Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yarbles on September 15, 2008, 09:25:16 AM
-
Look at the average African Americans attitude to issues like Homosexuality and Abortion etc As in the UK many ethnic/racial minorities are socially conservative but wont vote for a conservative party because they think that party Harbours Racists.
I am left of centre but I can see this obvious benefit for the right. Those in the right who are motivated by a racist agenda wont suddenly start voting Democrat and the elite don't have to worry about competition from Afro Americans as they have the whole expensive privileged education old boy network thing to keep everyone else out Black or White already.
BTW I heard the US has the lowest level of social mobility among the western democracies. So much for the American Dream :P
-
oh, boy.
If yah can't spell harbor, center or vote in our election, yer banana opinion is rendered fabulously mute.
Care for a crumpet wif yer cuppa tea, mate?
-
oh, boy.
If yah can't spell harbor, center or vote in our election, yer banana opinion is rendered fabulously mute.
Care for a crumpet wif yer cuppa tea, mate?
Should I dignify this with a response ;) Please future commentators who can only offer pedantry and abuse save it :cool:
-
Look at the average African Americans attitude to issues like Homosexuality and Abortion etc As in the UK many ethnic/racial minorities are socially conservative but wont vote for a conservative party because they think that party Harbours Racists.
I am left of centre but I can see this obvious benefit for the right. Those in the right who are motivated by a racist agenda wont suddenly start voting Democrat and the elite don't have to worry about competition from Afro Americans as they have the whole expensive privileged education old boy network thing to keep everyone else out Black or White already.
BTW I heard the US has the lowest level of social mobility among the western democracies. So much for the American Dream :P
They would run one...if they had a black candidate, that is. There was a rumor that Colin Powell was gonna run (probably would have done a lot better than McCain too, I might add) but Powell turned it down. It's just...there's not that many Black republicans that can get to the point of actually being able to run as a viable candidate. The closest one at this moment is probably...Condaleeza Rice, and she might have a hard time of it, being so closely tied to the Bush administration.
-
BTW I heard the US has the lowest level of social mobility among the western democracies. So much for the American Dream :P
Why you think it needs to be about race just proves that you harbor a racist attitude. Race should have nothing to do with it. It should be solely about the candidate. If a person comes before us for election and we deem that person to be qualified to serve our interests, then we vote for that person. If enough fellow citizens agree and vote the same, than that person is elected to the office they are running for.
As for the American Dream, it is alive and well. You just have to follow through on your half of the deal; Work for it! That's something that you socialist leaning "left of centers" seem to always forget and are perpetually chastising those that do.
If you don't work for it, you don't deserve it. Anyone that comes to America legally or is born here has the chance to achieve the American Dream, it just requires that instead of holding your hands out, you use those hands to work for it.
-
oh.. you were looking for argument? Sorry. In here, 'Republicans really need a black candidate because' will net you abuse. You'll need to go down the hall with that drivel for an argument.
-
Why you think it needs to be about race just proves that you harbor a racist attitude. Race should have nothing to do with it. It should be solely about the candidate. If a person comes before us for election and we deem that person to be qualified to serve our interests, then we vote for that person. If enough fellow citizens agree and vote the same, than that person is elected to the office they are running for.
As for the American Dream, it is alive and well. You just have to follow through on your half of the deal; Work for it! That's something that you socialist leaning "left of centers" seem to always forget and are perpetually chastising those that do.
If you don't work for it, you don't deserve it. Anyone that comes to America legally or is born here has the chance to achieve the American Dream, it just requires that instead of holding your hands out, you use those hands to work for it.
Have you just taken your citizenship test?
Logic Dictates then people in the more mobile northeren European Countries work harder as they achive more from humble begginings according to your reasoning despite being hamstrung by socialism. At the same time they enjoy greater economic equality and free health care.
In other words the American Dream works best in moderately socialist countries in Europe.
-
oh.. you were looking for argument? Sorry. In here, 'Republicans really need a black candidate because' will net you abuse. You'll need to go down the hall with that drivel for an argument.
The point is that the Left attracts the socially conservatives among ethnic minorities because the right has been smeared with the racist label. If the right cleaned its act up on that one issue it would make itself even more electable.
Do you get it now. It is somewhat ironic you see that the core Democrat voter often at this level of social attitude has more incommon with republicans. Its a great un tapped resource and a reason why a right leaning party should get a Black Candidate. That is where the Conservative Party is trying to go in the Uk its the right who would benefit most from apparent inclusiveness.
-
LOL!
How many disadvantaged americans have you got waiting for citizenship over there in heaven?
-
LOL!
How many disadvantaged americans have you got waiting for citizenship over there in heaven?
An upper middle class Californian family moved into my neighbourhood 3 months ago. We were pleasantly surprised when they decided to send their son to the local state primary school. They were amazed at the diversity and level of Integration in London with an abscence of Ghetto,s. They said they had made more firends in that three months in the neighbourhood than in five years back home. Its anecdotal of course (look it up) but I suspect there is very little net immigration either way.
-
I am sure the USA is a great country :salute
-
Its a great un tapped resource and a reason why a right leaning party should get a Black Candidate. That is where the Conservative Party is trying to go in the Uk its the right who would benefit most from apparent inclusiveness.
How about electing the candidate who is plain and simple, the most qualified, and most willing to work, FOR THE PEOPLE.
On a side note, how do you think white conservatives, who pretty much make up the party anyway, would react if they saw the party nominating a black candidate just because he was black.
-
How about electing the candidate who is plain and simple, the most qualified, and most willing to work, FOR THE PEOPLE.
Are you having a laugh :rofl
When was the last time that happened?
-
Are you having a laugh :rofl
When was the last time that happened?
We just might get that in Governor Palin assuming McCain wins and he then croaks while in office.
-
Republicans need a true conservative first and then the rest will fall into place. Pandering to specific races genders and alignments is not an indication of someone that will 'work' at all let alone 'for the people.'
-
An upper middle class Californian family moved into my neighbourhood 3 months ago. We were pleasantly surprised when they decided to send their son to the local state primary school. They were amazed at the diversity and level of Integration in London with an abscence of Ghetto,s. They said they had made more firends in that three months in the neighbourhood than in five years back home. Its anecdotal of course (look it up) but I suspect there is very little net immigration either way.
Oh man, not a single American family! What are we to do?! I mean I could give you the example of my ex brother-in-law who was a born Frenchman and moved here in his mid 20's. He's told me multiple times he enjoys America much more than he did living in France, with the exception of lacking real soccer leagues.
But one example shouldn't sway your opinion :rolleyes:
-
How about electing the candidate who is plain and simple, the most qualified, and most willing to work, FOR THE PEOPLE.
Not found in either the GOP or the DNC anymore.
-
oh, boy.
If yah can't spell harbor, center or vote in our election, yer banana opinion is rendered fabulously mute.
Care for a crumpet wif yer cuppa tea, mate?
If you can't spell moot then your argument is also moot.
-
If you can't spell moot then your argument is also moot.
As I read it he was rendering the opinion silenced therefore the spelling is correct...
-
Why you think it needs to be about race just proves that you harbor a racist attitude. Race should have nothing to do with it. It should be solely about the candidate. If a person comes before us for election and we deem that person to be qualified to serve our interests, then we vote for that person. If enough fellow citizens agree and vote the same, than that person is elected to the office they are running for.
As for the American Dream, it is alive and well. You just have to follow through on your half of the deal; Work for it! That's something that you socialist leaning "left of centers" seem to always forget and are perpetually chastising those that do.
If you don't work for it, you don't deserve it. Anyone that comes to America legally or is born here has the chance to achieve the American Dream, it just requires that instead of holding your hands out, you use those hands to work for it.
And a response that says race has nothing to do with it seems to point that "left of centers" are all welfare recepients. And that leads me to believe you have a stereotype in mind for who recieves welfare. Hmmmmmmmm.... :noid
-
So much for the American Dream
I believe Obama is a testament to the American Dream being alive and well. Doesn't matter if he gets elected or not.
-
An upper middle class Californian family moved into my neighbourhood 3 months ago. We were pleasantly surprised when they decided to send their son to the local state primary school. They were amazed at the diversity and level of Integration in London with an abscence of Ghetto,s. They said they had made more firends in that three months in the neighbourhood than in five years back home. Its anecdotal of course (look it up) but I suspect there is very little net immigration either way.
I'll swap your upper middle class american expat family for the disadvantaged black guy that moved in down the block, from London last year. He arrived with a suitcase... nothing else. My disadvantaged black brit (the accent is a hoot.. introducing him to BBQ was nothing short of hilarious) is applying for citizenship and if all goes well will not ever be going 'home'. Tell me.. your expat american pals.. giving up their US citizenship? Or just working for the UK office of the breadwinners company?
Your 'example' is laughable.
A spot of jam for your crumpet, m'lord?
-
Have you just taken your citizenship test?
Logic Dictates then people in the more mobile northeren European Countries work harder as they achive more from humble begginings according to your reasoning despite being hamstrung by socialism. At the same time they enjoy greater economic equality and free health care.
In other words the American Dream works best in moderately socialist countries in Europe.
I do not need to take a citizenship test. I was born and raised to parents that were born here. My great grand parents did go through Ellis Island when they came over. They were able to achieve their American Dream through hard work and determination.
