|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 03:52 TanGeng wrote: public healthcare socialism happened over 40 years ago under Johnson's Great Society. The new bill is not a huge revolutionary change. The important features are the individual mandate, the IRS non-qualifying insurance surcharge, pre-existing condition coverage, state healthcare exchanges, and Medicare Advantage cuts. The federal government has a success rate of 40% for these five social programs. Schools suck, water is fine, national parks are underfunded and neglected now, roads are good, and Medicare is a looming fiscal disaster. 2 out of 5 ain't bad. Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. Wow, Kwark is actually promoting the idea of unrestrained democracy. There is already plenty of literature why it's a terrible idea, but I guess America is already in that hell. Supposed to be a "republic if you can keep it" but alas that isn't the case.
I think the point of the image was to emphasize how socialism-phobic America is and how big of a role small soundbites play in how the masses respond. It's just ridiculous.
And in terms of democracy, you can call democracy the "tyranny of the majority", but it's only a tyranny of the majority if the minority is completely shut out from the political process. Unfortunately there's no system where that's a case. And in a true democracy, there wouldn't be a tyranny of the majority, it would rather be the rule of the plurality. The only reason we consider it the rule of the majority in America is because of the two party system, which is obviously a stupid idea.
|
On March 24 2010 03:17 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:47 Undisputed- wrote:On March 23 2010 17:02 Zoler wrote:
USA is standing on it's knees economically and still the people in America keep going on like before:
"Don't take my money, I shouldn't have to contribute!"
You all do realize how childish of a mindset that is?
Also people who think USA has one of the best healthcare systems need to wake up. Do you realize how childish it is to believe everything is about me and how I need free stuff so other people should pay for it, because woe is me, I can't possibly make it without being totally reliant on the government to take care of me. There are already too many hand outs in this country already. Enough is enough. Some people actually believe in the power of the individual. The way this was passed was un-American. A government take over of Healthcare while flipping states with the cost as well as a take over of student loans which might lead to students falling prey to paying for this monster of a bill. The majority of Americans opposed this healthcare plan. http://www.rasmussenreports.comBut many democrats decided to commit political martyrdom for the liberal cause anyway. Because obviously they are the elite few who know what's best for everyone. Have you seen the people at the tea party things? Or heard Sarah Palin commenting on Fruit Flies....or the Intelligent design crowd....or any number of conservative ideas rolling around right now? Those people do need someone to do whats best for them. Sure it sounds bad, but if someone has to decide they will take losing an election to do whats best for the country as they see it so be it. The right wing religious nuts dont deserve a voice atm. Enlightened despotism ftw.
sounds like hitler
godwin's law ftw
|
On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there!
That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare.
People are saying that it's like a bunch of independent states all asserting their own sovereignty? And it's nothing like how the US federal government holds its sword over the states? Hmmm. What a radically dangerous idea.
|
On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare.
and yet at the same time you insist that all of Europe is under one Union.
go figure.
|
On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day  ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained.
What the hell are you TALKING about?
England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right.
And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it.
Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p
|
United States43187 Posts
On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point.
From the definition of democracy that you linked
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
From the definition of representative democracy that you linked
Definition: a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives
You seem to have made my point instead of making your own. A rather basic mistake. You could just admit you're wrong at this point but I doubt you could save face.
Edit: Also I said American education about the revolution was tainted by the need to create a foundation myth, not that American education is innately bad or that all Americans are stupid. While that is a stereotype you seek to embody it is not one I believe in.
|
On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:
Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd.
Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point.
Kwark is right, when I say, or anyone says, "Democracy", especially with regards to nation politics, a representative democracy is assumed. Seeing as direct democracy does not exist on a large scale anywhere in the world, this must be the case.
|
On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare.
Yes and you're absolutely correct. I like Sweden, I like Sweden for Sweden. Sweden is not America. I like America.
|
On March 24 2010 05:24 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare. Yes and you're absolutely correct. I like Sweden, I like Sweden for Sweden. Sweden is not America. I like America.
what of the rest of it, sir kwark? educate me on the founders and what they intended! i gladly concede that the dictionary does not reinforce my point about the two words.
e: yeah that god damn dictionary says that, i guess i'm the minority on this one. oh well. im cool with thinking democracy means 'government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly' and representative democracy means 'a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives'.
|
On March 24 2010 05:19 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare. People are saying that it's like a bunch of independent states all asserting their own sovereignty, with each their own racial identity, language, government, lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, and healthcare. It's nothing like the US federal government holds its sword over the states since there aren't one government but one for each countrie, in fact it can't even be compared to the states.
