Jump to content


Photo

Those Tricky Democrats...


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2007 - 08:16 PM

Excellant, now it's phase two. This is gonna take longer than I thought.

The National Guard is not supposed to fight fires. The job of the National Guard is to deal with disaster situations and situations where military assistance is required, such as evacuations, preparations for natural disasters, and defence of territory. In other words, the National Guard is CERTAINLY needed to evacuate people, to restore order, and to keep infrastructure going. The National Guard isn't just a bunch of infantrymen, it's also engineers, and they certainly have firefighting capabilities. The job of the National Guard is to respond to natural disasters and threats to the safety of the people within the state at the whim of the governor.


But all persons who needed to be evacuated actually were evacuated...

And in the timely process as much as humanly possible. There were not a lack of people, and all went as well as it could have done. Yet Barbara Boxer still said:

"Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California complained the ability of the state's National Guard has been compromised because too much of their equipment and personnel is in Iraq. Is that true?"

See, one of your far left wing people opened thier mouth and said someting stupid.

*cracks knuckles to get seriously ready*

The job of the government is to serve the people. Perhaps you're forgetting that. The people empower the government with a special trust and confidence that the government will act in its best interest, be that by protection or social assurance. The job of the military is to protect the people, the job of the government is to run the country and to ensure that all of its citizens needs are met. The government is only in place because the people feel they can be served by it, not protected by it; otherwise we'd all have local militias instead.

The burden of the government is not to just raise a military and provide for the common defence (Some would say that is even pointless), but also to provide for common welfare. I suggest you read Rousseau and Montesquieu.

Serving the people does not mean "owning" the people by sending them money each month so they can create even more babies paid for at the US tax payer's expense. Sorry sir, we're not gonna allow it to happen.

By protection and social assurance? And I suppose you would include a federal run medical system with no currently working world model, because they all fail as up to this point. I'm not talking Sweden, I'm talking capable of fully financed and available health care for 320 million people in the US?

That is absolutley foolish, we know mountains of Canadians come to the US for medical treatment because they CANNOT wait for an appointent 6 months from now. It's insane.

And to protect against an unfair system. The current deal is not fair to 99% of the population. 1% of the population holds 80% of the wealth. Health care is commonly denied based on credit; people die because they have no money.

Where do you get your 99% from? I live in the US and don't obviously see the same 99%?!

Maybe you live in rural America?
Maybe you don't?

Maybe you live in a dorm room in a college where you don't understand the plight of the poor?
Or are you a political arm chair quarterback?

Maybe you feel guilty because you feel privilaged to go to university and some aren't?

Maybe you should give it all back?

And don't forget:
Bill O'Reilly constantly praises George Bush, you know, the guy who invaded Iraq, has tanked the American economy, and has proven to be the least intelligent and least successful president in American history.
Bill O'Reilly doesn't miss the chance to incite homophobia.
Bill O'Reilly doesn't ever miss the chance to incite racism and xenophobia.
You want more? Check out the 1217 hits at http://mediamatters......ring=O'Reilly
I'm certainly well researched. I just don't think it's worth listing every single one of his sins here. The guy is just ridiculous, and anyone who isn't a WASP is probably a terrorist or a threat to America. It's the warfare doctrine, extremely common Goebbels technique, to isolate a part of the population and make them into non-citizens, even non-humans. He does it with gays, Arabs, Democrats, anyone on the target list.


Probably not worth your time to worry about a "public entertainer" such as Bill O'Reilly. Not worth the effort.

The Great Deal:
My God, I cannot think of a more no brainer action than what Roosevelt did. It wasn't left or right, it was common sense. Creating the SEC. Genius. Creating the AAA, genius. Best Democrat I ever read history on.

If only we could find some way to clone him. He cleaned up the capitalist system in only 7 years and won a world war. Now that is a President.

Quoting mediamatters.org or moveon.org is like me using a christian site to back up creationism, or using the Swiftboat site. :(
http://www.sourcewat...erans_for_Truth


Mediamatters as well as movon.org are financed heavily by George Soros, I'm just such a real fan of this person, who's capability of exploiting third world nations is world famous!

