Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

932 days, 21 hours, 35 minutes and 26 seconds...Follow

#1 Jul 02 2006 at 1:25 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
...until Bush is out of office.

I thought you hippies would get a kick out of this.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2 Jul 02 2006 at 1:28 AM Rating: Default
Meh, can't get much worse in ~900 days than it has been. unlees he manages to kills us all, or revert us back to a 3rd world country.
#3 Jul 02 2006 at 6:17 AM Rating: Default
Yeah right, remeber we got Jeb Bush right after.
#4 Jul 02 2006 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,396 posts
I always enjoy the agony of this forum the day after election night each time after the republicans rack up.

It will be no different in two years.
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#5 Jul 02 2006 at 7:17 AM Rating: Default
Tacosid wrote:
I always enjoy the agony of this forum the day after election night each time after the republicans rack up.

It will be no different in two years.
I'd take anyone over Bush at this point. Logical Republican or radical Democrat I could care less.
#6 Jul 02 2006 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Hellboy the Hand wrote:
Yeah right, remeber we got Jeb Bush right after.



Highly unlikely, if you pay any attention to politics.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#7 Jul 02 2006 at 7:56 AM Rating: Default
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
Hellboy the Hand wrote:
Yeah right, remeber we got Jeb Bush right after.



Highly unlikely, if you pay any attention to politics.
I know that Jeb said he didn't want to run and that he'd like to stay closer to his state. But that's really means nothing because it was right before election time for him. Other than that do you have more info and why he wouldn't want to?
#8 Jul 02 2006 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Not that he wouldnt want it but rather why he wouldnt get it.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#9 Jul 02 2006 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Hellboy the Hand wrote:
Logical Republican or radical Democrat
2 Oxymorons for the price of one!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#10 Jul 03 2006 at 1:51 AM Rating: Default
When I read the thread title I thought someone was showing off thier FFXI playtime :\
#11 Jul 03 2006 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
or revert us back to a 3rd world country.


heh

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.

Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover.

The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent.






heh
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#12 Jul 03 2006 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.
It's our plan to get the blacks to move to Kerala. Duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jul 03 2006 at 11:28 AM Rating: Default
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
or revert us back to a 3rd world country.


heh

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.

Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover.

The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent.






heh


Communist, go live in the USSR.
#14 Jul 03 2006 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Communist, go live in the USSR.


Stop living in the Cold War.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Jul 03 2006 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
<Insert ghey Rent reference here>
#16 Jul 03 2006 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
931 DAYS 10 Hrs 44 Min 40.6 Seconds unitl President McCain! Woot! Free Guiness in the White House.
#17 Jul 03 2006 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
TheForumGuy wrote:
When I read the thread title I thought someone was showing off thier FFXI playtime :\


That's cuz you're a f'uckin ******.
#18 Jul 05 2006 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I still can't tell if TheForumGuy is a sock or not.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#19 Jul 06 2006 at 12:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
I call your bluff, Kao!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#20 Jul 06 2006 at 12:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
What is this? The "let's quote blatantly false stats" day?

Kelvyquayo wrote:
The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia.


False. According to the CIA factbook the US is ranked 183rd out of 225 nations for infant mortality at 6.43 per thousand births. Malaysia is ranked 124th at 17.16.

I guess "three times the infant morality rate" is "the same" in your book? Or did you just not bother to spend the 20 seconds it took for me to debunk this?

Quote:
Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.


Considering that India is ranked 55th at 54.63 deaths per 1000 live births, I find that incredibly hard to believe. Either the state of Kerala has an astronomically low relative rate compared to the rest of India, or somehow you expect us to believe that black children and *only* black children born in DC die at a rate on average nearly 10 times higher then that of the US average.

Norms for things related to medical care simply don't vary that greatly from the national average. How about you find some evidence for this?

Quote:
Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover.


Possibly true. Are we including the fact that at least 6 million of those Hispanics are here illegally from Mexico alone? Cause that might seem to have an impact on those figures.

Quote:
The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.


You're reading from the social liberalist playsheet here. It's an ideological difference of opinion. In the US, we tend to believe that people earn their way in the world. The government only provides an environment in which to do that and otherwise stays the heck out of the way.

And guess what? It works.


Quote:
Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent.


