PDA

View Full Version : What is the point?


Rev
02-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Having lived all over the country and seen all different walks of American life, I have been thinking about what our country will look like if obama has his way.

socialized healthcare and Big welfare - why even get a job? the main focus for people to seek out good jobs is the benefits. obama is well on the way to letting everyone just sit at home and get everything for free. Now how is this gonna help the economy? The liberals are gonna keep going untill every dime that a working person earns is matched and given to an unemployed leach in the name of "equality" so I ask all the working people?

Whats the point?

If you dont fall under the "tax paying American worker" lable, please only post with something constructive and not just antagonizing.

TheConcretekid
02-26-2010, 05:35 PM
the main focus for people to seek out good jobs is the benefits.
Inherently false

just sit at home and get everything for free
This shows a gross lack of understanding of what is being discussed


If you dont fall under the "tax paying American worker" lable, please only post with something constructive and not just antagonizing.
"Please only respond if you agree with me and/or are a radical right wing that thinks Glenn Beck has a news program" (it is aired during the unannounced 'opinion time slot' in which nothing discussed has to be founded in reality)

Miss Foxy
02-26-2010, 05:40 PM
More finger pointing ..Liberal vs Conservatives.. I get disgusted everytime. Fact is I wish we could all work together to repair or go forward. I myself do not care for Obama, however I am not going to bash our President day in and day out.

Tyburn
02-26-2010, 06:03 PM
Having lived all over the country and seen all different walks of American life, I have been thinking about what our country will look like if obama has his way.

socialized healthcare and Big welfare - why even get a job? the main focus for people to seek out good jobs is the benefits. obama is well on the way to letting everyone just sit at home and get everything for free. Now how is this gonna help the economy? The liberals are gonna keep going untill every dime that a working person earns is matched and given to an unemployed leach in the name of "equality" so I ask all the working people?

Whats the point?

If you dont fall under the "tax paying American worker" lable, please only post with something constructive and not just antagonizing.

you have a long way to go before your anywhere near there. Let me tell you, my yearly bonus stood at 300 (this is the first yearly bonus we have had in four years...so that should tell you something!)....and I had to pay 111 in tax.

Until your paying anywhere near a third of what you earn to your government, you shouldnt mention the word Socialism. We arent even socialist and thats how bad a Centrist Government can be.

Count yourself lucky.

Because I'm not :sad:

rearnakedchoke
02-26-2010, 06:39 PM
so by your point, countries with universal health care and good welfare systems should have high enemployment rates? countries like Canada, Switzerland, France all have this so-called programs that lead to lazy people sitting at home ... the unemployment rates for these countries are not any different than that of the US.

Rev
02-26-2010, 07:53 PM
First off chief, I dont watch beck or care about his news or not news program. But if you insist that only right wing people are tax-payers, hey, you said it not me.:wink:

The whole point of this post is the feeling that I am hearing from people from all over the country, that the harder they work, the more the libtards want to take from them and give to people who dont want to work at all.

Ask someone to describe a good job and I would be willing to bet that one of the first things that comes up is BENEFITS.

I know people personaly who have said that they dont want to get a job because they wont have it as good as they do on the welfare system, so dont even try and argue this. When people who work have trouble paying bills and feeding families, but those who live on the system get food, rent, healthcare, and a cellphone all on the taxpayers dime, something is wrong.

I hope I dont have to let you all know that the original post had alot of sarcasm in it, but if you dont catch that I dont mind. I'm sure I will sleep just fine tonight. :):wink:

Rev
02-26-2010, 07:58 PM
so by your point, countries with universal health care and good welfare systems should have high enemployment rates? countries like Canada, Switzerland, France all have this so-called programs that lead to lazy people sitting at home ... the unemployment rates for these countries are not any different than that of the US.

This is not what I said, I was making a point that this mentality(why work when we dont have to) would be easily reached(and has been in alot of the country). I never said anything about other countries.

Play The Man
02-26-2010, 08:08 PM
so by your point, countries with universal health care and good welfare systems should have high enemployment rates? countries like Canada, Switzerland, France all have this so-called programs that lead to lazy people sitting at home ... the unemployment rates for these countries are not any different than that of the US.

Why do you suppose countries like Canada and France are able to do this? It is because since WWII, the U.S. has been shouldering the burden of military spending for "The West". The U.S. spends about 19% of the budget on military spending. This comes out to about 4% of GDP. In contrast, Canada only spends about 6% of its budget on military spending, or about 1% of GDP. France spends between 5 and 6% of its budget on military spending. Why do you suppose these socialist countries are able to "skimp" on military spending? Answer: Because they know that they can rely on the U.S. to protect them and shoulder the vast burden for putting out hot spots, fighting global terror, keeping the sea lanes open, etc., etc., etc. If Canada and France had to spend 19% of their budgets on military spending, I would bet that the generous welfare benefits would dry up quickly. So, when you say your prayers at night, you should thank God for the U.S. soldiers who make it possible for you to live in perpetual adolescence.

atomdanger
02-26-2010, 08:19 PM
I grew up with no healthcare, and I have seen how healthcare seems to work well in other countries.
So I am ALL FOR healthcare for tax paying employed American's.
Nobody should be against this.

Welfare, eh. This should be taken with an almost military approach,
sometimes people need help, I'm all for it, WIC, etc....
But I want active job search, enrolled and passing college courses, drug tests,
SOMETHING.
Not just, give the poor folks money and hope for the best.

NateR
02-26-2010, 08:37 PM
So I am ALL FOR healthcare for tax paying employed American's.
Nobody should be against this.

If you only want healthcare for tax paying, employed American citizens, then why do we need the government involved at all? Under that notion, if you want healthcare, then you get a job and pay for it yourself.

This argument is not necessarily against healthcare, it's against big government control of healthcare with the power of life and death over its own citizens. That's tyranny and is not what this country was founded upon.

I am 100% against any form of government run healthcare for American citizens. The best way for our federal government to improve healthcare in America is to get out of the healthcare providing business (this is not referring to the healthcare regulating business, since doctors and drug companies need to be accountable to someone). American citizens should be free to refuse health insurance any time they want and free to pay for it themselves. Or if their employer offers it as part of a job benefit, then that would be considered a perk while working for that employer.

For discussions about the military, government employees, etc., that would fall under the category of healthcare benefits provided by an employer. The same as it would if that person was working for McDonalds or Walmart.

Simply put, healthcare is not a problem that can be solved by our federal government and it never will be.

rearnakedchoke
02-26-2010, 08:43 PM
If you only want healthcare for tax paying, employed American citizens, then why do we need the government involved at all? Under that notion, if you want healthcare, then you get a job and pay for it yourself.

This argument is not necessarily against healthcare, it's against big government control of healthcare with the power of life and death over its own citizens. That's tyranny and is not what this country was founded upon.

I am 100% against any form of government run healthcare for American citizens. The best way for our federal government to improve healthcare in America is to get out of the healthcare providing business (this is not referring to the healthcare regulating business, since doctors and drug companies need to be accountable to someone). American citizens should be free to refuse health insurance any time they want and free to pay for it themselves. Or if their employer offers it as part of a job benefit, then that would be considered a perk while working for that employer.

For discussions about the military, government employees, etc., that would fall under the category of healthcare benefits provided by an employer. The same as it would if that person was working for McDonalds or Walmart.

Simply put, healthcare is not a problem that can be solved by our federal government and it never will be.

sorry, i couldn't get this from your statement, but who should the drug companies and doctors be held accountable by? i think you are right, that your system can be improved and work fine without gov't intervention, but without that watchdog, you are going to have high doctor and drug fees and insurance companies with exorbant premiums .... a lot of American's come to Canada for their drugs because it is cheaper ... our Health Canada is just as strict as the FDA when it comes to drug control, but the gov't ensures costs are kept down ... heck, there are even issues with our program that would drop costs so much and the gov't needs to get a hold of it ... but there needs to be a start somewhere ...

NateR
02-26-2010, 08:43 PM
"Please only respond if you agree with me and/or are a radical right wing that thinks Glenn Beck has a news program" (it is aired during the unannounced 'opinion time slot' in which nothing discussed has to be founded in reality)

Well, it's better than the "Just shut up and agree with Obama on everything and then we can continue to feed you this illusion of bi-partisanship and open-mindedness" that we're getting from the current administration.

Secondly, are you obsessed with Glenn Beck? Why bring him into this conversation? Is it just because you can't handle the fact that reasonable and intelligent people can examine the evidence for themselves and form an opinion that is directly opposed to yours, that you resort to the cheap tactic of character assassination?