Mediamaters.org was started in conjunction by Hillary Clinton.

God love her. If only I can vote her in to be my President.

NOT!

But even if she is voted in, will I burn US flags?

NO. Because I'm not a FAR left liberal.

#42 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 28 October 2007 - 10:35 PM

It's not my problem if you make stuff up. That entire post was fabricated, there are no references to any of the outrageous claims made, and it relies on ad hominem attacks to claim some form of credibility.
I thought this was supposed to be some form of structured debate, not Bill O'Reilly-esque "I win" arguments.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#43 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 29 October 2007 - 06:54 AM

Please point out what I made up. Tell us what I fabricated. Which outragious claims have I not referenced?

I'm sorry, I don't speak latin, I speak english.

Believe me, I'm all ears when it comes to debate. You can say whatever you want or feel. I'm not here to stifle your opinion sir. I'm here to "enlighten" the masses.

#44 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 29 October 2007 - 06:02 PM

Perhaps you'd rather read my posts, and respond to the actual issues, instead of wearing blinders, attacking individuals in the Democratic Party (All of which you refer to as far "crazy" left, all of which are right of me), and painting Reagan-esque visions of horrible socialized medicine with food lines down through Red Square waiting for stale bread and rock soup. Or, of course, my favourite bit is the "liberal conspiracy" jibber-jabber that comes out every other post, which is reminiscent of Hitler's "Bolshevik Jew conspiracy" jibber-jabber which infested Germany for 12 years. Oh, and the ad hominem attacks are charming, and of course, belittling peoples' beliefs by quoting abstract, fearmongering projections which are individually composed for each and every situation; wonderful. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the issues, instead of playing Fox News commentator and drawing Orwellian pictures all over the walls, saying that is the face of the left. Social democracy is not communism, social democracy is a commitment to a fair deal for society. Social assurance does not mean paying people to have children. Social assurance does not mean forcing people to stand in a line for emergency surgery. Social assurance simply means ensuring that no person goes hungry, that no person dies because of extreme poverty, and ensuring that nobody is personally destroyed by circumstances truly beyond their control. When you have $4.99 to your name, the doctrine of 1800s era Self-Help does not work anymore, the government needs to step in to ensure that its citizens are fairly accommodated.

Perhaps you're afraid of the government. That's too bad, the government, when sensibly run, has the potential to do wonderful things for society. Why can free health care not work for the United States? Sweden has a small population, but Sweden also has a small government budget. Sweden has a small population, but at the same time, as a result, it has less tax revenue. The United States makes much more tax revenue; there is no logical reason why, financially, free health care would not work if it works in another western country such as France. The United States has just as many hospitals as Sweden and France. The United States is in just the same sort of situation; the difference is that the United States has sold the wellbeing of its citizens to corporations which have an ultimate goal of making money, not of saving lives. The idea of social assurance is to ensure that no person is unfairly treated by society; selling health care to corporations is certainly unfair treatment to the vast majority of the population.

