# America Vs Europe



## Zanzer (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm just curious to see your opion on which is better and why


----------



## makmakmob (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe. I live here.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Mar 1, 2009)

Uh, Europe of course.  They are in better shape compared to America.


----------



## Potato (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe, less crime rates. More interesting cultures.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Mar 1, 2009)

Expect a lot of Europe comments.


----------



## PaulShepherd (Mar 1, 2009)

Of course Europe. They are a colourful continent with lots of cultures. It's an awesome travel destination. But now I miss it after moving here. Even though life is now easier here in Canada, I miss a lot of good stuff from back home in Germany.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

America.

Reason: The decadence and also France smells.


----------



## Seas (Mar 1, 2009)

I like europe more, it is culturally more diverse in my opinion, and has a more interesting history.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

Seastalker said:


> it is culturally more diverse in my opinion



Well yeah....It's a bunch of countries.


----------



## â„¢-Daley Leungsangnam475-â„¢ (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe

'nuff said ^^


----------



## WesternDragon (Mar 1, 2009)

This isnt a fair topic. They are both unique and beautiful in different ways.... too many aspects to take into consideration also.


----------



## WesternDragon (Mar 1, 2009)

I like Australia


----------



## Wreth (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe has a hiigher average quality of life, 'nuff said.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Mar 1, 2009)

Tristan da Cuha (I hope I spelled it right).

It's remote. And I am not taking this question seriously. 

I lived in America all my life, and thus have no right to say which is better.


----------



## south syde dobe (Mar 1, 2009)

Well whats the point of asking a bunch of people that lives in said contries...its kind of bias lol


----------



## Crazy lemming (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe because were special


----------



## pheonix (Mar 1, 2009)

America is really overrated but I've never been out of the country so I have to say America, though I've heard lots of awesome things about Europe.

Also no poll?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Mar 1, 2009)

Canada.


----------



## Darkfire27 (Mar 1, 2009)

The Antarctic


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Mar 1, 2009)

America, reason? At least here I know I'm free, were as Europe is slowly declining into Orwellian terror.


----------



## WesternDragon (Mar 1, 2009)

10/10 for your avatar


----------



## Xipoid (Mar 1, 2009)

God, I love Europe.

God, I love America.

Oh hey, Australia is pretty nice, too.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

Sinister South Paw said:


> as Europe is slowly declining into Orwellian terror.



HEY A THOUGHT POLICE THAT'S FEASIBLE RIGHT GUYS??

GUYS???


COME BACK I HAVE THE NEW DISINFORMATION BOOK!!!


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 1, 2009)

Sinister South Paw said:


> America, reason? At least here I know I'm free, were as Europe is slowly declining into Orwellian terror.



Oh hai, you appear to have jumbled up your nations. :V


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 1, 2009)

Sinister South Paw said:


> America, reason? At least here I know I'm free, were as Europe is slowly declining into Orwellian terror.



Yes, the PATRIOT Act was entirely for your protection, enacted and executed with respect for your personal freedoms. 

Anywhoo, Europe, obviously. Apart from actual history and tradition, it's simply freaking awesome.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe?

I'd prefer France, Germany, Sweden, or Spain.

I wouldn't prefer Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Czech. Republic, Greece, Italy, etc.

However, I'd mostly prefer my own country. It's where all my stuff is 

If only there were less hoodlums around.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 1, 2009)

Poland needs more love, people.


----------



## Ratte (Mar 1, 2009)

Can't really say.  I've never been out of the US.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Poland needs more love, people.



Poland seems like a nice place.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 1, 2009)

We're dirt cheap (so far).


----------



## Panzermanathod (Mar 1, 2009)

America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than
America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than 
America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than 
America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than 
America's better than Europe's better than America's better than Europe's better than...


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 1, 2009)

Hmm, unsure.

Pros
Europe has more and varying cultures, a higher standard of living (in some places) , a more cosmopolitan and liberal culture. Generally don't get in wars. America wouldn't exit without it.

America is more diverse than europe. Most technology comes from here. We are a superpower, or at least a world power, without being imperialist. Modern europe wouldn't exist without it. 

Cons

Europe is the size of the US, with countries the size of our states that all speak another language, here in the US i don't have to lean Ohioan or New yorkese to understand people a few hundred miles away. The High horse factor; "America is imperialist" when america wouldn't be here if not for european imperialism,along with how europeans treated africa and asia(much worse than we treated...anyone really). Imperialism?  Its the pot calling the kettle black.  Europeans were also the stupid f**ks that started both world wars then whine about how americans are warmongers...

Americans generally act (and in many cases are) uneducated about the rest of the world. We tend to be arrogant about our place in the world. The economy is all our fault. We get too involved in other peoples business.  We had bush as a president.(though europeans had hitler...)

i'd still say america though.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 1, 2009)

Hey, don't blame us for the mistakes of our ancestors. We're not them. All that matters is not to repeat them in the present, or make new ones in the present.

Anyway, I can't see how I could answer this question. I've lived in Europe all my life, and haven't ever been to the Americas. Even if I had, I doubt I'd be able to make any informed decission.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 1, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> We are a superpower, or at least a world power, without being imperialist.




HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:


----------



## Sam (Mar 1, 2009)

America. I only say it's uninteresting now, because I've loved here my entire life. 

Though I wouldn't mind going to Germany to get on the Nurburging Nordshelief or however you spell it, I've forgotten. D:


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Mar 1, 2009)

Europe is better culturally, but America will kick All of Europe's Ass (Save Russia) if there ever comes a time that the UN goes out of wack.


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 1, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:


 *sigh* iraq isnt imperialism, we didnt set up a colony(we are pulling out), we had our moments(hawaii, puerto rico, the phillipines) but we werent nearly as bad as "Lets colonize the world and civilize them" europeans. We certainly aren't imperialist now. And the US is a superpower/world power, only an idiot with no understanding of history would deny that part, so im assuming you are laughing about the imperialist part.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 1, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> *sigh* iraq isnt imperialism, we didnt set up a colony(we are pulling out), we had our moments(hawaii, puerto rico, the phillipines) but we werent nearly as bad as "Lets colonize the world and civilize them" europeans. We certainly aren't imperialist now. And the US is a superpower/world power, only an idiot with no understanding of history would deny that part, so im assuming you are laughing about the imperialist part.


 
What I like is the _e-Emperors_, treating geo-political discussions about national favoritism like it's an online game of a Civ2.

"Nu-uh, America will failz0rs cuz liek im gunna get 200 gold from my friend, build carhiot and rush!"


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 2, 2009)

Europe.

Better public transport, better food, interesting cultures and history, and little risk of getting shot at.


----------



## PriestRevan (Mar 2, 2009)

I loved living in Europe, and there's a lot of positives of living there.

I live in America now, and it's not soo bad. 

Both have their positives and negatives.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 2, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> *sigh* iraq isnt imperialism, we didnt set up a colony(we are pulling out), we had our moments(hawaii, puerto rico, the phillipines) but we werent nearly as bad as "Lets colonize the world and civilize them" europeans. We certainly aren't imperialist now. And the US is a superpower/world power, only an idiot with no understanding of history would deny that part, so im assuming you are laughing about the imperialist part.



I consider America imperialist because forces they support willingly go in and support the dismantling of democratically elected egalitarian governments. 

Though it is not exactly America that is imperialist, rather capitalism which is fully supported by the American government.

Anyways, our views of history are probably dissimilar, so let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 2, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> I consider America imperialist because forces they support willingly go in and support the dismantling of democratically elected egalitarian governments.


 
... not always, and Iraq was not democratic.

Countries during the Red Scare were, for a different matter ... so was Iran before the Shah existed; but these were the mistakes of previous administrations who didn't have the experiences of geo-political failures to guide their conscious.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 2, 2009)

Bambi said:


> ... not always, and Iraq was not democratic.
> 
> Countries during the Red Scare were, for a different matter ... so was Iran before the Shah existed; but these were the mistakes of previous administrations who didn't have the experiences of geo-political failures to guide their conscious.



Iraq wasn't egalitarian...

But Afghanistan was.

I don't think installing the Shah was A MISTAKE...Why would that be a mistake? They knew what they were doing.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

You're comparing a single country (unless you mean North or South America, then you need to elaborate) to an entire continent, filled with some of the top countries in the world.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're comparing a single country (unless you mean North or South America, then you need to elaborate) to an entire continent, filled with some of the top countries in the world.



Top countries in the world? In what categories?


----------



## Kangamutt (Mar 2, 2009)

Europe.
Everyone over there seems to give at least 50% less of a fuck over trivial things that would drive people into angry mobs over here.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Mar 2, 2009)

Zanzer said:


> I'm just curious to see your opion on which is better and why



Never been to Europe, so I can't really honestly say... however, I was born in America, so I'm libel to be biased on that count.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 2, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> Iraq wasn't egalitarian...
> 
> But Afghanistan was.
> 
> I don't think installing the Shah was A MISTAKE...Why would that be a mistake? They knew what they were doing.


 
Afghanistan was not Egalitarian.

Unless you're considering when Russia was in power, but even that wasn't equal (not even to those who wanted Shariah law.)

EDIT: Wait, what the hell am I doing? When I get tired and fap deprived, I turn into a mouthy-motherf&*ker. Anywayz ... I'm off! ... but not yet. BUT WILL BE!


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> Top countries in the world? In what categories?



All?

France has the lowest poverty rate, one of the lowest criminal rates, lowest murder rate, and BEST health care in the world.

Netherlands has better internet.

Better car developers, better foods, more healthy people, etc...etc...etc...etc...

Russia is Eurasian so its capital is in Europe but most of its mass is in Asia, so we can even count their space programs, meaning they were the first to put a man in space, first with sputnik, etc...etc..etc...

I guess the US got on the moon first.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 2, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Afghanistan was not Egalitarian.
> 
> Unless you're considering when Russia was in power, but even that wasn't equal (not even to those who wanted Shariah law.)



I'm talking about back then yeah. Well...I don't know I should have said left-leaning I guess...



NewfDraggie said:


> Netherlands has better internet.



What does this mean?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

It's faster?

Internet speed is compared between countries, Japan is number one and South Korea is second, USA is like, #15.

Edit: This sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 2, 2009)

That's kind of a nifty chart, where did you get it?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

I can't remember, actually. But I do know a few of the stats are correct, but not all because I didn't look them all up to see where the US slotted into first.


----------



## nekokittenpurrs (Mar 2, 2009)

I'm going to quickly interject my point and that being: If I'm going to make a comparison, between any country and America, im assuming that this comparison is on.. Greatness?

Well I think its far from fair for anyone to be waving the big foam Were number one thumb just yet for the states considering that if we look at the polls  for the world, the more significant ones concerning more important values.
America ranks in:

Infant mortality rate : 48th
Over all health : 72nd
Literacy: 55th

America clearly isnt the Freeest country in the world, Holland is.
France is oil independant from the middle east, and has the best health care and lowest crime rates in the world. Europe so far, is out doing america in its civil liberties and social reform.

And america is so horribly indebt, to MANY countries ,includeing those in europe.

As bill Maher said, were not crossing abridge into the 21st century, were on a bus with a roll of quaters to atlantic city.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

Don't forget China, the USA is horribly in debt to China, a 3rd world country.

And by horribly, I mean at any time if China wanted their money back and decided to sell off their stock in the USD, flooding the market with their USD's, the dollar value will drop to pennies.


----------



## nekokittenpurrs (Mar 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Don't forget China, the USA is horribly in debt to China, a 3rd world country.



dont forget Mexico. We owe them money too!


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 2, 2009)

You're location is still Newfoundland, and you'll never be an actual American. Say they. THEY GOD DAMNIT! o..o


----------



## nekokittenpurrs (Mar 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're location is still Newfoundland, and you'll never be an actual American. Say they. THEY GOD DAMNIT! o..o





never, resistance is futile, i will be assimulated.

I Get burgars at mcdonalds for a dollar!!! take that!!