Or did you just always assume that anyone with intelligence would agree with you on everything? If someone disagrees with you, then it must be because they are misinformed or unintelligent?

rearnakedchoke
02-26-2010, 08:49 PM
First off chief, I dont watch beck or care about his news or not news program. But if you insist that only right wing people are tax-payers, hey, you said it not me.:wink:

The whole point of this post is the feeling that I am hearing from people from all over the country, that the harder they work, the more the libtards want to take from them and give to people who dont want to work at all.

Ask someone to describe a good job and I would be willing to bet that one of the first things that comes up is BENEFITS.

I know people personaly who have said that they dont want to get a job because they wont have it as good as they do on the welfare system, so dont even try and argue this. When people who work have trouble paying bills and feeding families, but those who live on the system get food, rent, healthcare, and a cellphone all on the taxpayers dime, something is wrong.

I hope I dont have to let you all know that the original post had alot of sarcasm in it, but if you dont catch that I dont mind. I'm sure I will sleep just fine tonight. :):wink:

so are those the only people that use these services? come on ...

NateR
02-26-2010, 08:51 PM
sorry, i couldn't get this from your statement, but who should the drug companies and doctors be held accountable by?

That's why I said that the state and federal governments needed to continue to regulate drug companies and health care providers.

Tyburn
02-26-2010, 08:53 PM
Why do you suppose countries like Canada and France are able to do this? It is because since WWII, the U.S. has been shouldering the burden of military spending for "The West". The U.S. spends about 19% of the budget on military spending. This comes out to about 4% of GDP. In contrast, Canada only spends about 6% of its budget on military spending, or about 1% of GDP. France spends between 5 and 6% of its budget on military spending. Why do you suppose these socialist countries are able to "skimp" on military spending? Answer: Because they know that they can rely on the U.S. to protect them and shoulder the vast burden for putting out hot spots, fighting global terror, keeping the sea lanes open, etc., etc., etc. If Canada and France had to spend 19% of their budgets on military spending, I would bet that the generous welfare benefits would dry up quickly. So, when you say your prayers at night, you should thank God for the U.S. soldiers who make it possible for you to live in perpetual adolescence.

If the United States had entered the war when the rest of us did and had paid a far bigger price in the first world war, then you wouldnt be left having to pick up the pieces. So you should thank the whole European Generation that died BEFORE your Country saw fit to enter the war, for sacrificing themselves to stop you being the only country left for the Nazi party to invade.

We might be able to do more for Military spending world wide if your Government had not dragged half of us into two major wars in the space of a decade, and at the same time, allowed your greedy citizens to force banks into Government Control in order to be able to survive such a financial burden that is not of our making.

You guys are the ones living in ignorance and adolescence, using big words like socialism, or fascism, when you have bearly ever even seen the likes that some of the rest of us have been fighting on home turf for years. When Washington lies in ruins after three years of nightly blitze, then you may speak about the danger of nationalism. Not until you have a neighbour who threatens to expand his empire and conqure you to increase the wealth of all, may you speak about Communism.

btw, fyi, England kept the sealanes open and managed to do all that you have done for 300 years before we struggled, its taken you less then 80 years to be in minor trouble. Plus we did it when Nations werent placid like they are now, we did it without the use of our allied countries. The whole reason you can fight is down to countries that host you. Where would you be without your Starwars shield...if Europe turned round and expelled your listening posts you'd be quickly having a swift change of heart. I am shocked and appauled to here someone as intelligent as yourself, daring to act superior in a measure where you as a superpower are more dependant on the rest of us, then any other super power before you, and some of us have been record breaking superpowers, and your not likely to become one of those. I'm frankly a little dissapointed in you.

So when you say your prayers at night, you should thank GOD that no matter how badly your Government treats its allies, and no matter how late they are joining the rest of us in global fighting, that we have been, and probably always will be reliable and Loyal to you.

rearnakedchoke
02-26-2010, 08:57 PM
That's why I said that the state and federal governments needed to continue to regulate drug companies and health care providers.

cool .. even with universal health care the docs try and scam the system, even with gov't watching, they find a way around it ...

Rev
02-27-2010, 01:25 AM
so are those the only people that use these services? come on ...

I never said that, My point from the begining has been about the ones who want to live on the system. I have no problem with welfare if it is used right. I grew up in a house that did abuse the system and stayed on welfare for years. I know what I am talking about from both sides. It seems like you are trying to bird-dog me and find something wrong what I am saying. Thats ok, whatever floats your boat. But dont expect the same in return, except for sarcasm.

Play The Man
02-27-2010, 02:40 AM
If the United States had entered the war when the rest of us did and had paid a far bigger price in the first world war, then you wouldnt be left having to pick up the pieces. So you should thank the whole European Generation that died BEFORE your Country saw fit to enter the war, for sacrificing themselves to stop you being the only country left for the Nazi party to invade.

We might be able to do more for Military spending world wide if your Government had not dragged half of us into two major wars in the space of a decade, and at the same time, allowed your greedy citizens to force banks into Government Control in order to be able to survive such a financial burden that is not of our making.

You guys are the ones living in ignorance and adolescence, using big words like socialism, or fascism, when you have bearly ever even seen the likes that some of the rest of us have been fighting on home turf for years. When Washington lies in ruins after three years of nightly blitze, then you may speak about the danger of nationalism. Not until you have a neighbour who threatens to expand his empire and conqure you to increase the wealth of all, may you speak about Communism.

btw, fyi, England kept the sealanes open and managed to do all that you have done for 300 years before we struggled, its taken you less then 80 years to be in minor trouble. Plus we did it when Nations werent placid like they are now, we did it without the use of our allied countries. The whole reason you can fight is down to countries that host you. Where would you be without your Starwars shield...if Europe turned round and expelled your listening posts you'd be quickly having a swift change of heart. I am shocked and appauled to here someone as intelligent as yourself, daring to act superior in a measure where you as a superpower are more dependant on the rest of us, then any other super power before you, and some of us have been record breaking superpowers, and your not likely to become one of those. I'm frankly a little dissapointed in you.

So when you say your prayers at night, you should thank GOD that no matter how badly your Government treats its allies, and no matter how late they are joining the rest of us in global fighting, that we have been, and probably always will be reliable and Loyal to you.

I stand by what I wrote. By the way, I agree with much of what you wrote above.

The point I was trying to make is that Western European-style (I include Canada in this) socialism, as it is currently practiced, is not something that is sustainable in the long term. There is an inevitable crash coming due to predictable demographic realities. Modern Western Man (I include many, if not most, Americans in this statement) has opted for adolescence, rather than a purpose-directed adulthood, which takes into account the stark realities of our fallen world. Instead of a life of children, hard work, sacrifice, and patriotism, much of the Western world is opting for leisure, multiculturalism, hedonism, and appeasement.

Europeans are not having enough children to replace themselves. Children require an incredible investment of time, energy, money, sacrifice, etc. Most Europeans (and to a lesser extent Americans) have decided to give up having at least 2 children because they would rather have a life of leisure and comfort. Socialist programs can not be funded when the number of retired, elderly, welfare recipients, etc. exceeds the ability of the working generation to pay for it. Europe has mortgaged its future by importing a huge number of Third World Muslim immigrants to fill the empty jobs left by the European children who were aborted or never conceived. Over the next 100 years, children of these Muslim immigrants will become the majority in country after country in Europe. Good luck if you think they are going to want to pay a huge chunk of their salaries to support elderly European Infidels. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The time to pay the bill is pushed back somewhat because European Socialist countries have been able to "skimp" on military spending (to the tune of billions of dollars each year) by relying on the United States to shoulder the burden. You are correct that the UK performed a similar role throughout much of the 18th and 19th century; however, the UK had a large Colonial Empire, with all the concomitant moral baggage of imperialism. I don't think anyone is proposing a Pax Americana tax on Western Socialist governments, but it would be refreshing if some of the citizens of such socialist countries realized that their lifestyle is being funded on the back of the American GI. (and yes, we do appreciate the sacrifice of the coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - it would be nice if some countries increased the number of troops -- not talking about the UK here)

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I still like the Tyburn blogs though.:wink:

NateR
02-27-2010, 02:48 AM
If the United States had entered the war when the rest of us did and had paid a far bigger price in the first world war, then you wouldnt be left having to pick up the pieces. So you should thank the whole European Generation that died BEFORE your Country saw fit to enter the war, for sacrificing themselves to stop you being the only country left for the Nazi party to invade.