Another thing, you did know that Québec is part of Canada, right? I live in Québec; Montreal, specifically. It's even right below my avatar. There are no waiting lines here for procedures. Essentially, you go, book an appointment, and you get it done. In fact, I had to visit a hospital with a friend here (Broken bone), the waiting time was significantly less than what I've experienced in Boston (If you want to look it up, it was the Royal Victoria Hospital, yes, it's real, and about .5km from middle of downtown Montreal). The emergency lines are simply not as long as in the United States. They actually have clinics to help people who can't afford regular health care, and operations, from what I've heard from my Canadian friends (From British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Québec), aren't as substantial as in the United Kingdom. All emergency procedures are fully covered by provincial health care (Which is subsidized and costs about $300/year depending on the province), in addition to all check ups, routine procedures, and eye care (Dental is covered by supplemental), none of which have copays at all. The government completely pays for everything, and this is a nation of 33 million people which only pays marginally higher taxes than United States citizens.
Would you like economic proof though?
Canada has a total GDP of $1.165 trillion, ~$35,000 per capita.
The United States has a total GDP of $13.7 trillion, $43,444 per capita.
The United States is clearly "more rich" than Canada, and has a veritable army of bureaucrats to fall back on. Unfortunately, the US spends nearly $500bn on defence, most of which is woefully misappropriated. It is not willing to spend money on keeping the people healthy and happy, it's not part of American values, apparently. Clearly you'd rather live in an unsafe society, where a turn of economic fortune like October 1929 could essentially end your life. In Canada, the government cares for its people, the government will not let the people suffer. In Sweden, in the United Kingdom, in France, in most countries, it is the same way. The United States is, perhaps uniquely, one of the only western democracies which readily denies its people health care. It is not beyond American capabilities, it is beyond American willingness, and if you're representative of what the right thinks, half of America's mental capabilities.

Mediamatters as well as movon.org are financed heavily by George Soros, I'm just such a real fan of this person, who's capability of exploiting third world nations is world famous!

Unreferenced, uncited. Additionally, I never referenced moveon.org.

Mediamaters.org was started in conjunction by Hillary Clinton.

Simply falsified. I even looked for this, and couldn't find one source which could confirm this.

Where do you get your 99% from? I live in the US and don't obviously see the same 99%?!

Maybe you live in rural America?
Maybe you don't?

Maybe you live in a dorm room in a college where you don't understand the plight of the poor?
Or are you a political arm chair quarterback?

Maybe you feel guilty because you feel privilaged to go to university and some aren't?

Maybe you should give it all back?

Ad hominem (Pathetic, actually). Apparently I was incorrect about the 1%, I was actually quoting someone who apparently didn't do their homework. I've done mine though.
Instead, according to Arthur Kennickell's official Federal Reserve report on the changes in distribution of wealth between 1989 and 2001, 10% of the population hold approximately 71% of the wealth, and 1% hold 38% of the wealth. By the way, wealth is, naturally, assets - liabilities, so the actual money is probably quite a bit higher as most of it is, no doubt, in stocks, whereas the normal private citizen usually has a lot of money sitting in an extremely safe bank account and probably a few thousand sitting in stocks.
(Source: http://www.federalre...on.2001.10.pdf)
Perhaps you should rely less on personal observation, and more on fact, as I think you're rather distorted based on your reasoning and arguments.

Probably not worth your time to worry about a "public entertainer" such as Bill O'Reilly. Not worth the effort.

But... you... just... defended... Bill... O'Reilly...

The Great Deal:
My God, I cannot think of a more no brainer action than what Roosevelt did. It wasn't left or right, it was common sense. Creating the SEC. Genius. Creating the AAA, genius. Best Democrat I ever read history on.

It's the New Deal. Any it was a very socialist labour plan. The government essentially paid for projects to be completed, thus creating work and employment opportunities, and also did what it could to save the economy. Creating jobs and ensuring people have work is extremely socialist. Organizations were formed for the sole purpose of creating work, rebuilding the American economy, and removing the influence of "corporate gamblers," as Roosevelt called them. Seriously, read some Roosevelt speeches, they could very well be by Labour Party politicians in the 1930s. The New Deal was, in every way, a socialist labour reform. It was even presented by Roosevelt as a socialist labour reform, I believe he described it as taking back the economy from the destructive, greedy capitalists. Roosevelt was very much a social democrat, perhaps you should read some primary sources instead of Conservapedia.

But even if she is voted in, will I burn US flags?

NO. Because I'm not a FAR left liberal.

Ad hominem (Pathetic).

