I know that when I hear the word "liberal" the first two names that pop into my head are Nelson Mandela and The Dalai Lama....ShEpArD_oF_rOt wrote:
I know that when I hear the word "liberal" the first two names that pop into my head are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.....
Apparently this is a nonsense *rant*. Two lines is a rant now? And besides, how the fuck could you call Hitler liberal, regardless of what you think of Stalin?Bubbalo wrote:
Hitler was fascist, which is ultra-conservative, and Stalin was totalitarian which is "I wants it all now"-style. Neither were liberal.
LOL I hope you realize that you list political and evironmental activist as having a feakin job!!.......now that really does figure.Spearhead wrote:
Many liberals are hard working. They are political and environmental activists. Just because you are not in the military doesn't make you lazy or not worthy of freedom of speech.lowing wrote:
Maybe so but it would seem they are "interested in making life better for ALL Americans" on the backs of those people that have actually WORKED for a better life.Spearhead wrote:
Freedom of speech? To you, your main goal is to serve your country, correct? To liberals, their main goal is to make life better for all Americans. Many people have forgotten how Nazi Germany came to power in the 1930's.
Oh yes. Because it's not like the word activism springs from action. Besides, he didn't call either a job. You see, most need a job *aswell*, i.e. they work twice as hard.
Nope, you are wrong......Nobody has ever referred to the german soldier as evil, only the nazis of which the german soldier was not.Bubbalo wrote:
The same could be said of most German soldiers during WWII (including most of the Waffen SS), yet people seem to hate them with a passion.NuclearBlasted wrote:
There's nothing wrong or inherently evil about the soldiers in Iraq.
yes i know........being an actor or a rock star does take its toll. lolBubbalo wrote:
Oh yes. Because it's not like the word activism springs from action. Besides, he didn't call either a job. You see, most need a job *aswell*, i.e. they work twice as hard.
Skruples, please know, as i would thought you would have by now, that there is absolutely nothing you can type that would offend me.Skruples wrote:
That would fall into the 'asinine comments' category. If you'll notice in my original statement, the one you took offense to for no reason that I can discern, I said "I'm not saying that this bias is implicit, it has alot more to do with sociology and history than it does with actual laws, but the difference is there."lowing wrote:
Yeah, explain to me how there is no "equality" for minorites in todays society. Tell me how, EXACTLY, the white man is keeping the minorites down in daily life?
you said our economic system favors white people......I maintain our economic system favors achievement, and that is well within the confines of this discussion no matter how badly you don't want it to be.
What I mean by this is that a white (male) manager is more likely to hire a white male worker over a minority (I should note at this point that I meant to include white women along with minorites, insofar as my statement was concerned). It has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with psychology and history. Would the minority do the job just as well? Maybe, I dont know, but studies have shown that both men and women have a bias against women, and there are general societal stereotypes regarding minorities. The result? Like I pointed out, most important governmental and business positions are held by white males, and white males are paid more than any other group in the country.
So my perspective boils down to two points:
A. It is harder for minorities (and women) to get equal treatment (compared to white men) when it comes to getting a job or getting into school.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:UZj … k&cd=1
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0Ia … k&cd=1(a study that has to do with student evaluations of teachers, but illustrates my point)
and
B. At equal levels of 'achievement' as you would say, white men get paid more than any other group.
http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty/ … or-men.pdf
Secondly, allot of what you have said was more prevalent years ago, and is rapidly moving away from that. How about recognizing the positive, changes and the growth we are striving for as a nation?
and what job does Jesse Jackson have??Bubbalo wrote:
Oh yes. Because it's not like the word activism springs from action. Besides, he didn't call either a job. You see, most need a job *aswell*, i.e. they work twice as hard.
lowing: How about you learn to use one post, as I do? And only quote relevant parts of posts? Or are conservatives too important for that? And, actually, you're wrong. Many fail to recognise that most German soldiers were patriots, who were lied to. And many equate SS with Nazi death camps.
I'm also curious: Would you rather actors and rock-stars *didn't* campaign for good causes? Or are you implying that the only reason they get paid is their activism (I would also point out that they have their own hardships).
As to Jesse Jackson: Hostage negotiator? Either way, one exception doesn't break the rule.
I'm also curious: Would you rather actors and rock-stars *didn't* campaign for good causes? Or are you implying that the only reason they get paid is their activism (I would also point out that they have their own hardships).