We might be able to do more for Military spending world wide if your Government had not dragged half of us into two major wars in the space of a decade, and at the same time, allowed your greedy citizens to force banks into Government Control in order to be able to survive such a financial burden that is not of our making.

You guys are the ones living in ignorance and adolescence, using big words like socialism, or fascism, when you have bearly ever even seen the likes that some of the rest of us have been fighting on home turf for years. When Washington lies in ruins after three years of nightly blitze, then you may speak about the danger of nationalism. Not until you have a neighbour who threatens to expand his empire and conqure you to increase the wealth of all, may you speak about Communism.

btw, fyi, England kept the sealanes open and managed to do all that you have done for 300 years before we struggled, its taken you less then 80 years to be in minor trouble. Plus we did it when Nations werent placid like they are now, we did it without the use of our allied countries. The whole reason you can fight is down to countries that host you. Where would you be without your Starwars shield...if Europe turned round and expelled your listening posts you'd be quickly having a swift change of heart. I am shocked and appauled to here someone as intelligent as yourself, daring to act superior in a measure where you as a superpower are more dependant on the rest of us, then any other super power before you, and some of us have been record breaking superpowers, and your not likely to become one of those. I'm frankly a little dissapointed in you.

So when you say your prayers at night, you should thank GOD that no matter how badly your Government treats its allies, and no matter how late they are joining the rest of us in global fighting, that we have been, and probably always will be reliable and Loyal to you.

Or maybe if YOU hadn't sat on YOUR thumbs while Hitler was seizing power, then the situation would have never escalated to world war status. It's only because of YOUR incompetence and stupidity that Hitler got as powerful as he did before anyone decided to do anything. Then when YOU realize what a mistake YOU made by YOUR inaction, the first people YOU call for help is America.

So YOU and YOUR cowardly, stupid nation have no room to talk.

atomdanger
02-27-2010, 04:09 AM
If you only want healthcare for tax paying, employed American citizens, then why do we need the government involved at all? Under that notion, if you want healthcare, then you get a job and pay for it yourself.

I am 100% against any form of government run healthcare for American citizens. The best way for our federal government to improve healthcare in America is to get out of the healthcare providing business (this is not referring to the healthcare regulating business, since doctors and drug companies need to be accountable to someone). American citizens should be free to refuse health insurance any time they want and free to pay for it themselves. Or if their employer offers it as part of a job benefit, then that would be considered a perk while working for that employer.

For discussions about the military, government employees, etc., that would fall under the category of healthcare benefits provided by an employer. The same as it would if that person was working for McDonalds or Walmart.

Simply put, healthcare is not a problem that can be solved by our federal government and it never will be.

So, say I work at burger king/wal mart, etc.. and have two kids?
I don't deserve healthcare? Because I can't afford it, but I am a hard working tax payer.
(a LOT of jobs offer no healthcare)

See where your idea goes south?
Its sort of sad, anybody who is working and doing all they can deserves healthcare.

So, why not a public option? You could still have private healthcare.

J.B.
02-27-2010, 04:29 AM
So, say I work at burger king/wal mart, etc.. and have two kids?
I don't deserve healthcare? Because I can't afford it, but I am a hard working tax payer.
(a LOT of jobs offer no healthcare)

See where your idea goes south?
Its sort of sad, anybody who is working and doing all they can deserves healthcare.

So, why not a public option? You could still have private healthcare.

If you have two kids and you are not the store manager of that Burger King or Walmart, you may want to consider another line of employment. Having a job and paying taxes does not entitle a person to health-care. It's sad but true.

A public option would cost a ton of money and bring a whole slew of other problems along with it. I am not saying that our system is perfect by any means, but letting the government come in and try to fix the problem will likely make things worse in the long run.

Rev
02-27-2010, 05:18 AM
So, say I work at burger king/wal mart, etc.. and have two kids?
I don't deserve healthcare? Because I can't afford it, but I am a hard working tax payer.
(a LOT of jobs offer no healthcare)

See where your idea goes south?
Its sort of sad, anybody who is working and doing all they can deserves healthcare.

So, why not a public option? You could still have private healthcare.

If you are a working taxpayer, absolutly you should have some sort of healthcare, my argument was never about the people working but making little. It was about the ones who want everything for free. I dont know what the answer is for healthcare but the way it is in Louisiana with the charity hospitals, seems to work pretty well. What's the charity system like in the rest of the country? Idaho is pretty complicated but they do have a system for the poor.

NateR
02-27-2010, 05:21 AM
I don't deserve healthcare?

This is the root of the problem. The notion that we "deserve" anything. Show me where access to healthcare is granted to American citizens in the Constitution.

You can't because it is not in there and it never should be.

We became the world's sole superpower without any sort of "public option" for healthcare, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we suddenly need it now.

Play The Man
02-27-2010, 05:28 AM
So, say I work at burger king/wal mart, etc.. and have two kids?
I don't deserve healthcare? Because I can't afford it, but I am a hard working tax payer.
(a LOT of jobs offer no healthcare)

See where your idea goes south?
Its sort of sad, anybody who is working and doing all they can deserves healthcare.

So, why not a public option? You could still have private healthcare.

In the example you provided, the children would likely already be eligible for S-CHIP and the Burger King worker would likely be eligible for Medicaid. There is no reason to scrap our entire system for things that need "tweaking".

Rev
02-27-2010, 05:35 AM
If the United States had entered the war when the rest of us did and had paid a far bigger price in the first world war, then you wouldnt be left having to pick up the pieces. So you should thank the whole European Generation that died BEFORE your Country saw fit to enter the war, for sacrificing themselves to stop you being the only country left for the Nazi party to invade.

We might be able to do more for Military spending world wide if your Government had not dragged half of us into two major wars in the space of a decade, and at the same time, allowed your greedy citizens to force banks into Government Control in order to be able to survive such a financial burden that is not of our making.

You guys are the ones living in ignorance and adolescence, using big words like socialism, or fascism, when you have bearly ever even seen the likes that some of the rest of us have been fighting on home turf for years. When Washington lies in ruins after three years of nightly blitze, then you may speak about the danger of nationalism. Not until you have a neighbour who threatens to expand his empire and conqure you to increase the wealth of all, may you speak about Communism.

btw, fyi, England kept the sealanes open and managed to do all that you have done for 300 years before we struggled, its taken you less then 80 years to be in minor trouble. Plus we did it when Nations werent placid like they are now, we did it without the use of our allied countries. The whole reason you can fight is down to countries that host you. Where would you be without your Starwars shield...if Europe turned round and expelled your listening posts you'd be quickly having a swift change of heart. I am shocked and appauled to here someone as intelligent as yourself, daring to act superior in a measure where you as a superpower are more dependant on the rest of us, then any other super power before you, and some of us have been record breaking superpowers, and your not likely to become one of those. I'm frankly a little dissapointed in you.

So when you say your prayers at night, you should thank GOD that no matter how badly your Government treats its allies, and no matter how late they are joining the rest of us in global fighting, that we have been, and probably always will be reliable and Loyal to you.

Why do they host us? For our PROTECTION!!! Countries act like they are doing us such a biiig favor by letting us base on their soil but in reality they are doing it because they know that we will help them out of trouble.

Dave, your first paragraph is complaining about us not getting envolved in your war soon enough, and the second paragraph is complaining about you having to get involved in our wars. I'm confused brother.:blink:

Rev
02-27-2010, 05:38 AM
In the example you provided, the children would likely already be eligible for S-CHIP and the Burger King worker would likely be eligible for Medicaid. There is no reason to scrap our entire system for things that need "tweaking".
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+100,000,000,000,000,000

Tyburn
02-27-2010, 12:43 PM
Or maybe if YOU hadn't sat on YOUR thumbs while Hitler was seizing power, then the situation would have never escalated to world war status. It's only because of YOUR incompetence and stupidity that Hitler got as powerful as he did before anyone decided to do anything. Then when YOU realize what a mistake YOU made by YOUR inaction, the first people YOU call for help is America.

So YOU and YOUR cowardly, stupid nation have no room to talk.

The first thing we did was try and barter peace. We are not war-mongers at heart, unlike our Children.

Regardless of our mistakes, we actually paid for them. Look at what we are reduced to now. Let what happened to us be a warning for you. You think you are untouchable, and you complain about carrying the world on your shoulders...but this has been a common trait with America since day one...Her Allies will fight heart and soul for her...but when they ask her to stand by them...

...Your Government decided to make a statment refusing to back Englands right to the Faulklands. Explain to me why you guys never back us up, when we spend our entire foreign policy backing you guys up?? I know, you as a mere civilian cant change that...but do you really and truely think that your best friends deserve slightly more??