It's not personal. Just infuriating.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#45 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:21 PM

The United States is clearly "more rich" than Canada, and has a veritable army of bureaucrats to fall back on. Unfortunately, the US spends nearly $500bn on defence, most of which is woefully misappropriated. It is not willing to spend money on keeping the people healthy and happy, it's not part of American values, apparently. Clearly you'd rather live in an unsafe society, where a turn of economic fortune like October 1929 could essentially end your life. In Canada, the government cares for its people, the government will not let the people suffer. In Sweden, in the United Kingdom, in France, in most countries, it is the same way. The United States is, perhaps uniquely, one of the only western democracies which readily denies its people health care. It is not beyond American capabilities, it is beyond American willingness, and if you're representative of what the right thinks, half of America's mental capabilities.


Who are you to judge that the US defense budget is misappropriated? Some of the biggest employers in the US are defense contractors. What do you think would happen if the US just stopped spending money on military things? The companies would not suddenly switch over from making F-22's to 787's, or M1A2's to compact cars. The 500 billion spent on the US military is supporting the US economy and providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.

After the Great Depression, steps were taken to prevent something like that happening again. Off the top of my head I can remember that government now backs banks or something.

About Canadian socialized health care: http://www.komotv.co...l/10216201.html So basically one of the most advanced countries in the world can not handle their own citizen's giving birth because of their socialized system.

About European socialized systems: they pay a butt load more taxes than people in the US do. According to my Political Science text book, Sweden pays about double that the US does.

Socialized systems also take away people's freedoms. I would rather have to pay for my health care and have the ability to choose what company, what plan... that I want.

The United States is, perhaps uniquely, one of the only western democracies which readily denies its people health care.


The US does not deny its people health care, it just assumes that its citizens are mature and competent enough to take care of themselves without the government leaning over their shoulder to make sure that they don't skin their knee.

It is not beyond American capabilities, it is beyond American willingness, and if you're representative of what the right thinks, half of America's mental capabilities.


So people are retarded because they disagree with you?
Posted Image

#46 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:33 PM

And it's on...

Who are you to judge that the US defense budget is misappropriated? Some of the biggest employers in the US are defense contractors. What do you think would happen if the US just stopped spending money on military things? The companies would not suddenly switch over from making F-22's to 787's, or M1A2's to compact cars. The 500 billion spent on the US military is supporting the US economy and providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.

Who needs judgement when the facts are right there?
http://money.cnn.com...sion=2007102416
On the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Just those two places alone):

... The $2.4 trillion would pay to keep 75,000 troops deployed overseas from 2013 to 2017. About 210,000 troops are currently deployed. It does not include the Pentagon's normal spending, which in 2007 is estimated to be about $450 billion.

The estimated $2.4 trillion works out to about $21,500 per American household.

As you can see, there's a serious problem with the government not only eating through its appropriated $450 billion, the largest defence budget by far on the planet, but also through $2.4 trillion to keep 1/3rd of the currently deployed troops in the field over four years in two countries. That number is not even comprehensible... that's two thousand four hundred billion dollars. I may as well say "a gajilion dollars." It's an unbelievable amount of money, and it's fully 1/7th of the entire GDP!!! That's a devastating amount of money lost!

Perhaps more proof of the government squandering money?

Project costs
RAH-66 (Cancelled): $38 billion
M/CV-22 (Now being reviewed after the armament proved to be ineffective, long record of safety issues): $37.3 billion (Was $38 million in 1986, funny enough)

I'm certain if you look at the M1A2 SEP project, the M-8 project, the OICW project, even ACUPAT, the Stryker project, the missile shield project, the YABL-1 project, Star Wars, and all sorts of other things which carried on for ten years and either got cancelled or ended up ugly and distorted, you could find another $300 billion dollars of wastage there.
Also, nationalpriorities.org, using CBO data, has estimated the cost of the (Rather illegal) war in Iraq at $464 billion.
That, in addition to the $2 trillion, or $21,000/home we're going to have to start paying, is wholly unacceptable. Sure, it's a wonderful thing for the American economy, throwing trillions of dollars down the drain, but where does the money go? Do you think the US has completely, solely American companies producing its military systems? Of course not, the components, like everything else, are produced elsewhere and imported. The American economy is a knowledge economy, it doesn't make money from production, it makes money from assembly and technical skills. American profits almost certainly stop when designs are complete (Except in shipbuilding, which is the least egregious waste of money so far).