Lol. Define "child poverty" and we can maybe start to talk about this. You are aware that poverty is traditionally defined in such a way as to eliminate the measurement of the benefits of a non-socialist system while exagerrating those of the socialist, right? After all, when you define "poverty" as a percentage income off the median, you're automatically in trouble. Yet that's where many of those calculations come from. The other common method is calculating income in relation to staple goods. Which works great in a traditional agrarian society, or one in which "the people" are provided for with those very staples (food, clothing, housing, education), but falls appart when you start to ask what the value of "standard of living improvements" brought about via new technology is. The fact that a family's income in relation to the cost of a loaf of bread may have gone down is mitigated enormously if that same family has access to things like TVs, computers, the internet, and cell phones, all at a price that even the most poor can afford.

Luxuries are vastly cheaper today as a direct result of nations like the US *not* adopting socialist methodologies. Luxuries that anyone can afford. Yup. Even those children growing up in poverty live in better and safer homes, with much greater comfort then they did in the past. You can't measure that easily though, so it's generally ignored.


It's a matter of whether you'd rather live in a society where you are provided with everything except opportunity and potential for a better life in the future, or one in which the people's potential is limited only by their own dreams. I personally would rather live in the second state. Those who rave about the benefits of socialism tend to forget the ridiculous tax rates involved. They ignore the stagnation of their economies, the lack of technological growth, and the lack of improvement in people's lives over time. And in the case of European Socialisms, they've been able to benefit from the fact that the US is *not* socialist to a great degree, buying or licensing US designed "stuff" for their own consumers. They're able to provide these things for their people without having to spend the money to make them in the first place. Imagine if no-one in the world actually did this though? Imagine if everyone adopted socialist economies? Who would build computers? Who would design new TVs? Cell phones? How many things that might exist wont simply because we chose to take the easy way out?

Sorry. The rest of the world can bask in their second-fiddleness. I'd rather be part of actually *doing* something with my life, instead of just existing. "The people" just become a collection of eating and breeding masses if they don't collectively accomplish anything along the way. Socialism is great for keeping large numbers of people alive and in comfort. It's horrible for encouraging growth and human endeavor. I'll take a different option, thank you very much...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jul 06 2006 at 1:46 AM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Gbaji said
Quote:
The people" just become a collection of eating and breeding masses if they don't collectively(I would also include 'individually') accomplish anything along the way. Socialism is great for keeping large numbers of people alive and in comfort. It's horrible for encouraging growth and human endeavor. I'll take a different option, thank you very much...


/nod.
Nothing has done more harm to the western world in the last hundred years than that system we call social security. Its taken away the the drive to improve oneself that should be the driving force behind all of us. Tho it may have been instituted in the first place, by a government with the best of intentions, what it has become is a program for the removal of peoples will to move forward. I'm not saying we shouldn't look after the people in our societies that need to be looked after. But giving beer/cigarette/food tokens to people who could and should be making their own way in life for free....that is truly fuc't up.

Ps. I would just like to add that this doesn't mean that I think any the less of the the politicians on either the Left or the Right, and Bush is still a Moran of the highest order.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#22 Jul 06 2006 at 5:56 AM Rating: Good
I usually agree with you, and think you're one of the more sensible posters on this site. But I disagre with this. Yes, I am a dirty, nasty french commy *******, but still.

paulsol wrote:
Nothing has done more harm to the western world in the last hundred years than that system we call social security.


Hmmm, I could think of a couple. War. Nazism. Stalinism. Nationalism. Cancer. Social security is not such an evil when put into perspective.

Second, Social security means different things. Beer/cigarettes token are not what I would call social security. I don't know, there might some countries that do that, but thats not what I call "social security".


Quote:
Its taken away the the drive to improve oneself that should be the driving force behind all of us. Tho it may have been instituted in the first place, by a government with the best of intentions, what it has become is a program for the removal of peoples will to move forward. I'm not saying we shouldn't look after the people in our societies that need to be looked after. But giving beer/cigarette/food tokens to people who could and should be making their own way in life for free....that is truly fuc't up.

Ps. I would just like to add that this doesn't mean that I think any the less of the the politicians on either the Left or the Right, and Bush is still a Moran of the highest order.


I disagree that when people have basic living conditions, such as food and hot water, they become lazy and reliant on the state. Thats rubbish. Most people's ambition in life is not to live just above the poverty line, and scrape by.