That is characteristic of the way the Americans have always treated their closest friends. Not everyone likes you, dont you think you should do as much as possible to keep the friends you have?? I mean that on Governmental Level, not actually you personally, im talking about the behavement of present and past administrations

Tyburn
02-27-2010, 12:49 PM
Why do they host us? For our PROTECTION!!! Countries act like they are doing us such a biiig favor by letting us base on their soil but in reality they are doing it because they know that we will help them out of trouble.

Dave, your first paragraph is complaining about us not getting envolved in your war soon enough, and the second paragraph is complaining about you having to get involved in our wars. I'm confused brother.:blink:

Really???

So when we move against the Argentinians to defend our Soverignty, you will protect us will you??

Your gonna protect those governments who backed your plans for starwars before you pulled out and left them high and dry before the Russians??

Just TWO examples in the past SIX months alone.

Again...I know you on a personal level cant do anything about it, but wake up to the fact that probably what motivates countries to host you more then you swareing to protect them...is what might happen to them if they told you where to shove your satalites! Largely what motivates other people when it comes to America is probably more fear. GOD forbid we offend her by exposing the truth of her torture...which is the petty reason Obama is playing games with his most precious Allied Force right now. GOD forbid we be branded part of the axis of evil, or a rouge nation because we dont play by the rules (notice with the U.S, this is a case of do as I say NOT do as I do United Nations Style)

Tyburn
02-27-2010, 12:54 PM
1)This is the root of the problem. The notion that we "deserve" anything. Show me where access to healthcare is granted to American citizens in the Constitution.

You can't because it is not in there and it never should be.

We became the world's sole superpower without any sort of "public option" for healthcare, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we suddenly need it now.

1) no the root of the problem is actually that we have a cultural difference of opinion over the definition of the Governments job. In a Commonwealth Country, the right to have health care, is pretty much as important as your right to bare arms

2) you became a super-power because you were late into World War Two (which removed all the super-powers before, and left you with the only one having money to invest and rebuild) and because the USSR collapsed (something that would have happened with or without the cold war IMHO)

oh...and watch out for China, because your days of being the "sole" superpower are almost up. She is matching you, and probably in the next decade or so, might even surpass you :unsure:

Tyburn
02-27-2010, 12:58 PM
I stand by what I wrote. By the way, I agree with much of what you wrote above.

The point I was trying to make is that Western European-style (I include Canada in this) socialism, as it is currently practiced, is not something that is sustainable in the long term. There is an inevitable crash coming due to predictable demographic realities. Modern Western Man (I include many, if not most, Americans in this statement) has opted for adolescence, rather than a purpose-directed adulthood, which takes into account the stark realities of our fallen world. Instead of a life of children, hard work, sacrifice, and patriotism, much of the Western world is opting for leisure, multiculturalism, hedonism, and appeasement.

Europeans are not having enough children to replace themselves. Children require an incredible investment of time, energy, money, sacrifice, etc. Most Europeans (and to a lesser extent Americans) have decided to give up having at least 2 children because they would rather have a life of leisure and comfort. Socialist programs can not be funded when the number of retired, elderly, welfare recipients, etc. exceeds the ability of the working generation to pay for it. Europe has mortgaged its future by importing a huge number of Third World Muslim immigrants to fill the empty jobs left by the European children who were aborted or never conceived. Over the next 100 years, children of these Muslim immigrants will become the majority in country after country in Europe. Good luck if you think they are going to want to pay a huge chunk of their salaries to support elderly European Infidels. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The time to pay the bill is pushed back somewhat because European Socialist countries have been able to "skimp" on military spending (to the tune of billions of dollars each year) by relying on the United States to shoulder the burden. You are correct that the UK performed a similar role throughout much of the 18th and 19th century; however, the UK had a large Colonial Empire, with all the concomitant moral baggage of imperialism. I don't think anyone is proposing a Pax Americana tax on Western Socialist governments, but it would be refreshing if some of the citizens of such socialist countries realized that their lifestyle is being funded on the back of the American GI. (and yes, we do appreciate the sacrifice of the coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - it would be nice if some countries increased the number of troops -- not talking about the UK here)

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I still like the Tyburn blogs though.:wink:

There you go with "socialist" accusations again :rolleyes:

The United Kingdom, might have taxed the collonies to support itself..but hey, what you guys did with the wallstreet wobble a year or so ago, has about equalled two hundred years of tax :laugh: :laugh:

"Pax Americana" ...I actually like that...What America is missing, is an Empire. She would be perfect if she had an Empire :)

Rev
02-27-2010, 09:15 PM
What is to fear? We have the biggest wuss in office right now, it the UN was to call him up and tell him that in order to stay in good standing, he would have to sign over all U.S. land and military equipment, he would probably do it. Then he would say he was sorry for America not doing that sooner.

Any way, America has spent more time and money helping out other countries than we need to, that is part of the reason we are in the shape we are in. Argue all you want, but if we ever decide to just look out for us, the world is gonna be in trouble.

County Mike
02-28-2010, 02:34 AM
Until your paying anywhere near a third of what you earn to your government, you shouldnt mention the word Socialism. We arent even socialist and thats how bad a Centrist Government can be.


They take over 30% of my pay. Can I complain about socialism now?

flo
02-28-2010, 03:28 AM
Ask someone to describe a good job and I would be willing to bet that one of the first things that comes up is BENEFITS.



Right you are, Rev. People I know that are looking for work want good coverage. Also, many working folks not happy with their jobs qualify it by saying "but it's got good benefits".

I also see the trend towards more of a nanny state. Heaven help us. I've always taken pride in working hard for what I have and I want the govt to stay OUT of my life as much as possible.

As for the troll, he always has his panties in a knot over Glenn Beck or Rush, lol! :laugh:

flo
02-28-2010, 03:34 AM
Your posts are always reasonable and informative, Play The Man, thanks.

Play The Man
02-28-2010, 03:58 AM
Your posts are always reasonable and informative, Play The Man, thanks.

Thanks Flo. Perhaps you could put in a good word for me with Tyburn. I ticked him off with my post.

Rev
02-28-2010, 04:21 AM
Dave will get over it, he is a good cat and he knows that we all wont agree always.

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 05:01 AM
What is the purpose of government? Is it to provide for the citizens, like a parent, or to govern and regulate, to prevent anarchy? We are a republic, a nation ruled by law, not a socialist nation. We do have some social programs in place, but that is not the nature or purpose of our government. It's purpose is merely to regulate and protect, and I think it has lost its focus of what it's purpose is. Perhaps many of its citizens have as well. It seems that the party currently in power consistently tries to increase the size of government and become ever more socialistic in nature. And Dave, I have been paying over 30% of my income to the government for a long time. Here are some quotes from some political figures from our nation's past:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Spoken by Norman Thomas 6 time Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party in 1948

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-Thomas Jefferson

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Ben Franklin

flo
02-28-2010, 07:04 AM
Thanks Flo. Perhaps you could put in a good word for me with Tyburn. I ticked him off with my post.

LOL, I'm still a noob, I don't think I have much sway with Dave...

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 12:07 PM
What is to fear? We have the biggest wuss in office right now, it the UN was to call him up and tell him that in order to stay in good standing, he would have to sign over all U.S. land and military equipment, he would probably do it. Then he would say he was sorry for America not doing that sooner.

Any way, America has spent more time and money helping out other countries than we need to, that is part of the reason we are in the shape we are in. Argue all you want, but if we ever decide to just look out for us, the world is gonna be in trouble.

1) :laugh: No, he wouldnt. Barack Obama is fine so long as you aggree with him, but if you dissagree with him... What he's doing is trying to win favour with the east by smooth talking them, literally the same way he did to get into office. So long as they seem to respond to him, he will keep on appologising...but when they get bored of his speech, and neglect him...you watch, he'll snap and turn on them with all his military might.

I've been watching him, and thats how he treats both friends and enemies. If you aggree as a friend, your in, but dissagree and you'll be punished. If your an enemy expect to be sweet talked until you submit, if you dont, you'll receive punishment of some kind aswell.

2) no, the main reason you are in the shape you are (which is better then most other countries I hasten to add...have you taken a look at Greece recently...) is because of the recession, a recession that the citizens of America are responsable for (well not all of them...but a good number of them, along with a few greedy banks)

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 12:09 PM
They take over 30% of my pay. Can I complain about socialism now?