Don't tell me the war in Iraq is a wonderful thing for the American economy. Look at the deficit. It certainly doesn't help the United States when we owe trillions to China.

The US does not deny its people health care, it just assumes that its citizens are mature and competent enough to take care of themselves without the government leaning over their shoulder to make sure that they don't skin their knee.

So does the government of Canada. The difference is that very few people go without health insurance in Canada (The poor on the streets who are wholly unaccomodated by the rather bourgeois and isolated government here), while 16% of adult American citizens (nchc.org) went without health care in 2005. Canadian health care is, by far, the least efficient countrywide system in the western hemisphere (If you'd like a model national system, look at France), but at least they can go to a hospital for emergency procedures without being in debt for the next 200 years as a result. The reason Canada is not because it's a universal system, but rather because companies still run hospitals, and due to funding cuts and bureaucratic inefficiency, hospitals are shutting down all over the country. However, if you ask me where I'd rather be treated, the answer is self-evident; Canada. I'd rather not have to deal with owing a company like Partners Healthcare $100,000 for a minor operation.

Perhaps you should re-examine the way you look at the world and at least think of the less fortunate, even if you're not one of them.

After the Great Depression, steps were taken to prevent something like that happening again. Off the top of my head I can remember that government now backs banks or something.

When investors get jittery and start withdrawing money from the economy, the government prints more and puts it back in. It's not exactly a healthy system, it's more like a patch job.

About European socialized systems: they pay a butt load more taxes than people in the US do. According to my Political Science text book, Sweden pays about double that the US does.

That's nice. I'd pay more taxes if it meant I knew I'd be well treated, I'd have free health care, and I'd still have my civil rights respected. Oh, and that I'd not be a corporate pawn. Your health is at the whim of a corporation, which may or may not approve certain medical operations. A Swedish citizen who pays their taxes, on the other hand, is guaranteed medical treatment. You're not.
If you oppose universal health care, a fair deal for humanity, and social assurance, I believe a few Neil Kinnock quotes work quite well:
"...
I warn you that you will have pain -
When healing and relief depend on payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance -
When talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty -
When pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a Government that won't pay in an economy that can't pay.

I warn you that you will be cold -
When fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich do not notice and the poor cannot afford.
...
I warn you not to go out into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.
...
I warn you not to be ordinary.
I warn you not to be young.
I warn you not to fall ill.
I warn you not to get old."

I think it's interesting how 24 years later, it pertains perfectly to the America the two of you advocate. He was speaking about Margaret Thatcher at a time when Britain faced many of the same kinds of pressures and on a lesser scale, the same... ginormous debt as the United States, but ultimately, we're in rather dire straits now, especially compared to 1983.

So people are retarded because they disagree with you?

That's an extremely offencive term. I'd recommend you cease using it.
Also, if your real reasons for advocating such a system are those that you put forth, I would say it's a rather apt summary of the point I was trying to make.

Additionally, as with all right wing and creationist responses I seem to get these days, you seem to take the easy route, picking one paragraph and jumping on it, instead of perhaps, confronting the argument. Anyone can pick details, it just shows the lack of standing that your position has. Your argument is one void of compassion, void of all human elements, and consumed by greed, the quest for money, and support for oppressive methods of corporate control. I realize you can't formulate an argument, that seems to speak more volumes than I could ever.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#47 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:23 PM

Since I was late for class I only posted what I did because that was all I had off the top of my head. I was planning on replying to the rest of it now, but since you just told me that since I have politically conservative opinions I am retarded, I won't bother.

These forums used to actually be a good source of information and a place for interesting debate, but now they have just dissolved into a place where unless you agree with the left wing liberal side of the argument, you're wrong. There isn't even room for debate anymore because posts have just broken down into attacking other people with the actual on topic part of the post added on as an after thought.