----------



## Phil_R (Mar 2, 2009)

Having been to the British Isles, Italy, and Spain;  I have come to the conclusion that Europe pretty much kicks ass.  Everything from the archetecture to the food is just awesomeness.


----------



## Jelly (Mar 2, 2009)

Having been a tourist all my life.
I have decided that all of these places are great in moderation.
But I don't know what its like to really live anywhere. So, I'm open to either/or. I'm sure I'll end up hating it in the end though.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 2, 2009)

Bambi said:


> ... not always, and Iraq was not democratic.



Not after the United States installed Saddam, after toppling a democratically elected government.

PS: Europe invented the Interwebs (WWW).


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> PS: Europe invented the Interwebs (WWW).


Technically true, the inventor of the world wide web was english, but the US invented the internet(the tubes you use),  as well as the computers that  run it, the operating systems that people use (except linux perhaps) and many of the programs. The digital computer was invented in the United States(Atanasoff-Barry computer) and manual computers in Germany(Zuze Z3) in 1941.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_was_the_computer_invented 
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000984.htm
The INTERNET was invented by The United States  it was a project by the US army Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) for communications by computers in the event of a nuclear attack by the soviet union.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Internet
http://www.tech-faq.com/who-invented-internet.shtml

among many american inventions


----------



## Bambi (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Not after the United States installed Saddam, after toppling a democratically elected government.
> 
> PS: Europe invented the Interwebs (WWW).


 
The United States installed Saddam? Really?

In 1968, Pan-arab nationalism elected the Ba'athist regime to power; we may have had economic and military dealings with him afterward, but the Ba'athist regime was not our idea. Abdul Salam Arif ring any bells, and what about Qassim?

You wouldn't happen to have any links handy that discredit this, do you?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 2, 2009)

> France is oil independant from the middle east, and has the best health care and lowest crime rates in the world. Europe so far, is out doing america in its civil liberties and social reform.



WESTERN europe is better off. if you count the whole european union(which is essentially required to make a "european us" you get a more balanced picture. just like america there are places that are well developed and then there are those that are less so, sometimes because of situations beyond their control, sometimes because their culture helps hold them back.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 2, 2009)

Bambi said:


> The United States installed Saddam? Really?
> 
> In 1968, Pan-arab nationalism elected the Ba'athist regime to power; we may have had economic and military dealings with him afterward, but the Ba'athist regime was not our idea. Abdul Salam Arif ring any bells, and what about Qassim?
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have any links handy that discredit this, do you?



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

A gross oversimplification on my part, I admit, but still, US meddled far too much in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

Even if the threat of communism was looking on the horizon.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 2, 2009)

Crazy lemming said:


> Europe because were special



I guess that is one way to put it.


<_<  >_>


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 2, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> Technically true, the inventor of the world wide web was english, but the US invented the internet(the tubes you use),  as well as the computers that  run it, the operating systems that people use (except linux perhaps) and many of the programs. The digital computer was invented in the United States(Atanasoff-Barry computer) and manual computers in Germany(Zuze Z3) in 1941.
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_was_the_computer_invented
> http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000984.htm
> The INTERNET was invented by The United States  it was a project by the US army Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) for communications by computers in the event of a nuclear attack by the soviet union.
> ...





Plus, we have Bill Gates







and Obama.


----------



## Jelly (Mar 2, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> Plus, we have Bill Gates
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is that good?
We have a nerdy corporate gazillionaire.
And a black politician.

Whoop-fucking-ee.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 2, 2009)

While Iceland has a lesbian prime minister.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 2, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> How is that good?
> We have a nerdy corporate gazillionaire.
> And a black politician.
> 
> Whoop-fucking-ee.




Do you use any Microsoft products?  Your OS probably is, as is your browser.  You play Xbox 360?  You can thank Bill Gates.


As for Obama, black man+president=really big thing in the US, expecially with the number of racist bastards we still have here.




Oh, and btw, I got to meet both of them, Gates at Microsoft a few years ago, and Obama in Boise when he was here campaigning.  Got to shake hands with both of them.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> While Iceland has a lesbian prime minister.



;    Sounds cool


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> Plus, we have Bill Gates
> and Obama.



Dont forget steve jobs...



Tycho Rass said:


> Do you use any Microsoft products? Your OS probably is, as is your browser. You play Xbox 360? You can thank Bill Gates.


I use a mac for the most part lol, but that was made in cupertino california aka the US too. Only OS that wasn't made in america was linux kernel(Linus Torvalds is a Swede). I use Safari (apple) and firefox, both US too. Europe makes no gaming consiles thoguh, they are all US or japan.




Tycho Rass said:


> As for Obama, black man+president=really big thing in the US, expecially with the number of racist bastards we still have here.


Yeah, tis funny how the europeans call us americans racist...where is your half black president? WHERE?!? mwahahaha! but seriously, tis a big deal over here with our history(we did fight a big war over it ya know)


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 2, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> Yeah, tis funny how the europeans call us americans racist...where is your half black president? WHERE?!? mwahahaha! but seriously, tis a big deal over here with our history(we did fight a big war over it ya know)



It wasn't about slavery.


----------



## Tatsuyoujo (Mar 2, 2009)

WesternDragon said:


> This isnt a fair topic. They are both unique and beautiful in different ways.... too many aspects to take into consideration also.



I agree.


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Mar 2, 2009)

well I can say, I really wish to move away, Luxembourg is dying out, we have like 87% of the population are strangers, mostly Portugese (oh gawd how I fucking hate them ._.) and chinese, the rest are cars
and it's overrun by wiggers

the biggest problem I see are the different languages, fuck, barely no one is speaking luxembourgish, they only speak portugese and french (which is even our official language...)
you won't see ANY luxembourgish lessons here, but tons of portugese/XXX ones, they don't even teach at school, but kindergarden is teaching portugese, that's no joke! WTF
srsly why don't we change the land to Little Portugal?
were really dying out...

/rant off

but it's still better than Amurrica
yes I was there and it was awesome, but I got really paranoid


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> It wasn't about slavery.



 the american civil war? technically it was fought because the southern states seceded, but that was mostly because the north wanted to abolish slavery. slavery wasn't the only reason we fought the civil war, but it was one of the main causes of that war, others being economic differences, the election of lincoln(who opposed slavery). But slavery was one of the big reasons we fought.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_causes_of_the_US_Civil_War


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Mar 2, 2009)

No Mars? I'm ashamed!


----------



## coolkidex (Mar 2, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Uh, Europe of course. They are in better shape compared to America.


 But who still has the stronger army? America.
Who can waltz right into europe and take over them like clock work? America.

It all comes down to who has the stronger army. And that, my dear europians, we do.


----------



## coolkidex (Mar 2, 2009)

DJ-Fragon said:


> No Mars? I'm ashamed!


 Silly canadian, your in canada! Not mars.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Mar 2, 2009)

coolkidex said:


> Silly canadian, your in canada! Not mars.



They're both cold. Close enough!


----------



## Darkfire27 (Mar 2, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> How is that good?
> We have a nerdy corporate gazillionaire.
> And a black politician.
> 
> Whoop-fucking-ee.



It is a very good question why it matters to the rest of the world. Does anyone remember all the foreign fervor over his election? From what I hear the British press in particular was on his bandwagon. Just always thought that was interesting, that our presidential election matters so much to the whole world for some reason.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Mar 2, 2009)

America. At least I won't die in WWIII _*BECAUSE IT'S IN EUROPE.*_


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> It wasn't about slavery.




Well, not exclusively about slavery, it was about the South trying to leave the Union, and thus break apart the country.  It was also to some about the equal rights of every man, woman, and child; no matter their color.

Also, we just like to bomb the shit out of everything.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 2, 2009)

It wasn't about slavery, it was about the money and weakening the south. Abe and the rest of the Union wouldn't care about slaves, if it didn't benefit their agenda.


----------



## Midi Bear (Mar 2, 2009)

*On topic*
I prefer America in that it's a much better place to live in a day-to-day sense. However, Europe is better in the way of crime rates, health service, not having a stupid government etc. Though I guess America's government isn't as terrible now that we have someone intelligent in office. So yeah, America for living - Europe for the better political crapola (plus, weed is legal in Amsterdam. That's an automatic win for Europe).


----------



## eternal_flare (Mar 2, 2009)

The damn topic said amurrica and Europe, so other places are invalid. :3

Meh, actually anywhere with the one I like is the best.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 2, 2009)

> It wasn't about slavery, it was about the money and weakening the south. Abe and the rest of the Union wouldn't care about slaves, if it didn't benefit their agenda.



and some people say i am brainwashed..... slavery OR money wasn't even the agenda when the south seceded. the north refused to accept any validity of the secession and as such the war broke out. 

the south tried to separate not just because of slavery but because the north's policies on a great deal of things was really different and the south felt that it was being bullied around by the north, something that is actually partially true.... the fact that lincoln didnt receive a single electoral from the south was the final straw for many and it caused the chain reaction.

was gonna go on a little rant about the european part of this discussion but i gotta go to bed.....


----------



## Nargle (Mar 2, 2009)

pheonix said:


> America is really overrated but I've never been out of the country



Lulz logic?

Oh yeah, and I've never left the US either, so I don't have much of an opinion. Though, Texas is pretty crappy compared to the other states I've lived in. I'll vote Colorado as my favorite so far out of the 10 or so states I've lived in.


----------



## Surgat (Mar 2, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> It wasn't about slavery, it was about the money and weakening the south. Abe and the rest of the Union wouldn't care about slaves, if it didn't benefit their agenda.



Yes it _was_ about slavery and closely related issues. The South's own leader's statements confirm this (see below), plus people crossed territory lines to vote to permit slavery in new states (some of these campaigns even turned violent, as in Kansas). Opposition to slavery, and the promotion of equality for blacks was a threat to the interests of wealthy Southern aristocrats. 

And yes, to some extent the North did care about slaves (although, to Lincoln it wasn't a top priority); that's why people there opposed Fugitive Slave laws, and rioted when people tried to take escaped slaves back sometimes in major cities.  

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76 


			
				Alexander H. Stephens said:
			
		

> But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other â€”though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutionâ€”African slavery as it exists amongst usâ€”the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
> 
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaveryâ€”subordination to the superior raceâ€”is his natural and normal condition.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The denial of the role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War, as well as related defenses of the South (i.e. trying to make slavery seem less bad, blaming racism on reconstruction) is on par with Holocaust denial in multiple ways.  



ceacar99 said:


> and some people say i am brainwashed..... slavery OR money wasn't even the agenda when the south seceded. the north refused to accept any validity of the secession and as such the war broke out.



They were right not to, because it's unconstitutional. States can't enter into their own treaties (Art. 1 Sec. 10).  

Nevertheless, they were willing to negotiate before the *South attacked* Fort Sumter. The South might have gotten away with it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 3, 2009)

coolkidex said:


> But who still has the stronger army? America.
> Who can waltz right into europe and take over them like clock work? America.
> 
> It all comes down to who has the stronger army. And that, my dear europians, we do.



Ah, another US military dick-waver comes out of the woodwork, right on cue.


----------



## Nargle (Mar 3, 2009)

coolkidex said:


> But who still has the stronger army? America.
> Who can waltz right into europe and take over them like clock work? America.
> 
> It all comes down to who has the stronger army. And that, my dear europians, we do.



Does that mean China's the best country in the world? I've heard they could flatten us if they pleased.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Does that mean China's the best country in the world? I've heard they could flatten us if they pleased.



Apparently the applicable strategy is called "Infiltration by Small Groups of One to Two Million Across the Border"


----------



## Alabaster_Drazziken (Mar 3, 2009)

Despise both of them. Both of them should nuke eachother to hell.

Move to Mexico, best place on planet.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 3, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnhKcCwZwl8

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZkllM8znx4


...America wins.


----------



## AlexInsane (Mar 3, 2009)

Anywhere is better than America.

Even places like Africa where they're all starving and have AIDS.


----------



## Nargle (Mar 3, 2009)

Alabaster_Drazziken said:


> Despise both of them. Both of them should nuke eachother to hell.
> 
> Move to Mexico, best place on planet.