As to Jesse Jackson: Hostage negotiator? Either way, one exception doesn't break the rule.
Bubbalo, funny how Hitler was the leader of a National Socialist Party.Bubbalo wrote:
Hitler was fascist, which is ultra-conservative, and Stalin was totalitarian which is "I wants it all now"-style. Neither were liberal.
Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called NSDAP or the Nazi Party), which was led by its Führer (leader), Adolf Hitler. The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the "Third Reich"), and it was derived from the term National Socialism
I think 99% of actors are hypocrites... For example: Susan Sarandon - she's Ms. Green Earth Lady, right? Drive's a Hybrid car to the Oscars, makes incorrect (but enpassioned) comments about the environment. So she must be a great person - right?Bubbalo wrote:
I'm also curious: Would you rather actors and rock-stars *didn't* campaign for good causes? Or are you implying that the only reason they get paid is their activism (I would also point out that they have their own hardships).
She's a hypocrite... Drive a Hybrid when people are looking, but fly in a private jet with like 2 people in it to get to CA. Let's see, which is more damaging to the environment, buring 1,000 lbs of jet fuel for 2 people, or driving my Ford Explorer for about 3 months? (1 gallon of gas = 6 lbs and 1,000/6 = 166 gals - which is like 10 fill ups)
John Travolta, Oprah, Paris Hilton, That bitch from the Dixie Chix, they are all the same. Uneducated, mouthy, and opinionated. It's okay to have an opinon - but when you think yours is better because you make movies - it's pretty funny.
Last edited by wanderlost (2006-05-23 07:31:41)
Fleder, Nazism is, as you said, National Socialism, which is a tying of Nationalism and Socialism, plus they are the ones who promoted the idea of a master race. Actual German socialists were their main opponents. Nazism in its own definition is Fascism manifest in the sense that the Aryan race would utilize the nationalist State in order to gain their true destiny.
No I am not wrong, the nazis were a political party, being german doesn't make you a nazi. The German soldiers were fighting for their father land and their homes, they were not fighting for the nazis. Just like in our system of govt. Fighting in Iraq doesn't mean you are a republican.Bubbalo wrote:
lowing: How about you learn to use one post, as I do? And only quote relevant parts of posts? Or are conservatives too important for that? And, actually, you're wrong. Many fail to recognise that most German soldiers were patriots, who were lied to. And many equate SS with Nazi death camps.
I'm also curious: Would you rather actors and rock-stars *didn't* campaign for good causes? Or are you implying that the only reason they get paid is their activism (I would also point out that they have their own hardships).
As to Jesse Jackson: Hostage negotiator? Either way, one exception doesn't break the rule.
Yes I see, Hanoi Jane Fonda was only campaigning for a good cause when she fraternized with the enemy back in Vietnam.......No doubt a big hero for you I am sure.
Not really sure how you came up with coralation of me feeling "important" and the way I post. It is ok, I don't need an answer to that cuz I don't care, really.
Okay, fine. Tomorrow, I'm going to start a party called The Democratics for Giving Food to Children. We believed democratic elections should never be held, and food should be reserved for adults.Darth_Fleder wrote:
Bubbalo, funny how Hitler was the leader of a National Socialist Party.
Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called NSDAP or the Nazi Party), which was led by its Führer (leader), Adolf Hitler. The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the "Third Reich"), and it was derived from the term National Socialism
A name is nothing. The "Socialist" and "Workers'" part of the name was an appeal to the public. The Nazi policies were not socialist.
You're right, but people seem to have trouble make that distinction. *That* was my point.lowing wrote:
No I am not wrong, the nazis were a political party, being german doesn't make you a nazi. The German soldiers were fighting for their father land and their homes, they were not fighting for the nazis.
Oh, yes. Because the government in the South wasn't, like, corrupt or anything.lowing wrote:
Yes I see, Hanoi Jane Fonda was only campaigning for a good cause when she fraternized with the enemy back in Vietnam.......No doubt a big hero for you I am sure.
I'll apologise for that one. It's just that it was late, and I'd just been through a few of Gunslinger/Horseman's posts. Plus, I fiqured you were smart enough to figure how to combine it into one post.lowing wrote:
Not really sure how you came up with coralation of me feeling "important" and the way I post. It is ok, I don't need an answer to that cuz I don't care, really.
good god your great for posts bubbalo, socialism is an umbrella term for an ideology which includes fascism, marxism, and communism and a few others. Government controls everything, what you are allowed to sing, watch, hear, purchase, manufacture, who you can associate with or marry (ever met an 80 year old german jew? me neither, i know they are out there, but for some reason they are hard to come across), if this doesn't describe hitler's germany what does. ever read his auto-biography? it's called "mein kampf", i think my copy of it is next to my copy of " the rise and fall of the third reich" try listening to some of his speeches or even.......oh christ, what's the point, nevermind, go watch john stewart.............