Just to remind you:
The American Dream is not about giving out freebies to those that want to be socialized and live off the government and by default, the tax payer. As I said before, the American Dream is all about you being able to be the best that you can be provided you work for it. That is in direct contradiction to socialism. It is also about everyone being equal, man and woman. The only inequality that exists in this country is that which people make for themselves. That in and of itself is a far cry from the caste system that exists in England and other socialist leaning countries.
-
Just to remind you:
The American Dream is not about giving out freebies to those that want to be socialized and live off the government and by default, the tax payer. As I said before, the American Dream is all about you being able to be the best that you can be provided you work for it.
Best put down 232 years ago by Thomas Jefferson.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The right to pursue, not to achieve. That is up to you.
-
Just to let you know that "Harbour" is the correct spelling in the UK.
-
I'll remember that when I post a diatribe on racism in the UK on a UK BBS.
-
Just to let you know that "Harbour" is the correct spelling in the UK.
Same as the spelling of Colour is correct.
-
yup. sez so right here in my 'brit for boneheads' catalogue. pardon me whilst I kick it to the kerb.
-
Best put down 232 years ago by Thomas Jefferson.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The right to pursue, not to achieve. That is up to you.
As long as you were white :rofl
-
It is also about everyone being equal, man and woman. The only inequality that exists in this country is that which people make for themselves. That in and of itself is a far cry from the caste system that exists in England and other socialist leaning countries.
/
British and US social mobility is comprable and in both coutries people secure huge advantages for their Children through expensive exclusive private education so wrong on both counts.
I have to say there are allot of great things about the US but as with all nations there is a gulf between the American Dream and the American reality. The facts suggest rags to riches is at least as common in coutries with free health services, high standards of public education and believe it or not excellent welfare provision.
-
I'll remember that when I post a diatribe on racism in the UK on a UK BBS.
Have you got anything inteligent to say on this or any other subject? If you have I would be very interested to hear it.
-
The American Dream is not about giving out freebies to those that want to be socialized and live off the government and by default, the tax payer. As I said before, the American Dream is all about you being able to be the best that you can be provided you work for it. That is in direct contradiction to socialism. It is also about everyone being equal, man and woman. The only inequality that exists in this country is that which people make for themselves.
Very far out of touch on this one bhodi. You sound like you're saying people wish to live in poverty, and that poverty only exists in this country because people choose to live that way. In a society like ours, we must be smart enough to realise that all of our standards are not going to apply equally. There are a multitude of health issues, mental health issues, and cultural/socieoeconomic issues that place many on a basement floor looking up at the poverty level. What then do we do with these people? Kill them? Watch them starve? Watch their children starve? Of course our system must be able to weed out those who abuse it, but we can't even do that with govenrment corruption. We have no problem helping millions around the world where we have business or political interests involved, but you let an american citizen need help and its all hell broke loose from the right!
-
Very far out of touch on this one bhodi. You sound like you're saying people wish to live in poverty, and that poverty only exists in this country because people choose to live that way. In a society like ours, we must be smart enough to realise that all of our standards are not going to apply equally. There are a multitude of health issues, mental health issues, and cultural/socio0economic issues that place many on a basement floor looking up at the poverty level. What then do we do with these people? Kill them? Watch them starve? Watch their children starve? Of course our system must be able to weed out those who abuse it, but we can't even do that with gavenrment corruption. We have no problem helping millions around the world where we have business or political interests involved, but you let an american citizen need help and its all hell broke loose from the right!
The world needs ditch diggers too.
Mandate everyone a four year degree and you'll have people with a four year degree digging ditches.
All of this neighborliness that you speak of is for churches, charities, community organizations and yes, neighbors, not the gubment. If they redistributed less of my earnings, myself and many like me would be much more likely to give more than we already do.
-
As long as you were white :rofl
When Jefferson wrote that, he was living in the British Empire. An empire that supported slavery. An empire that beat the USA to outlawing slavery by a mere 30 years... or was it 40... 1825 +/- IIRC.
-
/
British and US social mobility is comprable and in both coutries people secure huge advantages for their Children through expensive exclusive private education so wrong on both counts.
That is incorrect. I paid for my own education through student loans. I completed payment of the loans seven years after college. I went to both private and public universities and colleges. Most of my friends are also in the same boat... ie. THEY paid for their own educations through hard work earlier in school (ie. scholarships) and working their way through school.
I have to say there are allot of great things about the US but as with all nations there is a gulf between the American Dream and the American reality. The facts suggest rags to riches is at least as common in coutries with free health services, high standards of public education and believe it or not excellent welfare provision.
The fact of the American Dream that I feel you are missing is that it is there for everyone. No one is prevented from achieving it unless they can not do it on their own. Whether it be they are not intellectually smart enough, can not put the puzzle together, or just can not seem to figure out the hard work and sacrifice part. Keep in mind also that the American Dream does not state that everyone is going to be rich and life will be all grand for all. It only states that the all Americans who wish, shall have the right to work hard and prosper, free from injustice and inequality.
-
so yarbles.... why do you suppose that so many of your countrymen leave your socialist paradise and move to the US and so few Americans ever go to live in your country?
Every brit I have talked to who lives here now says it is 10 times better here. I was in london.. it was just as big a crap hole as new york city. as for your "free medical" I saw more young people with rotting teeth than I could imagine.. that was what struck me the most.. that and how everyone smoked and of course.. the lousy weather.
lazs
-
Very far out of touch on this one bhodi. You sound like you're saying people wish to live in poverty, and that poverty only exists in this country because people choose to live that way. In a society like ours, we must be smart enough to realise that all of our standards are not going to apply equally. There are a multitude of health issues, mental health issues, and cultural/socieoeconomic issues that place many on a basement floor looking up at the poverty level. What then do we do with these people? Kill them? Watch them starve? Watch their children starve? Of course our system must be able to weed out those who abuse it, but we can't even do that with govenrment corruption. We have no problem helping millions around the world where we have business or political interests involved, but you let an american citizen need help and its all hell broke loose from the right!
I am not against helping people. I am against socialism and marxists.
The Government is here to serve the people, not to serve itself. The fact remains that there are people who through mental or physical defect will always need some sort of assistance from the rest of us. That is our duty to provide such assistance. There are also those that choose not to participate in the American Dream. It is not based on color, but instead on the the willingness of the person to effect change in their life. Whether you are born a dirt poor farmer's kid or a dirt poor ghetto kid means nothing. There is ALWAYS oppurtunity for those that wish to go above and beyond to better themselves.
It is when Socialists and Marxists preach their ideology of people relying on the government to take care of them that you get the problem that we have now. People become complacent with receiving government handouts. So much so, that entire generations of people choose to know nothing more. That is the fault of the socialists and marxists in this country. They have created a population that is reliant on government handouts.
Instead, look at social conservatives. These people believe in the simple fact that the Government exists to protect the Constitution and protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. They also believe that a person has every right to keep most of what they earn instead of giving it to those that choose not to work. That is not saying there should be no goverment aid programs, just that that aid be administered properly and justly.
In the end, I think our Government has failed us in protecting us from enemies within. Socialists and Marxists will bring about the downfall of this country if they continue to grow unabated.
-
What does socialism have to do with helping people?
lazs
-
The world needs ditch diggers too.
Mandate everyone a four year degree and you'll have people with a four year degree digging ditches.
All of this neighborliness that you speak of is for churches, charities, community organizations and yes, neighbors, not the gubment. If they redistributed less of my earnings, myself and many like me would be much more likely to give more than we already do.
You are a product of our government, I know you righties like to say otherwise, but it is a fact. RWR used to like to cut budgets and always thought it a wonderful idea to let the loonies loose so he could cut spending, only thing is, it always ended in making it more dangerous and more costly because crime and homelessness skyrocketed. We(our government) has a responsibility to our own people. :aok
-
We(our government) has a responsibility to our own people. :aok
No... no... you have it backwards. We the people have responsibility for our government.
-
to keep most of what they earn instead of giving it to those that choose not to work.
What do you think the percentage of people who get aid is, that actually do want to work?
-
The reason why the black voting base will NEVER really vote for a Conservative is that the Democratic Party has made slaves out of them.
-
What do you think the percentage of people who get aid is, that actually do want to work?
I know of many that do not wish to work. Actual statistics... where are you going to find those.
-
I know of many that do not wish to work. Actual statistics... where are you going to find those.
I've been working in the hood for 5 years now, and I believe in most of the people. In a weird way, I think having a black president might be the answer, sort of a legitimacy to the people, like they actually belong and it's their tax dollars now that are getting spent. But then again, who should that person be? I don't like Obamatwit, he just looks to much like a weenie.
Oh well, I have no answers for the problem but I do find many are good folks with good intentions and care deeply for their childrena and want them to do right and be successful :aok.
-
I don't like Obamatwit, he just looks to much like a weenie.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by whether they look too much like weenies but by the content of their character. --- Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963
-
I call em the way I see em. :aok
-
I wish a gave a crap what happens in the Uk or Euro half as much as they seem to care what happens here
wonder what that means ..........
