Hey Americans. (State of the Union)

[Dwood]

The State of the Union address is on.


I think this whole speech is bull crap. 'Tax Credit' .... ? Why not just cut taxes in the first place?

E: Your thoughts?

[Kalub]

Yes? Oh lawd, our government is so funny.

[Warsaw]

Good job, you just summed up just about every State of the Union address in one sentence: it is indeed bull crap.

[Bastinka]

To clarify:

http://www.youtube.com/citizentube?feature=ticker

[Kalub]

Good job, you just summed up just about every State of the Union address in one sentence: it is indeed bull crap.

Promises they can never keep! LIES AND MORE LIES!


Although, I have cake, so I can confirm it is not a lie. It is delicious and moist.

[EX12693]

That's it. I hate our government and the man who is leading it down the drain.

[Dwood]

Augh there's so much bull in this speech... I'm emigrating to canada!

[Cojafoji]

1. Because the federal government was formed by a pretty hollow document.
2. Because San Fransisco is a fucking festering shit hole. (N P)
3. Article 1, Section 11.
4. No matter who runs (or how we vote), the same bass ackwards bullshit will always exist in our bicameral shithole of a congress. Mostly because it's more corrupt than anyone could ever understand.

[Dwood]

"We were in a crisis" lol. I don't know anyone who like the stimulus bill and thought it worked. e: If you're american and actually thought it worked... let me know just so I can't say that any more.

[EX12693]

I did some research. The stimulus INCREASED out deficit. Dammit. Freelancer you have an extra room in your house?

[Dwood]

I did some research. The stimulus INCREASED out deficit. Dammit. Freelancer you have an extra room in your house?

Though I do like 1 idea- For congress to post ALL Earmark requests online. That would be the best thing he's done for America, ever, imho.

[Kalub]

I was thinking of moving to Canada... but it's too fucking cold up there mayn.


Also, french. I can't stand french.

[ICEE]

I'm moving to Australia.

Lol just kidding.

[JPEG]

I'm moving to Australia.

Lol just kidding.

bull shit il take you with me.
:bandwagon:

[Warsaw]

I was thinking of moving to Canada... but it's too fucking cold up there mayn.


Also, french. I can't stand french.

Live on the west side. Not French there. I like the cold, it gives me an excuse to look like Doctor Who every day. :iamafag:

[paladin]

Meh, the address was ok. I agreed with a lot of what he had to say, though he basically was just restating his previous state of the union address. Over all though, nice job mr president, you didn't piss me off when you opened your mouth. I enjoyed Governor Bob McDonnell's speech more.

[n00b1n8R]

Don't come to Australia, we're racist and hate forigners and filter the internet like china and

[Aerowyn]

in b4 the banhammer! :)

[paladin]

woot!

[Heathen]

I was thinking of moving to Canada... but it's too fucking cold up there mayn.


Also, french. I can't stand french.

cold, hate it.

French, hate it.

Canada, I guess I hate it.

[rossmum]

cold owns and if you move to alberta you're safe from the frenchies themselves

[Con]

http://laovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/national_debt_usa.png

[Aerowyn]

http://laovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/national_debt_usa.png

Thank you! :eng101:

[Geo]

It just keeps getting higher! :ugh:

[n00b1n8R]

Has the US been in credit ever?

[EX12693]

They don't show Obama. :saddowns:

[Cortexian]

I liked the part where Obama mentioned that all American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his term, the camera cut to some people cheering and some high ranking military officials who didn't look very pleased at all.

[ICEE]

when theyre out of iraq, theyre going straight into afghanistan probably.

[paladin]

They don't show Obama. :saddowns:


Obamas debt from 1 year is 3 years of Bush combined, so... :raise: You can prove any point with statistics.

[EX12693]

Exactly. I don't like Obama. At all. And Freelancer I know the exact clip you're talking about.

[n00b1n8R]

Though Obama is nowhere near as great as he was touted to be, atleast you didn't end up with Palin in any real power vOv

[Dwood]

Though Obama is nowhere near as great as he was touted to be, atleast you didn't end up with Palin in any real power vOv

VP is just a failsafe if the pres dies imho. They hold no real power... That said, given McCain lives for the next 4 years then I would have rather had her than Obama/Biden b/c at least they wouldn't of ran our debt by over a Trillion dollars in 1 year.

[sleepy1212]

He already got elected, why is he still campaining? Why is he still talking about bush? And why are the dems starting to sound like the rebublicans? oh yeah....2010.

[Cojafoji]

to fix this government, i will need:
1 cache assault weapons.
2000 volunteers.
25 hookers to be sacrificed on the alter.
23,000 blue balloons.
1 chimpanzee.

edit: sleepy, a president is never done campaigning. if he says something that someone likes, they call their senator, cogs start moving (or so they say). not to mention the fact that all presidents are concerned with reelection, and legacy.

[Kornman00]

That said, given McCain lives for the next 4 years then I would have rather had her than Obama/Biden b/c at least they wouldn't of ran our debt by over a Trillion dollars in 1 year.
Pretty sure a new record would be set with another washed out Rep party, such as that, yet again.

Is that graph scaled to the rate of inflation? I doubt it.

We really just need to stop being so imperialistic, or at least tone it down a couple dozen notches, and tend to our own states for a while...you know, clean ourselves up so our people can get/make jobs thus injecting productivity into the economy. It's like the past 10 years have undone 30+ years of slow growth. Did someone get lost on their way to Las Vegas and end up at the front door of congress or something? Our gov't is allowed to spend way too much fucking money. Way too much. Tax dollars at work wasted.

[Cojafoji]

Pretty sure a new record would be set with another washed out Rep party, such as that, yet again.

Is that graph scaled to the rate of inflation? I doubt it.

We really just need to stop being so imperialistic, or at least tone it down a couple dozen notches, and tend to our own states for a while...you know, clean ourselves up so our people can get/make jobs thus injecting productivity into the economy. It's like the past 10 years have undone 30+ years of slow growth. Did someone get lost on their way to Las Vegas and end up at the front door of congress or something? Our gov't is allowed to spend way too much fucking money. Way too much. Tax dollars at work wasted.
sovereignty is being discussed in a lot of state legislators now. i for one wouldn't mind being a Pennsylvanian first, and an American second...

[Atty]

I'd love for all the people who bash politicians and think they could do it better to actually get a chance to do it just to see how it all plays out.

That would be a good MMORPG; Politics: The Reds vs. The Blues.

[anonymous1337]

OBAMA es el CASTRO negro

[sleepy1212]

sovereignty is being discussed in a lot of state legislators now. i for one wouldn't mind being a Pennsylvanian first, and an American second...

ugh, PA sucks...i hate it here, but yeah i agree, that's pretty much how it was supposed to be. 50 sovereign states and a government to help keep things together.

[rossmum]

Does anyone in this thread actually realise that the reason Obama seems to be doing fuck all is a) paid-off senators blocking health reforms because of the "GOT MINE, FUCK YOU" mentality (and the immense amount of backing they're getting from private health companies), and b) he got left with such a huge fucking defecit there's really not much he can do about it in a hurry?

[Dwood]

Does anyone in this thread actually realise that the reason Obama seems to be doing fuck all is a) paid-off senators blocking health reforms because of the "GOT MINE, FUCK YOU" mentality (and the immense amount of backing they're getting from private health companies), and b) he got left with such a huge fucking defecit there's really not much he can do about it in a hurry?

Yeah sorry I don't buy that. This medical bill would have forced you to be on the Healthcare plan if you're a citizen of the United States, which clearly violates the Constitution. Not only that, but the bill is over 1000 pages long. There's NO WAY on this planet that plan was ever reviewed in full so all members of congress know what's in it. And to add to that, with those reasons I couldn't care less if the senators were paid off because the Republicans would never had a say in it anyways because until Ted Kennedy died and a new Democrat was voted in as a senator would have been filibuster proof.

So what if they were paid off? Knowing that the Senators had no hand in writing the bill, let alone READING it I would rather have people who were paid off voting it down as opposed to blindly voting the bill in.

So what he can't do anything about it in a hurry? He just doubled the federal deficit in less than 1 year. There's no getting rid of that by the end of his administration. For a reference, see: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

I would rather have Dems and Republicans hold equal sides in federal government than have Republicans control it for 10+ years, then Democrats get it for x years... As long as one party controls the majority for any length of time... we're in trouble.

[Cojafoji]

clearly violates the Constitution.
nope. article 1 section 8 clause 1 & 3.

[sleepy1212]

nope. article 1 section 8 clause 1 & 3.

even if you interpreted "general welfare" as Universal Health Care, it still doesn't give Congress the right to force you to have it. Further, it states that all should be "uniform throughout" so I guess Nebraska would be shit out of luck.

Clause 3 only says regulate. What they're trying to do is monopolize the industry.

[paladin]

You cant be left with a budget deficit, you create it yearly.

Also, I agree with Korn. That graph doesnt include inflation, which clearly is an important factor. It just like Avatar becoming the #1 grossing film... sure at $15 a ticket it only had to sell 75% of the tickets compared to titanic in 1997.

[Rook]

Has the US been in credit ever?

When bill clinton was in office, which wasn't all that long ago.

[Dwood]

nope. article 1 section 8 clause 1 & 3.

That's an extremely weak section to be pointing the reasoning of it to... it holds little to no water whatsoever. No where on the Constitution does it state that it is the right of the Congress to mandate that all individuals must have health insurance from the government.

Therefore, it would be the state's duty to have health insurance, should the people of that state so desire it. (Massachusetts, one state that has health insurance) This is under the reasoning that since Congress is not expressly given that right, such a right is one that is reserved to the states... Thus, the states can force you to have at least liability car insurance but Congress cannot.

[Amendment #10, specifically]

[paladin]

When bill clinton was in office, which wasn't all that long ago.