So, I'm out. Have fun going down the road to socialism.
Posted Image

#48 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 30 October 2007 - 12:18 PM

well you are now just reading the parts that offended you and used that to say you won't have any part of the discussion.

i have absolutely no problems accepting the things that spencer mentions as problems in western society with the US as prime target. doesn't mean that i want to change every little old rule there is out there, but people shouldn't just clap their hands over their ears and start singing the national anthem once they hear some criticism.

i am offended when people start claiming that this is conservative politics and this is socialistic politics. its just another way to use ad-hominem rhetoric, grouping ideas that would help a society into a box with "communist" written all over it.

every single idea can be embraced by any side in social politics(who wouldnt want free healthcare, MiT/Harvard education and generally a perfect life). the problem is the economical politics. thats where the core of the problem is.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#49 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 30 October 2007 - 02:56 PM

To be honest narboza I think its rather ignorant to suggest you are being personally attacked when Spencer raises some good points and you clearly have no response because your selective with your arguments.

I find it irritating everyone focuses on singular mind sets such as "conservative" or "socialist" regardless of the fact that these points are bought up because they are clearly a problem. I believe one of your republician senators running for president has even talked about the problems that spencer has stated within the western world. I think its quite blind and ignorant to ignore the facts that have been laid out. The fact is the US is in massive amounts of debt. The fact is the USA, one of the most successful nations of the planet has been engulfed in exactly what its founding fathers prophesied if the people turn to ignorance. The fact is globalisation is robbing everyone of their human rights, national idenities and people regardless if they are "left" and "right" still want to battle out the nitty gritty bullcrap being placed infront of them rather than seeing the bigger picture.

If it is truely a war of ideology why is everyone ignoring history repeat itselfs and the developing totalitarian nightmare that is beginning to engulf us, covered by many names such as, "the war on terror", globalisation, the "New American Century", the North American Union, the European Union.... so on.

I don't think what spencer has stated is "the road to socialism." I think its more a person with common sense and has realised regardless of the "political spectrum" that HUMAN BEINGS are being manipulated and used all in the name of profit, whilst many of them suffer and never have the opportunity to use their apparent "democratic" system to make their own lives better. When you allow bureaucracy to engulfed it and still pretend its democratic i think the only word is ignorant. It doesn't matter if you believe in the false democrat or republician debate, whoever you vote is in it for money, nothing more.

Maybe its time Americans stopped being "democrats" and "republicans" and actually read their constitution and realised what the term "American" means. Maybe its time people in the western world woke up from their mass hypnosis caused by consumerism and evolved. Maybe its time they become adults and took responsibilities for their own lives and their own countries. Whilst we trust our countries in the hands of elite dynasties, corporations and bureaucrats the world will never get better for us. We have to do it ourselves. There is no solution in men with money. Thoughout history the rich have only been interested in reform after they've made their millions, not before. A majority of the time bureaucrats have only ever used power to further their own means. Why do you think the leaders of the western world today are any different? Because they allow us to vote? Heh what a joke.

If this is me attacking your personal opinion I ask you to state how and then I ask you to support your notion that you cannot debate in this forum. Maybe its because politics nowadays is evolving into something different. Maybe its no longer "left" vs "right" but "what happened to our democracy?" or "where did our rights go?" I don't think it matters if you claim yourself to be right or left wing to ask those questions. At the end of the day people need to stop looking at their petty differences and illusions and look at the one singular thing that makes us all unite. The fact we are human. It doesn't matter if your rich or your poor, no one should have more rights or power because of their status or how many zero's they have after their fortune.

Edited by Hybrid, 30 October 2007 - 03:08 PM.


#50 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 01 November 2007 - 04:04 AM

As you can see, there's a serious problem with the government not only eating through its appropriated $450 billion, the largest defence budget by far on the planet, but also through $2.4 trillion to keep 1/3rd of the currently deployed troops in the field over four years in two countries. That number is not even comprehensible... that's two thousand four hundred billion dollars. I may as well say "a gajilion dollars." It's an unbelievable amount of money, and it's fully 1/7th of the entire GDP!!! That's a devastating amount of money lost!