LOL LOL LOL
-
Score. ;)
-
I've been working in the hood for 5 years now, and I believe in most of the people. In a weird way, I think having a black president might be the answer, sort of a legitimacy to the people, like they actually belong and it's their tax dollars now that are getting spent. But then again, who should that person be? I don't like Obamatwit, he just looks to much like a weenie.
Oh well, I have no answers for the problem but I do find many are good folks with good intentions and care deeply for their childrena and want them to do right and be successful :aok.
I agree many are very good folks. Then there are those that just do not want change, because change means effort. You need to look past this being a "hood" issue, because it is not. It is a problem that has swept across the entire nation from rural areas, suburbia, to mass urban cities. People have flat forgotten that it is their responsibility to reach out and make that attempt at the American Dream. Too many people are all to concerned with the next new cell phone, what kind of hip shoes or clothes, what cable they watch, to one upping their neighbors, that they forgot that they are responsible for their destiny.
That's the truly screwed up thing here.
-
I was hoping McCain would pick J. C. Watts as his VP choice. He would be the man I would vote for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Watts
-
I was hoping McCain would pick J. C. Watts as his VP choice. He would be the man I would vote for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Watts
J.C. Watts played football for the University of Oklahoma under that cheater Barry Switzer, sorry....can't ever vote for a former Sooner. You see, I am a Cornhusker fan, the Sooners were our biggest rivals until the Big 8 merged with SWC teams and became the Big 12.
-
So you would let football decide your political choices? I live in Louisiana and can't stand LSU, but I wouldn't dislike a candidate that graduated from there if he was the right man for the job.
-
I agree many are very good folks. Then there are those that just do not want change, because change means effort. You need to look past this being a "hood" issue, because it is not. It is a problem that has swept across the entire nation from rural areas, suburbia, to mass urban cities. People have flat forgotten that it is their responsibility to reach out and make that attempt at the American Dream. Too many people are all to concerned with the next new cell phone, what kind of hip shoes or clothes, what cable they watch, to one upping their neighbors, that they forgot that they are responsible for their destiny.
That's the truly screwed up thing here.
Flat forgotten? Not at all.
Why make any effort to advance and have a great life when you can do nothing and have welfare hand you the essentials and more?
That is how the democrats have made slaves of them.
-
That is incorrect. I paid for my own education through student loans. I completed payment of the loans seven years after college. I went to both private and public universities and colleges. Most of my friends are also in the same boat... ie. THEY paid for their own educations through hard work earlier in school (ie. scholarships) and working their way through school.
This is just anecdotal not empirical evidence relating to your own circumstances. The argument "I can do it so anyone can" is narrow minded and over simplistic. What many people would consider typically american especialluy when it comes to foriegn policy for example. I dont share such a genealistic view and see the USA as a land of diversity but in need of modernisation. It fails by its own criteria in the land of opportunity model.
-
When Jefferson wrote that, he was living in the British Empire. An empire that supported slavery. An empire that beat the USA to outlawing slavery by a mere 30 years... or was it 40... 1825 +/- IIRC.
Cmon live in the real world you had overtly racist laws as long ago as the 1960's.
-
I am not against helping people. I am against socialism and Marxists.
It is when Socialists and Marxists preach their ideology of people relying on the government to take care of them that you get the problem that we have now. People become complacent with receiving government handouts. So much so, that entire generations of people choose to know nothing more. That is the fault of the socialists and Marxists in this country. They have created a population that is reliant on government handouts.
Instead, look at social conservatives. These people believe in the simple fact that the Government exists to protect the Constitution and protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. They also believe that a person has every right to keep most of what they earn instead of giving it to those that choose not to work. That is not saying there should be no government aid programs, just that that aid be administered properly and justly.
In the end, I think our Government has failed us in protecting us from enemies within. Socialists and Marxists will bring about the downfall of this country if they continue to grow unabated.
I dont agree that the ideology of Socialism and Marxism is to encourage dependency. The ideology is about social justice. There is much to agree with in what you say but if we look at basic human resourses it is a distortion of a rational selection process in finding the best man or woman for the job in allowing people to buy economic advantage for their children. The greater good of a society is served by a highly educated population competing in a fair labour market with equality of opportunity. A healthy population is essential with perhaps state healthcare and compulsory social insurance and help should also be given to those who cant help themselves. Perhaps we can agree that the real problem is finding out who they are.
-
so yarbles.... why do you suppose that so many of your countrymen leave your socialist paradise and move to the US and so few Americans ever go to live in your country?
Every brit I have talked to who lives here now says it is 10 times better here. I was in london.. it was just as big a crap hole as new york city. as for your "free medical" I saw more young people with rotting teeth than I could imagine.. that was what struck me the most.. that and how everyone smoked and of course.. the lousy weather.
lazs
Anecdotal have you evidence. The Uk experiences net immigration.
-
I know of many that do not wish to work. Actual statistics... where are you going to find those.
In the UK when we made people prove they were seeking work the number of people seeking unemployment benefit fell substantially. In overcoming dependancy for some there has to be a stick as well as a carrot. We then supported people on low incomes through benefits to make sure they were better of in work and could look after their families. In oreer to do this like you we had to introduce a minnimum wage to stop employers abusing the system.
BTW I run my own business and employ 2 people :rock :lol
-
This is just anecdotal not empirical evidence relating to your own circumstances. The argument "I can do it so anyone can" is narrow minded and over simplistic. What many people would consider typically american especialluy when it comes to foriegn policy for example. I dont share such a genealistic view and see the USA as a land of diversity but in need of modernisation. It fails by its own criteria in the land of opportunity model.
It is no more anecdotal than you saying only the rich get ahead in this country because Mommy and Daddy paid for their education. Furthermore, you take your views of US foreign Policy and try to tie that in to the fact that in the US, "Anyone can succeed if they try hard enough", as though it is just American Hooo Haaa.
#1. America has and always will be the land of opportunity. As I have said time and again, anyone here can succeed based on their willingness to work hard and consistently.
#2. US Foreign Policy has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of people to succeed in this country. If you want to argue that, go start another thread. I am simply not in the mood, nor do I care about the opinion of a foreigner telling me how we should be conducting our foreign policy.
#3. You can say we need to modernize and that we do not have opportunity, but that is close minded and based on you watching too much Spike Lee garbage. This country is one of the top modernized societies. We have areas where we could improve such as public transportation and such, but as a whole, it is very modern. We have supported and developed other nations through our constant generosity, including your own, and rarely ever been paid back for that generosity. That aside, this land still remains a place where anyone can do whatever they truly set their heart on if they are tenacious enough.
-
I dont agree that the ideology of Socialism and Marxism is to encourage dependency. The ideology is about social justice. There is much to agree with in what you say but if we look at basic human resourses it is a distortion of a rational selection process in finding the best man or woman for the job in allowing people to buy economic advantage for their children. The greater good of a society is served by a highly educated population competing in a fair labour market with equality of opportunity. A healthy population is essential with perhaps state healthcare and compulsory social insurance and help should also be given to those who cant help themselves. Perhaps we can agree that the real problem is finding out who they are.
The very principle of marxists and socialism are disgusting to me. It allows for people to just get by and for someone that is willing to put in the extra effort to be on the same financial standing. That is just plain wrong. If you choose not to put in that extra effort, than you should not benefit at the same level as someone who does.
An example being that some of my employees (I manage an aviation business) are willing to work harder. They show up 15 minutes early and are ready to work by the time the clock hits 6:30. Others choose not to be here until 6:30 and then spend 15 minutes getting ready to work after they get here. These are also the same ones that are out the door at 5PM. Care to guess who gets bonuses when things are going well?
According to socialism and marxists, they should all equally share in the profit.
According to common sense, only those that put forth the extra effort deserve to reap the rewards in my book.
-
So you would let football decide your political choices? I live in Louisiana and can't stand LSU, but I wouldn't dislike a candidate that graduated from there if he was the right man for the job.
You severely underestimate the rivalry that was between those two schools. Imo, if he had the bad sense to go to Oklahoma U, that alone is reason enough to not vote for him. :D
-
In the UK when we made people prove they were seeking work the number of people seeking unemployment benefit fell substantially. In overcoming dependancy for some there has to be a stick as well as a carrot. We then supported people on low incomes through benefits to make sure they were better of in work and could look after their families. In oreer to do this like you we had to introduce a minnimum wage to stop employers abusing the system.
BTW I run my own business and employ 2 people :rock :lol
That is all fine and dandy, we have a social welfare system here too. We have a minimum wage that I think is too high and is directly enabling illegal immigration to flourish in this country.
What we do not have is a social welfare system that runs efficiently. Instead we have lawmakers that have not looked after their constituents and have created whole classes of people that rely on the handouts of the government. If anything is wrong in this country, that is probably the single largest thing. The creation of a class of people that are reliant on the government instead of relying on themselves.
-
yarbles.. no.. the UK does not have net immigration when only the US and the UK are compared.. that is what we are talking about..
They are leaving your socialist paradise for the opportunity of the US in droves while the immigration of Americans to your country is almost nothing.
The idea of socialism is not social justice either. it is to redistribute wealth.. it is also to crush individualism.
