Mr Ceour de Lion II

His problem, not his kids. The man sounds a bit of a control freak. 'I gave you all this, therefore you must fall into line with my expectations' type of thing. Sorry mate, no one forced you to send your kids to private school, did they? It's their lives, their choices, and parents should be there for support, love and to provide advice. But they should never judge. Sure, he has every right to feel that way, but I believe he has absolutely no right to push those feelings on his offspring who are all mature adults and have their own lives. As someone here said, nothing wrong with writing down your feelings and then chucking it away after, but I think his kids now have every right to tell their dad that he is now a disappointment to them. I wonder if he was a disappointment to his father?

I think I had a butcher then. He was a crazy German doctor. A week before he'd taken a blood sample from me and left half my arm black and blue and aching like mad. It's all better now.

Isn't it quad bike hunting season soon?

I had to have one a couple of weeks ago for my immigration medical. First one I had in 40 years. The pain it caused my arm the following two days, I think it'll be another 40 years that I'll get my next one! lol

I wonder if the BBC are still hanging around waiting for Florida to finish counting. Talk about slow!

I feel sorry for the kids who are models in that article. It has nothing to do with them, but they'll be the ones who get teased about their mum... who isn't even their mum! [:)]

Thanks for that, puts my mind at ease a bit. I sent the form back to them with a letter and a print out of the attestation, so they should be able to work the rest out for themselves.

I think this question has been asked before, but I can't find it on the forum. As many of you know, I sold my house in July 2012. I paid the fonciere by direct debit, and is up to date and paid for for 2012. For some reason, I have just been sent out a bill for 2013 with details of each months debits. Surely they don't expect me to pay for someone else to live at my old house? Isn't that taking socialism a bit too far? ;) I've written to them saying that I sold in July, but I really am surprised that this info isn't sent to them when the sale occurs. Anyway, if anyone can put my mind at ease, I'd be grateful :)

Socially, the republicans do need to come up to date. If you're gay and want to get married, who am I (or anyone else) to say you can't. I agree with the dems there, no problem. However, financially, the republicans are closer to the ball than the democrats. And right now, I believe it's far more important to get the country financially stable again and get the debt back under control before it spirals. I think the choice (for me anyway) was a proven businessman who has made plenty of money compared to 4 years of a president losing trillions. For me, there's only one winner. The other stuff can be sorted once the economy is back under control. But republicans wouldn't have banned gay marriage nationally anyway, that's each state's decision. The financial situation affects everyone, and should take precedence. I think the lesson is let the republicans sort the money, let the democrats sort society. (I know it's not that simple). There also seems to be a lot of generalization on this thread too. I've met some pretty thick democrats too. In fact most around here are democrats.

[quote user="Pommier"]Did Romney appeal more to intelligent voters? (or not!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U&feature=share[/quote] Ohio ended up going with Obama, didn't they? hmmmmm

The whole point in the two terms is that it makes it impossible to end up with a situation whereby anyone is ruling for a long time unchallenged, ie to prevent a monarchy happening. I really hope Obama does succeed, and it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months as this fiscal cliff which has appeared out of nowhere looms. Will he borrow yet again?

You really have to feel sorry for Obama though. He now inherits a bigger mess than when he came into office in 2008!

Unless it's a draw... lol

Believe it or not, I'm finding it hard to locate a channel showing coverage of the elections.

I would certainly put France near the top for retiring to. It has everything a retiree could need.

They're brought up to believe their country is the best in the world. In fairness, my dad did the same with me back in the UK. I think the difference is that I have traveled a lot, whereas many in the US don't have that same opportunity to see the rest of the world, which is understandable given the size of the US. You can travel one side to the other and be in the same country, whereas to do the same in England would take you well into Russia. My traveling told me that there is no such thing as the best country in the world, only differences.

[quote user="Hoddy"]I wonder if anyone else heard The Public Philosopher programme which Michael Sandel did from Yale in the last few weeks. I was quite shocked that most of the young students assumed that the USA should lead the world and that they were always a force for good. Sandel didn't pull the up on it either. As for the 'who owns my body ?' dispute, given all that has happened in the last few weeks in the UK, I think it's about time we started to consider how men could behave in a sexually more responsible manner. I don't mean to insult all the decent men on this forum, in my family and among my friends and colleagues, but I think it's something we should talk about before we start banning abortion. Hoddy[/quote] I think in comparison to any other emerging super powers, then the US is the best country for that job. Imagine the Chinese or Russians, or some sort of united Islamic federation from the Middle East being number 1. I think you would see far more problems. I'm not saying the US is perfect, because it isn't, nor is it the greatest nation on earth (there's no such thing), but there will always be some nation dominating the others. I'd rather it one that at least offers a little freedom. As for abortion, I believe it's a personal choice and should not be taken away (see I don't always agree with republican stand points). Better education in family planning and the like should be more prominent. Prevention is better than cure.