Perhaps more proof of the government squandering money?

To a great extent I wonder that same. If this amount of money was allocated for social security would it have solved that "buggy" issue?

Sure, it's a wonderful thing for the American economy, throwing trillions of dollars down the drain, but where does the money go? Do you think the US has completely, solely American companies producing its military systems?

Actually most of the money does stay in the US. It simply transfers hands from the government to privately owned military complex.

Of course not, the components, like everything else, are produced elsewhere and imported.

Actually the most sensitive components are really made in the US for obvious reasons.

The American economy is a knowledge economy, it doesn't make money from production, it makes money from assembly and technical skills.

100% true (mostly), cannot find one word of mistruth (some exaggeration though) in this statement. We are a "service" based economy from the government down to the McD's employees. Though we are good at producing "durable goods."

American profits almost certainly stop when designs are complete (Except in shipbuilding, which is the least egregious waste of money so far).

100% not true, you were doing so well here. But then you slipped. You forgot to take into account liscensing rights and such. Copyrights, re-distributions, foreign bond redemptions, and much more. We are far from profitable beyond "the designs."

(EDIT) Bond Redemptions are used by foreign governments to buy stuff from the US by giving us (thier) national bonds, of which we can can cash in when the market value it in our favor. Just figured I'd explain this part. We're still sitting on mountains of minerals sent to us by europe to help pay back the Marshal Plan (WWII) loans because it was the only way to start paying back the loans.

The difference is that very few people go without health insurance in Canada (The poor on the streets who are wholly unaccomodated by the rather bourgeois and isolated government here), while 16% of adult American citizens (nchc.org) went without health care in 2005.

If you take 320 million people (population of the US) and divide it by the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants you come up with exactly 16%. Very odd how these two numbers add up exactly. Not saying they are related, but you might mention if your numbers included the illigal immigrants or not. ;)

When investors get jittery and start withdrawing money from the economy, the government prints more and puts it back in. It's not exactly a healthy system, it's more like a patch job.

And when Nixon said "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" he was lying again, we've been kicking him ever since he enacted the dropping of the gold standard. But realistically I don't think we could have kept up the gold standard anyway. Maybe he wasn't so wrong... :cool:

That's nice. I'd pay more taxes if it meant I knew I'd be well treated, I'd have free health care, and I'd still have my civil rights respected.

Yikes, I couldn't disagree more. Keep your free healthcare, I'd rather the tax dollars in my pocket. If people are poor, give them free healthcare on a tiered level based on income. National free healthcare, forget it dude. I'll not vote for a candidate for that reason. What do civil rights have to do with National Health Care? :huh:

I think it's interesting how 24 years later, it pertains perfectly to the America the two of you advocate. He was speaking about Margaret Thatcher at a time when Britain faced many of the same kinds of pressures and on a lesser scale, the same... ginormous debt as the United States, but ultimately, we're in rather dire straits now, especially compared to 1983.

I don't care about Thatcher, she never ran the US and especially the US in todays time period. She is irrelevant to me. Means ZERO in my thought processes.

So people are retarded because they disagree with you?

That's an extremely offencive term. I'd recommend you cease using it.

I reserve the right to use the english language as taught to me. I do not care about the liberal installed "politally correct" language demanded of me.

I feel this way because I am... Retarded. ;)

Your argument is one void of compassion, void of all human elements, and consumed by greed, the quest for money, and support for oppressive methods of corporate control. I realize you can't formulate an argument, that seems to speak more volumes than I could ever.

Thanks for the credit but we're really not that clever. :p

#51 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 01 November 2007 - 10:44 AM

I don't have time for a full post. And besides, Spence is doing a wonderful job. But...

Yikes, I couldn't disagree more. Keep your free healthcare, I'd rather the tax dollars in my pocket. If people are poor, give them free healthcare on a tiered level based on income. National free healthcare, forget it dude. I'll not vote for a candidate for that reason.