I am a reagan conservative, conservatism is a bastion for capitalism and individualism, the opposite of fascists, stalinist, marxists, communists, socialistsBubbalo wrote:
Hitler was fascist, which is ultra-conservative, and Stalin was totalitarian which is "I wants it all now"-style. Neither were liberal.
god im sorry i keep finding more, this IS fact, facts can be proven, a way to prove this is quite simple, take any random person from any random culture/race/region/continent/religion/ideology/etc and move him to america, have him naturalized and become a citizen. no matter what combination of descriptors you can think of it's beleivable that they are american. I am a goofy, white, southern, sometimes blonde boy, stick my ass in kyoto and teach me to sing the national anthem...........something won't quite seem right will it.Skruples wrote:
There is no country that is diverse as America, that is a fact. That has nothing to do with the equality (or lack thereof) in our economic system, which was the original topic. Now, are there any other completely asinine comments you would like me to address?
Just for reference:
A left-wing system of social structure, I feel, is a MUCH stronger idea than the right-wing way of rejecting social equality and integration while constantly promoting neo-liberal economic ideals (as Populists tend to do). Economically, a Centrist/Left economy would produce less corporate control over the market and our societies, which is something I prefer, while not giving the government an entire Stalin-esque authoritarian State.
The government is comprised of it's people, and should not be comprised of an oligopoly of rich elite corporations hell-bent on only making profits in a consumer-driven society.
Then we really start running into whether we are talking about Economic Systems or Social Structures. Differing between Stalinism and Laissez-faire corporate control, and differing between Marxist social structures and the more right-wing Populist and reactionary structures.The Dictionary/Basic Government wrote:
Socialism
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
State ownership of capital
A left-wing system of social structure, I feel, is a MUCH stronger idea than the right-wing way of rejecting social equality and integration while constantly promoting neo-liberal economic ideals (as Populists tend to do). Economically, a Centrist/Left economy would produce less corporate control over the market and our societies, which is something I prefer, while not giving the government an entire Stalin-esque authoritarian State.
The government is comprised of it's people, and should not be comprised of an oligopoly of rich elite corporations hell-bent on only making profits in a consumer-driven society.
How is it that conservatism is a "batstion" for capitolism? Okay, Liberalsim is a bastion for Democracy, I win.
Conservatism has it's place as does liberalism, neither of which are a trump card over the other. In fact our nation works it's best when there is an equal balance between the two groups.
Hitler used "socialism" in accordance with the national unity movement at the time. There really wasn't much in common between Nazi germany and Communist Russia. Stalin's communism wasn't really socialism either. Both were corrupt at the very top with maniac madmen running thier respective countries. If you want to look at a more realistic "socialist" state China would top my list. Yet communism suppresses ideas and freedom, American Liberalism doesn't have that mindset, in fact American Liberals are the champions of freedom of everyone, not just a selected few.
What conservatives fail to understand is that they aren't the only ones in a nation that was designed to accept everyone. In fact Liberalism and Conservatism aren't the end all of American politics, in fact I would suggest that most people fall somewhere in the middle. If you'd like to think of an all Conservative america you'd be disappointed, or not I guess, with the lack of individuality present. Unless you want the same thing from everybody or at least to be able to expect a certain behavior or tack out of whomever you meet. After all, who would you bitch about if all the liberals went away?
You seem to have this idea that conservatism is the savior of nations. Reagan isn't the best example when talking about spreading democracy. He made strides yet there are still remenants of his spectacular failures, IE-Afghanistan, Venezula. By directing the intelligence assets like his personal ninjas he stopped the communist menace but set up others in thier place who are much more dangerous..ie-terrorists. Sure Blow Job Bill made mistakes, so did Bush Sr. and so on, and so forth. Blaming isn't going to solve anything anyway.