Yes, but we still were in debt under the Clinton administration. He just had a balanced budge and didnt add to it. If Obama took the same approach as Clinton, I would love him. Clinton was almost totally against government dependence and his policies reflected that. His legislation drove people away from the use of dependencies to increase the living standards. Obama on the hand is doing the opposite. Hes making it the Government's job to provide for the down.

[Dwood]

Jackson was the first, and only president where we had zero debts.

[Cojafoji]

That's an extremely weak section to be pointing the reasoning of it to... it holds little to no water whatsoever. No where on the Constitution does it state that it is the right of the Congress to mandate that all individuals must have health insurance from the government.

Therefore, it would be the state's duty to have health insurance, should the people of that state so desire it. (Massachusetts, one state that has health insurance) This is under the reasoning that since Congress is not expressly given that right, such a right is one that is reserved to the states... Thus, the states can force you to have at least liability car insurance but Congress cannot.

[Amendment #10, specifically]
Oh cool, so that means I can opt out of social security.

oh wait...

[sleepy1212]

social security

another bad and unconstitutional idea.

[Disaster]

You cant be left with a budget deficit, you create it yearly.

Also, I agree with Korn. That graph doesnt include inflation, which clearly is an important factor. It just like Avatar becoming the #1 grossing film... sure at $15 a ticket it only had to sell 75% of the tickets compared to titanic in 1997.

And neither does it show the political majorities of congress; which is the main entity of spending.

[Cojafoji]

another bad and unconstitutional idea.
Helvering v. Davis (1937) argues otherwise.

Precedent pretty much trumps anything that comes out of your mouth, so...

Yeah, not a big fan of SS myself, just proving a point.

[sleepy1212]

Helvering v. Davis (1937) argues otherwise.

Precedent pretty much trumps anything that comes out of your mouth, so...

Yeah, not a big fan of SS myself, just proving a point.


Precedent only proves that someone was a total idiot a second time.

Plus that decision was manipulated by threats from President Roosevelt (D) who was attempting to "pack the court" in order to get the decision he wanted.

[sdavis117]

Precedent only proves that someone was a total idiot a second time.

Plus that decision was manipulated by threats from President Roosevelt (D) who was attempting to "pack the court" in order to get the decision he wanted.
Roosevelt had no leverage with the SCOTUS. They were the ones who neutered his New Deal, and many historians believe that that was what caused the second dip of the Great Depression.

[Dwood]

Oh cool, so that means I can opt out of social security.

oh wait...

You can.

http://askville.amazon.com/opt-out-Social-Security-system/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1338366

You're required to pay pensions no matter what, however.

[Cojafoji]

You can.

http://askville.amazon.com/opt-out-Social-Security-system/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1338366

You're required to pay pensions no matter what, however.
That's a pretty small list. Probably less than %5 of the country falls under those rules.

[Dwood]

That's a pretty small list. Probably less than %5 of the country falls under those rules.

That's for having to pay the dues. Anyone can withdraw from the system.

[Roostervier]

Has the US been in credit ever?
Given that the United States has been using Keynesian economic policies since the mid-twentieth century, it doesn't plan to be. Before then, I wouldn't really know.

[Warsaw]

Does anyone in this thread actually realise that the reason Obama seems to be doing fuck all is a) paid-off senators blocking health reforms because of the "GOT MINE, FUCK YOU" mentality (and the immense amount of backing they're getting from private health companies), and b) he got left with such a huge fucking defecit there's really not much he can do about it in a hurry?

I know all you foreigners seem to love Obama, and I agree he is a step up from Bush, but he's not all he's cracked up to be. His Health Care reform is all wrong. You don't force everyone to be a part of it. What he should do is create the government agency to compete with the private sectors. What makes you think that someone who can't afford health care will also afford the fine you get if you don't go with it? Yeah, it's a load of bullocks. Hell, another reform he should make has to do with the doctors themselves. They are all stuck in the greedy private practise mentality. What we need is a corporate mentality; large body employs doctors under their name. That would drive medical costs down. So, that with a government agency competing with private health care comapnies would lower costs. Hell, you could streamline it and make both the government agency and the corporations both employ the doctors [and] supply the health care coverage.

So yes, he is doing fuck all. Deficit has nothing to do with it, and he hasn't done a single thing to help get rid of it either. In my opinion, the Democrats are actually slightly worse than the Republicans this time around because it took them a shorter amount of time to revert to their usual shitty habits compared to the Republicans reverting to their shitty habbits. Took Reds a few years, took Blues a few months.

[rossmum]

Yeah sorry I don't buy that. This medical bill would have forced you to be on the Healthcare plan if you're a citizen of the United States, which clearly violates the Constitution. Not only that, but the bill is over 1000 pages long. There's NO WAY on this planet that plan was ever reviewed in full so all members of congress know what's in it. And to add to that, with those reasons I couldn't care less if the senators were paid off because the Republicans would never had a say in it anyways because until Ted Kennedy died and a new Democrat was voted in as a senator would have been filibuster proof.

So what if they were paid off? Knowing that the Senators had no hand in writing the bill, let alone READING it I would rather have people who were paid off voting it down as opposed to blindly voting the bill in.
uhc is horrible. canada, the uk and australia are all suffering because they don't have to pay through their noses only to get turned down because of a 'pre-existing condition' like a broken arm. SOCIALISM IS UN-AMERICAN http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-patriot.gif

this is basically the best picture to describe america right now

http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/photoshop_phriday/2009_11_27/Fl0yd_01.gif


I know all you foreigners seem to love Obama, and I agree he is a step up from Bush, but he's not all he's cracked up to be. His Health Care reform is all wrong. You don't force everyone to be a part of it. What he should do is create the government agency to compete with the private sectors. What makes you think that someone who can't afford health care will also afford the fine you get if you don't go with it? Yeah, it's a load of bullocks. Hell, another reform he should make has to do with the doctors themselves. They are all stuck in the greedy private practise mentality. What we need is a corporate mentality; large body employs doctors under their name. That would drive medical costs down. So, that with a government agency competing with private health care comapnies would lower costs. Hell, you could streamline it and make both the government agency and the corporations both employ the doctors [and] supply the health care coverage.

So yes, he is doing fuck all. Deficit has nothing to do with it, and he hasn't done a single thing to help get rid of it either. In my opinion, the Democrats are actually slightly worse than the Republicans this time around because it took them a shorter amount of time to revert to their usual shitty habits compared to the Republicans reverting to their shitty habbits. Took Reds a few years, took Blues a few months.
yeah funnily enough shelling out masses of money to greedy and poorly-run banks to try and halt or at least slow a complete meltdown of the global economy tends to do that. but HURRAH FOR CAPITALISM, FUCK THE DIRTY REDS

if it wasn't for the huge mess caused by the failure of others to act on the banks' carelessness, obama wouldn't have needed to spend so much. it's not rocket science

[Dwood]

I completely disagree with you almost on every part of that post Ross. We aren't saying 'screw you' to those who don't have health care... Those of us whom don't like it don't like it for the basis that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

imo you wouldn't understand because (from the way you're acting) you've grown up with the mind-set that uhc and government implementation of it will be perfect... And how amazing it is and it solves all of our problems.

At this point let's just agree to disagree.

[rossmum]

Socialised healthcare works in Canada, the UK, and Australia, yet it seems Americans are violently opposed to it on almost every level. I don't get it. What's so bad about not having to deal with greedy private corporations who like to fuck people over? Sure it's not perfect. Having lived in all three countries, the NHS has been falling apart at the seams for years and the Australian system isn't great either. On the other hand, it still works. Nothing is perfect but I absolutely fail to see why Americans view anything socialised as the ultimate destruction of their society.

For reference, I have private healthcare, but it's nice to know that those who can't afford it (see: me in a couple of years) aren't literally doomed to suffer because they can't pay up.

[Warsaw]

yeah funnily enough shelling out masses of money to greedy and poorly-run banks to try and halt or at least slow a complete meltdown of the global economy tends to do that. but HURRAH FOR CAPITALISM, FUCK THE DIRTY REDS

if it wasn't for the huge mess caused by the failure of others to act on the banks' carelessness, obama wouldn't have needed to spend so much. it's not rocket science

Yes, I acknowledge the shitty Republican policies. If I had my way, I'd say fuck money and make everything free, but the world doesn't run that way. And yes, the bailout was a terribad idea. I hated it when it was proposed, I hate it even more now. Should've let the big banks fall and let the little ones pick up the pieces to take their place. However, forcing everyone to sign up for government healthcare is stupid. You can create government healthcare as an alternative option. Everyone is going to be paying for it through taxes anyways, so that's not what I'm opposed against. It's the idea that you have to be using the government run thing or pay a fine. What the fuck is that? Seriously, that's one of the less-inspired things I've ever heard come from a serious piece of legislature. Somebody apparently wasn't thinking on Capitol Hill...oh wait, they never think up there. It's all a big circus. My bad for expecting some real change and getting the same driveling snot from the same dumb-ass politicians.

Also, America isn't opposed to socialism. It's a small but extremely vocal minority that is. What Americans want is for America to take better care of its own...oh wait, if we do that the international community bitches at us for not helping out. Oh shit, we helped out, now they are telling us we're doing it wrong. Oh look, somebody that the international community in general likes is in office, we're saved (referring to the general British reaction to Obama's election)! News flash, the same politician the world likes, America is now disillusioned with. I wonder why? Because again, he isn't doing anything. Period. He tried to push his ideas out the door ASAP with his "first 100 days" grace period. That's called brute forcing the issue. He failed. What he should have done is fixed (or started fixing) the economy properly, and then get his agenda passed. If you try to build a house on a shaky foundation, it's going to fall; and there are no two ways around that fact. Better to get a good start and pass the torch along than to fail miserably from the get-go and have nothing accomplished.

[Disaster]

Equality of opportunity. Not equality of results.

[paladin]

Socialized medicine works in Australia and Canada because combined they have 50 million people..... The US has 320. Its a little different. Also, your taxes are also significantly higher.