Oh wait...

Isn't Mexico part of the Americas...?


----------



## Alabaster_Drazziken (Mar 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Oh wait...
> 
> Isn't Mexico part of the Americas...?


 
Technically yes.

But they are referring to the USA.


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 3, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Ah, another US military dick-waver comes out of the woodwork, right on cue.



I'm an American, but seeing this literally made me fall out my chair laughing.


George Carlin FTW!!!!


----------



## Toto (Mar 3, 2009)

Europe for me, mostly my own nation. No wars fought since 1814 makes for a realy calm nation.


----------



## Henk86 (Mar 3, 2009)

Europe has a rich and recorded history going back for a thousand years or so. It is made up of cultures that stretch back to the beginings of it's recorded history. Europe is better. The United States in the grand scheme of things has existed only for five minutes and only exists because of europe. However I will admit that America as a whole (North, Central and South) has some impressive natural features like Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley and the Brazilian Rainforest.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Mar 3, 2009)

Toto said:


> Europe for me, mostly my own nation. No wars fought since 1814 makes for a realy calm nation.



We'll pay you back for the 17th century, bastards! ;]


----------



## Tycho Rass (Mar 3, 2009)

I love Europeans that say they hate the US, and always have.

I guess us saving your ass in WWII doesn't could.


*Frenchman* F#$@ YOU AMERICANS, MAY YOU BUR....WAIT, THE GERMANS ARE COMING; I LOVE YOU AMERICAN!!!!!!!


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 3, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> I love Europeans that say they hate the US, and always have.
> 
> I guess us saving your ass in WWII doesn't could.
> 
> ...



Over in America they spoonfeed you that crap of course, not mentioning that Russia actually got to Berlin first, and basically made it so America could just dance right into Germany.

Better beg the Russians for forgiveness, fool.


----------



## Infexis (Mar 3, 2009)

Europe. Europa Ã¤r ju helt bÃ¤st ^.^


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 3, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> I love Europeans that say they hate the US, and always have.
> 
> I guess us saving your ass in WWII doesn't could.
> 
> ...



Actually America (though was in WWII since 1941) didn't play a major role in the war, and the largest part they played was less than two years near the end; they did little bombing runs of important targets and didn't really do anything.... Russia did the most.


----------



## nekokittenpurrs (Mar 3, 2009)

Then comparing America to europe as a whole is a terrible unbalanced idea. America is one country with one federal government. Euro is a continent, with multiple countries. So when makeing a comparision its probally best to ask Which country first : O 





ceacar99 said:


> WESTERN europe is better off. if you count the whole european union(which is essentially required to make a "european us" you get a more balanced picture. just like america there are places that are well developed and then there are those that are less so, sometimes because of situations beyond their control, sometimes because their culture helps hold them back.


----------



## nekokittenpurrs (Mar 3, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> I love Europeans that say they hate the US, and always have.
> 
> I guess us saving your ass in WWII doesn't could.
> 
> ...




America didnt need to " save" France, its only reason for involvement in the war was because the country allowed itself to be attacked, if not provoked it, so defence contractors and banking cartels could make a prohit on a large scale. 

Also, its really unnescary to hold the french in low regard just because they dislike us and didnt hop on to our brilliantly conceived and perfectly exicuted war in iraq. We helped them because we were trying to get rid of the nazi regien, and they just so happened to be occupied by them. They dont need to fight with us in iraq because it has nothing to do with them.

And trust me, some of their reasons for hateing us, and entirely legitimate.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 3, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Over in America they spoonfeed you that crap of course, not mentioning that Russia actually got to Berlin first, and basically made it so America could just dance right into Germany.
> 
> Better beg the Russians for forgiveness, fool.





> Actually America (though was in WWII since 1941) didn't play a major role in the war, and the largest part they played was less than two years near the end; they did little bombing runs of important targets and didn't really do anything.... Russia did the most.



made it to berlin first on the backs of american lend lease trucks fed by tins of american spam..... russia suffered more then ANYONE in the war, and they contributed more then anyone, however they simply could not have won without american material assistance. they were able to focus on rifles, bullets, and the t-34 tank because american material rushed into the country and allowed them to do so.

soldiers in 1941 and 1942 describe nothing but hunger and desperation for even the most basic equipment. they looted their own dead durring the night after a battle just to have the basic rifles or bullets to fight the next day. they had no food because most of the good farmland was already in german hands(and the farmland was not that productive anyway, one of the russian soldiers main tasks before the war was to help in the farms), they had no trucks to maneuver just like they did in 1939 and they even lacked manpower(despite popular belief), russia came up short on EVERYTHING. their factories wouldnt even function and produce bullets to fight with for a long ass time at that point. the trickle of american material assitence became a flood and it helped transform the war. entire air groups in russia were american planes, hundreds of thousands of trucks drove them everywhere and it was american food that sat in their bellies. they even relied on american tanks to a limited degree in the first three years of the war. 

simply put, without american material flooding into the country russia would not have been able to overcome the political bias in the military(in the russian army politics mattered more then actual competence or knowledge and their strategies as well as tactics were like something out of a comic book) and eventually win the war. the defenders of stalingrad(the last real stand, without which hope would have been lost) simply wouldnt even have had food or bullets had the american industry not intervened. 

however the expenditure of russia in the war cannot be understated. for them it was a war of utter extermination. other then the lives lost the cost of the war was essentially one third of the total worth of the entire soviet union. the war was so terrible for them that people were still dieing of starvation and exposure for years afterwords. the lives themselves.... well its best described by this simple fact. three russian generations were conscripted, and killed. the russian army was raised from nothing and destroyed three times over before they won the war. the LOWEST "acurate" figure of military losses is about 8 million, it could be as high as 14-15.....



> America didnt need to " save" France, its only reason for involvement in the war was because the country allowed itself to be attacked, if not provoked it, so defence contractors and banking cartels could make a prohit on a large scale.



type the word "open door policy china" in google. you'll get a completely different picture. american tensions with japan developed out of the fact that japan was eating up china and destroying the unoficial rule that EVERYONE would be able to trade with and exploit china thus making untold amounts of cash. japan was upsetting the status quo that america had fought a war previously to get involved in(spanish american war) and so economic sanctions went ahead.



> Then comparing America to europe as a whole is a terrible unbalanced idea. America is one country with one federal government. Euro is a continent, with multiple countries. So when makeing a comparision its probally best to ask Which country first : O



wow i didnt think anyone read that. really the fact is that if you look at ALL of europe, or at least the eu it starts to look a hell of a lot more like the us....


----------



## Katastrofeas (Mar 3, 2009)

I'm American, but I'm living in Europe right now.  

Old buildings and "culture" get old after a while.  

I can't wait to come home.


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 3, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Over in America they spoonfeed you that crap of course, not mentioning that Russia actually got to Berlin first, and basically made it so America could just dance right into Germany.
> 
> Better beg the Russians for forgiveness, fool.



America made it possible for the germans to march into berlin by taking off the pressure on the eastern front by invading normandy and making the germans fight on two fronts. We also gave the russians supplies and generally helped beat germany. Russia didn't do it themselves, they has the US and england there too, and unlike russia we americans fought a two front war against japan, which we fought mostly alone. If there were no america there would be no modern europe, you would have all be communist or speaking german.  Europeans don't give America enough credit for what we did do then, just like now; while america didn't beat germany our selves, we were a major part of bringing the war to an end, only for them to hate us...we should just go back to being isolationist, then just wait 20 years before europe blows itself up again.



NewfDraggie said:


> Actually America (though was in WWII since 1941) didn't play a major role in the war, and the largest part they played was less than two years near the end; they did little bombing runs of important targets and didn't really do anything.... Russia did the most.



wait what? america was one of the biggest players in the war. in 42 and 43 we were mostly producing goods for the others and fighting japan. Russia did a lot in europe, but it wasnt the only theater of war. America fought almost alone against the japanese and we likely wouldnt have needed to use nukes if all mighty russia had helped with japan. We also fought over the other half of europe, brought down italy, liberated france and took over most of germany. I don't know how America could be a bigger player without fighting the war all by ourselves.  Some americans are ignorant and act like we did fight it ourselves(we didn't guys, we had a thing called allies) but this is the opposite extreme, pretending like we did nothing. The soviet union and the united states and england did the most on the allied side, there really weren't many other allies. Im curious as to who is considered a major player if the US isnt...


----------



## Toto (Mar 4, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> We'll pay you back for the 17th century, bastards! ;]



Hey everyone went through Poland to invade places. It was the "thing" to do at that time.

Wanted to invade Denmark? Go through Poland.
Wanted to invade France? Go through Poland.
Wanted to invade Norway? Go through Poland.

And also Stailn was incredibly paranoid and had "neutralised" most of the high ranking military during the purge. The reason Zhukov survived was that he was fighting the japanese at the other end of russia.

That and the neither the us nor the soviets would have won without the other. The USA provided much needed materiel and the Soviets opposed the Wermacht tying up huge anmounts of men and materiel at the east front.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 4, 2009)

JAPAN isn't EUROPE and JAPAN didn't start the war, USA pushed them into a corner without allowing imports and exports, they declared war and USA IGNORED the warning of both JAPAN and AUSTRALIA about their fleet moving toward the US.

In EUROPE the US played a insignificant role, compared to the OTHER countries involved. They played a big role, but comparing it to the bigger ones makes it the smallest. And the war STILL would of been won, less than a year after 45 if US wasn't involved. The US has GLORIFIED their role in WWII and actually, even WWI to the point a LOT of people in the world think they did a bigger part then fact, especially Hollywood.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> JAPAN isn't EUROPE and JAPAN didn't start the war, USA pushed them into a corner without allowing imports and exports, they declared war and USA IGNORED the warning of both JAPAN and AUSTRALIA about their fleet moving toward the US.
> 
> In EUROPE the US played a insignificant role, compared to the OTHER countries involved. They played a big role, but comparing it to the bigger ones makes it the smallest. And the war STILL would of been won, less than a year after 45 if US wasn't involved. The US has GLORIFIED their role in WWII and actually, even WWI to the point a LOT of people in the world think they did a bigger part then fact, especially Hollywood.



so, the united states imposing economic sanctions on a country that showed outright belligerence and destruction of the economic freedom of the world is a bad thing? japan STARTED the sino japanese wars, the world deplored the actions and told japan to stop. when it showed that japan was not content to sit idle until it controlled most of asia and brought most of its natural resources in to make its own industries turn over again we set down embargoes and told them to stop their aggression. 

oh ya, we started the war when we were only performing un style economic finger waving at a fascist nation that had conducted a campaign of expansion, empire and enslavement since the 1890's.

and as i said, the european nations wouldn't have had the material resources to fight the war without american assistance. it was not necessarily the american military that won the war, but rather the un bombed out american industry that churned out victory. president obama talks like our government alone can actually spend enough money to pull us out of an economic crash. really our depression was ended by supplying the entirety of the allied nations, from china to britain with the resources they needed to wage war. its not something really to be proud of that we were really the only nation booming after the war because we had sucked the wealth out of our allies. almost everyone owed us money for that war.... however, as i said none of those nations would have succeeded without american material, ESPECIALLY russia. russian factories weren't even really functional until 43, and they still needed bullets, food, rifles, trucks EVERYTHING. thats why as i said they even had entire air units composed of american aircraft, tank units that were composed of shermans and so on.

Here are the top Lend-Lease beneficiaries:



			
				http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=372591 said:
			
		

> MUNITIONS $4,651,582,000" Lend-Lease
> Great Britain............$31 billion
> Soviet Union.............$11 billion
> France...................$ 3 billion
> ...





			
				http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html said:
			
		

> MUNITIONS $4,651,582,000 NON-MUNITIONS 4,826,084,000 ---------------- Total 9,477,666,000 Note: the figure of $11 billion includes services as well as goods furnished....
> The U.S. Government has never released detailed reports on what was sent in Lend-Lease, so Major Jordan's data, gleaned from the Russians' own manifests, is the only public record. More than one-third of Lend-Lease sent was illegal under the terms of the act which specifically prohibited "goods furnished for relief and rehabilitation purposes."