By having dynamic political groups such as the Republicans and Democrats we ensure a future that is tempered by both, ignoring one and this nation is doomed to fail. It also appears to have been suggested that immigrants can't be considered as being "american"? If I'm reading this wrong I appologize, but that's freaking ridiculous. The only explanation I have is that you are Native American. Otherwise why would the child, grandchild, great granchild, of an immigrant really suggest that any new immigrants are different?
Scotch
Conservatism has it's place as does liberalism, neither of which are a trump card over the other. In fact our nation works it's best when there is an equal balance between the two groups.
Hitler used "socialism" in accordance with the national unity movement at the time. There really wasn't much in common between Nazi germany and Communist Russia. Stalin's communism wasn't really socialism either. Both were corrupt at the very top with maniac madmen running thier respective countries. If you want to look at a more realistic "socialist" state China would top my list. Yet communism suppresses ideas and freedom, American Liberalism doesn't have that mindset, in fact American Liberals are the champions of freedom of everyone, not just a selected few.
What conservatives fail to understand is that they aren't the only ones in a nation that was designed to accept everyone. In fact Liberalism and Conservatism aren't the end all of American politics, in fact I would suggest that most people fall somewhere in the middle. If you'd like to think of an all Conservative america you'd be disappointed, or not I guess, with the lack of individuality present. Unless you want the same thing from everybody or at least to be able to expect a certain behavior or tack out of whomever you meet. After all, who would you bitch about if all the liberals went away?
You seem to have this idea that conservatism is the savior of nations. Reagan isn't the best example when talking about spreading democracy. He made strides yet there are still remenants of his spectacular failures, IE-Afghanistan, Venezula. By directing the intelligence assets like his personal ninjas he stopped the communist menace but set up others in thier place who are much more dangerous..ie-terrorists. Sure Blow Job Bill made mistakes, so did Bush Sr. and so on, and so forth. Blaming isn't going to solve anything anyway.
By having dynamic political groups such as the Republicans and Democrats we ensure a future that is tempered by both, ignoring one and this nation is doomed to fail. It also appears to have been suggested that immigrants can't be considered as being "american"? If I'm reading this wrong I appologize, but that's freaking ridiculous. The only explanation I have is that you are Native American. Otherwise why would the child, grandchild, great granchild, of an immigrant really suggest that any new immigrants are different?
Scotch
that's not what i was saying at all....what i was driving at was just the opposite, america, being the most diverse, can absorb any element of any culture into it's collective, as we are not defined by race, religion, creed, etc. whereas if i went to japan, no matter how long i lived there, or how much i absorbed the culture, i would never truly be defined as japanese, this is not a knock on japan, any country not known for breeding white boys will suffice.........-F8-Scotch wrote:
It also appears to have been suggested that immigrants can't be considered as being "american"? If I'm reading this wrong I appologize, but that's freaking ridiculous. The only explanation I have is that you are Native American. Otherwise why would the child, grandchild, great granchild, of an immigrant really suggest that any new immigrants are different?
Scotch
and where would any industrialized nation be without conservative capitalism, some ppl seem to confuse the term conservative with "not changing anything ever " or preserving the status quo, the basic principle of conservatism versus liberalism can be summed up as follows:
Rob, the wealthy conservative contractor, is asked by a homeless man for some money, Rob agrees if the man will simply pick up some litter around his construction site. I.E. you want something you work for it. (i have actually done this and paid from my own pocket, not through my company's payroll, and he came back for several days, and my work yard was all nice and purty)
Bob, the liberal college professor, is asked by a homeless man for some money, Bob hands him some money and feels good about himself for a while, then sees Rob's construction site. Bob says he will have to pass a new tax law paying for homeless assistance from revenue only created from people in Rob's income tax bracket, for Rob assuredly can afford to give more money than Bob. I.E. from each according to his means, to each according to his needs. (i am currently experiencing this now as well)
the whole give a man a fish and u feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime thing
ever notice how the most liberally governed states have the highest taxes in general? and how this tax rate increases the more money someone makes? why should someone who worked hard, extra hours, extra education and all, to earn more money, have to give the most percentage of their paycheck to finance the crack habits of the least driven segments of sociey, i know that's somewhat insensitive but damn i'm sick of paying bills for ppl older than me, without the initiative to get off minimum wage, have 5 kids, yet still have cell phones and enough spare $$ to get thar har did and nails painted
and as far as democracy goes you can have it, it's a fancy word for mob rule and, i don't know if you are American, our founding fathers were deathly afraid of it. It's generally been my experience that the collective logic and intelligence of a group is inversely proportional to the population of said group. we actually live in a representative republic, trying to find elected officials that we can trust (that would be the hard part) to stay informed in ways we can't and make decisions in our best interest.