To Clarkkent So what hope do you have in 4 years time when neither candidate will have been president and no experience? I really don't think either person is a complete novice, do you? What training is there in the UK to be PM? In fact, you can say that for most jobs. You only really learn it when you do it. Romney was governor of Massachusetts I would say he has a lot of experience there that he could use in presidency. I agree, there are certain aspects of the constitution that do need updating. I wouldn't say it's useless though. I actually believe the most important level of government is local. To put it into context, what does the president know of the lives of someone living in a back water town of Arkansas for example? Local government is so dumbed down, but really should be made more important. Local government technically has more impact on people's every day lives than the main government. Don't forget also, each state is in effect its own country anyway, so people want more localised governing as it is more relevant. Don't know about your comment about not being electable unless you make some religious comment, although I would say there needs to be an alternate pledge of allegiance for non christians such as myself to be able to say. And it does annoy me that for a supposedly secular nation, religion is so prominent, so I probably agree with you on this point. In fact, I understand Obama tried to get 'in god we trust' off the dollar bills, which I also agree should be removed, but was shouted down. Of course the president doesn't have much power, that's the whole point. That's why America split from the UK because it didn't want to be under control by one person. So you only want Obama back in because he was president before? Not sure that's very good reasoning myself. I want Romney in to get the deficit back under control, and because I'd like a job next year. I'm starting to see why they say never talk about politics or religion. Things can get very feisty very quickly.

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I'm not asleep. Nor am I American. If I had to face the prospect, as a woman, of life under Romney, I think I would probably top myself. He has a view of women 's rights that makes the Dark Ages seem enlightened.[/quote] You've obviously not heard anything about the democrats view of women either then. [quote user="Russethouse"]You know it's about time America realised that they do not rule or run the world........frankly I think that politicians tend to play on people's fears about this which are often hyped up......[/quote] Like I say, if it's not them, it'll be someone else. It always is.

I think Obama getting in again will further weaken America, which in turn will weaken the world. If America isn't on top, then China or Russia, or even worse a Middle Eastern alliance could rise. I think you'll see a far worse world then. Obama has doubled the deficit, and will likely double it again in the next 4 years. Wake up people.

You don't know how she feels. You don't get your commercial breaks filled with one side slagging the other side off all the time. It's quite hilarious actually, if it hadn't have been for the debates, I really wouldn't have a clue what either side's policies were lol.

[quote user="allanb"]C de L wrote: "the system [in the USA] is often second to none" and "the US is the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks…" No doubt, but that's only for people who have access to it, i.e. those who are either employed or rich. Here are typical "fair costs" in the US for a couple of procedures, taken from the Healthcare Blue Book: Hip replacement: surgeon's fee $2,500, hospital $19,000 (assuming 4 days in hospital) Coronary bypass: surgeon & anaesthetist $6,200, hospital $57,000 (assuming 10 days) In each case, additional time in hospital is quoted as $1,800 per day. Do Romney & co understand what these numbers imply for someone who doesn't have insurance? Or who has insurance because of his job, but is worried about the plant closing down?[/quote] I would imagine Romney and co do understand, hence his focus to improve medicare. Plus his main policy on getting people back into work. Obama has mentioned very little about work.

It will never happen here though. The insurance companies are too far embedded to the system. Plus many Americans don't actually like having their health care dictated to by politicians. I really have no idea what the answer is. If I did, I'd be a millionaire. Actually, probably a billionaire. As I said earlier in the thread, I like the French system as it provides an area of responsibility for each individual to try and take care of themselves, and not go to the dr at every little ache or pain. The American system has its advantages, the service is often second to none. My wife recently has had to have some treatment done, and she was sorted within a couple of weeks. Her uncle was treated for cancer very recently too, and the level, speed and quality of service is among the best I've ever seen. Figures also show that the US is in fact the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks of referal and its breast cancer treatment it comes out second only to Germany (the UK is at the bottom of this particular comparison). These figures are taken from an article in the NY Times when comparing US healthcare to social systems. It did also show it costs the most because of insurance companies, and because people don't pay back what they owe after treatment. I probably won't be able to continue this debate for a few days, I'm getting prepared to be hit by a big hurricane that's coming my way!

[quote user="Russethouse"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare CdeL - you realise that when Mitt Roney became governor of MA he was very much in favor of a very similar scheme?[/quote] Yep. But I don't agree with everything he believes in. Besides, I think he always said it would work better if each individual state would run it, as a national scheme it wouldn't work. But if the majority have work again, Obamacare isn't needed.

So how does Obamacare help? All it does is force them to buy health insurance, which they obviously cannot afford, otherwise they'd probably have it. The whole system needs to be started from scratch, and that isn't going to happen. However, if the majority of people are working, then they will be covered leaving only a minority without cover. With the extra tax which is being paid in because the majority of people are working, then improvements to Medicare and Medicaid can be made so those people can be covered too. You therefore don't need Obamacare.