How is justice served by taking from someone, by force unto death, what he has earned and giving it to someone who has done nothing to earn it?
socialism crushes the soul.. I would gladly get into a shooting war with anyone who claimed to be and supported forcing socialist ideals on me. Killing a socialist is like killing a poisonous insect.
lazs
-
nor do I care about the opinion of a foreigner telling me how we should be conducting our foreign policy.
:rofl :rofl Priceless
For the rest it just sounds like you spouting the rhetoric you did last time.
-
yarbles.. no.. the UK does not have net immigration when only the US and the UK are compared.. that is what we are talking about..
They are leaving your socialist paradise for the opportunity of the US in droves while the immigration of Americans to your country is almost nothing.
The idea of socialism is not social justice either. it is to redistribute wealth.. it is also to crush individualism.
How is justice served by taking from someone, by force unto death, what he has earned and giving it to someone who has done nothing to earn it?
socialism crushes the soul.. I would gladly get into a shooting war with anyone who claimed to be and supported forcing socialist ideals on me. Killing a socialist is like killing a poisonous insect.
lazs
Have you any sources for your claims?
BTW there are no countires in Western Europe that proclaim themselves to be socilaist and Socialist like free market ideals are about fairness and equality. You dont seem to be able to distinquishing between the ideals and your perception of the practice of socialism.
My point was that the countries of Northern Europe which have greater state provisisin in practice often ehjoy higher levels of social mobility than the US which declares itself the land of opportunity.
Before you get all excited no two leberal democracies have ever gone to war
-
yes.. I have sources.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html
You will see that english immigrants to the US is about 3 or more times as many as any other your-0-peeean country..
The US sends slightly less people to england but.. we have ten times the population... fortunately.. your country is not entirely dieing since you do have large numbers of poor and illiterate immigrants to breed and take up the slack since you seem to have forgotten how to breed.
As for socialism.. you may not think of yourself as socialist but you most certainly are.
As for "social mobility" I would ask you to define that. I can't believe that there is more opportunity in your country. I would believe that there is for the worthless but I am not concerned about the worthless.. I am saying that anyone who works hard at it here has unlimited opportunity.
lazs
-
:rofl :rofl Priceless
For the rest it just sounds like you spouting the rhetoric you did last time.
You can promote the ideal of a socialist paradise all you like. Yet, when it comes down to it, you turn away from the very discussion in an attempt to hide your flawed argument just like every other like you.
Be a man and stick to the discussion instead of running from it.
-
yes.. I have sources.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html
The US sends slightly less people to england but.. we have ten times the population...
lazs
Its also a question of being allowed in remember ;) Surprise surprise no great exodus then to the land of opportunity and we let quite a number of you enjoy our take on civilisation.
Anyway social mobility is chances or being born into a family where the breadwinner or winners were unskilled maual workers and rising to proffesional and senior managerial including entrprenerial.
Socialist like Capatilist or Communist aren't terms of abuse here. We take a mature pragmatic approach where possible. Our politics accepts that all modern economies are mixtures of the above and we accept the need for limited state intervention in various areas of life for reasons of expediancy as well as morality.
A dynamic, healthy, educated, and open society is the way forward demonstrated by rising standards of living for all as well as high levels of social mobility. Generally it is seen in Northern Europe particularly Scandanavia that people will accept higher levels of taxation where good quality services are delivered and there is a sense of social justice. Entreprenerialism should always be encouraged, as I said I run my own business.
-
You can promote the ideal of a socialist paradise all you like. Yet, when it comes down to it, you turn away from the very discussion in an attempt to hide your flawed argument just like every other like you.
Be a man and stick to the discussion instead of running from it.
What discussion you just keep saying how great the US is if you want to make something of yourself which based on the data is as true in most other northern european countries. Countries where they have greater state provision in education health and welfare. There is nothing in the Uk to stop you from starting a businees and making a fortune people do it all the time, Basic rate tax is 20% up to around 75,000 dollars a year then you pay 40%. If you can afford a good accountant you pay less than that. You have access to the largest free trade area which is the biggest single economic block in the world bigger than the US and China.
That combined with free healthcare, free education up to age 18 and then as of right grant assisted education to age 21 or beyond. A basic standard of living which is no more than adequate if you cant get work (you have to prove you are looking) or if you are sick. A pension and free healthcare in your retirement. And you call that socialism yet people have the opportunity to improve themselves and certainly do in equal measure in Britain and to a greater extent in other countries in Northern Europe than you do in the USA.
The problem you have is you dont know what you are talking about :D
-
What discussion you just keep saying how great the US is if you want to make something of yourself which based on the data is as true in most other northern european countries. Countries where they have greater state provision in education health and welfare. There is nothing in the Uk to stop you from starting a businees and making a fortune people do it all the time, Basic rate tax is 20% up to around 75,000 dollars a year then you pay 40%. If you can afford a good accountant you pay less than that. You have access to the largest free trade area which is the biggest single economic block in the world bigger than the US and China.
That combined with free healthcare, free education up to age 18 and then as of right grant assisted education to age 21 or beyond. A basic standard of living which is no more than adequate if you cant get work (you have to prove you are looking) or if you are sick. A pension and free healthcare in your retirement. And you call that socialism yet people have the opportunity to improve themselves and certainly do in equal measure in Britain and to a greater extent in other countries in Northern Europe than you do in the USA.
The problem you have is you dont know what you are talking about :D
You marched in here and said:
BTW I heard the US has the lowest level of social mobility among the western democracies. So much for the American Dream :P
I refuted that. You continually tout the greatness of the UK and Northern European economies and social mobility. I have maintained that the American Dream is alive and well if you want to work for it. You continually say that it is so much better "over there".
Than you brought foreign policy into it. I politely said I did not care what your opinion was on that, as it is the quickest way to an argument in here. You poke fun at my wanting to stay on the "American Dream" topic... Well... what is it, do we want to discuss your implications that the American Dream is dead?
Your obsession with bashing my country leads me to believe it is more envy than anything else. We have the ability to do anything we like in this country so long as it does not interfere with another's rights. This is to include pursuing are very own American Dream. No where does it say everyone will be rich, but for those that can't see the writing on the wall, you will be successful if you work for it.
You socialists look at those that have worked hard and earned lots of money and look to redistribute that wealth to those that did not earn it. That is BS in my book. Thankfully the poison of socialism has not taken a firm hold here, because when it does, I will exercise a few of my rights.
One last thing, I know more about this country and the American Dream because I am a part of it. Perhaps you could come live here and see it and experience it before you bash it or read something off some rediculous chart.
You have a nice day.
-
You marched in here and said:
I refuted that. You continually tout the greatness of the UK and Northern European economies and social mobility. I have maintained that the American Dream is alive and well if you want to work for it. You continually say that it is so much better "over there".
Than you brought foreign policy into it. I politely said I did not care what your opinion was on that, as it is the quickest way to an argument in here. You poke fun at my wanting to stay on the "American Dream" topic... Well... what is it, do we want to discuss your implications that the American Dream is dead?
Your obsession with bashing my country leads me to believe it is more envy than anything else. We have the ability to do anything we like in this country so long as it does not interfere with another's rights. This is to include pursuing are very own American Dream. No where does it say everyone will be rich, but for those that can't see the writing on the wall, you will be successful if you work for it.
You socialists look at those that have worked hard and earned lots of money and look to redistribute that wealth to those that did not earn it. That is BS in my book. Thankfully the poison of socialism has not taken a firm hold here, because when it does, I will exercise a few of my rights.
One last thing, I know more about this country and the American Dream because I am a part of it. Perhaps you could come live here and see it and experience it before you bash it or read something off some rediculous chart.
You have a nice day.
I think anyway that I havent said allot of the things you say I have and calling me "you socialist" is also unfair. I am concerned with equality of opportunity and a reasonable minnimum for those who for no fault of their own cant cope" My argument is that countires which provide that do not stifle individual initiative if social mobility is an indicator.
I brought up foriegn policy because allot of the world seems to laugh at the US and their president because of his apparent ineptitude. I certainly dont judge Americans by that standard and see that it is easy to judge unfovourably form the sidelines.
I think you have not been able to conside the main points because your opinion is polarised by what i see as old fashioned fear of communists imbedded in your psyche. The modern equivilant is creaking bureaucracy which is the challenge of 21st toeury government no believes even in China that centralised state planning which is what you wer up against in the cold war has the answers. You can stop looking for a red under your bed evey night now before you say your prayers.
-
We have a minimum wage that I think is too high,, yada yada
What is the correct minimum wage ?
You have tried living with that minimum wage ?
-
What is the correct minimum wage ?
You have tried living with that minimum wage ?
Minimum wage jobs are those usually filled by students and people who are working towards other careers. Minimum wage is not now nor has it ever been intended to be a "living wage". No one in their right mind tries to support themselves and/or a family working a minimum wage job. You support yourself and/or your family with a CAREER. Flipping burgers, draining fries, digging ditches, stocking shelves, and running a cash register do not qualify as careers (ever know anyone who said "I want to grow up to be one of those"?). And the truth of the matter is, you are worth no more than your performance of your job makes you worth. Some arbitrary number generated in a far away office ain't it. All increasing the minimum wage EVER does is cut jobs, or send them "underground".
-
What is the correct minimum wage ?
You have tried living with that minimum wage ?
The correct minimum wage is the lowest wage that the market supports.