[Disaster]

Competition will drive prices down. The lack of competition in health-insurance is something that needs to be dealt with. Open up the borders and allow the people to choose any health-insurance plan that they choose. Allow a government option but don't force the people to have it and don't tax the people who don't have it for it either.

[paladin]

Yeah, but you see, with the government option, they are going to tax my health care that my employer gives me to pay for others. Doing everything you said is exactly what democrats arent doing. Opening state lines, increased competition and increase caps is how health care needs to be reformed.

[Disaster]

Monopolies will do whatever the hell they want to with prices. Only Competition will be a true fix. It is not the federal governments job to institute welfare plans. The state and local governments should do it.

Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the power to provide welfare plans. The Constitution states the following: "... provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States..." This is stating that the Government provides for the general welfare of the country as a whole. Not the individual people. The federal government should provide an environment in which people have an equal opportunity to succeed and or fail. It is ultimately up to the people. As I stated before, State and Local Governments should be providing welfare. IE: Massachusetts healthcare program.

[Warsaw]

Competition will drive prices down. The lack of competition in health-insurance is something that needs to be dealt with. Open up the borders and allow the people to choose any health-insurance plan that they choose. Allow a government option but don't force the people to have it and don't tax the people who don't have it for it either.

They kind of are forcing it on us with this bill, and that's why it's such a big deal. They aren't just throwing another option out there to drive prices down, they are forcing you to choose theirs whether you like it or not. Bullocks to that.

Also, it doesn't work in those other countries. Why? A patient purchasing more expensive health care here in the US will receive better care faster (or just plain faster at the very least) than in the other places. You pay a tiny sum through taxes and get sluggish support, or you pay a heftier sum and get better support. Your system has its flaws and so does ours, but they both work. Call me an inhumane bastard if you want, but I think our system tips its hat to Darwinism, which really does need to come back into play a bit.

tl; dr: you get what you pay for.

E: What does "tl; dr" mean anyways? I get the jist of it, but don't know the acronym.

[thehoodedsmack]

Also, it doesn't work in those other countries. Why? A patient purchasing more expensive health care here in the US will receive better care faster (or just plain faster at the very least) than in the other places. You pay a tiny sum through taxes and get sluggish support, or you pay a heftier sum and get better support.

Just so you know, and so everyone else who has heard that we wait too long for health-care knows, you've been lied to. Sorry. It's really great coverage.

Unfortunately, it won't work as well for you because of the population difference.

[paladin]

They kind of are forcing it on us with this bill, and that's why it's such a big deal. They aren't just throwing another option out there to drive prices down, they are forcing you to choose theirs whether you like it or not. Bullocks to that.

Also, it doesn't work in those other countries. Why? A patient purchasing more expensive health care here in the US will receive better care faster (or just plain faster at the very least) than in the other places. You pay a tiny sum through taxes and get sluggish support, or you pay a heftier sum and get better support. Your system has its flaws and so does ours, but they both work. Call me an inhumane bastard if you want, but I think our system tips its hat to Darwinism, which really does need to come back into play a bit.

tl; dr: you get what you pay for.

E: What does "tl; dr" mean anyways? I get the jist of it, but don't know the acronym.


Too long; didnt read


Just so you know, and so everyone else who has heard that we wait too long for health-care knows, you've been lied to. Sorry. It's really great coverage.

Unfortunately, it won't work as well for you because of the population difference.


It would work at all in the US.

[sleepy1212]

The idea that it's big medical corporations that are ruining health care is a myth. Use Obama's own example. He talked about the state of Alabama and how one company controls 98% of the market but turns more than half of the state's patients away. He claimed his plan would put an end to that. What he didn't mention was that the company he was talking about was Alabama Medicaid. A state agency. Go figure.


UHC isn't about health care. It's about control. If it was about health care the government would have cut taxes to allow being a doctor to be profitable. Now days we have medicaid and that nabs doctors and hospitals a whopping $1 per patient on average.


Same principle applies to the stimulus. Government spending never generates capital. It only creates more debt. Time and time again they claim that their spending saved the economy. That's like cutting yourself to stop the bleeding. If they really wanted to improve things with the stimulus they should have kept it and cut taxes across the board. Or better yet, dropped income tax altogether for 1 year. Instead they gave 80 billion to three companies who are dead now, wasted the rest on unions and paying back favors.

[paladin]

If you want to reduce health care costs by 2/3, make it illegal to sue your doctor.

[Warsaw]

If you make it illegal to sue your doctor, then you could become a victim of malpractise, and that is bad.

Also, what Sleepy said is right.

Also also, thehoodedsmack: varies from country to country that uses the system. However, if how the [U.S.] government treats its serving soldiers after an injury is any indication, I have no faith that a government-run operation for the general public will be acceptable on any level.

E: Fuck, Bernanke won a second term as the Federal Reserve Chairman...

[thehoodedsmack]

Also also, thehoodedsmack: varies from country to country that uses the system.

Agreed, though that's an obvious fact that's already been tossed around in here. My point is that you're perpetuating the idea that Canadians suffer from sub-par medical service, a falsification created by American politicians and industry workers to pacify contempt towards American health-care. Don't. Sorry if I come off harsh at all, but this is something that needs to stop. It's not a harmless stereotype like igloos and dog-sleds when it effects people's judgement of a key part of our political structure. Much love.

[Dwood]

Wait lines for big surgeries used to be ridic up there in canadaland. idk whats been done about that tho.

[paladin]

E: Fuck, Bernanke won a second term as the Federal Reserve Chairman...

He did win, he was reappointed

[Warsaw]

Agreed, though that's an obvious fact that's already been tossed around in here. My point is that you're perpetuating the idea that Canadians suffer from sub-par medical service, a falsification created by American politicians and industry workers to pacify contempt towards American health-care. Don't. Sorry if I come off harsh at all, but this is something that needs to stop. It's not a harmless stereotype like igloos and dog-sleds when it effects people's judgement of a key part of our political structure. Much love.

I was actually thinking more of Australia and Europe (oh gawd) when I said that, but I see what you mean. Sorry 'bout that. To be fair though, every political structure is fucked up, regardless of country. :v:

[rossmum]

Socialized medicine works in Australia and Canada because combined they have 50 million people..... The US has 320. Its a little different. Also, your taxes are also significantly higher.
my favourite part is people whining that OH NO THE TAXES WILL RAISE I AM MOVING TO CANADA despite them being higher here, not to mention the gst

waaahh, more taxes. at least they're going towards something useful.


I was actually thinking more of Australia and Europe (oh gawd) when I said that, but I see what you mean. Sorry 'bout that. To be fair though, every political structure is fucked up, regardless of country. :v:
trust me australia's healthcare isn't as fucked up as you americans seem to think. it seems a case of 'fuck, i want this to be true, fuck, it is true'. it's not perfect but it's nowhere near as bad as you guys make it out to be. take this from a former uk and current australian resident.

ultimately i think that any corporation or representative thereof should be absolutely banned from giving any benefits to members of the government be they in the form of cash, holidays, favours, whatever. ditto members of the medical profession.

basically what i'm trying to say here is,

fuck free market capitalism

[paladin]

my favourite part is people whining that OH NO THE TAXES WILL RAISE I AM MOVING TO CANADA despite them being higher here, not to mention the gst

waaahh, more taxes. at least they're going towards something useful.

First of all, I would never move to Canada. Second, they aren't going towards anything useful. Under no circumstances could MY government be more efficient than a private corporation

trust me australia's healthcare isn't as fucked up as you americans seem to think. it seems a case of 'fuck, i want this to be true, fuck, it is true'. it's not perfect but it's nowhere near as bad as you guys make it out to be. take this from a former uk and current australian resident.

ultimately i think that any corporation or representative thereof should be absolutely banned from giving any benefits to members of the government be they in the form of cash, holidays, favours, whatever. ditto members of the medical profession.

basically what i'm trying to say here is,

fuck free market capitalism

Are you serious? Do you not realize how dependent you are on corporations and business that would only be here because of free market capitalism? Without capitalism we would be sitting in stone huts throwing sticks at each other. We would have NOTHING today without it.



Id like to see you live a life that uses nothing produced, invented, or developed by a company under a free market society.

[sleepy1212]

ultimately i think that any corporation or representative thereof should be absolutely banned from giving any benefits to members of the government be they in the form of cash, holidays, favours, whatever. ditto members of the medical profession.

basically what i'm trying to say here is,

fuck free market capitalism

That's a "Big Government" problem, not a Capitalism problem. What i'm trying to say is, it ain't free market capitalism if the government gets involved and starts to fuck it all up.

[ICEE]

What I'm concerned about when it comes to socialized health care, is having to wait in a long ass waiting list for every medical concern. I like to be able to pay my way through, and with insurance it isn't a big price. I pay 10$ for a doctor visit, 10 more for prescriptions. See, when you go to the emergency room you will be accompanied by plenty of illegal aliens who go for minor things that are not emergencies. This makes the wait long, the room crowded, and the whole ordeal leaves you a pretty fair chance of catching whatever they've got. I don't pretend to know how universal health care works in everyone else's countries, but I'm pretty sure that we've got enough illegal aliens to gum up the process pretty bad. Oh, but that sounds inhumane right?

And on another note, I hate the idea of people being taught that they have a right to have their needs met. That just isn't how it works. If you have the right to have your needs met, that means someone has to meet those needs.

[rossmum]

That's a "Big Government" problem, not a Capitalism problem. What i'm trying to say is, it ain't free market capitalism if the government gets involved and starts to fuck it all up.
It's also a capitalism issue because corporations are so obsessed with advancing their own cause that they see no issues with what basically amounts to bribery.

Paladin, you can keep your fancy shit. I don't need a whole lot to survive. Also, I should probably point out that the Soviet Union seemed to get along well enough without capitalism (in terms of advances in technology and such), if nothing else.