As far as who I would bitch about if all the libs went away, I guess no one, sounds like paradise, no welfare, no need for welfare, uninhibited research in science, medicine, technologies, cigar bars (we could all afford to go), oh and don't forget the strippers and alcohol thing too.
The US has a generous amount of tax on income etc. What do we get back for it? I'm not really too sure... Take a look at Holland, or Belgium, or most Scandinavian countries. There, you pay higher taxes. But when you need to go to the doctor, it's free. When you go to university, it's just about free as well. Have some extra money? You can go to a doctor privately and get faster care (you're not forced to be queued in social medicare if you're financially able to see a doctor privately). As far as taxes increasing with how much money you make? It's called a progressive tax. And we haven't been doing it too well:kr@cker wrote:
ever notice how the most liberally governed states have the highest taxes in general? and how this tax rate increases the more money someone makes? why should someone who worked hard, extra hours, extra education and all, to earn more money, have to give the most percentage of their paycheck to finance the crack habits of the least driven segments of sociey, i know that's somewhat insensitive but damn i'm sick of paying bills for ppl older than me, without the initiative to get off minimum wage, have 5 kids, yet still have cell phones and enough spare $$ to get thar har did and nails painted
Our welfare system may very well be fucked, I honestly don't know enough about it to put up a good argument. However, I can assure you that there is an appreciable proportion of the American public that needs welfare because federal minimum wage is fucking $5.15. That's under 11000 a year if you work a 40 hour week every week of the year. I applaud your somewhat charatable action, but I sure as hell don't expect or trust everyone who is able to to do the same. It should be our government's responsibility to close the gap between rich and poor in our country, which is, by the way, deplorable.The nonpartisan Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center examined its provisions, including a two-year extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts, and a one-year extension of relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. It turns out a whopping 87 percent of the benefits of this tax cut will go to the 14 percent of American households earning above $100,000 a year. Twenty-two percent of the benefits will go to the richest two-tenths of 1 percent of American households earning more than a million dollars a year.
Hooray for socialized medicine!!! Rectal exams for everyone!!!! This still doesn't explain how it's ok for people to receive something for nothing off the blood, sweat, and tears of the people that work their asses off, or what about the countless failures of socialized medicine like cancer patients dying while waiting in queue for treatments and sometimes being just plain denied treatment b/c it's too expensive, while teenage girls are getting breast implants to improve their self esteem. As well as the fact that many of these countries have the highest unemployment rates in the industrialized world, generally in the double digits, while last I heard ours was only 4.2% ( for perspective i beleive that Bill's average was somewhere around 5.4%), how often do amazing breakthroughs in...well just about anything come from one of these countries. I keep hearing arguments like how the average life expectancy of a chinese male is so much higher than ours, without putting any perspective on the issue like how the average chinese male doesn't go out and bungee jump or race atv's in their spare time (I still have an impression of that tree branch in my thigh).
And yes minimum wage is less than $6.00 an hour, but guess what, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY OFF MINIMUM WAGE!!! It's designed to ensure that people just entering the workplace for the first time (i.e. high school students) don't get dry raped on payday. If you are over 20 (some people are fortunate enough to be in circumstances allowing them to concentrate on school rather than a job) and you are still on minimum wage you should be sterilized and not allowed to breed. The standard of living for american citizens living below the poverty line is still higher than most of europe's middle class.
And no that wasn't an act of charity on my part, he required money, I required a service. Charity is when I stop to help someone change a tire. Charity is abused and wasted on people who are victims of their own poor judgement, rather than people who actually need it like the children of fallen soldiers.