They dont take over thirty percent of your pay in tax....do they :huh:

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 12:11 PM
Dave will get over it, he is a good cat and he knows that we all wont agree always.

:laugh: of course I'll get over it...I'm just shocked to hear that PTM isnt quite as broad thinking and knowledgable on the political spectrum as the theological one.

It was quite a suprise :blink:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:Denise...I can see your deleted post :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 12:25 PM
What is the purpose of government? Is it to provide for the citizens, like a parent, or to govern and regulate, to prevent anarchy? We are a republic, a nation ruled by law, not a socialist nation. We do have some social programs in place, but that is not the nature or purpose of our government. It's purpose is merely to regulate and protect, and I think it has lost its focus of what it's purpose is. Perhaps many of its citizens have as well. It seems that the party currently in power consistently tries to increase the size of government and become ever more socialistic in nature. And Dave, I have been paying over 30% of my income to the government for a long time. Here are some quotes from some political figures from our nation's past:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Spoken by Norman Thomas 6 time Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party in 1948

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-Thomas Jefferson

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Ben Franklin

Do you guys honnestly pay more then a third of what you earn to your Government :huh: Thats outrageous :angry:

Should have stuck with England...we only pay around a quarter usually (more on any extra income which is what I'm complaining about with the 30%)

Now to explain some of the differences in Definition.

For a Commonwealth Country, the Government is not really to be feared, its a body that establishes rules, and to whom taxes must be paid. These Taxes are deserved by the Government for ownership of the land, think of it as an ulternative to rent. The government then decides what to spend that tax on, and its usually on that which they shall be judged in terms of the interior.

The Governments responsibility is to look after us, and to keep up safe. They must provide for us things like a Health Care Service, Councils that will look into the removal of waste, the Emergency services, and ensure that we are protected from foreign invaders. They must also look after the Elderly, look into improving educatation.

If we do not like what they do, then we have means to protest, one such way is to show our distaste by organised marches, but a far better way is simply to announce our views in the Tabloids. The media has the power to influence the Government, and is a good way for them to know the majority and loudest views. Come ellection time, the winners are usually what promise change from the former administration because our parties are all basically centristic

In the United States the Government is to be feared as an insitution that shouldnt really exist, but only does so as an abolsute practicality. The Population fear that the Government administration is out to get them in many ways, one such way is by interfereing with their everyday life. The Government is not allowed in the minds of Americans to invade personal privacy, even for research purposes, and that major fear of that is that if the Government does so, it will be to move against the people and limit their natural and GOD given rights.

The United States Government is not there to rule over its people, it is their to do the bidding of its people in theory. The Citizens run the country, not the Government. This means that in theory any administration SHOULD appear fickle because it should follow whatever the populations thoughts are at that time. Obviously the Government often doesnt do this, which will greatly upset whichever Americans have changed their minds, a great modern example would be the change in heart over Iraq during the Bush Jr Second Administration, when the people wanted out, and George defied them.

The Government is not there particularly to look out for them. Each American is supposed to defend his own property, and keep his own affairs in order, in the same way, the Government is not supposed to really provide for them (except for in a military capacity) as it is up to each hard working American to pay his own way through his own life.

Yes, he can have his own American Dream if he is prepared to work for it...but if he falls short...well...too bad...

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 02:24 PM
Do you guys honnestly pay more then a third of what you earn to your Government :huh: Thats outrageous :angry:

Should have stuck with England...we only pay around a quarter usually (more on any extra income which is what I'm complaining about with the 30%)

Now to explain some of the differences in Definition.

For a Commonwealth Country, the Government is not really to be feared, its a body that establishes rules, and to whom taxes must be paid. These Taxes are deserved by the Government for ownership of the land, think of it as an ulternative to rent. The government then decides what to spend that tax on, and its usually on that which they shall be judged in terms of the interior.

The Governments responsibility is to look after us, and to keep up safe. They must provide for us things like a Health Care Service, Councils that will look into the removal of waste, the Emergency services, and ensure that we are protected from foreign invaders. They must also look after the Elderly, look into improving educatation.

If we do not like what they do, then we have means to protest, one such way is to show our distaste by organised marches, but a far better way is simply to announce our views in the Tabloids. The media has the power to influence the Government, and is a good way for them to know the majority and loudest views. Come ellection time, the winners are usually what promise change from the former administration because our parties are all basically centristic

In the United States the Government is to be feared as an insitution that shouldnt really exist, but only does so as an abolsute practicality. The Population fear that the Government administration is out to get them in many ways, one such way is by interfereing with their everyday life. The Government is not allowed in the minds of Americans to invade personal privacy, even for research purposes, and that major fear of that is that if the Government does so, it will be to move against the people and limit their natural and GOD given rights.

The United States Government is not there to rule over its people, it is their to do the bidding of its people in theory. The Citizens run the country, not the Government. This means that in theory any administration SHOULD appear fickle because it should follow whatever the populations thoughts are at that time. Obviously the Government often doesnt do this, which will greatly upset whichever Americans have changed their minds, a great modern example would be the change in heart over Iraq during the Bush Jr Second Administration, when the people wanted out, and George defied them.

The Government is not there particularly to look out for them. Each American is supposed to defend his own property, and keep his own affairs in order, in the same way, the Government is not supposed to really provide for them (except for in a military capacity) as it is up to each hard working American to pay his own way through his own life.

Yes, he can have his own American Dream if he is prepared to work for it...but if he falls short...well...too bad...

If only.....
Government "for the people by the people" and "governing by the consent of the governed" are great in principle, but like the quotes I listed above, our country has drifted away from them so slowly that apparently no one took notice, or, if they did, no one really did anything. Now we are very far away from those principles.

It's kind of like boiling a frog in a pot of water. You can't put a frog in a pot of hot water, or he will jump out. But you can put him in a pot of luke warm water, and gradually turn up the temperature, and he will stay in the pot until you boil him to death.

J.B.
02-28-2010, 02:27 PM
It's kind of like boiling a frog in a pot of water. You can't put a frog in a pot of hot water, or he will jump out. But you can put him in a pot of luke warm water, and gradually turn up the temperature, and he will stay in the pot until you boil him to death.

Do people really boil live frogs? :blink:

I know they do that to lobsters, but frogs? :laugh:

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 02:34 PM
Do people really boil live frogs? :blink:

I know they do that to lobsters, but frogs? :laugh:

They eat everything in South Louisiana, just ask Rev! :wink:

J.B.
02-28-2010, 03:05 PM
They eat everything in South Louisiana, just ask Rev! :wink:

:laugh:

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 03:57 PM
If only.....
Government "for the people by the people" and "governing by the consent of the governed" are great in principle, but like the quotes I listed above, our country has drifted away from them so slowly that apparently no one took notice, or, if they did, no one really did anything. Now we are very far away from those principles.

It's kind of like boiling a frog in a pot of water. You can't put a frog in a pot of hot water, or he will jump out. But you can put him in a pot of luke warm water, and gradually turn up the temperature, and he will stay in the pot until you boil him to death.

The problem I have might be the problem your Government has. How, in essence do you have the people leading the Government. Can someone tell me some practical measures laid down by your forefathers that might help?

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 03:57 PM
Do people really boil live frogs? :blink:

I know they do that to lobsters, but frogs? :laugh:

The French do :unsure:

:laugh:

Tyburn
02-28-2010, 03:59 PM
They eat everything in South Louisiana, just ask Rev! :wink:

Louisiana...Former French Terrirtory....Explains it all :mellow:

:laugh::laugh:

(Im not kidding about Louisiana being French, they owned the strip of land from almost the south coast to the north coast diagonal across the U.S at the same time the British Collonies were on the coast...trapped between the Atlantic and the French...must have been horribilis for them :laugh: )

atomdanger
02-28-2010, 07:04 PM
If you have two kids and you are not the store manager of that Burger King or Walmart, you may want to consider another line of employment. Having a job and paying taxes does not entitle a person to health-care. It's sad but true.

A public option would cost a ton of money and bring a whole slew of other problems along with it. I am not saying that our system is perfect by any means, but letting the government come in and try to fix the problem will likely make things worse in the long run.

Right, so your answer is get another job? lol
Having a job and paying taxes SHOULD entitle you to health care.

atomdanger
02-28-2010, 07:06 PM
In the example you provided, the children would likely already be eligible for S-CHIP and the Burger King worker would likely be eligible for Medicaid. There is no reason to scrap our entire system for things that need "tweaking".

well ****. lol

You won that one.

atomdanger
02-28-2010, 07:10 PM
They dont take over thirty percent of your pay in tax....do they :huh:

Yeah.... something like that. O_o

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Right, so your answer is get another job? lol
Having a job and paying taxes SHOULD entitle you to health care.