----------



## Bambi (Mar 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually America (though was in WWII since 1941) didn't play a major role in the war, and the largest part they played was less than two years near the end; they did little bombing runs of important targets and didn't really do anything.... Russia did the most.


 
The United States helped to keep the NAZI's in a two-front war, (three-front if you consider Italy); in my opinion, everyone did what they could at that time to stop the spread of facist NAZI'ism. That's enough for me. What I find troublesome is that some of you aren't willing to honor or credit either with doing enough to stop NSDAP tyranny (not you specifically, but other members aswell.)



Werevixen said:


> Better beg the Russians for forgiveness, fool.


 _No, friends don't have to beg each other._  Our international policy might make us adverse, but there are a lot of people I'am willing to empathsize with over there (especially considering a few of my friendships.)


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 4, 2009)

Fine, I'm willing to say America gave the most support, but they weren't the heroes proclaimed by Hollywood and the mass majority of the USA


----------



## Bambi (Mar 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Fine, I'm willing to say America gave the most support, but they weren't the heroes proclaimed by Hollywood and the mass majority of the USA


 
Everyone likes their sides heroes.

Watching enough Russian War movies will convince you that the problem Hollywood suffers from is also the same problem that Russian Film makers suffer from.  People like to glorify their part first because its the only side they can associate with _without feeling facetious._


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 4, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> ...and unlike russia we americans fought a two front war against japan, which we fought mostly alone.



MOSTLY alone? WTF? I'm sure you'd like to believe that, forgetting about Commonwealth (Australian, New Zealand)  and yes, even British assistance in the Pacific.

Did you know that the Royal Navy "lent" the US Pacific fleet one of their few aircraft carriers (HMS Victorious) to help out when the US Navy was short of operational carriers?

Did you know the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet was supporting the invasion of Okinawa? That Royal Navy ships, like HMS Illustrious that fought alongside the USS Saratoga, have Pacific battles in their battle honours? That Australian and Dutch naval ships fought at many Pacific sea battles?

Did you know Australia and New Zealand between them provided bases and support to all US forces? Heck, less then 10km down the road from where I live were TWO WW2 US Marine training camps.

"Fought mostly alone" in the Pacific, my ass.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 4, 2009)

Toto said:


> Wanted to invade Denmark? Go through Poland.
> Wanted to invade France? Go through Poland.
> Wanted to invade Norway? Go through Poland.



Want to piss off Russia with missile defence? Go through Poland.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 4, 2009)

Is this really necessary? Can't we agree that it was an alliance rather then any specific nation that decided WWII? 
Besides, how it was and what people's ancestors did is not as interesting as how it is and what people are currently like if you want to compare present-day US and Europe.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 4, 2009)

Doubler said:


> Is this really necessary? Can't we agree that it was an alliance rather then any specific nation that decided WWII?
> Besides, how it was and what people's ancestors did is not as interesting as how it is and what people are currently like if you want to compare present-day US and Europe.



This.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 5, 2009)

Doubler said:


> Is this really necessary? Can't we agree that it was an alliance rather then any specific nation that decided WWII?



Oh definitely, I agree.

I just get rather pissed when the "America saved your butts in WW2 so you have to worship / kowtow to us for the rest of eternity" brigade emerge from whatever rock they've been living under.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 5, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh definitely, I agree.
> 
> I just get rather pissed when the "America saved your butts in WW2 so you have to worship / kowtow to us for the rest of eternity" brigade emerge from whatever rock they've been living under.


This x2


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 5, 2009)

In both World War 2, America has joined in the last seconds of the game, helped kick asses a bit faster than normally possible when Europe and Russia did it by themselves, and then declare themselves and themselves alone the winner, it makes me sick.

Especially since they needed the allies to plan everything for them.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 5, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Fine, I'm willing to say America gave the most support, but they weren't the heroes proclaimed by Hollywood and the mass majority of the USA



agreeance there. 



> America has joined in the last seconds of the game



1941 bud..... admitted we waited longer then britian and france that delcared war in 39 but we were still involved for four years.



> helped kick asses a bit faster than normally possible when Europe and Russia did it by themselves,



one wonders how britain, france and china would have dug themselves out of the hole that the japanese intended to bury them in without direct american military operations..... even on the european front however the allied nations couldnt assemble the manpower or the resources for the invasion of normandy WITHOUT direct american military assistance. had america just send material aid(the 30 billion to the uk, the 11 to russia) and stood aside if ANYONE beat the germans then it would have been russia and at that point it would have likely moved on to control all of europe. without allied presence on the mainland made possible by the influx of the american military europe likely would have been completely soviet.



> Especially since they needed the allies to plan everything for them.



so wait.... if thats true what exactly did eisenhower do? if i recall correctly he not only was the commander and chief of american forces in europe but was one of the primary figureheads for military planning in europe. when montgommery got patton's fuel for operation market garden it was eisenhower that gave it to him.


----------



## Strawkitty (Mar 5, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh definitely, I agree.
> 
> I just get rather pissed when the "America saved your butts in WW2 so you have to worship / kowtow to us for the rest of eternity" brigade emerge from whatever rock they've been living under.



I just always have fun countering that by saying I'm from Finland.


----------



## IWP (Mar 5, 2009)

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler actually kept that non-aggression pact with Russia?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 5, 2009)

well, there is a group of historians that believe that russia would have invaded when it felt it was ready. propaganda before the war constantly told the russian people that war with the capitalists(mainly the fascists) would eventually happen. this could be seen as to give the nation something to solidify it even more and allow the oligarchy to function. however the fact that the russian military was expanding so rapidly in the 2 years before the war that there wasnt enough housing or even clothing and weapons for everyone. many units slept outside or struggled to find someplace to sleep in the local town. its pretty clear that russia was preparing for something....



> I just always have fun countering that by saying I'm from Finland.



congrats to almost defeating an army that refused to dig trenches because it was believed that they hurt moral, considered camouflage cowardly(even wearing white in the snow) and functioned on tactics and strategies one would only find in a comic book.... it shows that finland did indeed have a professional army but that war also shows that the russian army only functioned on indoctrination and not in any sense of reality at the time. holdovers of those facts are why russia lost so many men in its war with germany.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 5, 2009)

To travel to or live in? I'd rather live in America because of the Socialism that is spread through Europe. Although America appears to be not far behind on that note.... But I would love to travel to Europe and visit to see the sites.

PS: All the Europeans I know here on work Visas don't want to leave, and gripe a lot about their particular coutry 'back home', so that kind of plays into it too.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 5, 2009)

It shouldn't be surprising that it doesn't seem to be different with Americans that chose to live and work here. I guess one can assume people usually have reasons for such a choice


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 6, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> To travel to or live in? I'd rather live in America* because of the Socialism that is spread through Europe.*



Because, like, you'll get infected with it and before you know what you're doing you'll be wrapping yourself in the Hammer-and-Sickle and singing "The Internationale". Yeah, right.

Grow up.


----------



## Bambi (Mar 6, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> In both World War 2, America has joined in the last seconds of the game, helped kick asses a bit faster than normally possible when Europe and Russia did it by themselves, and then declare themselves and themselves alone the winner, it makes me sick.
> 
> *Especially since they needed the allies to plan everything for them*.


 
This line, _not true._

Every nation cooperated to help each other; we can thank the French Maquis for slowing down NSDAP reinforcements on the night of the airborne landings preluding the first moments of Operation Overlord.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 6, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Because, like, you'll get infected with it and before you know what you're doing you'll be wrapping yourself in the Hammer-and-Sickle and singing "The Internationale". Yeah, right.



It's the "Gear-and-Grains" now, man.


----------



## Strawkitty (Mar 6, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> congrats to almost defeating an army that refused to dig trenches because it was believed that they hurt moral, considered camouflage cowardly(even wearing white in the snow) and functioned on tactics and strategies one would only find in a comic book.... it shows that finland did indeed have a professional army but that war also shows that the russian army only functioned on indoctrination and not in any sense of reality at the time. holdovers of those facts are why russia lost so many men in its war with germany.



And? At which point does belittling what Finland endured change the fact that you Americans have no right to address yourselves as saviors to me?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Strawkitty said:


> And? At which point does belittling what Finland endured change the fact that you Americans have no right to address yourselves as saviors to me?



well true, we didnt save your ass from anything really, lol.


----------



## yoka_neko (Mar 6, 2009)

Europe - italy for the win


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Mar 6, 2009)

IWP said:


> I wonder what would have happened if Hitler actually kept that non-aggression pact with Russia?



I believe the non-aggression pact was meant to hold off Russia from interfering with Hitler's takeover of Poland, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, France etc until Germany was strong enough to be able to take on Russia. Well....attacking Russia was one of Germany's biggest mistakes, it ultimately ended the war for them. But, I think that it wasn't the lack of power of the wehrmacht, but rather the logistics, the farther they got into Russia, less and less supplies were getting to them. The wehrmacht destroyed the Russian army throughout the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, but it was the muddy autums/springs and cold, harsh winters that slowed them down(and weakened them). Germany's assumption that the Red Army would have collapsed and they could just waltz up to the Kremlin in a few weeks is what brought them to their doom. 

Oh and Bambi, is that writing under your Name Farsi?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 6, 2009)

It's Arabic Ishnuvalok.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 6, 2009)

IWP said:


> I wonder what would have happened if Hitler actually kept that non-aggression pact with Russia?



I also wonder what would have happened if Hitler _hadn't_ declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour - would the US have been so focussed on the Japanese in the Pacific that the European theatre was ignored beyond protecting a few convoys to England? And if that was the case, would the Normandy landings have ever happened?


----------



## Attaman (Mar 6, 2009)

Tycho Rass said:


> *Frenchman* F#$@ YOU AMERICANS, MAY YOU BUR....WAIT, THE GERMANS ARE COMING; I LOVE YOU AMERICAN!!!!!!!


Yep, French are cowards.  That's why they fought another 18 days after Britain pulled out via Dunkirk, refused to provide almost any aid other than arial, and France had barely enough troops to even form a defensive line - let alone hold one.

Also, I'm very glad the French Resistance gets the credit it deserves.  



CodArk2 said:


> America made it possible for the germans to march into berlin by taking off the pressure on the eastern front by invading normandy and making the germans fight on two fronts.


  Which is why in '43 Russia was on the offensive and starting its steamroller through the Ukraine.



> and unlike russia we americans fought a two front war against japan, which we fought mostly alone.


  Here's a kicker:  The US jumped in both fronts of the war against nations fighting on at least one other front.



> If there were no america there would be no modern europe, you would have all be communist or speaking german.


  No, but thank you for trying to make a point.



> Europeans don't give America enough credit for what we did do then, just like now; while america didn't beat germany our selves, we were a major part of bringing the war to an end, only for them to hate us...we should just go back to being isolationist, then just wait 20 years before europe blows itself up again.


Because every time Europe gives the US an inch, we try to turn it into a mile and belittle them the whole way.  We _did_ provide much help in WWII, we _did_ play a major part in ending the war.  But when someone dare suggest the US was not the lynchpin of the entire Allied war effort, we tend to go up in arms frothing at the mouth while screaming obscenities at the French.



> America fought almost alone against the japanese and we likely wouldnt have needed to use nukes if all mighty russia had helped with japan.


  Guess what?  Russia promising to _help us_ was one of the reasons we used the Nuclear Weapons.  We were already paranoid of communism, the last thing the US wanted at that time was Japan in a similar state as Germany.

