly accused you might be forgiven for being feisty in your own cause, aqua. What do you know about this man other than hearsay? Sod all! Watch Sen Susan Collins' speech and educate yourself a bit. I don't mind feisty, but I do mind him blubbing about and exploiting his child, and generally losing it, unjudiciously. I'll try that the next time I have an interview for a job that carries great power and influence. As for hearsay, you do realise that much of Sen. Collins's speech was based on that very thing? Collins said she had a two-hour one-to-one interview with the judge, and a one-hour phone interview. She reported what she said he said (and must've been furiously taking notes), but didn't mention a transcript. She also said she'd talked to people named as being at the party*, but didn't mention a transcript. All this hearsay allowed her to scatter accusations around, presumably at political opponents.** And what due process provides for an individual senator out of many to have such privileged access, alone, to the person having a case to answer without anyone else there? *One of them was reported to have talked about the judge's attempts to drug girls and facilitate gang-rapes. mr sonde, upthread, said it was Ford, but it wasn't. It was Sleznick - later withdrawn, incidentally. Or do you not care about such minor details? Ford's testimony, however, strongly imputed that she'd been drugged, for the purpose of a gang-rape.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:24:39 GMT 1
That ain't gonna happen, Mr Calverd. Stop scare-mongering and listen to Sen Susan Collins' speech to get more perspective on this matter and others. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVuzOXBzgO0Roe v. Wade is a question of the right to privacy in respect to medical treatment. No one has ever suggested overturning that ruling.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 18:27:03 GMT 1
edition.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kavanaugh-on-the-issues/index.html gives a synopsis of Kavanaugh's stance on a number of key points. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians. No!! Don't be absurd.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 17, 2018 7:09:12 GMT 1
So the entire British National Health Service is rubbish, it doesn't do any good to anyone at all?
"subjected to"? You seem to be suggesting that the those conditions were caused by the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 17, 2018 16:47:02 GMT 1
He does, doesn’t he?
Bu tell me: why should I accept that Nick’s bowel cancer was caused by the NHS any more than that my cancer has a similar origin?
It is very easy to be wise after the event
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 17, 2018 16:56:22 GMT 1
You shouldn't accept it Jean (nb. it's his relative's bowel cancer) - don't be bothered by what he says.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 18, 2018 15:12:11 GMT 1
Of course he's right. Everyone I knew who has died from bowel cancer, worked for the NHS. In a world where the considered decisions of the US Supreme Court are labelled "absurd", what more proof could anyone want?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 18, 2018 16:36:51 GMT 1
He does, doesn’t he? Bu tell me: why should I accept that Nick’s bowel cancer was caused by the NHS any more than that my cancer has a similar origin? It is very easy to be wise after the event Very sorry to hear of your cancer Jean, can it be treated?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 17:22:56 GMT 1
So the entire British National Health Service is rubbish, it doesn't do any good to anyone at all? The assumed equivalence of those phrases is entirely in your head. Not at all - the causes of these ailments is another matter. The treatment that they then received is the issue under question.
|
|