Not to be argumentative toward you, but paying taxes entitles me to protection if an opposing army invades us, decent roads to drive on, schools to send my kids to, etc (basic infrastructure). Paying insurance premiums entitles me to health care. If I want the taxes I pay to entitle me to that, then I am going to have to pay a lot more taxes, because you can only buy so much sugar for a nickel. Like I said in my earlier post, while we have some social programs, our government is a republic, not a socialist state. The social programs are supposed to help those who absolutely cannot do better, and to be a temporary help to those who are down on their luck but are trying to do better. It is not the job of our government to support its citizens like a socialist or communist state would, but rather simply to keep order by enacting and enforcing laws.

J.B.
02-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Right, so your answer is get another job? lol
Having a job and paying taxes SHOULD entitle you to health care.

My answer is to be aware of your situation (not necessarily you personally, but people in general). Having multiple children while flipping burgers is not the brightest idea in my opinion. I am about to turn 28 in a couple months, and I just now feel comfortable enough with my finances start thinking about having kids in the future. When I was changing oil at Jiffy Lube right after high school, I never let that thought even cross my mind. There was a time when my ex had a false alarm, and had she turned out to be pregnant, I would have been out the next day applying at every place I could find to change my situation. It's not easy, but it's what you gotta do.

I personally don't think that having a job and paying taxes should entitle us to health care, but that's just because I don't believe that the government should be in charge of running it. Still, if a person does find themselves in that situation, they still do have some options. I realize that's not the perfect answer. In a perfect world, we would all be able to get the best health care, and I do strongly believe that no child should ever be denied treatment even if it means the taxpayers do end up having to pay. However, I have just never been very big on the idea of the government imposing a national plan that drives up our taxes and drives down the quality of care.

bradwright
02-28-2010, 10:02 PM
What is to fear? We have the biggest wuss in office right now, it the UN was to call him up and tell him that in order to stay in good standing, he would have to sign over all U.S. land and military equipment, he would probably do it. Then he would say he was sorry for America not doing that sooner.

Any way, America has spent more time and money helping out other countries than we need to, that is part of the reason we are in the shape we are in. Argue all you want, but if we ever decide to just look out for us, the world is gonna be in trouble.

thats the problem though.....your Government doesn't like to look after its own people....there just isn't any profit to be made from that.

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 10:31 PM
thats the problem though.....your Government doesn't like to look after its own people....there just isn't any profit to be made from that.

Well, the US government isn't in the business of making a profit or of taking care of its people in a socialistic manner. Our government is very deeply in debt, and does an incredibly horrible job of managing it's budget and the social programs that is already has control of. We do not want them to control anything else. Their track record is both proven and horrible. They should stick to their original function, instituting and enforcing laws. It is very easy for people from other countries to comment, but keep in mind that you are on the outside looking in. Our governments aren't the same at all, and neither are their purposes or functions.

bradwright
02-28-2010, 10:35 PM
Well, the US government isn't in the business of making a profit or of taking care of its people in a socialistic manner. Our government is very deeply in debt, and does an incredibly horrible job of managing it's budget and the social programs that is already has control of. We do not want them to control anything else. Their track record is both proven and horrible. They should stick to their original function, instituting and enforcing laws. It is very easy for people from other countries to comment, but keep in mind that you are on the outside looking in. Our governments aren't the same at all, and neither are their purposes or functions.

i wasn't talking about your Government making a profit....i was talking about the business friends of the people in Government making a profit.

J.B.
02-28-2010, 10:43 PM
i wasn't talking about your Government making a profit....i was talking about the business friends of the people in Government making a profit.

I suppose that never happens in Canada. :rolleyes:

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 11:04 PM
i wasn't talking about your Government making a profit....i was talking about the business friends of the people in Government making a profit.

Sorry Bro! Forgive me, I am taking migraine pills today :)! It appeared to me that your sentence said our government does not like to take care of its citizens because there is no profit in it.

J.B.
02-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Sorry Bro! Forgive me, I am taking migraine pills today :)! It appeared to me that your sentence said our government does not like to take care of its citizens because there is no profit in it.

:laugh:

bradwright
02-28-2010, 11:12 PM
I suppose that never happens in Canada. :rolleyes:

yes it does...but we send people to jail for that sort of thing up here.

surveyorshawn
02-28-2010, 11:21 PM
yes it does...but we send people to jail for that sort of thing up here.
Sounds like a plan! I say we take a vote on it and make it illegal here too!! .......wait, that would only work if our government here governed with our consent, by our will, and had to listen to us. I heard that it used to be that way eons ago, but that must have gotten repealed or something......I must have missed that passing by 2/3 of the states:ninja:

J.B.
03-01-2010, 12:25 AM
yes it does...but we send people to jail for that sort of thing up here.

What makes you think we don't do our best to expose and hold corrupt politicians accountable in the very same manner?

Are you saying that if we went back through history, there is not a single politician in the history of Canada that has "gotten away" with things that people feel were corrupt? That is a serious question, as I don't claim to know anything about Canada's government seeing as how I am not from there.

bradwright
03-01-2010, 01:07 AM
What makes you think we don't do our best to expose and hold corrupt politicians accountable in the very same manner?

Are you saying that if we went back through history, there is not a single politician in the history of Canada that has "gotten away" with things that people feel were corrupt? That is a serious question, as I don't claim to know anything about Canada's government seeing as how I am not from there.

your right...there are a few politicians in Canada that have gotten away with some things....and there will undoubtedly be more.

the comment i made was wrong and i should have kept quiet.
before you judge me to harshly let me say i have friends in the States and i have been to your country many times and just like up here in Canada most people are very nice...i was just making a comment about the motives of your government and no i dont think any one party is any worse then the other....and your right...our politicians are no better.

Tyburn
03-01-2010, 01:15 AM
I am about to turn 28 in a couple months, .


Me too...in a couple of days :unsure-1:

J.B.
03-01-2010, 01:23 AM
your right...there are a few politicians in Canada that have gotten away with some things....and there will undoubtedly be more.

the comment i made was wrong and i should have kept quiet.
before you judge me to harshly let me say i have friends in the States and i have been to your country many times and just like up here in Canada most people are very nice...i was just making a comment about the motives of your government and no i dont think any one party is any worse then the other....and your right...our politicians are no better.

I'm not judging you at all man. :)

I apologize if my words seemed harsh in any way. I really don't know much about Canada's government, and I have never been there, so I didn't mean for that to seem sarcastic, but I really was seriously asking because for all I know that could be the case (although I will admit I did highly doubt it).

We definitely agree that politicians suck, no matter where they are. :laugh:

J.B.
03-01-2010, 01:26 AM
Me too...in a couple of days :unsure-1:

Well then, early Happy Birthday to you! :laugh: :happydancing:

Tyburn
03-01-2010, 01:55 AM
Well then, early Happy Birthday to you! :laugh: :happydancing:

:laugh: it was the first hint of many :happydancing:

but actually...I'm not looking forward to it...28...thats nearly thirty...and thirty is old :unsure-1:

Tyburn
03-01-2010, 01:56 AM
We definitely agree that politicians suck, no matter where they are. :laugh:

I can sign up to that ideology also! :)

:laugh:

J.B.
03-01-2010, 02:17 AM
:laugh: it was the first hint of many :happydancing:

but actually...I'm not looking forward to it...28...thats nearly thirty...and thirty is old :unsure-1:

Nah...they say 40 is the new 30 nowadays, we got time. :laugh:

Rev
03-01-2010, 02:21 AM
:laugh: it was the first hint of many :happydancing:

but actually...I'm not looking forward to it...28...thats nearly thirty...and thirty is old :unsure-1:

THEMS FIGHTING WORDS BOY!!!

bradwright
03-01-2010, 03:57 AM
:laugh: it was the first hint of many :happydancing:

but actually...I'm not looking forward to it...28...thats nearly thirty...and thirty is old :unsure-1:

you make me laugh sometimes Dave....30 isn't old...28 you say ?...your just a puppy...enjoy your youth instead of worrying about getting old.
besides i will turn 50 this year and i really dont feel old at all....maybe older...but not old.

atomdanger
03-01-2010, 07:11 AM
Not to be argumentative toward you, but paying taxes entitles me to protection if an opposing army invades us, decent roads to drive on, schools to send my kids to, etc (basic infrastructure). Paying insurance premiums entitles me to health care. If I want the taxes I pay to entitle me to that, then I am going to have to pay a lot more taxes, because you can only buy so much sugar for a nickel. Like I said in my earlier post, while we have some social programs, our government is a republic, not a socialist state. The social programs are supposed to help those who absolutely cannot do better, and to be a temporary help to those who are down on their luck but are trying to do better. It is not the job of our government to support its citizens like a socialist or communist state would, but rather simply to keep order by enacting and enforcing laws.