Fixed
|
This discussion has gone completely off the tracks.... so I'll contribute to that, in the only way I know how. Here is a series of images that proves why Canada owns you:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://slam.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesS/storm_vcrppv.jpg) While searching for photos of poutine, I found a surprisingly high number of Putin photos. Still, he proves my point:
|
On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p
oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasnt* the turning point.
what i said is more of an opinion, can't really prove it theres causality, but some would argue that wasnt a major turning point. im arguing it was.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 01:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 01:08 Mystlord wrote:On March 23 2010 20:56 Jibba wrote:
The statistics are misleading and don't paint an accurate picture, as statistics usually fail to do. Just as the earlier post about America's cancer survival rate being the best, so too are the infant mortality rates misleading. Each country uses different counting methodology, with America's being more rigorous than countries like Canada's. When you adjust for the same methods, there isn't much differentiation between any first world country.
Cost is what's most in need of fixing.
It's rare that I'll so thoroughly agree with Noam Chomsky, but I think he was completely right when he said corporate interests were the original heavy movers behind this healthcare reform. At this point, it's taken a life of its own among the public, but at the beginning it was really big companies who were feeling the pain because of the benefits they had to provide. They weren't dissatisfied with the level of treatment, they were being hurt financially in comparison to Japanese and European companies that had more support from their governments in this area. I'm not sure that this plan has really addressed that, though. I really can't believe that you can dismiss those statistics and leave it at that. Is there some evidence that leads you believe that each country uses clearly different counting methods that cause a +/- 3 variance in infant mortality rates? Yes. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htmThe United States follows the WHO's standard for a live birth, most other countries don't. No healthy babies die out of the womb with a normal birth in a hospital. That just doesn't happen. Premature babies, underdeveloped babies, still births, etc. Those are what infant mortality rates come from and there is a societal problem in the US that causes more premature births per capita to happen, but that's not a product of our hospitals or even necessarily our healthcare. It has to do with younger pregnancies, poor pregnancy conditions, etc. Our wider definition means that doctors must take on high risk cases considered beyond-saving in other countries, and has actually improved medical practice regarding stillbirths, etc. over the past 50 years. That's not really a function of socialized or private healthcare, though. It's a function of other governments skewing their numbers; everyone should be following the WHO standard. And really, if you just go by statistics, you may be excluding some of the best doctors who do the hardest work, and thus have higher mortality rates. I think there was a Scrubs episode about that... Show nested quote +
Breast (female) 88.5%. - Ok that's cool.
Esophagus 15.6% - that's not.
Prostate 99% - That's cool.
Pancreas 5% - That's not.
Just read source data and don't read stuff that tries to build off of the source data.
And why do you have to buy the European cancer statistics? That's just stupid. Can't access that, so I can't make a good comparison =_=.
Anyway, my point is that statistics do hold value, and you can't discredit them, and the US does have a better cancer survival rate :3. It just sucks in other aspects of medical care.
You really need a qualitative study on how it all works. Are mortality rates higher or lower because people with cancer don't get treatment? Is the treatment they get better or worse? What was the patient's health conditions and what other diseases did they have (especially an issue when you're talking about the uninsured- likely impoverished.) We already know that someone with an extreme form of cancer (like pancreatic cancer) or in further stages of development are more likely to seek treatment in the US if they have the means to. If they die, which they're likely to do, should that reflect the same compared to someone receiving an early cancer treatment in another country? It would be much better to look at the rate of finding cancer and how early it happens. That would be more closely linked to how often people have check ups, which is a problem in the US. Then you could say "4/5 men found their prostate cancer within the first 6 months" and then follow up and find out why the 1/5 didn't, or "Of women, ages 35-45, who found breast cancer within stage 1, their treatment rate was X." There's hundreds of other questions like that that don't get answered when you just say "X in 1,000 people with Z cancer die in the US, Y in 1,000 people with Z cancer die in France." As a person totally in favor a public option and further healthcare reform beyond HR 3590, I'm simply urging you to stop using statistics, because they're quite likely to be bullshit. Especially when they're endorsed by a political party. If two politicians meet on a television show and one comes with overgeneralized, 1 line talking point statistics, and the other has detailed, specific spreadsheets, I guarantee you the oversimplified numbers will win in public opinion every time. Just look at Ross Perot and his lovely pie charts.
Since you edited your post and added a response...
I just pulled some statistics to support my point that you can't lump all cancers in one category and label them "cancers". It just doesn't work that way. You need to separate them out and look at them individually, because Prostate cancer has that near 100% survival rate because it's easy to treat and easy to detect. Same deal with breast cancer.
If you read the PDF that went along with my post, the American Cancer Society does attach a long qualitative analysis of exactly what the numbers mean. I do agree with you though that you can't throw out numbers and expect them to mean something, but statistics are a valid way to get your point across if you back them up properly. I'm completely unconvinced that statistics are completely worthless information.