[Dwood]

the Soviet Union seemed to get along well enough without capitalism (in terms of advances in technology and such), if nothing else.

You're kidding, right?

[sleepy1212]

It's also a capitalism issue because corporations are so obsessed with advancing their own cause that they see no issues with what basically amounts to bribery.

Still, an inherent nature of government. It's not immune to greed and power-lust. That can be said of every system thus far (see below). In fact, all government programs are just as vulnerable to corruption as they are in the hands of private companies. The only difference is that the private market is profitable and changes with the times. If you need proof look at our Postal Service or Amtrak. The only successful marriage between government and business is in defense contracting.



the Soviet Union seemed to get along well enough without capitalism (in terms of advances in technology and such), if nothing else.

Only partially true. They spent a substantially greater percentage of their GDP to fund tech and arms, mostly military. This was also at the expense of the welfare of it's people. Just after the collapse most the economy was still based on timber. In the 1980's Estonian timber made up 80% of the jobs there. Once they implemented capitalism (a purer form than in the US) their GDP passed that of their neighbors in Finland, who've had a partially socialist system in place since the 50's, in just a couple decades.

[rossmum]

e/f;b

Don't think for a second the Soviets were behind the US in tech. Their aircraft are decades ahead of yours in terms of manoeuverability. They were the first in space, they had a whole series of fighters which you guys were stuck playing catch-up to, and they also had some incredibly advanced subs. Just because Russian gear looks crude and brutish, it doesn't mean it's inferior. I would sooner see the RAAF buy up Su-35s than F-35s, dude.

The only area America really had the advantage in during the Cold War was stealth tech, and that's because the Sovs gave no fuck. Rather than try make their planes invisible, they made them nigh impossible to shoot down. Don't even bother quoting kill rates on Iraqi T-72s or Libyan MiG-29s, as they were all monkey models and operated by poorly-trained crews. Legit Russian gear is entirely different. Export MiGs, for instance, were basically stripped of all sophisticated electronics and detection gear, had their radar severely downgraded, and were armed with weapons which had received the same treatment.

Sleepy - yeah, they did put a lot into military equipment, but the argument was that without capitalism they still made technological advances, even if it was mainly in that field.

This one's for Dwood's benefit:

IdWRm4YWH34

I haven't seen the F-22 pull any stunts like this, but I'd imagine it's capable of doing so; the Russians have been doing crazy shit like Pugachev's Cobra since the introduction of the MiG-29 in 1983.

[Dwood]

I'm not saying their military tech wasn't up to par with America's, as that was the Soviet's whole focus... The problem is that they were so focused on the military that they didn't even care about their own people... E: And because the government was so focused on the military, and communism being that there are no corporations/the government is the end-all solution, technology that kept up the standard of living was little to non-existant.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate socialism in and of itself. The thing is that as long as humans are running the system it's going to be done absolutely horribly wrong... The benefit of having the private corporations run the services with the government making it so the companies have to compete against each other is that the very nature of the idea makes people compete against each other in a healthy manner, which helps everyone out.

Edit: CRAP I worded the 2nd paragraph wrong

[rossmum]

And I wasn't saying they had a perfect state, hence the 'if nothing else'.

That said, I saw a program on SBS not so long ago where they caught up with people they interviewed as kids back when the USSR was still around. They're all in their late teens and early twenties now, and to be dead honest, some of them did seem far better off before it collapsed.

If it wasn't for the fact that human greed always ruins it and turns it into a perverse mockery of what it's meant to be, I'd gladly support a Communist system of government. Until then, though, I'd sure as fuck rather Canada's way of doing things to America's. Socialism is great when it's done right, and although I think the health reforms could use some tweaking, it just makes me feel sick to the stomach seeing how many people get up in arms about COMMIE PINKOS and REDS UNDER THE BEDS whenever anyone in the US government tries to bring about change towards more socialist systems. It's like America lives in a bubble where it's still the 1950s while the rest of the world enjoys not getting fucked over by greedy corporations who seem to control just about everything.

[Dwood]

And I wasn't saying they had a perfect state, hence the 'if nothing else'.

That said, I saw a program on SBS not so long ago where they caught up with people they interviewed as kids back when the USSR was still around. They're all in their late teens and early twenties now, and to be dead honest, some of them did seem far better off before it collapsed.

If it wasn't for the fact that human greed always ruins it and turns it into a perverse mockery of what it's meant to be, I'd gladly support a Communist system of government. Until then, though, I'd sure as fuck rather Canada's way of doing things to America's. Socialism is great when it's done right, and although I think the health reforms could use some tweaking, it just makes me feel sick to the stomach seeing how many people get up in arms about COMMIE PINKOS and REDS UNDER THE BEDS whenever anyone in the US government tries to bring about change towards more socialist systems.


I have no idea what you're talking about... I haven't seen anyone call it Communism or 'Reds under the beds' I mean sure there are people that do that every now and then but they are such a small minority here in America that if you're getting your news from a source that says we're acting and posting like that, you honestly need to change your sources.

If you'd go back and read the posts previously from the other Americans in this thread you would understand what i'm talking about. Not a single one of those who disagreed with the Health Care instantly yelled "COMMUNIST" or some other stereotypical term such as that.



It's like America lives in a bubble where it's still the 1950s while the rest of the world enjoys not getting fucked over by greedy corporations who seem to control just about everything.

It's also like everyone in the other part of the world lives in a bubble where government is the end-all to all of their problems. Just because it's the government that is running the system doesn't mean it, and the people who run it aren't greedy my friend.

I don't think you understand the most current ideology of Capitalism as it is being exhibited by most people who are conservatives in the U.S, and that you are running your basis and arguments off of two things: Stereotypes and an"America sucks" mentality.

I'm not sure you've read even half the posts in this thread that are against the healthcare system or you would understand why Americans don't like the current legislation.

[sleepy1212]

If it wasn't for the fact that human greed always ruins it and turns it into a perverse mockery of what it's meant to be, I'd gladly support a Communist system of government.

that's the way I see it. just about anything would work if it weren't for human nature. hell, we've been fucked ever since lincoln (not talking about slavery before anyone's vagina bulbs start blinking).

the point i was making about the soviets was that the US didn't do that. We could've spent more on military tech but we didn't. maybe if we did we wouldn't have been behind in so many areas, but rather, ahead. The USSR essentially hit the nitrous on their spending in a long term economic marathon. They burned out early and paid for it.

[rossmum]

I have no idea what you're talking about... I haven't seen anyone call it Communism or 'Reds under the beds' I mean sure there are people that do that every now and then but they are such a small minority here in America that if you're getting your news from a source that says we're acting and posting like that, you honestly need to change your sources.
I'm not saying that people in this thread are saying that, but I've definitely seen it. I know it's not a majority but the fact that it's any at all is worrying on its own. Most Americans I actually know are pretty clued in, since I generally only associate myself with pretty clued in people, but there are still a lot who don't really seem to get the way the rest of the world works. I don't expect Americans to be able to rattle off the Governors of NSW in sequence, but I do expect a lot less of them to think they won WWI and WWII or that socialised healthcare systems are a bad thing.


If you'd go back and read the posts previously from the other Americans in this thread you would understand what i'm talking about. Not a single one of those who disagreed with the Health Care instantly yelled "COMMUNIST" or some other stereotypical term such as that.
See above.


It's also like everyone in the other part of the world lives in a bubble where government is the end-all to all of their problems. Just because it's the government that is running the system doesn't mean it, and the people who run it aren't greedy my friend.
Actually, our government creates more problems than it solves. One thing they did do right, though, was set up the health system so that Australians don't need to be subject to the whims of privately-owned companies that answer to nobody. We have 'donation' problems of our own with Labor politicans and development company reps, trust me.


I don't think you understand the most current ideology of Capitalism as it is being exhibited by most people who are conservatives in the U.S, and that you are running your basis and arguments off of two things: Stereotypes and an"America sucks" mentality.
I don't think America sucks. I just happen to prefer the way things are run here, which isn't surprising since I'm a Canadian who's grown up taking for granted the kinds of things that Americans have never actually had. I was actually considering moving to Seattle for quite a while, and the only reason I'm less sure of that now is because coming back to Edmonton for a month made me realise just how much I missed it.


I'm not sure you've read even half the posts in this thread that are against the healthcare system or you would understand why Americans don't like the current legislation.
I did see the part about everyone having to have it and being fined for not doing so, which I agree needs changing. Beyond that, I don't see why people consider it so bad.


that's the way I see it. just about anything would work if it weren't for human nature. hell, we've been fucked ever since lincoln (not talking about slavery before anyone's vagina bulbs start blinking).

the point i was making about the soviets was that the US didn't do that. We could've spent more on military tech but we didn't. maybe if we did we wouldn't have been behind in so many areas, but rather, ahead. The USSR essentially hit the nitrous on their spending in a long term economic marathon. They burned out early and paid for it.
Very true. In some ways I think the best form of government would actually be a dictatorship, except you'd need literally the most selfless person on earth. Anything else just leaves room for less scrupulous souls to fuck your shit up, which is why I point-blank refuse to ever go into politics.

[Anton]

Dwood, I personally want this legislation to pass. If anything, it can be tweaked later. There is no doubt that something needs to be done. Healthcare is just something that is a necessity in today's world. I'm not fond of the way politicians have acted about the bill and discussions surrounding it. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike are all responsible for this mess. Many want to blame Democrats for this mess, but if republicans wouldn't of been a "no" party during the talks but rather been more open about it then maybe these closed door deals wouldn't be occuring. Democrats acted childish about this issue too, and worked together to force a bill through congress. Although this process of forcing a bill through has been done before, it has never been done in public light with as much media attention as now. This alone is chaos because Americans are introduced to "scare tactics" that begin to place Democratic Senators as anti-american evil henchmen of a dictator president that wants to turn us all into slaves.. :tinfoil: <--- that may be a bit bizarre as an example, but it gets the point across.

