EPTBash your own country - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Smurg
Australia3818 Posts
| ||
|
AirMouse
Canada106 Posts
| ||
|
softer
Norway104 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
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%. If your earning over 60,000 a year... We have a sliding scale you know. I think we could make some improvements on our treatment of the environment. Australia is such a nice place tho  Oh and wogs do suck ass. Lebs too, or are they wogs? | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
 | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
| ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
On February 02 2005 14:51 Muhweli wrote: I don't have anything bad to say about finland so i'll do USA instead: USA is a damn warmongering promised land of extra fat people with no intelligence whatsoever, but a very distorbed picture about their place as the world leaders. Ill bash Finland for you. They banned Donald Duck for nudism LLOLOL | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
On February 02 2005 15:21 JazZ[AutO] wrote: George Bush Debt People who think our Country is the best in the world 51% of the country Anyone who lives in the south except for Florida, and especially Texas and the Bible Belt Most Republicans Foreign Policy George Bush George Bush's Cabinet Drinking Age Constant Wars Politicians illegal immigrants White Trash Nascar MTV American Made Cars Fat People (Despite what people say they are not even close to a majority) The huge ammount of people who are very well off and won't share the wealth with the less fortunate Pop music I wish everyone would stop bashing the United States, just because of how a certain someone runs the government does not mean everyone agrees with it. All hate leads to is war and that is just useless killing. hmm well amen. | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
On February 02 2005 15:35 Smorrie wrote: Yeah, we're having crappy politicians, extremist muslims and too many turks.. I have to disagree on the laws & rules thing tho.. Compared to other countries I think it's pretty good to live here... having good school support and shit >.< And what's wrong with the TV? ;P Goede tijden slechte tijden is one of the most viewed shows for 10 years now? Do i need to say more about our tv lol? Laws and rules suck when im talking about, environment rules, laws on expanding your house, high taxes are ok but they charge texas on insane things like, if your father dies when you inherit his money you must pay tax over that? Thats just ridicoulous. | ||
|
LazySCV
United States2942 Posts
| ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
Their princess is a heroine whore  | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
Ironmentality are you aware communism is something different than socialism? | ||
|
AsHRaK
Poland250 Posts
| ||
|
FBS1
United Kingdom875 Posts
Sporting facilities. Shitty broadband. Shit weather. Channel 5. The cost of driving. Shitty police force. Overpaid train drivers. 30 grand they get. Total bollox public transport. _Very_ unfriendly staff. Unreliable buses and trains. Expensive. | ||
|
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
On February 02 2005 15:07 Famouzze wrote: aren't those the people who owned your country in the first place, and you white ppl stole it from them? The didn't own shit they just occupied it. Is it too much to ask to not commit crimes learn proper english and at least once in a while...bathe? | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13295 Posts
On February 03 2005 07:16 Energies wrote: The didn't own shit they just occupied it. Is it too much to ask to not commit crimes learn proper english and at least once in a while...bathe? The High Court actually ruled the notion of Terran Nullis void, and that Aboriginal Native Title does exist. I suppose one could say the Aboriginals do have a good claim to Australia, but we (the evil white rulers) refuse to give it back. The whole situation is a joke. Our judges and legal system are way too soft. Lenient sentences for criminals and left wing hippy judges are ruining us! | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On February 03 2005 01:19 IronMentality wrote: Hrm. When Germany is marching in Downtown Paris, and England is down to it's last $2 Billion Dollars, and FDR starts the Lend-Lease Act to help them out, I'd say the U.S. fighting off Imperialist Japan and Germany is infact, freeing Europe from fascism. As is the Marshall Plan. When Communist parties are getting large percentages of elections and Europe lays in poverty, we simply built Europe. There is no arguing that. The United States outspending the Soviet Union on defense weaponry led to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. The U.S.S.R. spent 50% of it's GDP on Nuclear Weapons and its military funding. However, there economy was no where close to our size after it boomed in the 1950s, 60s under JFK, early to mid 70s under Nixon, and the greatest expansionist years (1982-1989) of U.S. economic history, the Reagan years. As far as Reagan's fiscal conservatism. He left a $550M surplus as a two term governor of California. And just in case anyone forgot, the Democrats controlled Congress from the Great Depression up until 1994 when the Republicans finally won a majority under Bill Clinton's Democratic presidency in both the House and Senate. The Republican Congress would go on to shutdown HillaryCare, or the nationalization of 1/7th of the U.S. economy (Health Care obviously), keep tax rates low, CUT spending, and bring about the budget surpluses of the 1990s. To suggest the U.S. had nothing to do with freeing Europe from communism is ridiculous. Please, how many people would still be living in poverty in Eastern Europe today if the U.S. did not challenge the Soviet Union. Hell, if we did nothing, they'd have an oil monopoly in the Middle East at the present moment. As far as the economy, it's been growing I think on average of around 4% since a few quarters after 9/11. That's unbelievable growth, period. 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. | ||
|
SeBASTa
China1147 Posts
-its corrupted bureaucracy(most serious in central and west china) -in some metropolitans,there're lots of arrogant people who think they are leading a perfect life style..... -CCP want to attack Taiwan by force -I guess CCP will deprive HongKong of its autonomy 40 years later...... | ||
|
Aqeloutro
Spain614 Posts
 | ||
|
Izenra
Canada679 Posts
Each year, the government takes a part of my dad salary ( they take everyone salary), which is 52 % for him. | ||
| ||