Furthermore, glad to see you acknowledge China, the UK, Australia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico for their involvement in the Pacific Theatre.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Ishnuvalok said:


> I believe the non-aggression pact was meant to hold off Russia from interfering with Hitler's takeover of Poland, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, France etc until Germany was strong enough to be able to take on Russia. Well....attacking Russia was one of Germany's biggest mistakes, it ultimately ended the war for them. But, I think that it wasn't the lack of power of the wehrmacht, but rather the logistics, the farther they got into Russia, less and less supplies were getting to them. The wehrmacht destroyed the Russian army throughout the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, but it was the muddy autums/springs and cold, harsh winters that slowed them down(and weakened them). Germany's assumption that the Red Army would have collapsed and they could just waltz up to the Kremlin in a few weeks is what brought them to their doom.
> 
> Oh and Bambi, is that writing under your Name Farsi?



but the red army did collapse, over and over again.... it was only when the high command eased up and the polititruks(political officers) get humbled that the russian army began to develop in a professional manner. the interesting thing is that in 1943 russia simply was able to more rapidly replace the losses it experienced. its not like germany already was lacking manpower, they had the entirety of the central powers to draw manpower from(and they did too). stalingrad was such a massive loss that while russia was able to replace something like that in "short order" germany was not and had to re orginise the whole front. by the time they were ready to attack the red army was ready to defend, the most notable is the battle of kursk. after that loss germany couldnt push out a big enough clot to stop the hemorrhaging and so they really lost. the lack of german ability to rapidly produce replacements while it was still possible and the ever increasing weight of russian equipment really did it in for them in the end.



> Yep, French are cowards. That's why they fought another 18 days after Britain pulled out via Dunkirk, refused to provide almost any aid other than arial, and France had barely enough troops to even form a defensive line - let alone hold one.



note that the french army was not small compared to the german one. the issue was that germany had used its excellent storm trooper tactics to pierce the northern most reach of the french fortresses and run behind the main french body trapping it. the french attempted a breakout but by then were too weakened and simply were defeated. people mock the french saying they gave up to easily but they really had the noose around their neck. 



> suggest the US was not the lynchpin of the entire Allied war effort



lets see.... britian was the only western european nation to survive and all they were able to accomplish on their own was turn the tide against rommel's army in northern africa. a unit so out of supply that it fought with captured british uniforms and equipment. the reminants of france(not the vichy french puppet) weren't able to conduct any operation of their own, and well there really wasn't anyone else save for russia. russia itself BARELY pulled through because of 11 billion worth of goods sent there. the uk itself would have likely collapsed without the 30 some billion in goods sent there from the us....

so lets see.... in europe OTHER then the us there were only two active allied powers. the uk and russia. the uk was simply struggling for dear life to keep whatever it had, and as i said before an operation like normandy would have been impossible for them without american assistance. the worst part of it all is that when the british leadership was put in charge(namely montgomery......) in operations in europe they tended to degenerate into slow crappy battles of attrition or just plain get their asses kicked.

russia can claim the prize of glory in that war in terms of defeating germany. but britain? france? please..... people who say that the western european powers could have won the war without direct assistance from the united states(instead of just material assistance) are utter morons. as i said, it would have been a soviet europe without direct us assistance, well thats if russia won. 

i even heard a rather compelling arguement once that suggested that the russian military REALLY began to gain ground because the united states opened up a front in italy sapping units from the russian front. things got even worse on the russian front when even more units had to be diverted to fight in france a year later. the arguement was that the rapid russian advance since 43 was partially possible because that new front in italy.

point is in the end, the uk was the ONLY western european nation to hold out(and when most people think europe they think western europe), and that was tenuous at best with a sea of american material flooding in. britian didnt have the military expertise, the manpower NOR industry to produce enough arms to really do much of anything other then that africa campaign. a perfect example of british desperation is the sten gun, a smg designed because the british were so desperate for ANY firearm that they made the most retardedly simple one they could think of just so their shattered factories MIGHT be able to make enough to arm everyone. from the strategic level the uk was in no position to win the war even just in europe alone folks....


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Mar 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's Arabic Ishnuvalok.


The scrpit is Arabic, but the phrase could potentially be Farsi (Persian), Urdu, Swahili, Kurdish, Malay, or Uyghur.


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 7, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Which is why in '43 Russia was on the offensive and starting its steamroller through the Ukraine.


 true, they were starting to fight back against the germans in 43, but i doubt they could have gotten to germany if the entire german army were against them as fast as they did. And they would have marched into western europe and imposed communist regimes on them just like they did in eastern europe. which makes this


> If there were no america there would be no modern europe, you would have all be communist or speaking german.


 a valid point. Either russia would have won, or germany would have,if america hadn't gotten involved at all.  Niether would have been good for europe as a whole.



> Because every time Europe gives the US an inch, we try to turn it into a mile and belittle them the whole way.  We _did_ provide much help in WWII, we _did_ play a major part in ending the war.  But when someone dare suggest the US was not the lynchpin of the entire Allied war effort, we tend to go up in arms frothing at the mouth while screaming obscenities at the French.


 Hmm, i agree the US wasn't the "lynchpin" of the war effort, we were one of the major players, there were some on here saying we were minor and didn't do much. In a way the europeans and canadians and others do that too, every time Americans gives the Europeans an inch, they try to turn it into a mile and belittle us the whole way.



> Guess what?  Russia promising to _help us_ was one of the reasons we used the Nuclear Weapons.  We were already paranoid of communism, the last thing the US wanted at that time was Japan in a similar state as Germany.


True somewhat,though if anyone was late to fight against an axis power, it was russia vs japan. The Soviet Union formally declared war on the Empire of Japan on August 8, 1945. (they surrendered on the 15th of August). We were going to invade japan, it was just a question of when. Most evidence says the US dropped the bomb after estimates came back showing as many as a million US soldiers could die in an invasion of the japanese home islands. The idea of dividing japan up into a communist half and a democratic half also would not have worked and would have led to war eventually(See: north vietnam-south vietnam, north korea-south korea). 



> Furthermore, glad to see you acknowledge China, the UK, Australia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico for their involvement in the Pacific Theatre.


my exact line was "America fought almost alone against the japanese and we likely wouldnt have needed to use nukes if all mighty russia had helped with japan." key word, almost. The US did much
 of the heavy fighting in the pacific, not all, but most. 
the nations you mentioned:
China: Was invaded by the japanese, so of course they fought them. The did not attack mainland japan and were petty much getting the crap knocked out of them. Much of the eastern part of china was under japanese control until near the end of the war.
The UK:fought well , lending naval and ground support in the south pacific and several naval battles, lost hong kong and other pacific territories, which is why they fought
Australia/NewZealand: ANZAC sent soldiers to fight in the south pacific to keep from being invaded, had bases and such for the US as was mentioned by another. 
Canada:Soldiers of the Canadian Army fought in the Battle of Hong Kong in 1941 against the Japanese,early in the war, Japanese troops invaded Alaska. Canadian air force planes flew anti-submarine patrols against the Japanese while on land, Canadian troops fought side by side with American troops against the Japanese. Eventually, the Japanese were repulsed.
Netherlands: fought the japanese in the dutch east indies(indonesia) lost terribly, netherlands was beaten by germany,
Mexico:barely did any fighting at all,only one air squadron, Number 201, actually saw combat. Nicknamed "The Aztec Eagles," they flew(US)P-47 Thunderbolt fighters and offered close ground support for U.S. and Philipino ground forces as they struggled to liberate the islands from the Japanese.Its 31 pilots were the only Mexican military force to serve outside of Mexico.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 7, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> True somewhat,though if anyone was late to fight against an axis power, it was russia vs japan. The Soviet Union formally declared war on the Empire of Japan on August 8, 1945. (they surrendered on the 15th of August).



I believe you'll find that the date that the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan was _agreed upon in advance between the Soviet Union and the United States._ So your inferred accusation that the Soviets were basically cowards for not attacking Japan sooner is, in fact, bullshit.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Atomic_bomb_and_the_Soviet_invasion
> 
> On February 3, 1945, the Soviet Union agreed with Roosevelt to enter the Pacific conflict. *It promised to act 90 days after the war ended in Europe and did so exactly on schedule on August 9, by invading Manchuria.* A battle-hardened, one million-strong Soviet force, transferred from Europe attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria and quickly defeated the Japanese KantÅgun (Kwantung Army group). (emphasis added)





> In a way the europeans and canadians and others do that too, every time Americans gives the Europeans an inch, they try to turn it into a mile and belittle us the whole way.



If that does happen, it's only after Americans have been bragging about how they saved the Western world and demanding that because of their actions in WW2 everyone else is obliged to help them in their latest military adventure. So it's inevitable that non-Americans in retaliation point out little inconvenient details like the US sitting out the first two years of WW2 in Europe while Britain stood alone against the Nazis...


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I believe you'll find that the date that the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan was _agreed upon in advance between the Soviet Union and the United States._ So your inferred accusation that the Soviets were basically cowards for not attacking Japan sooner is, in fact, bullshit.If that does happen, it's only after Americans have been bragging about how they saved the Western world and demanding that because of their actions in WW2 everyone else is obliged to help them in their latest military adventure. So it's inevitable that non-Americans in retaliation point out little inconvenient details like the US sitting out the first two years of WW2 in Europe while Britain stood alone against the Nazis...



True, the soviets werent cowards, they were just late. We joined the war two years after england and france declared war on germany for invading poland and we are considered cowards, the question is, why the hell did we need to declare war on the germans? We didnt rush to join because europeans were crazy f**kers that blew their continent up every 20 or 30 years in pointless little conflicts over land or resources or "those people talk funny and have a different brand of christianity" or "i dont like their king" or whatever. To reword the quote from below "it's only after Europeans have been bragging about how they are the most civilized cultures on earth and demanding that because of their history everyone else is obliged to help them in their latest military adventures" that we didn't rush into war in europe in 1939. We had no reason to, given europe's propensity for war. The question then is, why are americans cowards for entering the war 2 years after england and france declared war on poland,(america entered world war two on december 7, 1941 after the attack on pearl harbor) while the soviets, who were invaded on June 22, 1941 and declared war on germany then, are not cowards. They were only in the war for 6 more months than we were, and might i add, before the germans invaded, the soviets invaded half of poland, finland,  and the baltic states, which leads me to wonder why britain didnt declare war on the soviets. By contrast, 'imperialist' america didnt attack or invade anyone before we were attacked. But we americans must be cowards, we didnt attack weaker smaller nations and enter into a 'nonaggression' pact with nazi germany like the soviets did. When america entered the war, we did it against the whole axis, germany, japan and italy, and americans fought all three. So why are we americans cowards when the soviets only entered the war 6 months before we did for the same reason we did and only fought one enemy(that they got military aid from us to beat)? i smell a double standard there...


----------



## leolionz (Mar 7, 2009)

WesternDragon said:


> I like Australia


 
i agree o.0


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 7, 2009)

Easog said:


> The scrpit is Arabic, but the phrase could potentially be Farsi (Persian), Urdu, Swahili, Kurdish, Malay, or Uyghur.



It means something about anger... just translate it or something, it's just a few words and not a scripture.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Mar 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It means something about anger... just translate it or something, it's just a few words and not a scripture.



According to google translator, it says "The wrath of nature".


----------



## Darth GW7 (Mar 7, 2009)

Can't stand the French myself; Germans are an alright bunch, just fell victim to circumstance.

Oh, and anyone who says "Fuck Europe and its socialist shit"- Learn the difference between Socialism and Communism.
Socialism is just a State run by the people, for the people. Communism is the extreme version in which everyone (In theory) has equal rights and status.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 7, 2009)

Why do you hate the french? That was random.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Mar 7, 2009)

Darth GW7 said:


> Can't stand the French myself; Germans are an alright bunch, just fell victim to circumstance.
> 
> Oh, and anyone who says "Fuck Europe and its socialist shit"- Learn the difference between Socialism and Communism.
> Socialism is just a State run by the people, for the people. Communism is the extreme version in which everyone (In theory) has equal rights and status.



What's funny is that many Americans think that socialism was the reason for the fall of the Soviet Union. And think that socialism=communism. Mostly due to the "ZOMG COMMUNISM IS TEH EVIL" status that communism has in the US. It was due to the planned economy that the soviet union fell. Socialism is completely compatible with capitalism, Scandinavian countries are proof of that.