No one was forcing anyone to HAVE to take the public option that the house proposed. The public option was just a cheaper alternative to expensive private plans that had skyrocketed in price due to Malpractice lawsuits, jacked up medical costs (Example being hospital beds that are rented out at extremely high rates when they can be bought for cheaper than they are rented) that insurance companies have to pay, and many other factors. The competition between the public option and the private options would be enough to help push down rising costs of insurance. Sure there are flaws, but what bill doesn't have flaws? Thats where future congressional sessions, and the PUBLIC come in.. You do have the ability to write to the congressmen of your state, and others, and to organize groups to move towards the reform/change of something you feel isn't right.

The only reason they wanted to make health insurance mandatory was to INCREASE the pool size. This would effectively lower health costs due to the # of people in the pool sharing costs.

Those of you complaining about this being a 1,000 page bill and that theres no way anyone could of read it are being silly. If you were to watch C span for more than 30 minutes you would understand amendments to the "core of the bill" are constantly debated for well over half an hour a piece. I remember specifically watching one of John Kerry's amendments get shot down by an overwhelming vote by republicans and democrats after being discussed for nearly an hour. Also, over the last decade these 1000+ page bills have become increasingly popular. With higher population and other factors a bill must specifically lay out guidelines in which are to be followed. Healthcare reform isn't a small task, but rather a daunting one, and no 100 page bill will be able to do it. 100 pages wouldn't touch setting restrictions on what an insurance company can do to it's policy holders without having major flaws; let alone allow for a public option, triggers, or even cross state marketing of insurance policies.


At this point, any legislation that is passed prohibiting a lot of discriminatory factors such as pre-existing conditions, care caps, etc is only going to help. The government option, although rough around the edges, really was a great idea because it allowed for competition between private insurance companies. I don't know the true "debt" issues behind the bill, because right now NO one can agree on a single thing about the debt or surplus this bill would cause. The CBO published two sets of numbers the same day the HR bill passed the senate final vote before Christmas. That alone should tell you its definitely not in a passing state.


I may be wrong on a lot of this, if so then point me to a legitimate source of information. Not a blog, or a opinion based site. But a legitimate journal, news outlet, etc. I don't care to admit that I may be wrong. :P After all, thats the point of an argument; to find the ultimate truth.

EDIT: DAMN, look at that wall of text.

[Dwood]

WALL O' TEXT INCOMING

Sorry Anton, but your wall o' text is just too much for me to respond to/read at this point and time. Perhaps Sleepy wouldn't mind responding?


I'm not saying that people in this thread are saying that, but I've definitely seen it. I know it's not a majority but the fact that it's any at all is worrying on its own.


Hey now. It's the whole planet that's in a state like this not just America. When I see the censorship and the filtering like it is in Australia (Gaming, internet filter, to be more specific. For a character ref on those directly affected, ask Bod for more info), France not allowing people to wear Burkas, Canada not letting people make Paintball guns that look similar to their real counter parts but you can still buy them, among other things I could site, it's not America's Idiocy that we should be worried about, we should be worried at the fact that people pay more criticism and attention to America than to their own country... That's the part that truly bothers me.



Most Americans I actually know are pretty clued in, since I generally only associate myself with pretty clued in people, but there are still a lot who don't really seem to get the way the rest of the world works.


One thing that differs between America and most other countries (Canada, Britain, France, Australia) is the fact that it isn't necessarily that America doesn't understand the rest of the planet, it's that the rest of the world doesn't exactly understand America. (When I say America I mean the U.S.A)

Britain and Canada have multiple documents to look up to and know about that outlines the powers of the government. (At least in Britain's case (but I can't remember specific names for the life of me)) There are like 6 or 8 key documents they/you look up to for the founding of euro countries as they are today. America has 1 central document that practically defines what our Federal government can, and can't do. It's rather simple to read for the most part, and most educated Americans (even un-educated ones :P) base their/our ideologies off of our Constitution.



I don't expect Americans to be able to rattle off the Governors of NSW in sequence, but I do expect a lot less of them to think they won WWI and WWII or that socialised healthcare systems are a bad thing.


I used to be able to name all of the Presidents in order from first to last but after AP U.S. History I forgot lol >.<.

For the most part,

We did play the largest, and best role in WWI... -ending the war. Were it not for the U.S., I won't be able to say who would have won the war, however I will be able to say the war would have lasted a long time. A lot longer than it should have. I can't say there was any bad guy besides the guy who assassinated Austria-Hungary's ruler at the time, starting the war.

Into WWII- I will have to say that Canada did do an amazing job in WWII. And so did the Soviets, and Britain, as well... Without U.S. Involvement, Japan would have run right over everyone in the Pacific. Then who knows what would have happened, since Japan was allied with Germany? Would be fun to have a WWII Recreation thread or something where we post our alternate scenarios :haw:

Inherently, socialized Healthcare, being bad? I don't believe that the system is bad yet. I just don't have enough faith in our government to be responsible enough to create a system that benefits everyone in such a manner that it gives people affordable healthcare without destroying the draw to becoming a surgeon. I don't want doctors to become like our teachers in America, on salary and clinging to a union, destroying what the system was meant to solve.

There are also some things in America that are coming in the next 10 years that will tax our economic system to the point where we wouldn't be able to support our aging population. (by 2020, there will be roughly 1 person 65 years or older for every 2 persons in the workforce) I don't know about you, but the draw on social security will begin to overcome the amount that's being put in. Something that has the potential to be disastrous.



Actually, our government creates more problems than it solves. One thing they did do right, though, was set up the health system so that Australians don't need to be subject to the whims of privately-owned companies that answer to nobody. We have 'donation' problems of our own with Labor politicans and development company reps, trust me.


I'm not saying you don't but the way everyone seems to criticize America so blindly without taking into account their own country's problems makes it seem like your own countries have no problems of their own. I'm not against it all blindly, what I'm against is the facts I labeled in a previous post. it's just wrong the way the current bill and system was going to be implemented. This is NOT the great Depression, there is no need to create a sucky system and improve as it goes... especially when we're already in a hole as large as it is now, considering how our debt during the first 100 days of Obama's administration doubled.



I don't think America sucks. I just happen to prefer the way things are run here, which isn't surprising since I'm a Canadian who's grown up taking for granted the kinds of things that Americans have never actually had. I was actually considering moving to Seattle for quite a while, and the only reason I'm less sure of that now is because coming back to Edmonton for a month made me realise just how much I missed it.


I won't say that our current system isn't bad but we shouldn't be resorting to a public option until we've done every single thing we can within common sense to improve our current system.



I did see the part about everyone having to have it and being fined for not doing so, which I agree needs changing. Beyond that, I don't see why people consider it so bad.


The bill is over 1000 pages long, and was written in 2 months, if not less. Who can write a bill in 2 months that's over 1000 pages long? That's the main fear, it's a monstrosity of a bill that none of the senators/congress/you get the point read and know exactly what's in there.



Very true. In some ways I think the best form of government would actually be a dictatorship, except you'd need literally the most selfless person on earth. Anything else just leaves room for less scrupulous souls to fuck your shit up, which is why I point-blank refuse to ever go into politics.


I personally believe the person that dabbles and puts their hand in everything is an unwise and slothful person. The larger a government gets, the more corrupted it gets... because it holds absolute power for the most part in everything it does.

Because my post was so long I may or may not have semi-contradictory points.

[paladin]

HAHA, fixing something after its put into play. LOL

[Maniac]

I am not sure about this but, i dont think Britain or Canada have any Documents that can be compared to the American Constitution.
In Britain we have the House of Commons and the House of Lords, they (i think) have all the power to say what goes. I think its assumed that common sense will prevail.
People like Amnesty International also have a big influence on the government, in Britain.
Limited will inform me more im sure.
Fucking go Oilers, eh Ross.

[sleepy1212]

Perhaps Sleepy wouldn't mind responding?

My head fucking hurts from those last two posts lol Between all the talk radio, TV news, books, articles, and this thread i'm starting to look forward to the collapse and a nice quiet day in the 16th century. :allears:

E: preempted by shorter posts, i meant the twin walls of text lol

But yea, i'll say something.

First off the UHC bill is not revisable. It was never intended to be and this was mildly publicized. That caveat was included that the bill couldn't be taken out or changed. And it's blatantly obvious why. The dems backing this bill knew the people didn't want it and that they would immediately vote them all out and replace them with representatives who would vote the bill out.

Second, Americans don't want this. Ask the average citizen if they want more government in their life and they'll tell you no. ask that same person if they want UHC and there's a 17% chance they'll say yes.

Point is we like our independence. It's why we all have our own cars and tv's in every bedroom. Now some asshat will say that's just american consumerism but those same asshats would say the same thing if this were a hundred years ago and we all had our own horse and lantern.

Those same people who thought we were too materialistic with all our saddles, and buggies, and pints of beer were also the ones who gave us prohibition. They called themselves progressives then and they live up to that same standard today of "we know what's best for you and we'll use the government to force it on you."

Now days there's a plethora of laws intended to keep us safe, make life better, and take care of the little man and none of it has made one iota of improvement in our lives. Speed limits, seat belt laws, welfare, "war on drugs"? Sure it sounds good. In fact there's tons of good intentions in law today. (Road to hell anyone?) Until it's not your pet peve. Until it affects you personally. When it starts taking away your freedom, then all of a sudden it becomes a problem.

[Maniac]

Speed limits are there soo people like you dont kill me and my family on the road.
Safety belts are there to protect you and those surrounding you.
And welfare is there to help the less fortunate.
I dont see how those are affecting your "freedom".

[paladin]

Long post, Ill highlight the important parts....



Speed limits are there soo people like you dont kill me and my family on the road.
Safety belts are there to protect you and those surrounding you.
And welfare is there to help the less fortunate.
I dont see how those are affecting your "freedom".


