SeanMacGabhann

If those countries have "no burglars or theft of any kind" they also have no freedom of any kind Steve - as well you know And the last country to claim "no crime" was the old soviet empire which, as we now know, kept a secrecy lid on everything and turned out to be full of all sorts of shenanigans. What you are doing Steve, is substituting a genuine desire to curb criminal activity with your own, very personal desire to mutilate and inflict violence on others Whatever we fear, we can avoid by taking excessive means to avoid - but that leads to misery so we lead of life of managed risk - I live in London with the obvious risk of being mugged. i could move to Zeal Monochorum in Devon in the vain hope of not getting mugged - but to what purpose? This argument has been had - if you want less crime you can look to less... zealous countries than Saudi Arabia et al. But you wouldn't tolerate the "nanny state" that involves. So you say "off with their limbs" I would rather engage with the burglars in question than a "good citizen" who wants to perform mutilative surgery on them. Well, to be honest I would rather solve the problem of criminal behaviour GENERALLY, but your method is a road to madness

wow I@ve been looking forward to this fillum for ages and nice to have it so majorly bigged up

Is that based on time spent or Mail articles read ange?

Mutilation huh Steve. How fekkin vile. you know countries like that exist? And they aren't very nice places.... Says more about you then it does about burglars

I wouldn't say everyone in America was left or right - the Democrats would be considered far more to the right than comparable parties in Europe for example - but in any case, all governments in elected democracis have to cater for the electorate as a whole, including all of the people that voted against them . But opposition to the government programmes by the main opposition (and lets not forget the likes of Fox news etc) don't usually take this kind of form Speaking of Fox news - owned by Murdoch, he'll be keeping an eye on this. If Obama wins, expect the Sun and the Times to be more NHS friendly - if he loses, expect a strong campaign by those papers to "shame" the NHS

and it has pulled in more than the 3 usual Drawing Room inhabitants! Huzzah!

Ah I see But by huge opposition, you wouldn't have the deputy leader of the opposition claiming it was Evil and Orwellian surely? I absolutely agree with your point, but there is a tone to the opposition in the US which is unnerving

Glad those units are going to remain retail instead of flats - best of luck nico

PeckhamGateCrasher - at last, the voice of sense - I have used that junction as a pedestrian and a bus user several times this week and not noticed a problem. My journey hasn't been any longer and I haven't tripped

Not sure if I follow your logic Keef - "Imagine the uproar in this country if we were in the same situation, " - the same situation as what? Introducing a system which benefits teh majority, especially the less well off? I had an idea it wouldn't be long before the Tories piled in - and while they haven't en mass, Daniel Hannan's comments have kicked up a storm I see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100006434/health-care-david-cameron-chooses-barack-obama-over-daniel-hannan/ I especially like the comments from the first poster "From painful personal experience I can assure Mr Cameron (who without doubt goes private) that the NHS is a defunct moribound institution whose only function is to keep the legions of Browns administrators and QUANGoes in lucrative and useless employment. " "only function"???? - I mean how nuts is this guy - apparantly the NHS is no use to anyone? As has been said already, there is an argument to be had about efficiencies, costs, etc etc but nonsense like this shouldn't be given access to power I can't wait to see new Labour gone but the thought of the Tories and their followers taking power - yikes.. My hat is off to Obama for taking this mob on -

Jah is almost certainly correct about The Bad Seed that is John Lynch Behold http://dreammachinerecords.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dsc04132.jpg

THAT'S the kind of response I was after!

Hey chantelle - good to see more people join the conversation There is truth in what you say, but it still doesn't explain why ordinary citizens have taken to standing outside Obama's meetings with loaded guns, suggesting it's time for some blood to flow. Evil Megacorp can do many things but I doubt they are forcing loons like this to behave in this way

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,327141

What Buffy the Legal Slayer said

was how I read that... Anyway, back on topic - this column in today's Guardian here makes some interesting points (not all of which I agree with) and points to the sort of debate which should be happening

Agreed Piers on the reasons, but why so large a believing audience I guess this touches on other debates we have had about why people are so willing to "believe" things instead of looking at what works but it's profoundly depressing

But if the NHS in the UK could be created on the back of a financially crippling war, surely it can be done in the US? Noone is denying it will cost money, but given the trillions thrown at the "wealth creators", not to mention the various wars on the go, we know that money exists And if, as is forecast, many Americans will lose their jobs in the coming years, having a free-at-source medical resource would be money well spent for them surely?

My understanding is the average US employee pays slightly higher taxes than his/her UK counterpart - so why aren't they looking at the UK and asking "why can't we have something like that here?" or ask another question - what do opponents of Obama's proposals suggest unemployed/non-profitable/badly paid citizens do for healthcare? Pr repeat the question again - where do people get off calling it "evil and Orwellian"

some fair points Mick, but the question isn't "what shape will the NHS take in the future?" it's why is the very notion of a paid-for health service, "evil and orwellian" and how does the very concept threaten to derail the presidency Given that everyone complaining about "73 year old men being left to die" in the US is already paying massive private health premiums, and that life expectancy is lower in the US anyway, can someone explain to me what their beef is?

half moon pizza = rubbish BUT gogo = quality??? Jaysus

oops - didn't mean to be patronising Of course, the debate won't stay confined to the US for too long as opponents of the NHS here will be keeping a watchful eye on the "popular" reaction

Bless you my NHS-representin' massive What you say is all valid and TRUE However I'm as interested in the breeding grounds for such flagrant nonsense - this remember, from the same country which a poll showed 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in America and therefore has no right to be President It's the same thinking that gives the word "liberal" it's value as an insult How mankind ever hopes to evolve when something as basic as can see such a popular president take so much flak I have no idea?

So Obama's ratings are tumbling and the "fair and balanced" Fox network are horsing into the idea - so far so predictable And many people in this country have legitimate concerns about the UK NHS But what do you make of the over the top condemnations from the US right? I mean... Evil? Orwellian?

Agreed as well Keef It's easy to read the newspaper reports after the investigations, but I doubt when the professionals paid a visit, saw "When he was not abusing the toddler, Barker, who had a pet snake, would use a large knife to skin live frogs and break their back legs to see if they could still jump. " or asked the mum if she wouldn't mind closing Internet Explorer for 5 minutes as they had some questions