Statistics are heavily misused in a lot of aspects though. Polling is especially bad because the questions themselves often lead to horrible answers.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:27 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:19 TanGeng wrote:On March 24 2010 05:15 Integra wrote:On March 24 2010 05:06 Xenixx wrote:
News for you Euro's and whoever else, the USA is doing arguably better than everyone else in the world. Supapowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
We have never had to apply European style rule on American soil in order to be a part of the group. Helloooooooo riots in Greece. You are all doing so well out there! That's what I keep telling people, Europe is one style, but no they keep insisting on that Europe consists of different countries that has nothing in common, including, language. lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, political views and healthcare. People are saying that it's like a bunch of independent states all asserting their own sovereignty, with each their own racial identity, language, government, lifestyle, culture, infrastructure, tax system, and healthcare. It's nothing like the US federal government holds its sword over the states since there aren't one government but one for each countrie, in fact it can't even be compared to the states. Fixed
One state = one country = government - as it was classically defined and still used in modern political discourse. Hence you have ideas in global diplomacy like satellite states, client states, and quotes from Louis XIV like "I am the State." The "independent" modifier is to distinguish your kind of states from say protectorates who are like client states or vassals to more formidable powers.
I hope that was a learning experience and will help you minimize efforts to add excessive redundancy to my posts.
|
United States43187 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point.
lol
The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall.
Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower
Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower
Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower.
My conclusion, you waste my time.
|
summary of the past 10 pages
Left-leaning americans: fuck yes we passed a bill that does nothing but give money to corporations that lobbied for it, hurray for us becoming more like europe even though the bill is just an excuse to give lobbyists free money from the american taxpayer and create shittons of economic deadweight loss by also creating a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel for the healthcare industry. Claim that this plan is economically feasible because some politician that doesn't know what a derivative is said so. Make sweeping generalizations of people that oppose the bill and burn the straw men later. Ignore all real economic implications and call this a great success while having your parents pay your taxes and healthcare for you.
Right-leaning americans: fuck no we passed a bill that doesn't resemble socialism at all (try corporatism) but it's like europe so it's socialist and is oppressing us, proceed to use austrian long-winded philosophical arguments over an issue that ultimately doesn't do anything while at the same time pretending to have an understanding of economics that in reality is poppycock. Completely ignore the fact that the plan does help get rid of some of the market failure caused by insurance markets. Make sweeping generalizations of people that support the bill and burn the straw men later. Ignore all actual economic implications and call this a great failure while having your parents pay your taxes and healthcare for you.
Europeans: you right-leaning americans are stupid and don't understand anything because you are stupid americans who learn from stupid american public schools, government is always a good thing and you should accept it that way. Blow the right wingers bullcrap arguments out of the water and proceed to use that as evidence that you are justified in your claims because some idiot is wrong. Ignore all actual economic implications and call this a great success against the lunatics of the right-wing while ignoring all the lunatics of the left-wing. Make sweeping generalizations of all Americans that oppose the bill and burn the straw men later. Proceed to condescend to right-wingers and glorify obama, who is a god among men and the second coming of abraham lincoln. At the same time, your parents are paying your taxes (and, therefore, your healthcare) for you.
People who have a slight idea of what's going on: avoiding this thread like the plague, trolling, avoiding this thread, paying their taxes and healthcare.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
US should have a benign view towards the UK. In the period of colonization, the UK basically dumped money and sent people over to the colonies. Then there was a period of benign neglect where the colonies grew wealthier and wealthier. After independence, the US and the UK resumed mutually beneficial trade on good terms with only one flare up. It was just that period in the middle from 1760 to 1783 and 1812-1815 when the UK and the US were pissed off at each other.
It makes me wonder why the UK ever bothered with the whole taxes and war because nothing good came of it.
GO CALLER!!! There's gotta be a category for morbid curiosity perhaps applicable for yourself.
|
summary of Caller's post
On March 24 2010 05:41 Caller wrote:Make sweeping generalizations of people that oppose the bill and burn the straw men later.
|
On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time.
Nicely done, Kwark
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/76622464.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF87892140FEB0FF7845C57D7DAB39E921ADA11CC3B1B316A0F69882804B3618D4BA3975)
![[image loading]](http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3639/radiotepecchangoen6db.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.g4rewind.com/images/ftw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.glossyinc.com/images/Subaru_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://content-resources.sympatico.ca/content/channels/sports/columnimages/topshelf_sept2_inline.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.alexleduc.com/uploaded_images/united-states-of-canada-796649.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Poutine.JPG/702px-Poutine.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://www.zeblog.com/blog/uploads/r/russie/poutine-torse-nu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://community.brocade.com/home/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-1588-1032/don_cherry_rose.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/funny-pictures-moose-takes-a-photo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/images/Mccoy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-fragle_rock.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.price-club.co.jp/cgi-bin/tkxdoc/goods_img/Canada%20Dry%20Ginger%20Ale%20L.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/hullafet/YIdJZ1NNm1vUMtxDbwo6qzzE4EBx056IZaboa91kkwyqb7xX2kYBy5Y6HwPV/Massive_Kirk.jpg.scaled.500.jpg)