-
No one in their right mind tries to support themselves and/or a family working a minimum wage job. You support yourself and/or your family with a CAREER. Flipping burgers, draining fries, digging ditches, stocking shelves, and running a cash register do not qualify as careers
So, by your definition you should not support even yourself with these jobs. Just remember to remind that to the guy who is flipping burgers at local MacDonalds. ( "Get a career, punk !!")
God Bless America. :rolleyes:
-
I think anyway that I havent said allot of the things you say I have and calling me "you socialist" is also unfair. I am concerned with equality of opportunity and a reasonable minnimum for those who for no fault of their own cant cope" My argument is that countires which provide that do not stifle individual initiative if social mobility is an indicator.
You started out by saying that the US has the lowest social mobility among western democracies. You also implied that the American Dream was gone. You have cited several cases for the promotion of socialistic ideas and how great they work for you and your people. I have said I did not support socialism. I do however believe that giving a helping hand to those in need is the right and just thing to do. It just does not require a welfare state that redistributes the wealth.
I brought up foriegn policy because allot of the world seems to laugh at the US and their president because of his apparent ineptitude. I certainly dont judge Americans by that standard and see that it is easy to judge unfovourably form the sidelines.
I do not discuss foreign policy with foreigners anymore. I told you that your opinion on the matter means nothing to me. Your, or any other foreigners' opinion is moot when it comes to the foreign policy that we have pursued and I 100% support. I may not always be happy with it, but I do support it. Either way, it has no bearing on the subject of this thread.
I think you have not been able to conside the main points because your opinion is polarised by what i see as old fashioned fear of communists imbedded in your psyche. The modern equivilant is creaking bureaucracy which is the challenge of 21st toeury government no believes even in China that centralised state planning which is what you wer up against in the cold war has the answers. You can stop looking for a red under your bed evey night now before you say your prayers.
I do not fear communists. We defeated the communists in the former USSR. Every die hard communist regime is slowly drying up with the exception of China, and they are evolving into something much different than communists.
As for creaking bureaucracy, I do not support that anymore than I support a socialistic system that will take the wealth away from those that earn it and redistribute to those that did not. I would prefer a much smaller Federal Government and State Governments. They are both too large and self supporting. Creating more government so we could implement the socialist utopia is an even worse option and something that I believe many of my fellow citizens will pick up arms over. Again, just to reassure you, I do not look for "reds" under my bed, but I do keep an eye out for socialists that feel they need to implement their liberal doctrine on my American and my American Dream.
-
What is the correct minimum wage ?
You have tried living with that minimum wage ?
I think that $5.25 was just fine. I'd settle at $6 just to make it even. As for living under it, I did during high school. Which I did so I could save money to buy my car, put gas in my car, and get enough together so I could go to college with the assistance of student loans.
The key was I never intended on staying at minimum wage. I always intended and worked towards bettering myself and investing in skills and education that would translate to me getting higher wages.
The problem with people that whine about the minimum wage is that they can not see beyond the lowest number. They do not see the path they could take to earn more. That's the key. Realizing you only have to accept that which you settle for.
But hey, guessing by your avatar, I'd suspect it's all about that next dime bag, eh?
-
I i do not discuss foreign policy with foreigners anymore.
As you cannot be absolutely sure who is the hated foreigner (= The Enemy) and an American (=Trusty Old Friend), can we assume that you'll never post again ?
If that is true, thank you.
-
As you cannot be absolutely sure who is the hated foreigner (= The Enemy) and an American (=Trusty Old Friend), can we assume that you'll never post again ?
If that is true, thank you.
I am not going to discuss our foreign policy with a foreigner. It leads to no end. Because I do not choose to discuss foreign policy with foreigners, does not mean I view them as an enemy. I do however view people that attempt to disparage my country as suspect and worthy of a verbal thrashing if I am so inclined.
Just go back to that pipe man, you don't need to worry about me.
-
J.C. Watts would get my vote. In fact I'd prefer him to either candidate.
-
I am not going to discuss our foreign policy with a foreigner. It leads to no end. Because I do not choose to discuss foreign policy with foreigners, does not mean I view them as an enemy. I do however view people that attempt to disparage my country as suspect and worthy of a verbal thrashing if I am so inclined.
Just go back to that pipe man, you don't need to worry about me.
Foreign policy, isn't that by definition a discussion with foreiners? :P
-
So, by your definition you should not support even yourself with these jobs. Just remember to remind that to the guy who is flipping burgers at local MacDonalds. ( "Get a career, punk !!")
God Bless America. :rolleyes:
I meant EXACTLY what I wrote. Those jobs are NOT careers, and it is completely unreasonable to expect to fully support yourself and/or a family with those jobs. Just because you like or want a particular job does not mean you are entitled to have that job support you. It does not work that way. Not every job is CAPABLE of supporting an individual, never mind a family. Not every job is worth enough money to support anyone. Further, no one has the right to force a business to pay a certain wage. If the job does not generate the money, it cannot be expected to pay the money.
-
Foreign policy, isn't that by definition a discussion with foreiners? :P
I'd say it is more to do with our interactions than their perception.
-
Not every job is CAPABLE of supporting an individual, never mind a family. Not every job is worth enough money to support anyone.
But they should be. That is the point.
Unless you want your country to be able to finance wars also:
"Officially, the US spends $16 billion every month to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, but this figure includes only direct expenses."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml)
-
But they should be. That is the point.
Unless you want your country to be able to finance wars also:
"Officially, the US spends $16 billion every month to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, but this figure includes only direct expenses."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml)
The US is not a socialist utopia where we redistribute everyone's wealth. If you act poorly and choose poor paths, you will end up paying the price in the long run.
-
yarbles.. I think what we have here is that we.. those of us here and you.. have different ideas of what the defenitions of some of the terms used by you, and us... are.
We simply don't understand each other. The socialist gulf between our countries has made a lot of the terms meaningless when used by one party to describe something to the other.
Terms like "social justice" "mobility" "fairness" and even "opportunity" And the real gem you used "through no fault of their own" mean completely different things to you than to us.
You are not alone.. we have some here even that believe that every job.. is a career and should pay a wage that will support a family of 3 or more. That opportunity is that no matter how little you are willing to settle for.. you should have everything you need to survive and live well.
That every person is entitled to have someone pay for their health care insurance or even.. car insurance. that anything that annoys them about any group is therefore their business and if they can get enough people to vote with them.. they can take away that annoying persons rights.
lazs
-
But they should be. That is the point.
NO! EVERY job should NOT be capable of supporting an individual and/or family. How is it you expect to pay a person who flips $3 hamburgers $30K a year? You don't. Not if you have a firm grasp on math, reality, and economics.
-
But they should be. That is the point.
Unless you want your country to be able to finance wars also:
"Officially, the US spends $16 billion every month to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, but this figure includes only direct expenses."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/stig-m01.shtml)
What in the world does what my government spends money on have to do with how much a part-time starter job should pay?
-
J.C. Watts would get my vote. In fact I'd prefer him to either candidate.
:aok wtg Bear!~
-
What in the world does what my government spends money on have to do with how much a part-time starter job should pay?
Well, you should know that anytime the citizens of a socialist utopia feel that the US is doing something wrong, anything we say or do is automatically wrong or suspect.
-
yep.. the things that yarbles says about fairness and opportunity and such are all fine.. until you get the details of which he is not tooooo forthcoming.. other than "we are willing to accept a higher tax rate" and it is "40%" of their income...
I would not live as they do.. crowded into craphole cities with dirty clothes and yellow, rotted teeth.. driving around in tiny little cars on the wrong side of the road and with very little choice in goods.. vans driving around looking to arrest anyone who doesn't pay the TV tax.
I was there.. I stayed and hung out with limeys who were making as much as me or more and they lived like ghetto dwellers.. I would not live in their homes. I would hate to have to shop in their stores and.. since I hate bars (pubs) I would have nothing to do in their country.. I like hot rods and collecting and shooting firearms..
in their "reasonable restrictions" of a country I would have to give up everything I love.. just so I could have crappy teeth and live in a dump of a house and go to bars for entertainment.
no thanks...
In the US any person who wants can rise to any level he wants... I don't believe in the minimum wage.. some jobs just arent worth spit. You don't try to raise a family if all you aspire to is a job not worth spit.. that is real opportunity.
lazs
-
Logic Dictates then people in the more mobile northeren European Countries work harder as they achive more from humble begginings according to your reasoning despite being hamstrung by socialism.
*Yawn*. You are close to being right, without knowing or understanding the implications. You have just hit upon the un-PC little fact that mean I.Q. of the populace has more to do with prosperity or lack thereof than their economic system. Also, may I assume that at least some European countries understand that if you produce widgets at home instead of importing them from China, the widget may cost more, but it won't matter because you'll have a good job at the widget factory?
-
I was there.. I stayed and hung out with limeys who were making as much as me or more and they lived like ghetto dwellers.. I would not live in their homes. I would hate to have to shop in their stores and.. since I hate bars (pubs) I would have nothing to do in their country.. I like hot rods and collecting and shooting firearms..