They don't, really. Hes using them as an example as how laws and restrictions affect our lives. The current health care bill demands you buy something, which btw, violated the constitution.

Its really annoying when someone or myself fronts the 'socialized {insert}" is bad and the opposition goes on and lists things like police, education, ect as public services 'taken advantage of'.

Do not get me wrong, public education, police, fire ect... are important and necessary for a properly functioning society, but there's a radical difference between socialized government and socialized economics. To have a full, well-functioning government, a certain amount of social services are need. But when the government tries to infiltrate the economy that's a whole different story. There's a reason why Government needs to have a minimal role in business and economic. Simply put, its because they don't know how to run a business. More realistically, its because government run means no competition. Doesn't anyone remember their high school economic gas? No competition creates inflation. So for example, when the government is the majority provider, if not the sole provider, the cost will become extremely inflated. The cause wouldn't be because of greed, we all know the government isn't greed and would never price jack, but because suppliers would be able to charge what ever they want.

Letting the US Government control and operate one of the largest markets in the US economy would be ludicrous. We all know, well Americans would know, how efficient our government is at operating a business. Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, USPS, DOL/ DMV, I could go on forever. All of the above have either failed, are failing, or just plain laughably disorganized. From personal experience: I spent two and half hours at the DOL waiting for a 10 minute process. There were 14 counters that were operable, and only 5 open. ON A SATURDAY FUCKING MORNING. With more than 70 people waiting, for two hours they operated only five to seven counters. If the DOL was a private enterprise, I guarantee you all 14 counters would be open. Closed counters = lose of profit. Which sum my long post; when the government operates, they have no sense of efficiency, simply because they don't have too. Can you honestly tell me that from some miracle the government will learn how to be efficient? No.

Socialized medicine very well may work in other countries, but it will not in the United States. There are too many factors to list. I'm getting sick and tired of the damn progressives trying to push European style economics on us. There's a reason why 320 million people don't live in Europe and why 500 years ago our pilgrims fled the damn place.

I'm sick and tired of a lot of things, but i am especially sick of the entitlement card being played by everyone theses days. "I pay taxes, i'm entitled to welfare, free health, blah blah blah" You aren't entitled to SHIT. No where in the constitution does it say the government owes you in anything. The only thing you are entitled to is Life, Liberty, Freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. NEWS FLASH, pursuit != handed out. It's disgusting the number of millions of people demanding their entitlement. GTFO and move to China (no offense any Chinese) if you want entitlement. In America you have to earn your happiness.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I got more pissed off as I wrote.

STOP PUSHING YOUR FUCKING SOCIALIZED IDEALS ON AMERICA. THIS IS NOT EUROPE. THIS IS NOT AUSTRALIA. THIS IS NOT ASIA. THIS IS AMERICA.

Also,


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sleepy1212 again.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGWAJSGSJFASGHFSHFAFASFSF

[Maniac]

In my opinion, its all about a compromise, your "freedom" is no more important than mine. Majority rules, simple as that.
Remember its only an opinion, and its a good thing if we all have different ones.

[paladin]

In my opinion, its all about a compromise, your "freedom" is no more important than mine. Majority rules, simple as that.
Remember its only an opinion, and its a good thing if we all have different ones.

Thats exactly whats wrong with our Government, because 10% of the population needs it, that must mean the entire population needs it. That type of logic, and i'm not talking to you, but speaking in gerneral, is severely flawed and selfish.

And since when is >30% a majority? By that logic, health care reform is not necessary.

[Maniac]

Sorry, i was not referring to anything in specific and i know very little about the health care reform/ bill thing.
And as for the 30% thing, if more people are in favour, than are against, then i would consider that a majority. (obviously if 60% were against, then whatever it is should not be passed)

[paladin]

It fine, I see your point. You right when you say my freedom is not more important than your.

[Dwood]

THIS IS NOT AUSTRALIA. THIS IS NOT ASIA. THIS IS AMERICA.


Welcome to Sparta America

[paladin]

haha my b I seriously didnt mean for it to sound like that.

[sleepy1212]

Speed limits are there soo people like you dont kill me and my family on the road.
Safety belts are there to protect you and those surrounding you.
And welfare is there to help the less fortunate.
I dont see how those are affecting your "freedom".

Let me tell you a little story about a high school punk with a rice burner and a fart pipe......

If there were no speed limits the majority of people would still drive responsibly. However, the argument here is that some people, like our punk kid, won't drive responsibly and hurt someone. So the signs go up. Everybody drives the speed limit except for, guess who? Yup. that stupid little jerk. He smashes a soccer mom and the people go ape-shit.

Se we get us some traffic cops. they watch the road all day and then, one evening this little yellow honda with crappy rims and a loud ass exhaust goes by at 100mph. wtf? Speed limits? Cops? and he still... He gets stopped maybe loses his license for a while but eventually he gets is back. Until he kills another soccer mom.

More ape-shitting ensues and we get speed bumps. Little homo buys a truck. See where i'm going with this.

all laws do is affect law abiding citizens when most would act responsibly anyway. Now we have hundreds of traffic laws, registration fees, insurance requirements, fines, inspections, highway taxes, etc.... we pay out all this money, waste our time jumping through red tape and guess what?
That little shit still drives 100mph everywhere he goes.

Same story with the seatbelts. Seatbelts are good but we don't need uncle sam to tell us that. Laws forcing common sense are redundant. In fact, they have little to nothing to do with safety. It's more about increasing state revenue.

All i'm going to say about welfare is that the percentage of people under the poverty line has increased since the "Great Nation". welfare has never brought it down. it's only made the poor even more poor and more dependent on big government.

better solution to welfare: cut taxes on businesses (those rich people we "hate" so much) so they have more hiring power and get those people some jobs. I've never heard of a better remedy for being broke than to get a job.

[paladin]

Laws, only stop honest people. Just because its illegal to kill someone, its going to stop a murderer. Just like when the banned guns in public place in Seattle. If someone wants to, the law wont stop them. It only stops honest people, that have licenses to conceal weapons.

Also sleepy, im stealing your line, the best remedy to being broke is to get a job...

[sdavis117]

You overestimate the good of humanity with the speed limit example. You should look into the Internet Dickwad Theory.

[Maniac]

You know what sleepy, you have common sense, a lot of people dont (you know this to be true, especially if you drive).
The problem is that common sense is no longer common, we, the people with it, must enforce it upon the stupid amongst us, for a better overall society.
Its just finding the balance of how much the stupid need vs how compromised the people with sense will allow themselves to become.

[sdavis117]

Laws, only stop honest people. Just because its illegal to kill someone, its going to stop a murderer. Just like when the banned guns in public place in Seattle. If someone wants to, the law wont stop them. It only stops honest people, that have licenses to conceal weapons.

Also sleepy, im stealing your line, the best remedy to being broke is to get a job...
It does stop people. The extreme professionals or the extremely anti-social types will still break the law, but for every one of them, there are 10 less then honest citizens that the law prevents from committing the crime, by either catching them or by making them afraid of the consequences of breaking the law.

[paladin]

You didnt disprove anything I said. I said the law only stops those who follow it. The law isnt a physical force that physically prevents someone from doing something. If someone, anyone, wants to break it, nothing could stop them.

[sdavis117]

You didnt disprove anything I said. I said the law only stops those who follow it. The law isnt a physical force that physically prevents someone from doing something. If someone, anyone, wants to break it, nothing could stop them.
In some cases, yes it could. A law that restricted drugs could stop someone from getting drugs if they are not able to find a supplier without the police catching on.

[Cojafoji]

In some cases, yes it could. A law that restricted drugs could stop someone from getting drugs if they are not able to find a supplier without the police catching on.
attempting to purchase narcotics is illegal, so in essence, the only way to stop that person PHYSICALLY from breaking the law would be to restrain them indefinitely or lobotomize them.

paladin is 100% right.

[paladin]

Your arguing with impossible, impractical situations. Just like the health care reform: "lets make it illegal not to have health care! Problem solved!" And the fact that "someone" is intending on buying drugs, is illegal and thus is breaking the law.

e: Cojafoji, unfortunately I have given out too much rep today :/

[Maniac]

Its true to say that you will have a very hard time stopping people who are hell bent on doing something.
Its also true that police presence is a huge deterrent to criminals.

[sleepy1212]

You know what sleepy, you have common sense, a lot of people dont (you know this to be true, especially if you drive).
The problem is that common sense is no longer common, we, the people with it, must enforce it upon the stupid amongst us, for a better overall society.
Its just finding the balance of how much the stupid need vs how compromised the people with sense will allow themselves to become.

ty. maybe i do over-estimate the supply of common sense, but i can solve my hypothetical speed limit story.

If you act like a total douchebag, like our rice pilot, and kill someone then you lose your license. you go to jail. and you stay there for a long time. that could be months, years, decades...i'm no expert but i think that's a better alternative to punishing the rest of us for something 1 dickweed might do.

and then, hopefully this guy (below) is right, kinda.

point is we're punishing the wrong people.


It does stop people. The extreme professionals or the extremely anti-social types will still break the law, but for every one of them, there are 10 less then honest citizens that the law prevents from committing the crime, by either catching them or by making them afraid of the consequences of breaking the law.

would you apply that to the death penalty?

it sure sounds like the same argument.

also sounds like something the NRA said about guns....

[paladin]

also sounds like something the NRA said about guns....


Only thing is, guns dont kill people; people kill people.

[Dwood]

Only thing is, guns dont kill people; people kill people.

NRA = National Rifle Association. That's always going to be their point, and they're always going to be right about it. :P

[TeeKup]

Wall of text.

All hail Britannia!

Btw I agree with paladin to a large extent. I've always had issues with anyone just handing me something out, even if its a holiday gift. I like to earn what I get. If I get something, and I haven't earned it by working in some shape or form, I feel hollow and empty towards it.

[Disaster]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin
.

[paladin]

Once again, we look back to our founding fathers.

