Yes. It did. I recall seeing it a number of times, and a quick google search predictably turns up any number of results on media websites.
[QUOTE=adhay]
But I think that if the fact that several thousand US doctors supported a single-payer HCS had been “allowed” by our media into the recent HC debate, Obama’s “victory” would have had a different flavor.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t give a crap what they support – so, no, I don’t see why anything should hinge on the presence or absence of such poll results. Possibly those doctors support it because they think it’ll make 'em richer (in which case I don’t give a crap). Possibly they support it because they lean left in general (in which case I don’t give a crap). And so on.
And, of course, possibly they support it because their field is medicine rather than economics; there’s a reason why I’d no more ask my doctor for financial advice than I’d ask him to repair my car or draft my will. His opinion is no more or less relevant than anyone else’s when it comes to copyright law or jury trials or income taxation or whatever; why should it be especially relevant on this question?
But, yes, the media dutifully reported the trivially true information, and it got greeted with every ounce of respect it deserved.
I also see a bunch of polls from such corporate entities like CNN, Time Magazine, and ABC which show a majority of Americans in favor of a single-payer system: http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
Case in point: A recent Reuters article on a 2008 poll? No wonder your opinion is skewed about the US - it’s two years old!
I knew about the various polls of physicians throughout the course of the Congressional debates. I certainly did not learn about it from my periodic perusal of al Jazeera. I doubt that Fox hyped the information, but it was hardly a secret that the news media conspired to hide.
The line into Heaven doesn’t form at the rear. In your rush to Glory, PLEASE don’t step on my suede toes or in my deep blues. Be sorry as I am if you do.
putting aside the fact that that Iran’s own media translated it to to say wiped out do you accept President Ahmadinejad’s subsequent clarifications that his speech was misinterpreted and that Iran would never instigate military action?
You strongly implied that the news media did something to prevent the American public from being aware that a poll was conducted in which a majority of physicians supported Single Payer health care.
I noted that I was aware of more than one poll that provided the same information and that I got my knowledge from the American news media.
Unless you have information proving that I actually received that knowledge from mind waves directly passed to my unconscious, your claim that the U.S. news media suppressed that information is false.
Posting incoherent sarcasm fails to actually substantiate your erroneous claim.
My point is that had I been elected as a populist President in favor of affordable HC for all and had at my disposal the media bully pulpit to direct debate on the subject, I would have included the input of the significant portion of the medical community in favor of SPHC. As it was, physicians for single payer health care were not included in any discussions covered by the media.
Blame Obama, blame the media, what’s the difference?
I have to say that I am pretty sure Ahmedinejad won’t instigate any war. Why would he? He will however defend his country form attack which is his right.
USA on the other hand seem pretty hell bent on attacking other countries and going to war even without a UN backing.
I’m much more afraid of the US foreign policy than Iran’s.
“Wiping a regime from the pages of history” can be vastly different to “wiping a country from the face of the map”
This is NOT a comment on the most likely interpretation, nor is it a comment on what was intended by the comment, or even a comment on whether it was reported accurately.
Rather it is what I take as (a possible) meaning of the first statement.
If I beleived a government were “bad”, indulging in immoral activities and just generally being nasty I may well call for that regime (i.e - that group of people) to be wiped from the pages of history.
Just as I may also say that the Bush regime is shameful and deserves to be smitten from the pages of history doesn’t mean that I literally expect god to smite America. Rather I want to see the power brokers from that era suffer.
To remind you (since you wouldn’t want to have any trouble with truth, now would you?), in response to your counter factual claims about Iran not being a threat to anybody:
As for your anger at Fox news, obviously you can cite a link if you choose to. So the question becomes why you choose not to. Especially since your standards seem to be… shall we say, somewhat malleable.
In any case, your reference here seems to be about the recent Iraqi paper’s claims about a Saudi-AQ connection. Most of the sites recently running with the allegation (and all seem to be smallish, with David Icke’s site being on the first page of hits) quote Press TV’s initial piece. Or, more accurately, regurgitate it word for word.
Folks should of course note that Press TV is a state-run Iranian network.
But Achmadinajad didn’t note any specific Israeli administration (which, as noted, has changed twice since he spoke), like you noted the Bush administration. He didn’t say “the Sharon Regime” or “the Olmert Regime” or “the Netanyahu Regime”, he said “the Israeli Regime.” See the difference?
Actually, believe it or not, yes I do. I also think that the likeliest interpretation is that he wants Israel gone. But in fairness (or should that be nit-picky linguistics) if the quote really is accurate, its not the only possible interpretation, and far from a “done deal”
I assume this half-truth is in response to the fact that:
And of course that half-truth avoids all the other actions that Iranian proxies have undertaken which threaten other nations. I notice that you pointedly fail to mention the Iranian-backed Hezbollah murder of Argentinian Jews for the crime of being Jewish.
In any case, the actual facts about Hezbolah are that the initial phase in which Iran tried to dominate Lebanon via Hezbollah happened during the Lebanese civil war of the 1980’s when it found a group of militants dedicated to Khomenism and helped turn them into a military force. We have repeatedly found, for instance, that Iran trained, armed, and directed Hezbollah to the end of attacking specific targets, from the marine barracks in Lebanon to the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Most recently, in 2008 Hezbollah nearly touched off a second civil war as they again attempted to subvert Lebanese sovereignty in order to benefit Iran.
Faced with the fact that their telecom spy-network was illegal, Hezbollah began attacking Lebanese targets and put military pressure on the government.
In point of fact Hezbollah still operates as a state within a state and refuses to be bound by the Lebanese government, to accept the government’s national sovereignty over them or to accept the government’s right to set international policy for the nation.
Of course it seems that the OP isn’t willing to engage with the truth about the Iranian proxy force’s actions in and against Lebanon. Of course I understand that it’s his argument that can’t stand the disinfecting force of sunlight, and I’d never dream of replicating his error and claiming that there was some sort of innate “Arab problem with truth.”