. that is real opportunity.
lazs
Actually Sir, last time I checked they were considering more restrictions on pubs. Or at least mandating unbreakable beer bottles. Turns out, when people get drunk, sometimes they fight, and hit each other in the head with beer bottles, which are more dangerous when broken. And if someone, somewhere, gets cut to ribbons in a bar fight, why society will just collapse. Being something of a sword enthusiast, I also watched with interest the attempts in Australia and the U.K. to make it illegal to have anything but a dull sword locked in a safe bolted to the floor...turns out, one Asian immigrant gang member in Australia cut off the others hand with some sort of cheap sword in a rumble once. So it logically follows that everyone who uses their swords for re-enacting or cutting watermelons and bamboo must now grind the edges off and keep them in a safe, because swords are way too dangerous to society. Then there was the thing about long knives with points being dangerous...turns out a long knife with a point can reach a vital organ when thrust into a torso. Of course, good old Neanderthal could tell them what a lethal killing machine a fire-hardened pointy stick could be...better get on stick control immediately. And so it goes with the restricting mentality.
Truth is, time was in this country when you could go into a general store, and if you were tall enough to plop your money on the counter, you could buy a gun, ammo, bowie knife, jug of whiskey, jar of laudanum, or hell, a case of dynamite. And yes, people DID get shot/cut/drunk/stoned sometimes, but not so much that society collapsed, or whatever the bogeyman of the week was. You can give the people a freedom all the while realizing some will use it badly and all will not be hunky-dory...or you can try to wrap everything in bubble-wrap and require helmets for kids when going outside or jerking off vigorously...and things still won't be hunky-dory.
-
*Yawn*. You are close to being right, without knowing or understanding the implications. You have just hit upon the un-PC little fact that mean I.Q. of the populace has more to do with prosperity or lack thereof than their economic system. Also, may I assume that at least some European countries understand that if you produce widgets at home instead of importing them from China, the widget may cost more, but it won't matter because you'll have a good job at the widget factory?
That should be able to go without saying. What Yarbles is missing the bus on is that those supposedly well off northern European countries are losing more and more of their wealth and social mobility each year. The more uneducated immigrants that arrive, the smaller the pie gets for everyone to share.
In the end, they will find that their socialist ways will break them.
-
What in the world does what my government spends money on have to do with how much a part-time starter job should pay?
Simply put, less spending to kill people (military spending)= more money to free health care and free education. So that a minimum wage full time job can actually support yourself and your family.
Not utopia. Reality in many countries.
Utopia in more backward countries, like America ?
-
Simply put, less spending to kill people (military spending)= more money to free health care and free education.
If health care and education are free, why do we need more money for them?
-
What Yarbles is missing the bus on is that those supposedly well off northern European countries are losing more and more of their wealth and social mobility each year. The more uneducated immigrants that arrive, the smaller the pie gets for everyone to share.
In the end, they will find that their socialist ways will break them.
The 20 happiest nations in the World are:
1 - Denmark
2 - Switzerland
3 - Austria
4 - Iceland
5 - The Bahamas
6 - Finland
7 - Sweden
Sorry, USA did not win...
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827 (http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827)
-
Happy Countries?
Enjoy your happiness.
Brought to you by the folks that protect it for you.
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg)
-
"Hungry ? Eat our mighty aircraft carrier, punk."
-
Simply put, less spending to kill people (military spending)= more money to free health care and free education. So that a minimum wage full time job can actually support yourself and your family.
Not utopia. Reality in many countries.
Utopia in more backward countries, like America ?
Perhaps you could also look at the outcome should America not continue to "kill people" and instead spent that money here in our country. Perhaps you could also look at us not giving the billions upon billions in foreign aid to impoverished nations (even those that hate us). What would happen then? Countries like yours would have to start footing the bill for world security.
Instead of suggesting that we create a society where we do not help the rest of the world, but instead create a socialist utopia, "So that a minimum wage full time job can actually support yourself and your family", you could look and realize that a family can survive and do well making at or close to minimum wage. That's not saying they will have everything brand new and luxury, but they can live well, own a home, and work to improve their state in life. That's the key that socialists miss. It is not everyone's right to "have a living". instead it is everyone's right to have the opportunity to make a living. What they choose to do with it is up to them.
-
The 20 happiest nations in the World are:
1 - Denmark
2 - Switzerland
3 - Austria
4 - Iceland
5 - The Bahamas
6 - Finland
7 - Sweden
Sorry, USA did not win...
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827 (http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-28.2448323827)
Read the article and found not one thing that could even remotely determine a scientific value of that study. But, hey, if it makes you happy, I'm happy for you.
-
This is laughable... "happiest countries"???
Maybe happy for the people who are there.. who don't know any better.. I...me.. I would not be happy if asked to live as they do.
the other thing that makes no sense.... is saying that the people have can move up from their "humble beginnings"
Does this statement not strike anyone else as odd? I mean.. you have had socialism for 100 or more years in these countries.. they have "free" health care and "free" school all the way up till they are embarrassed to even be in school.. they have every concievable social program..
Who the hell is still having a "humble beginning" anyway? And if they are... why the hell are they?
lazs
-
This is laughable... "happiest countries"???
Maybe happy for the people who are there.. who don't know any better.. I...me.. I would not be happy if asked to live as they do.
the other thing that makes no sense.... is saying that the people have can move up from their "humble beginnings"
Does this statement not strike anyone else as odd? I mean.. you have had socialism for 100 or more years in these countries.. they have "free" health care and "free" school all the way up till they are embarrassed to even be in school.. they have every concievable social program..
Who the hell is still having a "humble beginning" anyway? And if they are... why the hell are they?
lazs
I guess if you didn't know any better and were raised in a nasty, rusted, dented bucket of pig poo, and the government moved you into a nicer bucket you'd probably be happy too. Of course it still means you live in pig poo.
-
Rantings asside and who has the best country stuff there was a point to this actually 2.
Point 1
It is the republicans not the Democrats who are the natural party of many minorities and immigrant groups as they share thir social conservatism.
Point 2 has also come out in the process and it is a question really.
If we assume some Northern European countries with high levels of state provision in health education and welfare benefits still have as vibrant or more vibrant culture of self improvement evidenced by high levels of social mobility. Is it a good idea if this were to hold true in the US. i.e. would good quality free to the recipient healthcare, education and social security benefits for those who cannot look after themselves as well as most people can be a good idea if it did not dammage the enterprise culture.
I dont know if I have explained that very well but I would suggest a good way to judge the quality of a culture is by how well it treats the less fortunate eg dissabled, mentally inadequate and sick as well as the unededucated. If they can be treated well without damaging the culture as a whole is this a good idea?
BTW I would argue there is no problem with inequlity as long as there is equality of opportunity and if people are willing to pay for expensive educations and use influence to give their children an advantage this does not promote that ideal.
-
Welcome to walmart. Now give me my $30k a year.
LMAO ..... Idiots.
-
Yarbles,
What is your perception of the EU and it's collective drain by the lesser nations on the nations that have more?
-
Yarbles,
What is your perception of the EU and it's collective drain by the lesser nations on the nations that have more?
I think that the region as a whole has benefited from the Union and I think the individual nations have all benefited as well. I also think that the requirement of being a Liberal domocracy to join has been of net benefit to the world in general.
Now what I am trying to ask you is do you think Social welfare where it doesnt create avoidable dependancy or harm the individuals opportunity to improve themself is morally right.
-
I think that the region as a whole has benefited from the Union and I think the individual nations have all benefited as well. I also think that the requirement of being a Liberal domocracy to join has been of net benefit to the world in general.
Now what I am trying to ask you is do you think Social welfare where it doesnt create avoidable dependancy or harm the individuals opportunity to improve themself is morally right.
My government is not a charity organization; that's what churches and, yes, charity organizations are for. It is immoral for any government to forcibly compell any citizen to contribute to any charity. Philanthropy is for philanthropists, not politicians.
-
yarbles.. lets add 12 million illegal aliens who don't speak english to you socialist paradise and see how well you treat "those less privileged" Lets get you a negro population of 17% and see how you do.
Name one your-0-peean country that has the burden of REAL diversity that we do.. hell your whole tiny little island has a huge moat around it.... you don't have to build a fence.
lazs
-
yarbles.. lets add 12 million illegal aliens who don't speak english to you socialist paradise and see how well you treat "those less privileged" Lets get you a negro population of 17% and see how you do.
Name one your-0-peean country that has the burden of REAL diversity that we do.. hell your whole tiny little island has a huge moat around it.... you don't have to build a fence.
lazs
I am sure there is something in what you are saying though the part of London I live in is 30% Affro Carribean and around 30% Turkish and the remainder are certainly not all caucasion. Britain has a large Asian (Indian asian) and Afro carribean population. I would say that the Asian population from my understanding of social indicators are in general a net asset and unfortunately when it comes to measures like crime and reciept of welfare, educational achivement and rate of single parents etc the Affro Cariibean community are not.
We have our malingerers and proffesional welfare recipients with huge families that have never worked but they are a minority and we work to reduce their numbers. Its an interesting point you are making but if you could afford a welfare type market economy like most of western europe has would you find it desireable. I personally like the idea of people having a safety net especially as its the children of the poor and inadequate who suffer the most and genuinely through no fault of their own.