[Dwood]

Once again, we look back to our founding fathers.

And that's where we get most of our political ideology... I don't care who you are, whether you agree with Federalists or Antifederalists... If you build your political beliefs off those men back in the 1770's you can't go wrong.

I was going to quote like half of Federalist Paper #10 but you should read it in your spare time because it's truly an amazing and inspired piece of American literature.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

I'll just leave you this quote for tonight:



Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.

Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

[Bodzilla]

You cant be left with a budget deficit, you create it yearly.

"theres genius born every five minutes."

what a precious gem you are.

[paladin]

"theres genius born every five minutes."

what a precious gem you are.

Look how well you contribute...

Please, because you seem to know everything, how did Barack Obama inherit Geroge Bush's budget deficit? last time I checked, it is renewed and reorganized EVERY year.

[Anton]

I'm not positive of this knowledge, but I believe the 2009 fiscal year budget was submitted by Bush. October 1, 2008 to September 31, 2009.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. The political bull shit that we all spew isn't helping anything. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The only thing that matters is we're all having to deal with it, and if we don't like the way things are being done then lets do something about it. Write to your congressmen/senator; even if they don't even care about the letter at least you can say YOU tried.

[sleepy1212]

I'm not positive of this knowledge, but I believe the 2009 fiscal year budget was submitted by Bush. October 1, 2008 to September 31, 2009.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. The political bull shit that we all spew isn't helping anything. It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The only thing that matters is we're all having to deal with it, and if we don't like the way things are being done then lets do something about it. Write to your congressmen/senator; even if they don't even care about the letter at least you can say YOU tried.

Speaking of, did anyone receive that Obama Policy Survey from the GOP? I got one even though i re-registered last year from Rep. to Independent.

I filled it out, wrote in my own answers, and then wrote them a short letter. :maddowns:

[teh lag]

"theres genius born every five minutes."

what a precious gem you are.

If this discussion could happen without people calling each other idiots, that would be great.

And if it could also happen without veering off into the after-effects of the above, that would also be great.

[Bodzilla]

better solution to welfare: cut taxes on businesses (those rich people we "hate" so much) so they have more hiring power and get those people some jobs. I've never heard of a better remedy for being broke than to get a job.
Supply and demand.

just cause you cut taxes does not mean they will instantly start hiring people.

[paladin]

Nothings instant.

[teh lag]

cn3089 you raise some good points (really) but i would like to remind you that

[CN3089]

what the h*ck where did my posts go




m-my posts..

[CN3089]

anyways the tl;dr of it was is that america is a terrible country with a broken democracy


if you're an american and you have any sense in you start trying to emigrate to europe immediately, I'd say your best bet is France or somewhere in Scandinavia, maybe Germany if you're cool with censorship, or Canada if you think the liberal parties here will ever stop being incompetent long enough to get control of our government back :allears:


or Canada if you think the liberal parties here will ever stop being incompetent long enough to get control of our government back :allears:

ahahaha you made michael ignatieff your party leader what the fuck were you thinking, liberals

[Kornman00]

this thread...

:ugh:

Germany? Been here...meh. Paris was hella nice though! Not sure about actually living there though..

The irony of the thing is that Germany doesn't censor the radio waves (never mind late night TV) like America does :allears:

[Disaster]

anyways the tl;dr of it was is that america is a terrible country with a broken democracy


if you're an american and you have any sense in you start trying to emigrate to europe immediately, I'd say your best bet is France or somewhere in Scandinavia, maybe Germany if you're cool with censorship, or Canada if you think the liberal parties here will ever stop being incompetent long enough to get control of our government back :allears:



ahahaha you made michael ignatieff your party leader what the fuck were you thinking, liberals
America is not a democracy. Its more or less a republic with democratic aspects.

[CN3089]

Our country is not a democracy. Its more or less a republic with democratic aspects.

republic means a nation without a monarch, it doesn't say anything about the governmental system of a country

[Heathen]

Though Obama is nowhere near as great as he was touted to be, atleast you didn't end up with Palin in any real power vOv
this


VP is just a failsafe if the pres dies imho. They hold no real power... That said, given McCain lives for the next 4 years then I would have rather had her than Obama/Biden b/c at least they wouldn't of ran our debt by over a Trillion dollars in 1 year.

McCain was 72 years old. He would have been 80 at the end of an 8 year run. He would have been giving his last speech on a Darth Vader oxygen machine.

Voting for him was voting for Palin, and well...Palin was kinda...dumb.

[CN3089]

america is a liberal democracy that is also a republic, canada is a liberal democracy that is not a republic

also they're both federations :allears:

[Disaster]

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.


Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson
.


Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."

George Washington, April 30, 1789: "The...destiny of the republican model of government (is) justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally stacked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

Thomas Jefferson, March 11, 1790: "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

Thomas Jefferson, 1791: "Government in a well constituted republic requires no belief from man beyond what his reason authorizes."

Thomas Jefferson, July 30, 1795: "The revolution forced them (the "people of America" — author) to consider the subject for themselves, and the result was an universal conversion to republicanism."

Thomas Jefferson, March 12, 1799: "The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played upon by some fact with more fiction, they have been the dupes of artful manoeuvres, & made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."

Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form..."

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1802: "The body of our people ... have ever had the same object in view, to wit, the, maintenance of a federal, republican government..."

Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 13, 1813: "This is my belief of it; it is that on which I have acted...to administer the government according to its genuine republican principles..."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "He (John Adams — author) has since thoroughly seen that his constituents were devoted to republican government..."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "...and I fondly hope ... that the motto of the standard to which our country will forever rally, will be ‘federal union, and republican government..."

[CN3089]

hey look, I can quote mine as well


A republic is a form of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government) in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.


Liberal democracy (or constitutional democracy) is the dominant form of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) in the 21st century.

...

It may have a presidential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system) (United States), a parliamentary system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system) (Westminster system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system), UK and Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth) countries), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_system) (France).

[CN3089]

What do you mean the meanings of words change over hundreds of years? B-but the constitution..

[Disaster]

You know god damn well what the Founders meant. They looked at the Greek Democracies and the Roman Republic. They chose a republican form of government. Our government is more of a democracy today than it was originally intended to be but that doesn't change the fact that it is a republic with democratic aspects. Our highest political office is not elected by the people ...

[paladin]

You can move to Europe, im fine right here.

[CN3089]

You know god damn well what the Founders meant. They looked at the Greek Democracies and the Roman Republic. They chose a republican form of government. Our government is more of a democracy today than it was originally intended to be but that doesn't change the fact that it is a republic with democratic aspects. Our highest political office is not elected by the people ...


a bloo bloo bloo, why don't words mean what I want them to mean http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-qq.gif


sorry bud but that's just the way the language works, 'democracy' doesn't mean what it used to mean, democratic republic is no longer an oxymoron

[paladin]

In its life time, the United States has never been a democracy...

It has, and always will be a Constitution-based federal republic.

[Warsaw]

Look at all this nationalistic mudslinging! :allears:

tl;dr: if you aren't American, why do you care? Just find something else to bash the country on. Don't like our current management of healthcare? Tough! You don't live here anyways, so it has no bearing on your life. For those of us that are going to have to deal with a poorly-thought out piece of legislature (read: toilet paper), it actually begs some consideration as to what we are about to get ourselves into. And half of the poor population put themselves in the spot they are in to begin with...I call it Darwinism.

[paladin]

Look at all this nationalistic mudslinging! :allears:

tl;dr: if you aren't American, why do you care? Just find something else to bash the country on. Don't like our current management of healthcare? Tough! You don't live here anyways, so it has no bearing on your life. For those of us that are going to have to deal with a poorly-thought out piece of legislature (read: toilet paper), it actually begs some consideration as to what we are about to get ourselves into. And half of the poor population put themselves in the spot they are in to begin with...I call it Darwinism.

You cant call it Darwinism because the government is making it impossible for someone (or thing) to fail... hth

also, I agree, if you're not a citizen or someone being affected, you're not needed in this debate.

[Disaster]

sorry bud but that's just the way the language works, 'democracy' doesn't mean what it used to mean, democratic republic is no longer an oxymoron

Republic - : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

-Websters

[Warsaw]

You cant call it Darwinism because the government is making it impossible for someone (or thing) to fail... hth

also, I agree, if you're not a citizen or someone being affected, you're not needed in this debate.

I call it Darwinism because the people failing are managing to fail in a system that makes it damn near impossible to fail. Hell, I call that hard core Darwinism right there.

[CN3089]

Look at all this nationalistic mudslinging! :allears:

tl;dr: if you aren't American, why do you care? Just find something else to bash the country on. Don't like our current management of healthcare? Tough! You don't live here anyways, so it has no bearing on your life. For those of us that are going to have to deal with a poorly-thought out piece of legislature (read: toilet paper), it actually begs some consideration as to what we are about to get ourselves into. And half of the poor population put themselves in the spot they are in to begin with...I call it Darwinism.

Oh boy, a social darwinist, you guys are hilarious



how does it feel like to be the embodiment of http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Tags/lf-gotmine.gif



also this may shock you but when you see a screwed up friend (this is america in my bad metaphor fyi) trying to help them is a Good Thing

We're all in this together http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/16gnc7t.gif

[paladin]

The only thing we've screwed up was electing Barack Obama.

[Warsaw]

Why yes, yes we are in this together. Which means that Canada is no better off than the United States of America. Shockingly, Europe is also no better off. What a surprise.

Honestly, everybody is just as borked. A terribly-planned piece of legislature will not solve anything. I'd be all for the socialized health care if it was to be done right, but the fact of the matter is, it ain't so. I'd be shocked my own self if it were on the first try. Back to the drawing board, Obama.

[CN3089]

The only thing we've screwed up was electing Barack Obama.

he was the better of the two options presented to you vOv

[Warsaw]

That I can agree on. McCain didn't have his act together and he picked that crazed lunatic Palin as a running mate. At the very least Obama isn't liable to die and leave a maniac in power. He also has a plan, though he needs to work on his execution (it is, after all, the purpose of his office).