So, what about when I had no kids?
I paid taxes for other peoples children to go to school.
What about people who never have kids? They pay taxes for school.

atomdanger
03-01-2010, 07:12 AM
My answer is to be aware of your situation (not necessarily you personally, but people in general). Having multiple children while flipping burgers is not the brightest idea in my opinion. I am about to turn 28 in a couple months, and I just now feel comfortable enough with my finances start thinking about having kids in the future. When I was changing oil at Jiffy Lube right after high school, I never let that thought even cross my mind. There was a time when my ex had a false alarm, and had she turned out to be pregnant, I would have been out the next day applying at every place I could find to change my situation. It's not easy, but it's what you gotta do.

I personally don't think that having a job and paying taxes should entitle us to health care, but that's just because I don't believe that the government should be in charge of running it. Still, if a person does find themselves in that situation, they still do have some options. I realize that's not the perfect answer. In a perfect world, we would all be able to get the best health care, and I do strongly believe that no child should ever be denied treatment even if it means the taxpayers do end up having to pay. However, I have just never been very big on the idea of the government imposing a national plan that drives up our taxes and drives down the quality of care.

You're right, people definitely SHOULD think before they act.
It was just a hypothetical situation.
I have one son, he is 4, and I could never imagine how somebody so little can cost so much.

J.B.
03-01-2010, 07:32 AM
You're right, people definitely SHOULD think before they act.
It was just a hypothetical situation.
I have one son, he is 4, and I could never imagine how somebody so little can cost so much.

Hey man, I understand it's tough, even just with the regular cost of living. When you throw a kid, or two, or more in the mix it makes things even harder. One of my best friends back in Chicago just had his first kid, and he is definitely finding out how much all that stuff costs, especially since he is the only one working, but he is proud to be a parent, as I am sure you are too, and I bet that makes it all worth it. :wink:

surveyorshawn
03-01-2010, 01:36 PM
So, what about when I had no kids?
I paid taxes for other peoples children to go to school.
What about people who never have kids? They pay taxes for school.

That is correct, everyone's taxes pay for basic infrastructure. There is no way to avoid that. If you have a plan that takes care of that, start campaigning!!:)

atomdanger
03-02-2010, 06:54 PM
That is correct, everyone's taxes pay for basic infrastructure. There is no way to avoid that. If you have a plan that takes care of that, start campaigning!!:)

Right, but you think of school as infrastructure and not hospitals?
See me, I think we all need Doctors,
but not all of us have kids.

Just a thought.

Buzzard
03-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Well, it's better than the "Just shut up and agree with Obama on everything and then we can continue to feed you this illusion of bi-partisanship and open-mindedness" that we're getting from the current administration.

Secondly, are you obsessed with Glenn Beck? Why bring him into this conversation? Is it just because you can't handle the fact that reasonable and intelligent people can examine the evidence for themselves and form an opinion that is directly opposed to yours, that you resort to the cheap tactic of character assassination?

Or did you just always assume that anyone with intelligence would agree with you on everything?If someone disagrees with you, then it must be because they are misinformed or unintelligent?

In response to the bold section. It seems to work that way for you NateR. No to be rude but if you go back and read much of what you have posted in the past, to me that is how you appear to come off. I'm not saying that is your intent, but I have noticed that from many of your posts where someone disagrees with your position.

I would much rather have my taxes going towards health-care for Americans than setting up health-care, schools and such for other nations. If we spent the money in America for Americans, I believe that our health-care woes would be behind us. I have no problems helping other nations out, but I believe that American tax dollars should go towards providing for Americans first and foremost.

Tyburn, here is a link about our Tax Freedom Day. It should give you a little perspective on how much taxes we pay and how long we need to work in order to pay our yearly dues.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

CAVEMAN
03-02-2010, 10:26 PM
I experienced the perfect example for this thread yesterday! A woman that used to work in my office 7 years ago stopped in to chat. She went to work for a Electrical Company reading meters on homes. About a year and a half ago she was let go because the company went to remote reading. She proceeded to tell me that unemplyment is paying her $1,100 dollars every 2 weeks. She was bringing home $1,400 every 2 weeks on the job. On top of that, she already has another job lined up, but she is going to go ahead and ride out the unemployment!!!!!

In a way, it makes me mad that she is doing that, but, on the other side of the coin I can see why she would. GETTING PAID THAT KIND OF MONEY TO SIT AT HOME! When our government is paying that much money for people to sit at home and do nothing, I can see where free loaders would take advantage! It's not right!

It really does get under my skin to think that myself and many others work 5 days a week and sometimes more, so free loaders can sit at home, spend time with their families, and make money doing it!

Now I know that there are some who have fallen on hard times and need the unemployment to get through until they find another job. BUT, the libtards are kidding themselves if they they think that people are not abusing the system! OR Do they even care?

atomdanger
03-03-2010, 02:36 AM
I experienced the perfect example for this thread yesterday! A woman that used to work in my office 7 years ago stopped in to chat. She went to work for a Electrical Company reading meters on homes. About a year and a half ago she was let go because the company went to remote reading. She proceeded to tell me that unemplyment is paying her $1,100 dollars every 2 weeks. She was bringing home $1,400 every 2 weeks on the job. On top of that, she already has another job lined up, but she is going to go ahead and ride out the unemployment!!!!!

In a way, it makes me mad that she is doing that, but, on the other side of the coin I can see why she would. GETTING PAID THAT KIND OF MONEY TO SIT AT HOME! When our government is paying that much money for people to sit at home and do nothing, I can see where free loaders would take advantage! It's not right!

It really does get under my skin to think that myself and many others work 5 days a week and sometimes more, so free loaders can sit at home, spend time with their families, and make money doing it!

Now I know that there are some who have fallen on hard times and need the unemployment to get through until they find another job. BUT, the libtards are kidding themselves if they they think that people are not abusing the system! OR Do they even care?

Unemployment is different in every state,
I know in Washington State the max is just over 500 a week,
and you have to apply for 3 reasonable jobs a week in order to get your unemployment.
If you're offered a job, you must take it, or you lose your unemployment.
(companies report to the state when they offer you a job)

CAVEMAN
03-03-2010, 02:56 PM
Unemployment is different in every state,
I know in Washington State the max is just over 500 a week,
and you have to apply for 3 reasonable jobs a week in order to get your unemployment.
If you're offered a job, you must take it, or you lose your unemployment.
(companies report to the state when they offer you a job)


Sounds like Washington State has a better handle on the system than here in Illinois. It is my understanding that here in Illinois all you have to do is inquire about a job, not necessarily apply. Which is absolute poo!

Spiritwalker
03-03-2010, 05:39 PM
So when you say your prayers at night, you should thank GOD that no matter how badly your Government treats its allies, and no matter how late they are joining the rest of us in global fighting, that we have been, and probably always will be dependant on and Loyal to you.

Fixed.

Spiritwalker
03-03-2010, 05:40 PM
Or maybe if YOU hadn't sat on YOUR thumbs while Hitler was seizing power, then the situation would have never escalated to world war status. It's only because of YOUR incompetence and stupidity that Hitler got as powerful as he did before anyone decided to do anything. Then when YOU realize what a mistake YOU made by YOUR inaction, the first people YOU call for help is America.

So YOU and YOUR cowardly, stupid nation have no room to talk.

:happydancing:

Spiritwalker
03-03-2010, 05:42 PM
See.. this is why I like Nate... no matter the religious "differences" or anything else.. When it comes to Personal Responsibility.. He's DA MAN!!!! Very well said sir!



This is the root of the problem. The notion that we "deserve" anything. Show me where access to healthcare is granted to American citizens in the Constitution.

You can't because it is not in there and it never should be.

We became the world's sole superpower without any sort of "public option" for healthcare, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we suddenly need it now.

Spiritwalker
03-03-2010, 05:43 PM
Why do they host us? For our PROTECTION!!! Countries act like they are doing us such a biiig favor by letting us base on their soil but in reality they are doing it because they know that we will help them out of trouble.

Dave, your first paragraph is complaining about us not getting envolved in your war soon enough, and the second paragraph is complaining about you having to get involved in our wars. I'm confused brother.:blink:


So is Dave.. No worries.