-
I think that the region as a whole has benefited from the Union and I think the individual nations have all benefited as well. I also think that the requirement of being a Liberal domocracy to join has been of net benefit to the world in general.
Now what I am trying to ask you is do you think Social welfare where it doesnt create avoidable dependancy or harm the individuals opportunity to improve themself is morally right.
I think a basic form of social welfare has to exist for those that simply are physically or mentally incapable of working. There are also unforeseen events that exist where people will need temporary assistance.
I do not support long term welfare in any way shape or form for people that refuse to get off it. Another thing I support is mandatory drug testing and mandatory birth control for those receiving welfare.
-
I think a basic form of social welfare has to exist for those that simply are physically or mentally incapable of working. There are also unforeseen events that exist where people will need temporary assistance.
I do not support long term welfare in any way shape or form for people that refuse to get off it. Another thing I support is mandatory drug testing and mandatory birth control for those receiving welfare.
It appears that once we get past the Socialist/Capitalist issue there is much to be agreed upon. I dont think anyone with anything serious between the ears would advocate a centrally planned economy re distributing wealth for its own sake. Where the state creates dependance it makes its recipients victims dissenpowering the individuals involved. It seems that the most succesfull nations with a high standard of welfare are small and monocultural and perhaps their approach wouldnt work in a country as large and diverse as the USA. Perhaps greater decentralisation would offer opportunities for an effective social policy.
-
It appears that once we get past the Socialist/Capitalist issue there is much to be agreed upon. I dont think anyone with anything serious between the ears would advocate a centrally planned economy re distributing wealth for its own sake. Where the state creates dependance it makes its recipients victims dissenpowering the individuals involved. It seems that the most succesfull nations with a high standard of welfare are small and monocultural and perhaps their approach wouldnt work in a country as large and diverse as the USA. Perhaps greater decentralisation would offer opportunities for an effective social policy.
Absolutely.
The thing I see though is we are not getting past the decentralization and are creating a dependent class of people in both the US and Europe. I always stick with the fact that a population that is taxed less tends to spend more thereby creating a thriving economy. Our government is sorely lacking in that understanding, and it seems many European governments have no clue what that is. Far be it for me to complain about European nations, I am nit a citizen there, and therefore have no say in how they should run things. I am a citizen of the USofA, and as you can probably deduce from my posts, I take a very sour view on those that think we need to redistribute my wealth to those that refuse to work for their own. That and giving money to nations that despise us... both are fairly large pet peeves of mine.
-
Absolutely.
The thing I see though is we are not getting past the decentralization and are creating a dependent class of people in both the US and Europe. I always stick with the fact that a population that is taxed less tends to spend more thereby creating a thriving economy. Our government is sorely lacking in that understanding, and it seems many European governments have no clue what that is. Far be it for me to complain about European nations, I am nit a citizen there, and therefore have no say in how they should run things. I am a citizen of the USofA, and as you can probably deduce from my posts, I take a very sour view on those that think we need to redistribute my wealth to those that refuse to work for their own. That and giving money to nations that despise us... both are fairly large pet peeves of mine.
I think we are becoming aware of the dependant class in Europe through experience of rising welfare costs and most initiatives involve and element of coercion as in do this or we stop your money. We are also looking at getting the private secotr involved in back to work programmes and paying companies by results in terms of how many people they get back to work. The problem I believe is now one of proper effective administration rather than ideology. No one really believes that socialism will work the best sytem we have is the market economy with limited state intervention.
BTW If we had your gun laws our murder rate would probably be about the same as yours as in about 40x higher. Thats right 40 times as many people killed as now. It is a price I believe you or the majority of US citizens are willing to pay. If there was a referendum on adopting US style laws I think we would vote against and no one ever even brings it up as an issue. No problem as far as I am concerned I am all for domocracy.
-
I think we are becoming aware of the dependant class in Europe through experience of rising welfare costs and most initiatives involve and element of coercion as in do this or we stop your money. We are also looking at getting the private secotr involved in back to work programmes and paying companies by results in terms of how many people they get back to work. The problem I believe is now one of proper effective administration rather than ideology. No one really believes that socialism will work the best sytem we have is the market economy with limited state intervention.
BTW If we had your gun laws our murder rate would probably be about the same as yours as in about 40x higher. Thats right 40 times as many people killed as now. It is a price I believe you or the majority of US citizens are willing to pay. If there was a referendum on adopting US style laws I think we would vote against and no one ever even brings it up as an issue. No problem as far as I am concerned I am all for domocracy.
Yarbles from what I read, you definitely need to get a handle on the dependent class and the connection between uneducated immigrants leaching off your systems. It is historically what brings down nations. Getting the private sector involved is great, but instead of actually paying them, give them tax breaks for employing those that were previously unemployed. Instead of just giving money back to them, you'd allow them to put it back into the economy and eliminate the middle man, ie. the government.
I don't know how gun control got into this, but I don't think our murder rate has anything to do with gun control. It has to do with people wanting something for nothing, and that whole class of dependents turning to crime as opposed to legitimate work. Whether Europeans want to have guns or not is really irrelevant. At this point, considering the mass inundation of Militant Islamic Immigrants into Europe, I'd think that the law abiing population being armed might be good for future safety.
-
Yarbles from what I read, you definitely need to get a handle on the dependent class and the connection between uneducated immigrants leaching off your systems. It is historically what brings down nations. Getting the private sector involved is great, but instead of actually paying them, give them tax breaks for employing those that were previously unemployed. Instead of just giving money back to them, you'd allow them to put it back into the economy and eliminate the middle man, ie. the government.
The vast majority of our current immigration is young single people from Eastern Europe. They are typically highly educated and come as our incomes are 4x what theirs are. They also tend not to stay so come over pay taxes dont draw benefits and leave before they get sick and old. :aok
-
The vast majority of our current immigration is young single people from Eastern Europe. They are typically highly educated and come as our incomes are 4x what theirs are. They also tend not to stay so come over pay taxes dont draw benefits and leave before they get sick and old. :aok
England, maybe, the rest of the EU... that's a whole different story.
-
Yarbles from what I read, you definitely need to get a handle on the dependent class I'd think that the law abiing population being armed might be good for future safety.
LOL, you must protect yourself from "uneducated immigrants leaching off your systems".
Sounds like:
General Jack D. Ripper: "Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. "
-
Timofei, if you are happy with people coming to your country and leaching off it, fine by me, it is your country. Just don't be surprised when that 40+% tax rate goes upwards of 50 - 60 %. It won't be so funny then.
-
Timofei, if you are happy with people coming to your country and leaching off it, fine by me, it is your country. Just don't be surprised when that 40+% tax rate goes upwards of 50 - 60 %. It won't be so funny then.
My wife teaches immigrants to speak English there are some that want to work and make a contiribution and others that just want to abuse the system. I am not sure how best to convince the freeloaders to make more of an effort and seperate the genuine from the bogus assylum seekers. I think more initiatives are needed to make the system of aid or welfare fare. The problem is when there is corporate fraud and the the higher echelons of society find ways of paying no taxes at all it undermines the integrity of the whole sytem of taxes and benefits. It is difficult tobe harsh on the poorere members of society when Government and Big Businees are regularly gettng their noses in the trough.
-
yarbles.. in all seriousness.. we are not the same countries..
as you and other limeys have said.. london is not england.. also.. you had no murders before your gun control.. you gave up your rights for nothing.
Now. back to the subject (no pun intended)... we are not like you. or.. more to the point, our countries are not the same. what works for you can't work for us.. what works for us would collapse your country.
Do you agree? Lets look at it. In your country.. socialism works to a large extent. you people are happy with it and your politicians have come to some sort of unwritten agreement that they hold power only if they don't screw you over too badly and... lets face it.. you guys know your place and, because of tradition and a population with (london aside) no real diversity... you all think the same because it is bred into you.
In America.. socialism does not work.. there is no government program here that works.. everyone here knows it. It only gets a foothold due to greed.. not compassion..greed.. the voters wanting something for nothing.
No government program works here and no one likes the government.. congress has an approval rating of single didgets. We have a population that is so diverse that you could not even imagine it unless you lived here.. there is no first world country like it.. certainly none in your "happy white" country list.
murders.. a small fraction of our minority population commits over half of them and most of the violent crime. In our country (not saying yours) the more freedom we allow our people to have guns.. the more the crimes go down.
simply put.. what works in your country would not work in ours and vice versa.
lazs
-
It would be very difficult for the Republicans to get a candidate of color. Take a look at the last Republican convention. Couple of tokens on stage. The crowd was 99% white at the Republican convention. Compare that to the Democratic convention. If the Dem's were smart they would move towards the middle, philosophically speaking. The Republican party is increasingly a party of exclusion not inclusion.
-
My government is not a charity organization; that's what churches and, yes, charity organizations are for. It is immoral for any government to forcibly compell any citizen to contribute to any charity. Philanthropy is for philanthropists, not politicians.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The US government gives away hundreds of millions of dollars to the disadvantaged peoples of the world (south Africa for starters). All of that money comes out of your pocket and you have no choice. All governments around the world do this, Charity in large scale no one wants to see.
US also likes to Bail out large banks and bussiness, a form of charity I would be thinking.
I go off in a rant every time Canada gives away money to some other country because of this issue.