[CN3089]

At the very least Obama isn't liable to die and leave a maniac in power.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/9a4d38.gif

[Warsaw]

^Lol.

Biden is a lamb compared to Palin.

[rossmum]

this thread...

:ugh:

Germany? Been here...meh. Paris was hella nice though! Not sure about actually living there though..

The irony of the thing is that Germany doesn't censor the radio waves (never mind late night TV) like America does :allears:
parisians are generally arrogant fuckheads, rural france is way better trust me

also i was actually surprised to see the us and even canada would rather censor swearing than just up the rating on something. even here in kevin rudd's peoples' republic of australia basically nobody gives a fuck.


republic means a nation without a monarch, it doesn't say anything about the governmental system of a country
i had this exact same argument with an american 'friend' who has a habit of making really misinformed statements about shit and then helplessly clawing at out-of-context wikipedia quotes to try and save face (that totally doesn't sound like what's happening here :allears:) but basically yes this

republic and democracy. two totally different things. if you're going to comment on politics, kids, at least have some form of rudimentary understanding of the terms involved. fuck.

personally my only real concern in so many people being so misinformed is that when i move back to The Best Country Ever in a few years i have to share a border with them

[Dwood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic scroll down to the republic in America section :/ .

[CrAsHOvErRide]

waaahh, more taxes. at least they're going towards something useful.


Not to mention it's going to be cheaper in the end for you in case of an accident.

Income here in Germany is taxed with 51% basically. So 51% of your work time is you working for the state. So don't cry yet about your high taxes :P

[sleepy1212]

This thread just keeps getting worse.

quoting wiki? you can't even do that in high school :gonk:

[rossmum]

This thread just keeps getting worse.

quoting wiki? you can't even do that in high school :gonk:
Exactly, although in my extensive experience arguing with people who are absolutely certain they're right, that statement fails to register. Even if it does, they'll then argue back that yes it is a reliable source so I can use it and I'm still right.

Republics are monarchless. Democracies are run by representatives elected by the people (at one or many levels). If they're the same thing, how the fuck do you explain the UK? :ugh:

[TeeKup]

Not to get dragged into this argument...oh wait yes I do.

I'm waiting for the day the American Empire is announced. Scratch that, the day we get reorganized into the Holy Britannian Empire.

:iamafag:

In all seriousness though, this countries ruling all the way down to the local government is terrible. We had an ice storm recently in my small town of fort mill. It took city council 5 goddamn hours to get plow trucks and salt trucks on the road. There had already been a good number of accidents.

Our neighbor city of Rock Hill? A friend who lives there tells me they had trucks running an hour to 2 hours after the storm.

[rossmum]

what

[TeeKup]

Nevermind, see edit for serious context.

[Dwood]

This thread just keeps getting worse.

quoting wiki? you can't even do that in high school :gonk:

Then I shan't quote wiki, and instead, site source!

William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. 6

W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421

Crap sorry guys I'm going to leave this thread now lol.

[Warsaw]

Not to get dragged into this argument...oh wait yes I do.

I'm waiting for the day the American Empire is announced. Scratch that, the day we get reorganized into the Holy Britannian Empire.

:iamafag:

In all seriousness though, this countries ruling all the way down to the local government is terrible. We had an ice storm recently in my small town of fort mill. It took city council 5 goddamn hours to get plow trucks and salt trucks on the road. There had already been a good number of accidents.

Our neighbor city of Rock Hill? A friend who lives there tells me they had trucks running an hour to 2 hours after the storm.

All governments are terrible, hth. Some are just worse than others. Getting plows on the roads varies from state to state over here. New York will get you ready in no time flat. Virginia will take a day or three.

Also, I'm waiting for the U.S. to be renamed the United Security State of America (USSA). :realsmug:

[sleepy1212]

Also, I'm waiting for the U.S. to be renamed the United Security State of America (USSA). :realsmug:

or mexico :airquote:

[rossmum]

Then I shan't quote wiki, and instead, site source!

William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000. pg. 6

W. Paul Adams "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric Before 1776." Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 397–421

Crap sorry guys I'm going to leave this thread now lol.


Republics are monarchless. Democracies are run by representatives elected by the people (at one or many levels). If they're the same thing, how the fuck do you explain the UK? :ugh:
just because someone at some point in history decided to use the wrong terms and a whole nation accepted their version, that doesn't make them any less wrong

[Bloodraver]

@ TeeKup my town was already prepared for that. Its not the governments fault that your town had failed to prepare an effective response

[Dwood]

Not really, because under that, we are using incorrect terms to define gay people. Just because some guy hundreds of years ago defined something doesnt mean the definition has to stay the same.

[rossmum]

Not really, because under that, we are using incorrect terms to define gay people. Just because some guy hundreds of years ago defined something doesnt mean the definition has to stay the same.
In the case of political terms, yes it does.

The case you brought up was colloquial language, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[CN3089]

Hey guys let's argue about the definitions of words :allears:


Did you know americans drop the u in colour and neighbour? that's crazy!!

[Maniac]

Who axed you? :)

[sleepy1212]

Hey guys let's argue about the definitions of words :allears:


Did you know americans drop the u in colour and neighbour? that's crazy!!

freaks me out every time i spell grEy poopon.

[TeeKup]

@ TeeKup my town was already prepared for that. Its not the governments fault that your town had failed to prepare an effective response

Local government you idiot. Last I checked, the Mayor and City Council is local government, therefor they are responsible for emergency weather action.

[Cojafoji]

that's not really the way a local government should work. at all.

there should be a head of public works that would order those plows & salters to start moving.

dunno why your city sucks.

[TeeKup]

You think, but yeah, Fort Mill is goddamn terrible. Our infrastructure is in the hole...literally our roads are so littered with potholes its ridiculous. On my way home from work one day, I took the road called Springfield Parkway, I counted 10.

[Bloodraver]

good lord your maintenance crew obviously needs help or replaced

[Bodzilla]

You think, but yeah, Fort Mill is goddamn terrible. Our infrastructure is in the hole...literally our roads are so littered with potholes its ridiculous. On my way home from work one day, I took the road called Springfield Parkway, I counted 10.

how long was this road and how deep where the holes?

because around where i live 10 is ridiculously low.

[TeeKup]

The road is about 2 miles in length from where it starts at my Aunts neighborhood of Foxwood to where it ends at a local grocery store. Depth could be anywhere from 4 inches to a foot and a half.

[Dwood]

tl dr people where teekup lives dont know how to build roads.

[sleepy1212]

tl dr people where teekup lives dont know how to build roads.

it sounds like where i live. they make a killing on tires around here.

[paladin]

health care reform -> pot holes, very....

[rossmum]

You think, but yeah, Fort Mill is goddamn terrible. Our infrastructure is in the hole...literally our roads are so littered with potholes its ridiculous. On my way home from work one day, I took the road called Springfield Parkway, I counted 10.
That's about as many as you'd find in two yards here, not two miles. And they're usually at least six inches deep. Consider yourself lucky.

[StankBacon]

yah 10 potholes in 2 miles is nothing... roads in Chicago are so tore up.

[Dwood]

it sounds like where i live. they make a killing on tires around here.

Haha. Our state/cities actually keeps our roads in good, working order. Welcome to Florida. [Not to say we don't have potholes, but ours are so far and few between it's nothing like crap places like Chicago and Detroit have]

[sleepy1212]

Haha. Our state/cities actually keeps our roads in good, working order. Welcome to Florida. [Not to say we don't have potholes, but ours are so far and few between it's nothing like crap places like Chicago and Detroit have]
lol, i grew up in FL. took a trip back early last year. i was like "holy fuck i can see the road and it has lines on it". In PA they don't believe in reflective paint. It's really horrible.

[paladin]

lol, i grew up in FL. took a trip back early last year. i was like "holy fuck i can see the road and it has lines on it". In PA they don't believe in reflective paint. It's really horrible.

My friends from PA was jsut out here and he was like, why do your marking reflect?

[Cojafoji]

driving at night in the rain in Pennsylvania is a fucking nightmare.

trust me.

edit:
not to mention the salt eats lesser cars. honda 88? they were all gone by 98.

[Yoko]

Driving in Ohio during rain is worse. As soon as it starts to sprinkle or even snows the tiniest bit, people basically fuck it, lose all good judgment, drive 20 mph under the limit, and do it live.

Plus there's about a mile strip of road right near college that they've been patching pot holes on for a week now. It's even worse after they patch them cause of all the rocks and shit that fly up.

[paladin]

Im from Seattle, Ima pro at rain driving. You could shoot a fire hose at my windshield and that couldnt stop me

[PopeAK49]

Then I guess I'll use my firehose. :iamafag:

[rossmum]

Australia's kind of like that, because when we get rain, it's monsoonal. Also, reflective road markings? Fuck, we still use basic white paint with reflector plates every here and there, and that's if the road's marked at all. Most of them look like patchwork.

[sleepy1212]

awww, modacity denizen's united by hatred for holes.

all politics threads should end this way.

[=sw=warlord]

Not really, because under that, we are using incorrect terms to define gay people.
But you are, Gay originaly ment happy, queer ment wierd or odd, i think the word your looking for is homosexual.

Just because some guy hundreds of years ago defined something doesnt mean the definition has to stay the same.
But that would be twisting definitions to meet your own needs not what they were originaly intended to mean.

out of curiousity how did this thread turn from tax credits to definition of words to who has the pot holes in their roads?
The obvious number 1 for that would be the ice roads in alaska so.
:raise:

[sleepy1212]

bleh: words technically don't mean anything. dictionaries often disagree. dialects change, plus sarcasm, innuendo, teh internets, etc...

there are simply 'generally accepted' meanings of words. definition = consensus.

[Dwood]

This thread is dead