Sorry, but that has to be the most woeful argument against free nationalised healthcare ever.

"I don't want it because I'll pay a little bit more in tax instead of a lot more in medical bills."

My question is, why? I cannot comprehend whatever logic you're working on there. Perhaps you could explain it for me, because it just makes absolutely no sense.

What do civil rights have to do with National Health Care?

He was pre-emptively dealing with the inevitable argument that "ZOMG if we got national health care it would infringe our civil rights!" which, as well as not being true, actually has a factor of impossibility. You even said so yourself in the quote above, albeit in the form of a question; civil rights have nothing to do with National Health Care.

So, yeah. Why the hell are you so opposed to something that's so obviously beneficial to, well, the entire country? There's no way the US couldn't afford to do it, so why not?

#52 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 01 November 2007 - 12:58 PM

To be honest Eric. Your paying more tax money for war than you could for health care. Also the tax on your income which merely goes to "cover" the building national debt could essentially be put to better use if the government, democrat or republican, had the balls to stand up to the federal reserve system and returned to America's original constitution right to create its own money rather than relying on banks.

I think there is enough money in the tax you have to even get a basic healthcare system under-go in many states. It would require cutting the ridiculous defense budget, cutting the continuous wars America has been in since 1905 and having the balls to undermine the fascist federal reserve system.

#53 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 01 November 2007 - 11:47 PM

I don't have time for a full post. And besides, Spence is doing a wonderful job. But...

Yikes, I couldn't disagree more. Keep your free healthcare, I'd rather the tax dollars in my pocket. If people are poor, give them free healthcare on a tiered level based on income. National free healthcare, forget it dude. I'll not vote for a candidate for that reason.

Sorry, but that has to be the most woeful argument against free nationalised healthcare ever.

"I don't want it because I'll pay a little bit more in tax instead of a lot more in medical bills."

My question is, why? I cannot comprehend whatever logic you're working on there. Perhaps you could explain it for me, because it just makes absolutely no sense.

What do civil rights have to do with National Health Care?

He was pre-emptively dealing with the inevitable argument that "ZOMG if we got national health care it would infringe our civil rights!" which, as well as not being true, actually has a factor of impossibility. You even said so yourself in the quote above, albeit in the form of a question; civil rights have nothing to do with National Health Care.

So, yeah. Why the hell are you so opposed to something that's so obviously beneficial to, well, the entire country? There's no way the US couldn't afford to do it, so why not?

I don't understand why EVERYONE must be forced to have it. I'm all for the bottom 20% getting it for free and than tier it up based on income. But only 16% of the population in the US doesn't have coverage according to Spence.

Why not let the rest continue as is? We create a program ensuring the bottom income earners have it. This all or none approach is what I find unacceptable.

I'll accept a national low income health care system, but not a nationalised health care system.

Right now my employer pays for it, (you know big corporate) I don't want the people to pay any more than they have to.

I'd assume Corporate America should cover the cost as much as possible. Why make the people pay for it through taxes?

"I don't want it because I'll pay a little bit more in tax instead of a lot more in medical bills."

This statement isn't true. I don't pay higher medical bills, I have my monthly installment of $200. As do 84% of the US population according to Spence.

I would be willing to pay alittle more to cover the cost of a low income nationalised health care system.

But most peoples coverage is really great. Why change thier coverage? If I get sick or break a leg, I go to the doctor and only pay $10 co-pay.

How about just fix the 16% that's broken and leave the other 84% alone? I don't have any special medical plan, I'm on the one my wife has from work. There are only 100 employees with her company. Nothing fancy, covers everything I need. We pay like $200 a month I believe.

Seeing the average car payment is $300-$500 a month, that's really not that much considering what you get out of it.

To be honest Eric. Your paying more tax money for war than you could for health care

Thank God, or I would be agreeing with you. That would be alot of bananas, right now it isn't. :p




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users