----------



## Darth GW7 (Mar 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Why do you hate the french? That was random.


France was mentioned just a bit up the page - I don't hate them, I just can't stand them. Go figure.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 7, 2009)

America. 

Europeons are selfish and burry their heads in the sand about abominations over-seas. Including not long ago in the communist scum's land and currently in Arabia and Iran "Not our problem, let the dictators and genocides strive on, better them than us.". Despite the Americans did the same for them to rescue them from the Nazis.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 7, 2009)

Darth GW7 said:


> France was mentioned just a bit up the page - I don't hate them, I just can't stand them. Go figure.



They (the French in general) have always struck me as being supercilious asses with a predilection for arrogance and rudeness towards outsiders.  (I'm half-French, maybe that's where I got it from.  ) Can they be friendly? I'm sure they have the capacity to, and on a small scale they might even be quite hospitable and kind to people in general.  The rule here (as with so many other countries and societies) is "The French are generally assholes, but there are some French people who are nice." The whole is less than the sum of its parts, perhaps.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> The rule here (as with so many other countries and societies) is "The French are generally assholes, but there are some French people who are nice." The whole is less than the sum of its parts, perhaps.



My understanding is that the friendliness of the French is proportional to their distance from Paris(1) 

(1) That's the French capital, not the overrated celebrity.


----------



## Toto (Mar 7, 2009)

I see what you did there Get-Dancing.

 One could argue that the USA has an obsession over being radically different from Europe, mostly to distance themselves from what they believe to be outdated ideals and governments that are far to "socialistic" for comfort. Whereas some Americans seem to see Europe as some kind of backwards hole filled with nothing but eurothrash and political ideologies that should better be left buried under the sand of time.

 But this could be due to the general ignorance that some of the people here are proud of, I mean those who would promote the communism of Stalin. Those same people that protest Israel and boycott stores that sell American products all doing this not noticing the paradox they inflict on themselves and their political leaning.

 It looks to me that while both sides like to thrash at each other it is never a serious thing. Kinda like two brothers fighting.

 While visiting New York i came to a small conclusion, it would be nice to live and work in the USA it is still not HOME. Just as Europe wouldn't feel like home for the majority of Americans.

In conclusion there are only the barrier of accustomed dislike that separates us, when we become aware of it we can see through that barrier. Unfortunately there will always be those who refuse to see that in the end we are all the same.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 7, 2009)

Toto said:


> Unfortunately there will always be those who refuse to see that in the end we are all the same.



Hahahahahahaha, oh good one! I think that made my day.

Oh wait, you're serious?


----------



## Toto (Mar 7, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Hahahahahahaha, oh good one! I think that made my day.
> 
> Oh wait, you're serious?



Why yes. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the differences?


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 7, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> True, the soviets werent cowards, they were just late. We joined the war two years after england and france declared war on germany for invading poland and we are considered cowards, the question is, why the hell did we need to declare war on the germans?
> [...]
> The question then is, why are americans cowards for entering the war 2 years after england and france declared war on poland,(america entered world war two on december 7, 1941 after the attack on pearl harbor) while the soviets, who were invaded on June 22, 1941 and declared war on germany then, are not cowards.



Because since the end of the Cold War(1) the Russians don't continually invoke their efforts in ending WW2 in the way Americans do against France et al when they don't get their way.

It's not accusing the Americans of "cowardice", it's simply Europeans (and other allies) getting sick of overinflated American egos and self-importance that use the acts of days gone past to demand obsequious compliance with American demands in the present. 

Example: Every time France decides it doesn't actually agree with the US, the old canards of "France surrenders at the drop of a hat" and "such ingratitude for us liberating them, we should have left then to the Nazis" is promptly dragged out - forgetting of course that without _French_ help the American Revolution might have foundered. 
(And it's always invoking "cheese eating surrender monkeys" just when France doesn't do what the US wants, it's not like the French did to the Americans something like... oh, I don't know, sending their secret service to blow up a civilian vessel in a friendly allied port...)


(1) During the Cold War, it was interesting that Radio Moscow broadcasts were hyping up their liberation of Eastern European countries by the Soviet Union in much the same way that Americans did for Western Europe...


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 7, 2009)

I completely agree with what Mayfurr said about the French and America.


----------



## Zseliq (Mar 7, 2009)

Does South America count? Llamas, south america has llamas.

However I am throwing my vote in with Australia.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 8, 2009)

GummyBear said:


> Does South America count? Llamas, south america has llamas.



And alpacas. Don't forget alpacas.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 8, 2009)

Bah, all in all it's the llamas that count 
Though I wouldn't say that Europe has no llamas, it most certainly needs more


----------



## Bunneh45 (Mar 8, 2009)

America is better because we have fahrenheit and inches and pounds. Those are _way_ more logical than the "SI" units.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 8, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> America is better because we have fahrenheit and inches and pounds. Those are _way_ more logical than the "SI" units.


16ths -> 12ths -> 3rds -> 1760ths for fractions to an inch, inches to a foot, feet to a yard, and yards to a mile.

10ths -> 100ths -> 1000ths for fractions of a centimeter, centimeter to meter, and meters to a kilometer.

I think the metric system has us beat there in simplicity.

*Can't argue right now on temperature or weight due to not knowing off the top of his head*

EDIT:  Kilometer, blast it!  Not mile.  D'oh!


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 8, 2009)

Attaman said:


> 16ths -> 12ths -> 3rds -> 1760ths for fractions to an inch, inches to a foot, feet to a yard, and yards to a mile.
> 
> 10ths -> 100ths -> 1000ths for fractions of a centimeter, centimeter to meter, and meters to a mile.
> 
> ...



Zero degrees is freezing point of pure water, 100 degrees is boiling point.
Weight is also done in tenths.


----------



## Kommodore (Mar 8, 2009)

America...

_fuck yeah._

EDIT: Also metric be damned.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 8, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Also metric be damned.



HAH! Infidel. Oh ye of little faith.


----------



## Kajet (Mar 8, 2009)

Ur rope, no redneck hicks.


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 8, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> America.
> 
> Europeons are selfish and burry their heads in the sand about abominations over-seas. Including not long ago in the communist scum's land and currently in Arabia and Iran "Not our problem, let the dictators and genocides strive on, better them than us.". Despite the Americans did the same for them to rescue them from the Nazis.




Did you ever hear of the UN? Sure, you don't hear of them as much in the news, because they don't constantly commit horrendous crimes in the country they evade without provocation like the United States military does. But they still exist, and they distribute Europe's charity funding and goods in the countries that need it.


Just because they're not carpet bombing a majority of innocent people doesn't mean they aren't active.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 8, 2009)

Bunneh45 said:


> America is better because we have fahrenheit and inches and pounds. Those are _way_ more logical than the "SI" units.



Best joke EVER!!!!! xD xD xD


----------



## Aurali (Mar 8, 2009)

haha. Classic troll bait.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 8, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Did you ever hear of the UN? Sure, you don't hear of them as much in the news, because they don't constantly commit horrendous crimes in the country they evade without provocation like the United States military does. But they still exist, and they distribute Europe's charity funding and goods in the countries that need it.
> 
> 
> Just because they're not carpet bombing a majority of innocent people doesn't mean they aren't active.



_"Inspector for the UN: We of the UN have reasons to believe that you hold weapons of mass destruction within your premises. Which is why you must allow us to inspect for them.

Kim Jon Il: ...And if I don't?

Inspector for the UN: Then we will be very angry with you! And we will send you a letter telling you just how angry we are!"_

- Team America World Police, better known as the Dr Strangelove of the 21st centuary.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 9, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Because, like, you'll get infected with it and before you know what you're doing you'll be wrapping yourself in the Hammer-and-Sickle and singing "The Internationale". Yeah, right.
> 
> Grow up.


Umm.... How is not wanting to live in a socialistic society childish? Sometimes I wonder why I bother responding.... So I prefer not to give a majority of my wages to the government, pay for my own health care, etc...


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 9, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Umm.... How is not wanting to live in a socialistic society childish? Sometimes I wonder why I bother responding.... So I prefer not to give a majority of my wages to the government, pay for my own health care, etc...



You walk or drive on socialist-funded roads, are protected by a socialist-funded military and a socialist-funded police force, and if by some unfortunate accident your house catches fire a socialist-funded fire department will come to rescue you and put the fire out. If it's arson, the socialist-funded police force will investigate the crime, if the perpetrator is found he/she will be tried by a socialist-funded judiciary, and if found guilty the perpetrator will be sent to a socialist-funded prison (or in some cases, a socialist-funded executioner).

When you fly to see your relatives or friends, your security at the airport is provided by socialist-funded security force (Homeland Security), and your aircraft is guided across the country by socialist-funded air traffic control. In some cases, the food you eat at your destination is cheap because of socialist-funded agricultural programmes.

Yet you claim you don't believe in socialism, because "it doesn't work" and "I pay my own way". 

Tell me, do you write out a cheque each month to the US Defence Department to pay your share of your country's military might, or do you engage private defence contractors for a part-share in an F-16 and an M1A1 tank for your _personal_ defence?


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 9, 2009)

You can keep your Marxist ways, for it's really only just a phase
Because money, money, money makes the world go round!!!

- Monty Python.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 9, 2009)

> Yet you claim you don't believe in socialism, because "it doesn't work" and "I pay my own way



your not getting what socialism is....its the government interfering with the marketplace. see clinton's housing plan that forced banks to loan with less information from the customers. see the government buyouts. that sort of thing. a capitalist believes that things such as the police are a legitimate arm of the government and provide the fundamental framework for our society to rest on. thats not socialism, thats part of what government is supposed to do. socialism would be say.... handing someone a paycheck every month even though they dont work and they are able to work at some sort of a job. 

there's a difference between government action, responsibility, and direct market intervention. the problem is that the us is having so many issues that fear is increasingly pushing us towards socialism which honestly has not helped at all. the issues aren't related to a capistalist mentality really, its just due to corruption and an incresingly scared society that wants to stick to the safe roads and feels entitled. people talk about cheep chinese manufactured items but honestly some of the biggest crap comes from the us.... one of our biggest issues as an economy isnt the capitalist dream but the simple fact that we arent producing much worth buying anymore. simple truth.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 9, 2009)

No ceacar, I don't think you know what socialism is.
Here you go, this can explain it much better than I can.

And lets not forget wiki.


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.



It's basically a government for the people, by the people, that controls the industries in a good way, so everything is equal. The PRIME example of this working is Cuba, no they're not communist, but socialist; the people of Cuba love their larder so much they keep wanting him to be their leader.



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production



Socialism is perfect. It is the -best- government system that can ever be, but it relies on people cooperating and not abusing it. Unfortunately in the past a few countries have tried it and it was abused, there are a few countries that had it succeed and if we were to incorporate it into the US it would fail due to pricks; if we were to try this in Canada perhaps it was work, and then America would be able to try it as well and it might pass.

As it stands the US and Canada both have massive amounts of socialism and republic qualities, the prime example being fire departments and courtrooms. You're not a full socialist country, but the US is a Capitalist Democracy with Socialism sprinkles.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 9, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> your not getting what socialism is....its the government interfering with the marketplace. see clinton's housing plan that forced banks to loan with less information from the customers. see the government buyouts. that sort of thing. a capitalist believes that things such as the police are a legitimate arm of the government and provide the fundamental framework for our society to rest on. thats not socialism, thats part of what government is supposed to do.



And what defines the border line? Why is government providing roads, defence and justice systems a Good Thing, but providing a framework for healthcare available to everyone or a welfare safety net for those not able to support themselves a Bad Thing?



> socialism would be say.... handing someone a paycheck every month even though they dont work and they are able to work at some sort of a job.



As Newf has already pointed out, it would appear you don't really have much idea of socialism apart from the knee-jerk "better dead than Red" mentality left over from the Cold War. And once again it's the old "undeserving poor" canard trotted out - the idea that anyone who is on welfare of some kind is automatically lazy.