As for the original intent of this thread, I have listened to Air America (also the name of a CIA operation to airlift food and weapons to , i think it was cambodia, prior to the vietnam war) several times and have found it to be overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic. I referenced some of it's "talent" (using the term loosely) in another thread b4 i found this one. Randy Rhodes (sp?) has got to be the worst, yet they all have the worst view of any topic they discuss, but the most irritating thing is the fact that they unleash strings of accusations and support them only with more accusations. As opposed to "the other " talk radio, Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, etc., who tend to be overwhelmingly optimistic and, while Hannity and Savage do sometimes go into opinion driven tirades, always back up every argument with an overwhelming amount of facts and research. It is frustrating how many ppl take Al Franken at his word just because he tricked somone into a job behind a mic. Remember the Monty Python skit about "All Scotsmen Are Aliens"? A professor or researcher of some sort states to someone that all scotsmen are aliens, the second person doesn't understand what they mean. So the professor turns on a TV which states "ALL SCOTSMEN ARE ALIENS", and the second person says "OH! now I see!". If it's on TV or radio or the internet ppl think it must be true without question. Please listen to both sets of talk radio before responding to this, and i mean REALLY listen, several times over the matter of a few weeks, (you know, don't knock it til you tried it), I love it when my friends go off on rush limbaugh, yet have never even heard him. Although Air America can be hard to find as they are hurting for sponsorship, even here in Atlanta, lib central of the south.
In fact not too long ago the plug was pulled on some of their studios mid-broadcast because they couldn't pay their bills.
And yes minimum wage is less than $6.00 an hour, but guess what, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT A FAMILY OFF MINIMUM WAGE!!! It's designed to ensure that people just entering the workplace for the first time (i.e. high school students) don't get dry raped on payday. If you are over 20 (some people are fortunate enough to be in circumstances allowing them to concentrate on school rather than a job) and you are still on minimum wage you should be sterilized and not allowed to breed. The standard of living for american citizens living below the poverty line is still higher than most of europe's middle class.
And no that wasn't an act of charity on my part, he required money, I required a service. Charity is when I stop to help someone change a tire. Charity is abused and wasted on people who are victims of their own poor judgement, rather than people who actually need it like the children of fallen soldiers.
As for the original intent of this thread, I have listened to Air America (also the name of a CIA operation to airlift food and weapons to , i think it was cambodia, prior to the vietnam war) several times and have found it to be overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic. I referenced some of it's "talent" (using the term loosely) in another thread b4 i found this one. Randy Rhodes (sp?) has got to be the worst, yet they all have the worst view of any topic they discuss, but the most irritating thing is the fact that they unleash strings of accusations and support them only with more accusations. As opposed to "the other " talk radio, Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, etc., who tend to be overwhelmingly optimistic and, while Hannity and Savage do sometimes go into opinion driven tirades, always back up every argument with an overwhelming amount of facts and research. It is frustrating how many ppl take Al Franken at his word just because he tricked somone into a job behind a mic. Remember the Monty Python skit about "All Scotsmen Are Aliens"? A professor or researcher of some sort states to someone that all scotsmen are aliens, the second person doesn't understand what they mean. So the professor turns on a TV which states "ALL SCOTSMEN ARE ALIENS", and the second person says "OH! now I see!". If it's on TV or radio or the internet ppl think it must be true without question. Please listen to both sets of talk radio before responding to this, and i mean REALLY listen, several times over the matter of a few weeks, (you know, don't knock it til you tried it), I love it when my friends go off on rush limbaugh, yet have never even heard him. Although Air America can be hard to find as they are hurting for sponsorship, even here in Atlanta, lib central of the south.
In fact not too long ago the plug was pulled on some of their studios mid-broadcast because they couldn't pay their bills.
It's not free, nothing is free in life. Society as a whole are absorbing those costs, and with a progressive tax scheme, those earning the most are subsidizing the majority of it. This offends my sense of fairness. If you work hard and do well and raise yourself above your humble beginnings, you are forced to pay the way for those that cannot or will not make the effort.skratch-x wrote:
The US has a generous amount of tax on income etc. What do we get back for it? I'm not really too sure... Take a look at Holland, or Belgium, or most Scandinavian countries. There, you pay higher taxes. But when you need to go to the doctor, it's free. When you go to university, it's just about free as well. Have some extra money? You can go to a doctor privately and get faster care (you're not forced to be queued in social medicare if you're financially able to see a doctor privately). As far as taxes increasing with how much money you make? It's called a progressive tax. And we haven't been doing it too well:
Oh yes. Because those who can't get a job that pays more than minimum wage don't deserve medical care. Totally.
There are a myriad of reason why someone can't get a job, Chief among them is that they won't. Many Americans won't work because they don't have to. Not all, but a decent number. Why should society be forced to bear the burden of some lazy malcontents who won't get off their ass and start working.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh yes. Because those who can't get a job that pays more than minimum wage don't deserve medical care. Totally.
Those who have cannot get a job because of bonafide medical/mental issues should be given the assistance they need. As a country we could help them more if those who are able would get a damn job, any job.