Spiritwalker
03-03-2010, 05:49 PM
I real reply will be forth coming when I return home from class tonight.

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 03:29 AM
The first thing we did was try and barter peace. We are not war-mongers at heart, unlike our Children.

Because when we get smacked in the face.. we will kick someone in the balls... when you get smacked in the face.... you turn away... (presenting the other cheek...) and whine... "Hey.. hey... let's talk...please??"



Regardless of our mistakes, we actually paid for them. Look at what we are reduced to now.

See above.

Let what happened to us be a warning for you. You think you are untouchable, and you complain about carrying the world on your shoulders...

We are untouchable.. for a large portion of the world..And we rarely complain about "carrying the free world on our shoulders"...

And to quote a fictitious statement by Bruce Lee.. "Don't Touch Me!! Why?? Because I might touch you back."



but this has been a common trait with America since day one...Her Allies will fight heart and soul for her...but when they ask her to stand by them...

That depends on what we are asked to stand with for..

...Your Government decided to make a statment refusing to back Englands right to the Faulklands. Explain to me why you guys never back us up, when we spend our entire foreign policy backing you guys up?? I know, you as a mere civilian cant change that...but do you really and truely think that your best friends deserve slightly more??

And what exactly was this "statement".. I don't remember it. Refresh my memory please?.. It was "war" that lasted less than 100 days.. and you lost less than 300 men if I remember correctly.. Your country claimed the islands as yours.. and Argentina said that they were theirs.. It wasn't our fight..


That is characteristic of the way the Americans have always treated their closest friends.

Really???? You sure do look at world history through weird glasses...


Not everyone likes you, dont you think you should do as much as possible to keep the friends you have?? I mean that on Governmental Level, not actually you personally, im talking about the behavement of present and past administrations

No I don't think that we should do "as much as possible".. to keep the friends that we have.. Things always change.. Russia was our buddy for a long while... we supplied weapons to certain middle eastern countries weapons.. and look where we are now.. Japan.. drew us into a war we wanted NOTHING to do with..weren't EVEN prepared for... we IMPRISONED Americans of Japanese decent... violating out constitution (IMO) in the process... Now look at us.. I have a Mitsubishi TV...Look up Mitsubishi+WWII if you don't know the relevance...

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 03:47 AM
Really???
So when we move against the Argentinians to defend our Soverignty, you will protect us will you??

Apparently not :)

Your gonna protect those governments who backed your plans for starwars before you pulled out and left them high and dry before the Russians??

Don't you REALLY mean.. jumped on the US coat tails to ride a "highly improbably defense system".. to safety... I remember it.. and I don't remember Da Queen jumping on the bandwagon... If I am wrong.. educate me... please.

Just TWO examples in the past SIX months alone.

The Faukland "war" was in 1984... and in '84.. SDI.. which was reduced to X-rays.. was pretty much over... Not that I am a fan of Obama at all..But if he is wanting to "breath life" into SDI (actually becoming BMD in the 90s).. I would STILL like to see this...

but wake up to the fact that probably what motivates countries to host you more then you swareing to protect them...is what might happen to them if they told you where to shove your satalites!

You start smoking weed or something???

Largely what motivates other people when it comes to America is probably more fear. GOD forbid we offend her by exposing the truth of her torture...

If you can't be respected... and loved.. fear works... but what torture are you speaking of???


which is the petty reason Obama is playing games with his most precious Allied Force right now.

But you ARE precious... in a new born kitten kinda way...


GOD forbid we be branded part of the axis of evil, or a rouge nation because we dont play by the rules (notice with the U.S, this is a case of do as I say NOT do as I do United Nations Style)

Because the UN (hosted in the US.. in case ya didn't know)... is impotent.. seen any news about a middle eastern country STILL working on what is almost certainly a nuclear weapon....

And England would NEVER be branded an axis of evil.... 2 week old kittens could never be that evil...

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 03:57 AM
1) no the root of the problem is actually that we have a cultural difference of opinion over the definition of the Governments job. In a Commonwealth Country, the right to have health care, is pretty much as important as your right to bare arms

That's because in the US.. you need to "do for yourself".. rather than have the government do for you..

2) you became a super-power because you were late into World War Two (which removed all the super-powers before, and left you with the only one having money to invest and rebuild) and because the USSR collapsed (something that would have happened with or without the cold war IMHO)

Late to arrive.. cause we wanted no part of it.. kinda short sighted actually.. but we wanted nothing to do with WWI either...

BUT... late to arrive... LAST to leave.. and DAMN.. didn't we leave with a BANG!!!


oh...and watch out for China, because your days of being the "sole" superpower are almost up. She is matching you, and probably in the next decade or so, might even surpass you :unsure:

That sure is possible.... sure won't be England either way...

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 04:07 AM
The problem I have might be the problem your Government has. How, in essence do you have the people leading the Government. Can someone tell me some practical measures laid down by your forefathers that might help?

ermmmmmm... Voting. In the most simplest terms...

We are reaping what we have sown...we will get out of it in about 3 more years...

If we can get away from big business lobbyist.. and depending on foreign countries for oil.... and stop caring about what other countries want us to do.. we would be much better off.

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 04:10 AM
Right, so your answer is get another job? lol
Having a job and paying taxes SHOULD entitle you to health care.

No it shouldn't.

Having a job and paying taxes allows us to have the country that we have.. protection, freedom to choose.. and many many other things...

Health care is NOT a mandate. Because if it's a mandate.. what if I don't want what is "mandated".. What if part of the mandate is to not travel to another country... Government controlled health care is a BAD idea...

bradwright
03-04-2010, 04:54 AM
That's because in the US.. you need to "do for yourself".. rather than have the government do for you..




really ?....so who pays to builds your roads and schools and airports? among other things.
why should the government do those things but not pay for the health care of the citizens of your country ?
so when you say you should do for yourself instead of have the government do for you....you really only mean that for certain situations.

Spiritwalker
03-04-2010, 05:00 AM
really ?....so who pays to builds your roads and schools and airports? among other things.
why should the government do those things but not pay for the health care of the citizens of your country ?
so when you say you should do for yourself instead of have the government do for you....you really only mean that for certain situations.


Roads, schools and airports are for everyone....to use as they see fit...

To mandate healthcare is to say... Me and the guy that is a drug dealing rapist, or some other "lesser person" falls under the same "scaling chart" as to what quality of care I get. That is a simple version...

Tyburn
03-04-2010, 12:31 PM
But you ARE precious... in a new born kitten kinda way...

2 week old kittens could never be that evil...

I can live with that :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdFRZe48Wl0

atomdanger
03-04-2010, 09:01 PM
No it shouldn't.

Having a job and paying taxes allows us to have the country that we have.. protection, freedom to choose.. and many many other things...

Health care is NOT a mandate. Because if it's a mandate.. what if I don't want what is "mandated".. What if part of the mandate is to not travel to another country... Government controlled health care is a BAD idea...

I didn't say "Government controlled"

Too many right wing folks get caught up in the government controlled propaganda.
I am talking about a way for the government to pay for healthcare, not completely control it.

atomdanger
03-04-2010, 09:02 PM
Roads, schools and airports are for everyone....to use as they see fit...

To mandate healthcare is to say... Me and the guy that is a drug dealing rapist, or some other "lesser person" falls under the same "scaling chart" as to what quality of care I get. That is a simple version...

Schools do people with no kids = no good.

Saying schools do everybody good is just like saying healthcare does everybody good.
an educated population is no good if they aren't a healthy one.

Rev
03-05-2010, 03:40 AM
Schools do people with no kids = no good.

Saying schools do everybody good is just like saying healthcare does everybody good.
an educated population is no good if they aren't a healthy one.

not sure if I follow you, could u get Glenn Beck or Hanity to say that and we might get it.

Spiritwalker
03-05-2010, 04:06 AM
I didn't say "Government controlled"

Too many right wing folks get caught up in the government controlled propaganda.
I am talking about a way for the government to pay for healthcare, not completely control it.


If the government pays for it.. they control it.

Spiritwalker
03-05-2010, 04:09 AM
Schools do people with no kids = no good.

Saying schools do everybody good is just like saying healthcare does everybody good.
an educated population is no good if they aren't a healthy one.


Incorrect.....

Schooling makes the leaders of tomorrow... create the leaders in various fields... at the start at least. And public schools have enough troubles... I am more and more for home schooling.

Having health care is good for everyone.. but it's up to the individual to have it.. not the government to tell me what I need.