I don't get it. Why _do_ conservatives hate the poor so much that they'd quite happily chuck the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to social welfare? That they'd happy pull the rug out from under those in genuine need of assistance in order to "punish" the few who abuse the system? 
Maybe there's some pleasurable aesthetic on seeing poor people dirty and hungry begging in the streets, I don't know...


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 9, 2009)

Following the ideas of enenomics from someone with a Che-Guverra esque avatar is as great an idea as listening to someone with a swastika for an avatar on easing racial tensions.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 9, 2009)

> set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,



well, i didnt state it quite as simply but i fail to see how what i stated above differs from this definition.... as i said direct market intervention by the government. the "scale" of socialism is how much of the market the government is actually in charge of. 

further that video you provided is so slanted its worthless.... stating that a capitalist company has no interest in its employee's welfare.... nevermind that ignoring employee welfare usually means you'll loose highly skilled manpower in your workforce and struggle to replace them. sure some businesses like wall mart which doesnt require much skill in most positions can afford that but most companies cant afford to bleed employees like walmart. 

now if your getting at that you think that i thought that socialism was only a oligarchy system in which the people were abused by a highly elite ruling class dominates the lower classes soviet style well, i never thought that. europe is extremely socialist but they are republic systems as well. 

added: in part two of that video it claims that capitalism is about short term profit. i wouldnt even call that capitalism, but rather exploitationism. exploit the resource without stewardship to get what you can get out of it now, instead of behaving with stewardship and making the maxiumum profit over time.



> And what defines the border line? Why is government providing roads, defence and justice systems a Good Thing, but providing a framework for healthcare available to everyone or a welfare safety net for those not able to support themselves a Bad Thing?



a road is different then taking over the healthcare system and telling doctors that they will make x dollars a year and have to fucking deal with it if their practices start to fall apart because there is not enough money in the system. i've been to practices that deal with medicade for example, and they are slums compared to the "capitalist" practices.....


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 9, 2009)

They only provide said welfare because they have too, if they didn't have to, they wouldn't. DURR.


----------



## Tycho (Mar 9, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Following the ideas of enenomics from someone with a Che-Guverra esque avatar is as great an idea as listening to someone with a swastika for an avatar on easing racial tensions.



Following any ideas regarding ANYTHING from someone with an avatar depicting a character who is arguably mentally inferior to Charlie pre-experiment from "Flowers for Algernon" seems about as foolhardy, if not more so.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Mar 9, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Following the ideas of enenomics from someone with a Che-Guverra esque avatar is as great an idea as listening to someone with a swastika for an avatar on easing racial tensions.


AD HOMINIM DURR.

Seriously. For all the times you've called other people out for ad hominim attacks, that post is ironic at best.


----------



## Aurali (Mar 9, 2009)

Speaking of Nazis... IF YOU DRINK FANTA (a coke product) YOU SUPPORT NAZIS!!

srsly.. Fanta was invented for Nazi Germany :3


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You walk or drive on socialist-funded roads, are protected by a socialist-funded military and a socialist-funded police force, and if by some unfortunate accident your house catches fire a socialist-funded fire department will come to rescue you and put the fire out. If it's arson, the socialist-funded police force will investigate the crime, if the perpetrator is found he/she will be tried by a socialist-funded judiciary, and if found guilty the perpetrator will be sent to a socialist-funded prison (or in some cases, a socialist-funded executioner).



The idea behind the US democracy is that the government provides what a normal person cannot for themselves. Yes, my government builds roads, because I cannot build them for myself. They provide a military, because I cannot protect myself from foreign invasion. Locally we have volunteer firemen and in some nearby metropolitan cities the city provides police and fireman because there's not enough volunteers to handle the load. And prisons are provided because I can't be expected to take people who commit crimes against me into my house. If you see some way around this in any government I'd sure like to know how?



Mayfurr said:


> When you fly to see your relatives or friends, your security at the airport is provided by socialist-funded security force (Homeland Security), and your aircraft is guided across the country by socialist-funded air traffic control. In some cases, the food you eat at your destination is cheap because of socialist-funded agricultural programmes.



Same as above, the government provides what I cannot. As for the food, I disagree with that. But that's part of a democracy. Not everyone is going to agree so popular vote wins.



Mayfurr said:


> Yet you claim you don't believe in socialism, because "it doesn't work" and "I pay my own way".



I never said this. Socialism doesn't work. You can't expect the producers in a society to support the non-producers. It doesn't work. It hasn't at any point in history. I like the American dream. I like to think that me or my Children might be able to be rich based on our efforts. I don't like to think that I work my butt off so someone else doesn't have to. Now I'd like to think that one day, socialism is possible. When people can push a button and a machine will make anything they want. Then people wont want for things. But until that's possible, true Socialism is a dream. Because there will always be someone who has or wants more. And there will always be someone willing to abuse a system.



Mayfurr said:


> Tell me, do you write out a cheque each month to the US Defence Department to pay your share of your country's military might, or do you engage private defence contractors for a part-share in an F-16 and an M1A1 tank for your _personal_ defence?



I don't write a check every month. Taxes are taken out of every one of my checks? Not sure what your point is on this one unless it's just to point out that you think the US government is already a socialist government. Which it's not... Learn the definition of socialism. You'll find there are socialist principles in any government, because their have to be. My original point is not that I hate socialism. It's that Europe is too socialist for my liking. And like I said before, it doesn't appear that we are too far behind... But even a little less is better...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 10, 2009)

Roads were built for the army, mang.

The interstates, anyway


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's basically a government for the people, by the people, that controls the industries in a good way, so everything is equal. The PRIME example of this working is Cuba, no they're not communist, but socialist; the people of Cuba love their larder so much they keep wanting him to be their leader.



You're joking right? That's why Cubans are loading into boats and sailing to the US in droves.....



NewfDraggie said:


> Socialism is perfect. It is the -best- government system that can ever be, but it relies on people cooperating and not abusing it. Unfortunately in the past a few countries have tried it and it was abused, there are a few countries that had it succeed and if we were to incorporate it into the US it would fail due to pricks; if we were to try this in Canada perhaps it was work, and then America would be able to try it as well and it might pass.
> 
> As it stands the US and Canada both have massive amounts of socialism and republic qualities, the prime example being fire departments and courtrooms. You're not a full socialist country, but the US is a Capitalist Democracy with Socialism sprinkles.



Yes, socialism would work if not abused. Unfortunately, it's against human nature.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I don't get it. Why _do_ conservatives hate the poor so much that they'd quite happily chuck the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to social welfare? That they'd happy pull the rug out from under those in genuine need of assistance in order to "punish" the few who abuse the system?
> Maybe there's some pleasurable aesthetic on seeing poor people dirty and hungry begging in the streets, I don't know...



It's not that conservatives hate the poor. A good portion of conservatives are poor or have been. Coming from a poor family and having elevated myself to middle class on my own efforts alone, it makes me sick to see family members and people I know abusing the system. And it's not just a few, I would say a majority of people abuse it. And the people that are poor and begging in the street in the US are either mentally ill or not poor. The mentally ill people do need help, but no amount of food stamps and welfare are going to help them. The not poor ones beg for a living and make a pretty damn good living off of it. There is no reason any person cannot work for a living except mentally ill people and even a good portion of those can get and keep jobs. Even Helen Keller made a living for herself... People just need to quit making excuses.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They only provide said welfare because they have too, if they didn't have to, they wouldn't. DURR.



Welfare is a vicious circle. If it had not been provided in the first place it would not be needed. People get reliant on it so it's needed more. So now you can't just 'pull the rug out' from people on it. Because they would be left with nothing. It going to have to be something less dramatic but either way it would cause everyone to suffer in one way or another. At the same time, it's bleeding the US dry.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Following the ideas of enenomics from someone with a Che-Guverra esque avatar is as great an idea as listening to someone with a swastika for an avatar on easing racial tensions.



Coming from someone who has Ralph Wiggum as an avatar, I believe a saying involving glass houses and stones springs to mind? No? How about pot, kettle, black?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> You're joking right? That's why Cubans are loading into boats and sailing to the US in droves.....


That's the 80's, this is 2009.
Cuba has 100% free medical; you can even get a sex change there free of charge, even if you're not a citizen.
The US still has blockades in place, among other bullshit things that keep the country fucked up. Blame the US, not Cuba. If -any- other 1st world nation were near Cuba, they'd choose that first. And if the US would leave them the fuck alone, they'd be fine.




Rostam The Grey said:


> Yes, socialism would work if not abused. Unfortunately, it's against human nature.


It's against -greedy- humans. Not all humans are like this, you just find a lot of them in places like the USA because they can get away with it.



Rostam The Grey said:


> Welfare is a vicious circle. If it had not been provided in the first place it would not be needed. People get reliant on it so it's needed more. So now you can't just 'pull the rug out' from people on it. Because they would be left with nothing. It going to have to be something less dramatic but either way it would cause everyone to suffer in one way or another. At the same time, it's bleeding the US dry.


No, I'm pretty sure it's needed.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Welfare is a vicious circle. *If it had not been provided in the first place it would not be needed. *People get reliant on it so it's needed more. So now you can't just 'pull the rug out' from people on it. Because they would be left with nothing. It going to have to be something less dramatic but either way it would cause everyone to suffer in one way or another.






Rostam The Grey said:


> It's not that conservatives hate the poor. A good portion of conservatives are poor or have been. Coming from a poor family and having elevated myself to middle class on my own efforts alone, it makes me sick to see family members and people I know abusing the system. And it's not just a few, I would say a majority of people abuse it. And the people that are poor and begging in the street in the US are either mentally ill or not poor. The mentally ill people do need help, but no amount of food stamps and welfare are going to help them. The not poor ones beg for a living and make a pretty damn good living off of it. *There is no reason any person cannot work for a living except mentally ill people and even a good portion of those can get and keep jobs.*



What proof do you have that a majority of people on welfare abuse it? 

So you'd let people starve on the streets because you basically think they're faking it or being lazy, would you? Bring back workhouses? Cull the poor off perhaps? 

*Do you have any fucking compassion whatsoever?*


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> What proof do you have that a majority of people on welfare abuse it?
> 
> So you'd let people starve on the streets because you basically think they're faking it or being lazy, would you? Bring back workhouses? Cull the poor off perhaps?
> 
> *Do you have any fucking compassion whatsoever?*



No proof but life experience growing up in poor neighborhoods.

And no, I wouldn't let people starve on the streets, I would direct them to the nearest shelter were a not-for-profit can help them get back on their feet.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's the 80's, this is 2009.
> Cuba has 100% free medical; you can even get a sex change there free of charge, even if you're not a citizen.
> The US still has blockades in place, among other bullshit things that keep the country fucked up. Blame the US, not Cuba. If -any- other 1st world nation were near Cuba, they'd choose that first. And if the US would leave them the fuck alone, they'd be fine.



Actually emigration from Cuba is still quite rampant. Not only into the US but also into Mexico.



NewfDraggie said:


> It's against -greedy- humans. Not all humans are like this, you just find a lot of them in places like the USA because they can get away with it.



All humans are greedy in one way or another. All humans want something they don't need. As long as people want things that not everyone can have, there will be greed and socialism will not work.



NewfDraggie said:


> No, I'm pretty sure it's needed.



Social Security may be needed to support people who cannot support themselves. But not welfare and food stamps.


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 10, 2009)

Eli said:


> Speaking of Nazis... IF YOU DRINK FANTA (a coke product) YOU SUPPORT NAZIS!!
> 
> srsly.. Fanta was invented for Nazi Germany :3


*exes his bottle of Fanta tropical* Good morning. 
Man, I love those political debates. ^^
@Rostam The Grey: You seriously must have lived in a DAMN bad neighborhood. Or maybe the system in the US does not keep track of where the money should go and where not if there's such a huge abuse of the system.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Social Security may be needed to support people who cannot support themselves. But not welfare and food stamps.



Okay, so in the US what is the difference between "Social Security" and "welfare"?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Actually emigration from Cuba is still quite rampant. Not only into the US but also into Mexico.


Proof?


