There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by some_girl
Why then are other nations moving away from socialism? Two main reasons: (a) globalization is a race to the bottom and they are trying to compete with nations where it's okay to force eight year olds to work for pennies a day, and (b) European nations have a combination of againg populations and antipathy to immigration that makes it difficult to sustain themselves.
It finally comes out, long awaited, the anti Starbucks crowd.
You have yet to state how taking more of my money will improve an inefficient gov't program. You just want more of my money. I'm sure you have poor hospitals but does that mean more money spent poorly will improve them? Seems to me you'd be more interest in reform to make things better.
Keep your paws out of my wallet!
Originally posted by aquageek
It finally comes out, long awaited, the anti Starbucks crowd.
You have yet to state how taking more of my money will improve an inefficient gov't program. You just want more of my money. I'm sure you have poor hospitals but does that mean more money spent poorly will improve them? Seems to me you'd be more interest in reform to make things better.
Keep your paws out of my wallet!
At long last it comes out: the utter selfishness at the bottom of "libertarianism"! Look, the hospital I mentioned isn't actually my hospital (mine is in a nice middle-class neighborhood and is much more pleasant). And what is this mythical "reform to make things better" that doesn't involve money? Is that like the magical pill that won't make me fat anymore?
I know, I know, you can't actually answer concrete questions with real answers. Insults and assumptions are just so much easier.
You want an example of gov't reform that actually didn't cost more, improved efficiencies and even the left crowd liked - WELFORM REFORM.
Since paying taxes is not voluntary, I'm not sure why you consider me selfish. Would the fact that folks contribute to other causes besides our gov't be ok with you or is it only acceptable to pay more taxes to prove your worth? What about people who tithe to their churches or volunteer their time? That acceptable?
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Name any other country in the world that provides free health sevices, education and drivers licenses to "illegal" immigrants?
I believe Canada, France and England on this. Our Canadian friends can correct me if I'm wrong.
Just out of curiosity, you ever hear of the Rhodes (sp ?) scholarship? It is possibly the most coveted scholarship in the world.
Just because there is a healthcare "crisis" in this country, it does not follow that a program run by the federal gov't is the answer. I think you need to look more critically at the track record of socialized medicine. As for your comments regarding a civilized society, I don't believe the founding fathers envisioned big government and countless entitlement programs. Maybe they weren't civilized enough.
The question is, what is the role of the federal gov't? The founding fathers had their view (which was the point of my reference), you have yours. If there were a simple solution to healthcare, we would have seen it already. But as I have previously posted, if socialized medicine is the answer, why are other countries now exploring privitization?
What this has to do with foreign athletes is becoming a bit fuzzy, unless of course they need a rotator cuff repair (in which case they can always return home and wait six months for elective surgery).
Oh yeah, the founders were idiots and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are no more valuable than toilet paper. Hurrah for communism.
Hook'em
Blue
Originally posted by aquageek
Have you been to a gov't office lately? Were you impressed with your level of service?
How about a VA hospital? Personally I think our veterans deserve better than that.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Name any other country in the world that provides free health sevices, education and drivers licenses to "illegal" immigrants?
Free health services?You must be dreaming,Paul, where did you see free health services here in the US?You'll be treated but it will not be free...
