Bash your own country - Page 10

On February 03 2005 08:29 Izenra wrote:
Hum when it come to taxes, when we buy anything, we get a 15 % taxes.

Each year, the government takes a part of my dad salary ( they take everyone salary), which is 52 % for him.

On February 02 2005 18:19 Eniram wrote:
too much genocide ;(

On February 03 2005 08:58 niklasTHEfro wrote:
high/much imigration (no im not a racist but you can ask anyone in Sweden)
our prime minister is a fat moron, i hate him and his party
taxes are too high


that's about it

On February 03 2005 05:45 Smurg wrote:
Complaining about 15% tax?? I assume you're talking about income tax? Our income tax in Australia is 48.5%.

On February 03 2005 10:09 Tupan wrote:


You living in the 1st world are complaining about taxes so let me tell you something.
I pay about 25% in taxes but:
Public schools sux. If I had kids, I'd have to spend about $500 per month in particular schools for each one.
Public hospital services are horrible. We have to pay an "health services plan" which means particular hospitals and such. About $150 per month.
You got to pay for driving on most Highways. The free ones are car-trashers (full of roles) at most.
An average of $10 spent on every 100 kilometers.

Summarizing: You pay more, but you get much, much more from your government than us.

On February 03 2005 10:35 ComicBookArtist wrote:


What city do you live in?

Oh yeah, I fucking hate Canada's -30 + dregree weather, fuck that, fuck winter.

On February 03 2005 07:35 MoltkeWarding wrote:


FDR's switch from neutrality to non-belligerency (in actuality, undeclared war) was resolved upon long after the fall of Paris and when it became clear that Britain would sustain her will to resist Germany. Neither the Lend-Lease nor the destroyer for bases deal were very significant in the outcome of the war (on the other hand, the sending of millions of American soldiers which you do not mention was). The United States had a large part to play in the "liberation of Europe" but to this date the Soviet invasion of East Germany is called the "liberation of East Germany", not meaning very much. Meaning even less is the ideological category of Fascism, which is inaccurately attributed to every non-leftist dictatorship. Then again, the principle point is that the United States largely relied on the Red army as the principle instrument of winning the war in Europe.

The nonsense about Reagan's arms build-up forcing the Soviet Union into bankrupcy is one of those idiotic nationalistic legends which is only believed incidentally by ideologues. To compare the GNP of the Soviet Union to the United States is disingenious. One might similarly claim that Germany should have bankrupted the USSR into the ground in the 1940s. I understand that people take a liking to kicking the fallen enemy when he's down, but patriotic myths have to yield to more realistic evidence. Neither Reagan nor the CIA foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union even when the event was occuring under their noses. Relatively speaking, the GNP ratios of the USSR and the United States were more favorable to the USSR in 1980 than any time in history:

GNPs in 1950
USA: 381 billion
USSR: 126 billion
in 1980:
USA: 2.6 trillion
USSR: 1.2 trillion

Relative Shares of Gross World Product
1960- USA: 25.9%, USSR: 12.5%
1970- USA: 23.0%, USSR: 12.4%
1980- USA: 21.5%, USSR: 11.4%

Therefore the claim that US economic growth was superior to Soviet growth during the cold war cannot really be substantiated. Furthermore by the 80s the USSR became the world's largest producer of steel, petrol, and other strategic resources traditionally led by the USA.

If we analyse Reagan's speeches and public statements, they reveal nothing about an economic policy designed to force the USSR on the defensive.

Instead, if you were not unduly prejudiced against the USSR, and instead analysed the internal history of the country, it would become evident that the broad corrosion in faith against the state and self-consciousness of party corruption were the principle events which led Gorbachev to declare his glasnost and perestroika policies, largely without external pressures, which led to the massive erosion which the USSR experienced in the later decade.

There seems to be a double standard played here. You say that the democrats controlled congress then, whereas Republicans control congress now and we have yet to see a decrease in spending. It's undeniable that Reagan himself pushed the military budget to unprecedented proportions. It's also undeniable that the double standard played; whereas Reagan gets credit for statistical growth, democrats get censured for deficit spending.

Since you're fond of statistics, I would like to point out that nowhere in Eastern Europe have GNPs radically improved from the 80's. In many cases they are worse off. The greatest aid given to the former Eastern Bloc following the collapse of the USSR was not the United States but the FRG.
How did the United States contribute to the division of Europe?
During the Second World War, Roosevelt (and the American public as a whole) regarded the Soviet Union as the principle ally, often ahead of Britain. There came also the utopian vision that constrained around the international body of the United nations, the Soviet Union would become a cooperate member of the international community and therefore post-war territorial arrangements were placed on a basis of good faith rather than prearranged agreements. (Roosevelt did not understand Stalin nor the Russians, but Churchill did. Hence the infamous percentages agreement in 1944.) This inability to negotiate the limits of Soviet military advance until the very end of the war was a prime factor in the division of Europe into east and west blocs. During the 50s, the Eisenhower administration refused to take seriously Khruschev's efforts at detente, even when the latter voluntarily withdrew from her finnish naval bases and Austria. The problem of the Cold War was never communism and capitalism, the contest of two economic systems. The problem was the military presence of two superpowers in the center of Europe. The Roosevelt and Eisenhower did not understand this, Ronald Reagan did not understand this and I am afraid you do not understand this.

Suffice it to say that its ridiculous to claim that the USSR would have a monopoly on mideastern oil. As early as the 40s she withdrew from Iran, which was the last instance of Soviet military presence in the mid east (as opposed to the United States), apart from various half-hearted attempts to woo the Arab states and Egypt, the only other intrusion of the Soviet Union south of her frontiers was the war in Afghanistan.

On February 03 2005 10:35 ComicBookArtist wrote:


What city do you live in?

Oh yeah, I fucking hate Canada's -30 + dregree weather, fuck that, fuck winter.

On February 03 2005 11:30 imRadu wrote:
0x64 i found the finnish people
http://kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1278&CAT=movies&rtn=main-topten

On February 03 2005 11:16 0x64 wrote:
Finland really suck beeing a small country with small population and a suck ass gene pool.
You get to eat potatoes every meal and people are very distant, and dont know how to drink.
Teenagers are really bad in a country were authority lacks..
Law are really too idealistic, meaning that if you harm someone when you protect yourself you can get sued for it.
Stores lack of diversity in product, and fish and meat choices are really limited.
Cheese is almost inexistent.
The taxes and price of life in general is really high.
Finnish are really racist in deep inside toward africans and muslims. Not the kind of brutal racism, more of the worse uneducated everyday racist attitude.
The winter suck, and with the climate worming its not getting any better, later and later the snow come and the lack of sun is really depressing. The summer is beautifull but the mosquitoes are really annoying and often its all just a freaking rainy rainy summer and you get three day of sun (im exarating, most summer are good but one in a while sucks ass)
Being the neighbour of russia also suck. And being a nordic country also suck. But I think people in finland are the most distant and cold from nordic countries.
The bars still allows to smoke and there is no strong antitabacco will.
People in finland tend to judge personns based on what they do. And also people tend to specialised to what they do in life. The general culture level is really terrible.
Finland will be facing a crisis soon I think because this country is not active enough on big industries. Wood industry might be moving in russia etc.. Nokia is well international and only hiding the lack of economic booster

Most of this is generalized and exagerated, but this is what I call bashing finland. I could write also a praise the country with the opposite of those things, because finland have all the opposite existing also .

On February 03 2005 12:31 Yuljan wrote:
I think they speak dutch or some variant of german.