Social security that gives people health care, redundancy packages when sacked, council housing, and food can't be that bad. Caring for the basic needs of the people that have nothing does not encourage laziness, but humanity and compassion. There is nothing worse than rich people saying "poor people deserve it".

This is just my opinion, obviously, but I would agree with Bertrand Russle's quote that: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little".
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#23 Jul 06 2006 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:

paulsol wrote:
Nothing has done more harm to the western world in the last hundred years than that system we call social security.


Hmmm, I could think of a couple. War. Nazism. Stalinism. Nationalism. Cancer. Social security is not such an evil when put into perspective.


War has existed and will exist independant of whether western civilization exists. That's a null argument. Nazism and Stalanism were both direct outgrowths of socialism, so you're kinda losing your own argument there. Nationalism is debatable, but that depends on which definition of nationalism you're using. It's really just an identification of a group of people with a "nation" rather then just a current ruler. The same nationalism that can cause hatred and opression also allows people within a nation to identify with eachother positively, and even allows "nations" to interact in new ways as well. Heh. Also, I challenge you to produce a model of politics in which socialism can exist without nationalism. With nationalism, you take the good with the bad.

Cancer? You're kidding right? But while on the subject, lot of cancer cures coming out of France these days? Or is it those "evil capitalist biotech corporations" that somehow manage, despite all their evil, to discover the bulk of cures? Odd that...

Quote:
Second, Social security means different things. Beer/cigarettes token are not what I would call social security. I don't know, there might some countries that do that, but thats not what I call "social security".


Agreed. However, I would argue that smoking and drinking as habits seems to be in direct proportion to the degree one recieves public assistance, even if it's not recieved with that intention. Just an observation...


Quote:
I disagree that when people have basic living conditions, such as food and hot water, they become lazy and reliant on the state. Thats rubbish. Most people's ambition in life is not to live just above the poverty line, and scrape by.


I don't have time right this second to look up stats, but I'm reasonably certain that rates of public assistance grows in direct proportion to the value of the assistance. Over time, the "need" somehow magically always seems to keep growing. Look. Compare the rates of citizens on assistance in your own country over the last 50 years. I'll bet they've gone up.

And even if there is *zero* increase over time. You still end up decreasing productivity as a result. Because the portion of the economy you consume in order to pay for those programs is that part which is most productive. Because the money that isn't feeding people *today* is inevitably being spent building something new that will improve people's lives tomorrow. The problem is that the opportunity cost of socialism appears to be nothing because you can't see what you lost. For example, if 30 years ago the US had adopted a high degree of socialised programs, would home computers have ever been developed? More to the point, if they hadn't, would we know that they could have if we hadn't spent all that money on those programs? We'd never know. Which is why the flaw with socialism is so hard to see.

Quote:
Social security that gives people health care, redundancy packages when sacked, council housing, and food can't be that bad. Caring for the basic needs of the people that have nothing does not encourage laziness, but humanity and compassion. There is nothing worse than rich people saying "poor people deserve it".


Except that you're putting words in people's mouths. Rich people tend to think in terms of opportunity. Most wealthy people try really hard to both provide those opportunities to others and encourage them to take advantage of them when they appear. But if they choose not to? The view is that they *could* have succeeded. Anyone can. Saying "deserve" implies that someone is fated to something. It's far more correct to replace that with "choose". And far more accurate.

Quote:
This is just my opinion, obviously, but I would agree with Bertrand Russle's quote that: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little".


Sure. But he's framing the issue in a specific manner. It assumes that the "Rich" have an abundance and that it exists in contrast to the poor having too little. In a sanely constructed capitalism, that's simply not the case. Wealth provides opportunity for others, not necessarily just abundance for those who hold it. It's an incredibly simplistic veiw of economics to believe that money is simply taken from one group by another. Which is why attempting to "correct" poverty by doing the opposite really doesn't work. You just end up making things worse for everyone in the long run.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Jul 06 2006 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Nazism and Stalanism were both direct outgrowths of socialism, so you're kinda losing your own argument there.
Smiley: rolleyes

Again?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jul 06 2006 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent
Gbaji wrote:
Lol.


Gbaji is the only person where Lol applies as a full sentence.
#26 Jul 06 2006 at 8:31 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
i just put those to start an argument.



but the "facts" are from a United Nations Human Development Report from last year.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/


Maybe you should send them a letter of complaint
about bashing good ole' U. S. of A.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 365 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (365)