Churchs should be the only ones giving money away, therefore if you don't belong you can opt out of the charity.
-
Lazs...another one about guns?
It's simple, your solution about gun problems (which is ANY idiot packing up like dirty Harry) is more guns.
I wish you'd stop bashing the Brits about this, since their bad crime is much lower than yours while their gun ownage is also very much lower. Their murders are lower, their armed robberies are lower, and their rapes are lower, - this goes roughly on a rate 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, in a country that is vastly more densely populated than the USA.
And as for government tyranny, - I'd take Britain as a safe-haven any day....but again, their solutions wouldn't work in the USA?
-
angus.. as I have said.. it always was low.. guns or not.. in fact..it has gone up some since they had their last round of gun grabbing. ours has gone down with concealed carry.. like I said.. different countries but.. I am correct.. not bashing.. in saying that they gave up their rights for nothing.. they got no gain out of it.. now, they may not have held much store in that particular right but.. I am glad I was not a gun owning "subject" at the time they confiscated everyones firearms.
As for their crime? they have half their burglaries (which are high) done while the poor helpless homeowner is hiding and cowering under his bed hoping he won't get hurt too bad... I don't want to.. won't.. live like that.
See? we are different peoples.. the solution for us will not work for them and their solution will not work for us.. just as I said if you had bothered to try to understand and not got so hung up on the gun example.
lazs
-
there is no government program here that works.. everyone here knows it. It only gets a foothold due to greed.. not compassion..greed.. the voters wanting something for nothing.
No government program works here and no one likes the government.. murders.. a small fraction of our minority population commits over half of them and most of the violent crime. In our country (not saying yours) the more freedom we allow our people to have guns.. the more the crimes go down.
lazs
You really are an anarchist.
Definition:
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state.
Or a communist:
"Every Communist must grasp the truth that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. "
—Mao Zedong or MaoTse-tung
-
timo-fey.. No.. I am not an anarchist.. I am an individualist.. the fact that no government program works is no reason to not have one.
Protecting the country from invasion/raising an army.. It is a loser but it is needed. No one could spend money and waste it as much as an army can. The court system.. it is a waste too but needed. You need a place where issues of unfairness against individual rights can be addressed with the force of law.
Other than that and a constitution that limits governments powers to a very few.. you don't need any more government than that.
Liberation and freedom as well as power comes from the barrel of a gun. You need a court system (and some enforcement) to seperate what is freedom and what is a grab on individual rights.
You don't need to provide schools or health care or take money from one person and redistribute it to others...
Since you are so into rudimentary politics tho.. here is one for you "from each according to his ability.. to each according to his needs."
Here is another... "the end justifies the means"
If you believe that either one of these makes any sense or is fair in any way then you are a scum bag socialist tool.
lazs
-
I hear their are such places that have no health care, and no Schools....and guns are essential!!!...I think their known as third world country's. :aok
-
hazzer... yes but... they do have strong governments. they have government controlling every aspect of their lives including taking their next breath. They do not have fair courts or a constitution that protects individual rights... Nice try tho.
I never said you couldn't have schools.. I never said you couldn't have health care. You simply don't need government to have such things... only a scum bag socialist would think so.
I pay less a year for my grand daughters catholic school than is spent by the state for the crappy socialist version they foist on every one the students they screw up.
lazs
-
I pay less a year for my grand daughters catholic school than is spent by the state for the crappy socialist version they foist on every one the students they screw up.
lazs
There you go! The free market provides a better product cheaper in this particular case.
Also, teachers in public schools are on average paid MORE than their counterparts in the free market. I cry for them, poor devils. They may get paid more per year teaching than I ever made in construction, but I guess they don't think its ENOUGH more.
-
I never said you couldn't have schools.. I never said you couldn't have health care. You simply don't need government to have such things... only a scum bag socialist would think so.
If you are saying "the hell with the poor who cannot afford school or health care" , you are not indeed scum bag socialist.. but a scum bag psychopath.
Definition:
"Psychopath has antisocial traits for sure but they are coupled with and enhanced by callousness, ruthlessness, extreme lack of empathy"
You mentioned catholic school.
Jesus was the first socialist.
-
No. Jesus was not a socialist at all. He said people were morally obligated to help those less fortunate. He never forced people to give their money or assets to help those less fortunate, nor did he say it was right to do so. There's a HUGE difference. Jesus said "give willingly", socialists say "we are taking it".
-
No. Jesus was not a socialist at all. He said people were morally obligated to help those less fortunate.
Perhaps you are right. But as in practise there seem to be way too few people who feel "morally obligated", some kind of "socialism" (=government) is needed, to enforce peoples "moral obligation".
-
Perhaps you are right. But as in practise there seem to be way too few people who feel "morally obligated", some kind of "socialism" (=government) is needed, to enforce peoples "moral obligation".
WRONG. One really BIG reason people do not "feel morally obligated" is that they've already been put upon by the government. You cannot "enforce moral obligation". People either feel obligated or they do not. And the government has no right to try.
Socialism was not "needed" until it was introduced. Our Founding Fathers understood that the government should not be in the "charity" business, and that the government could never do it properly and efficiently anyway.
-
WRONG. One really BIG reason people do not "feel morally obligated" is that they've already been put upon by the government.
That's an excuse, people don't feel obligated because(basically) they don't give a s**t of other people, government or no government.
-
That's an excuse, people don't feel obligated because(basically) they don't give a s**t of other people, government or no government.
Not true at all.
And besides, once again, it is not the government's place to try to MAKE people give a damn, nor is it the government's place to take their money for other people.
-
Not true at all.
And besides, once again, it is not the government's place to try to MAKE people give a damn, nor is it the government's place to take their money for other people.
I guess we just have to disagree.
I have been "fortunate" to travel a bit in a "thirld world", seeing a mother, with a baby, living in a wooden shack, no water, no electricity, mother having AIDS, dying slowly.
I did not know what to do, except buying some food and milk for the baby. Few years ago, don't know what happened to them.
So sorry, "Founding Fathers" and "moral obligation" are not efficient soundbites to me.
-
I guess we just have to disagree.
I have been "fortunate" to travel a bit in a "thirld world", seeing a mother, with a baby, living in a wooden shack, no water, no electricity, mother having AIDS, dying slowly.
I did not know what to do, except buying some food and milk for the baby. Few years ago, don't know what happened to them.
So sorry, "Founding Fathers" and "moral obligation" are not efficient soundbites to me.
They are not "sound bites".
And you still haven't shown where any government has the right to "force people to be charitable". It sure isn't in the Constitution of the United States.
See, the problem here is, you, and those like you, want to tell everyone what "charitable causes" they MUST give THEIR Money to. You feel YOUR right to make that decision supersedes OUR right to make that decision. Which means you feel you are morally superior. The rest of us take serious exception to that.
If YOU want to give to the charity of YOUR choice, I'm fine with that. In fact, I'm GLAD you feel strongly enough and are willing to back those feelings with YOUR money. However, that DOES NOT entitle YOU to decide what charity I spend MY MONEY on. See I give my money to places like the MDA, or St Judes, or my local church. And it is MY money, to give to whom I see fit. It is NOT YOUR money, nor is it the government's money, to give to whom YOU see fit.
-
timo-fey.. virgil is doing a great job in explaining the basics to you even tho you are not paying attention...
There is an easier way tho.. you can prove us wrong. We didn't always have socialism and welfare here.. Can you tell us how many people starved to death during the great depression? No fair counting the insane or those lost in the wilderness.
People do indeed help people. Most christian charities have a far better record for helping people than government programs do.
I would also bet that I give more to help people every year than you do. I do resent having it extorted from me tho..
I would also point out that all your liberal rich folk who think we should all pay more in taxes.. all give to the charity of their choice to AVOID giving it to the government.. why would they do that? why not just give all the money to the government and let them redistribute it if they think the government does it so well.
lazs
-
As for the American Dream, it is alive and well. You just have to follow through on your half of the deal; Work for it! That's something that you socialist leaning "left of centers" seem to always forget and are perpetually chastising those that do.
If you don't work for it, you don't deserve it. Anyone that comes to America legally or is born here has the chance to achieve the American Dream, it just requires that instead of holding your hands out, you use those hands to work for it.
I came here (legally) in 1982 with my wife, two little daughters (1yr and 2yr) and $500 in debt. Did not speak English. I've work pretty hard (2-3 jobs at times) but now I'm retired at 52.
Anyone who says that American Dream is dead or that there is a job discrimination in US is full of crap.
-
Laz,
When Angus talks about low crime rates and nonsense like that for Iceland, remember thier population is about 300,000 and they live on an island. It's only in august this year that Iceland will accept about 200 palistinian refugees from Iraq. Previous to this, here is an Icelandic answer to non Icelandic looking people.
One of Iceland's most enduring symbols is called Fjallkonan, or the Lady of the Mountain. And, like almost every Icelander, the Lady of the Mountain is white. When the editor of Iceland's Grapevine Magazine decided to pose a black model in the traditional Lady of the Mountain costume, no one in Reykjavik would rent one to him. The magazine's efforts to find the costume instigated a national conversation on immigration and race.
Laz you get the feeling we only hear from the lefty liberals of other countries on this BBS????? :devil