Rostam The Grey said:


> All humans are greedy in one way or another. All humans want something they don't need. As long as people want things that not everyone can have, there will be greed and socialism will not work.


That's not true.



Rostam The Grey said:


> Social Security may be needed to support people who cannot support themselves. But not welfare and food stamps.



Food stamps, no; welfare, yes.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> The idea behind the US democracy is that the government provides what a normal person cannot for themselves. Yes, *my government builds roads, because I cannot build them for myself.* They provide a military, because *I cannot protect myself from foreign invasion*. Locally we have volunteer firemen and in some nearby metropolitan cities the city provides police and fireman because there's not enough volunteers to handle the load. And prisons are provided because *I can't be expected to take people who commit crimes against me into my house.*



By "conservative" logic, if you are expected to fund your own healthcare and are not supposed to accept welfare (because if you do, you are bludging off everyone else), then why can't you build your own damn roads, pick up thy guns and defend thyself from foreign invasion, and personally incarcerate those who commit crimes against you? Aren't you betraying your own "conservative" ethics by expecting the government to pick up the tab?

Or can you explain why healthcare and the general welfare of citizens _isn't_ a governmental responsibility? After all, if they're worth defending and building roads for, aren't they worth keeping healthy?

And if "socialism" doesn't work, how do you explain some European countries having a higher general life expectancy than the US?

If the US system is so wonderful, why aren't other countries scrambling over themselves to implement a US-style system?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

This is appropriate at this point.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This is appropriate at this point.



God I want to move to Iceland.... ;_;

Also lmao at Japan being #1 in internet speed


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> God I want to move to Iceland.... ;_;
> 
> Also lmao at Japan being #1 in internet speed



They have 1gig/s up, 1gig/s down standard now, it's easy to get, and it's cheap.
30gig/s up/down is also easy to get. Internal Japan is blazing fast, it's just external is slower because they're waiting on the rest of the world.

This explains some Wii games being ass-slow online, I think.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 10, 2009)

> By "conservative" logic, if you are expected to fund your own healthcare and are not supposed to accept welfare (because if you do, you are bludging off everyone else), then why can't you build your own damn roads,



because roads are something the whole state uses. my personal healthcare is just that, personal. other people dont directly benifit from my kidney surgery so i dont expect them to pay for it. EVERYONE uses the roads so the government builds them, the law needs to be enforced so the government provides the police and fire control is a city issue(an uncontrolled fire can destroy entire sections of the city) so the government provides the fire department. however, my kidneys are MY responsibility and belong to me. nobody else uses them so i have to pay for them. 

clothing, shelter, water, food are all basic essentials and unless you live in a socialist wellfare state your expected to meet those needs under your own power, because they belong to just you. healthcare is another basic essential, why is it that people are expected to feed themselves but not provide for their own personal health?

your getting into differences. a road is something that everyone uses. your body is something that you use for yourself, your goals and that alone. nobody can truely make you do anything, but a road serves everyone. 



> Proof?



how bout that little kid a few years back that immigrated from cuba and there was this whole media circus about if we should let him stay or kick him out?


			
				http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/cubaimmigration.html said:
			
		

> The interception of Elian Gonzalez in 2000 is such an example. Elian is a Cuban child who had survived the voyage from Cuba to Florida along with two other Cubans on an inner tube.



ya cuba's a really nice place to live, i mean people from there are only trying anything they can to immigrate here....

oh and btw, that lil image you keep posting "were (not) #1", well its misleading and rather plain bullshit. comparing luxembourg, a tiny nation that essentially is one city to the entirety of the united states is MORONIC. compile the entirety of the european union against the united states and it'l ballence, especially with places like poland dragging down places like luxembourg.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 10, 2009)

> my personal healthcare is just that, personal.


The only reason it's personal is because you defined it as such 
_Personal_ health may be _personal_, but healthcare is not. Not to mention that saying there are no direct benefits to keeping the population healthy (and secure) is not a very strong position in my opinion.

Anyway, following your logic: shouldn't roads only be paid for by those who use them? Where are the 'direct benefits' to everyone else? I suspect a lot more people will 'directly benefit' from free healthcare then they will from a road they'll likely never use.

As for food, I suspect few here will disagree that nobody should go hungry if such a thing can be avoided. That's the point of welfare; guaranteeing the basic necessities that allow people to live.

I also saw an old demon rear it's head some posts back. Personally I don't like idleness any more then I like, say, material hoarding. But I can accept both to a certain extent. I don't mind when people put in the effort and gain a material advantage, and I don't mind when people settle for less and gain free time. 
But just like I won't lose a night's sleep if you have to settle for a million-dollar home instead of a 1.5 million-dollar home in order to support a welfare program, I won't cry if someone has to settle for 15 hours sleep instead of 20 so that he makes a contribution. 
I would be worried if a state or society practically told you that you have to live in a generic appartment block for the sake of equality, or you have to work (long hours) to be able (or allowed) to live.

Generally speaking, I don't want society as my tyrant any more then money, labour and the market. I find both visions cater to a specific group of people, and condemn everyone else. Luckily, neither extreme is necessary


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 10, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> oh and btw, that lil image you keep posting "were (not) #1", well its misleading and rather plain bullshit. comparing luxembourg, a tiny nation that essentially is one city to the entirety of the united states is MORONIC. compile the entirety of the european union against the united states and it'l ballence, especially with places like poland dragging down places like luxembourg.



These tables DO balance things out like population, so I think this is just a case of sour grapes because the US isn't always the best.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> how bout that little kid a few years back that immigrated from cuba and there was this whole media circus about if we should let him stay or kick him out?


Oh look, nine years ago. One person. Sweet.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> ya cuba's a really nice place to live, i mean people from there are only trying anything they can to immigrate here....


No, their not.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> oh and btw, that lil image you keep posting "were (not) #1", well its misleading and rather plain bullshit. comparing luxembourg, a tiny nation that essentially is one city to the entirety of the united states is MORONIC. compile the entirety of the european union against the united states and it'l ballence, especially with places like poland dragging down places like luxembourg.


It still counts, you're not number-fucking one, arrogant prick. You're not number one in ANYTHING other than amount of money wasted in military every year.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> These tables DO balance things out like population, so I think this is just a case of sour grapes because the US isn't always the best.



i wasn't talking about population. a tiny spec of a nation like luxembourg cant even fathom the problems that an "empire" like the united states has. oh the thousands upon thousands of miles of infrastructure that luxembourg must maintain!

comparing rather non diverse tiny nations to the united states isn't really fair. for instance only recently has france really experienced a large scale wave of immigration.



> Oh look, nine years ago. One person. Sweet.



tell the "one person" remark to the whole slew of border patrol posts that both the feds and the state government set up leading out of the keys..... 



> No, their not.



i love how much of a childish idiot your making yourself sound with those simple three word "counter arguments". ya, the whole dry foot fiasco(cubans sneaking into mexico then the us) because the border patrol was strong around florida really supports that "fact" of yours. hell the fact that the child i posted above TRAVELED ACROSS THE FUCKING SEA WITH TWO OTHER PEOPLE ON A GOD DAMN INNER TUBE really helps you. ya.... your three word argument holds water....

so i'm an arrogant fuck and my arguement that comparing fucking god damn luxembourg to the us doesnt count? lets look at the whole god damn european union against the us....

european union


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html said:
			
		

> Infant mortality rate:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> total: 6.38 deaths/1,000 live births
> male: 7.23 deaths/1,000 live births
> female: 5.49 deaths/1,000 live births (2008 est.)



united states


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html said:
			
		

> Infant mortality rate:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> total: 6.3 deaths/1,000 live births
> male: 6.95 deaths/1,000 live births
> female: 5.62 deaths/1,000 live births (2008 est.)



european union


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html said:
			
		

> Life expectancy at birth:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> total population: 77.32 years
> male: 74 years
> female: 80.84 years (2008 est.)



united states


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html said:
			
		

> Life expectancy at birth:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> total population: 78.14 years
> male: 75.29 years
> female: 81.13 years (2008 est.)



european union


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html said:
			
		

> GDP - per capita (PPP):
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> $34,000 (2008 est.)



united states


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html said:
			
		

> GDP - per capita (PPP):
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> $48,000 (2008 est.)



european union


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html said:
			
		

> Unemployment rate:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> 7.4% (2008 est.)




united states


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html said:
			
		

> Unemployment rate:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> 7.2% (December 2008 est.)



european union


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html said:
			
		

> Internet hosts:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> 31,693 (2008); note - this sum reflects the number of internet hosts assigned the .eu internet country code
> Internet users:
> ...



united states


			
				https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html said:
			
		

> Internet hosts:
> Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world
> 316 million (2008); note - the US Internet total host count includes the following top level domain host addresses: .us, .com, .edu, .gov, .mil, .net, and .org
> Internet users:
> ...




WOW I WAS RIGHT! you compare the whole god damn place instead of some pathetic spec on the world scale like luxembourg against the united states and it starts to look COMPLETELY different......

your comparing completely un diverse tiny nations against the united states and it isn't anything of an acurate comparison. if your going to compare such small tiny parcels of existance against my country compare them to the states. lets face it, many of the nations your comparing are small enough that they COULD be states in the united states of america. their problems aren't anything like the problems that the combined united states faces, however as i proved just now, if you pile them all together, make them a "european us" you get a picture that looks distinctly similar to my country.


----------



## Get-dancing (Mar 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> And if "socialism" doesn't work, how do you explain some European countries having a higher general life expectancy than the US?



Socialism means more genocides (think PRC, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany etc), and genocides cut life-spans, that's a fact jack!


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> i wasn't talking about population. a tiny spec of a nation like luxembourg cant even fathom the problems that an "empire" like the united states has. oh the thousands upon thousands of miles of infrastructure that luxembourg must maintain!


It still puts the US lower, and calling the US a empire is funny.



ceacar99 said:


> comparing rather non diverse tiny nations to the united states isn't really fair. for instance only recently has france really experienced a large scale wave of immigration.


Doesn't matter. US is lower.

US IS MUCH FUCKING LOWER. We're not talking one or two points lower here. We're talking BOTTOM of the 1st world nation barrel. Absolute bottom.





ceacar99 said:


> tell the "one person" remark to the whole slew of border patrol posts that both the feds and the state government set up leading out of the keys.....


You said one person, I don't see these links about that slew of people, nope nowhere to be found.



ceacar99 said:


> i love how much of a childish idiot your making yourself sound with those simple three word "counter arguments". ya, the whole dry foot fiasco(cubans sneaking into mexico then the us) because the border patrol was strong around florida really supports that "fact" of yours. hell the fact that the child i posted above TRAVELED ACROSS THE FUCKING SEA WITH TWO OTHER PEOPLE ON A GOD DAMN INNER TUBE really helps you. ya.... your three word argument holds water....


I love that gigantic paragraph about that -one- thing. It doesn't matter how many words you use, at all; you just wasted you time thinking that the more words you use makes your argument better, or right...even if it's all on the one point.



ceacar99 said:


> bullshit statistics from US sites


I don't belive one stat in that entire slew of garbage, and I don't know what you're trying to prove when everybody already know the USA *really really really really, really really* isn't number one in anything, and never will be.*

Besides: morons per capita; military spending; useless spending; shit nobody cares about




ceacar99 said:


> WOW I WAS RIGHT! you compare the whole god damn place instead of some pathetic spec on the world scale like luxembourg against the united states and it starts to look COMPLETELY different......


I've never seen you right before. Ever. It's not started yet, either.



ceacar99 said:


> your comparing completely un diverse tiny nations against the united states and it isn't anything of an acurate comparison. if your going to compare such small tiny parcels of existance against my country compare them to the states. lets face it, many of the nations your comparing are small enough that they COULD be states in the united states of america. their problems aren't anything like the problems that the combined united states faces, however as i proved just now, if you pile them all together, make them a "european us" you get a picture that looks distinctly similar to my country.


tl;dr: BAWWWWW US IS NUMBAR 1 US IS NUBURGER 1!!.
No, it's not; it's not number one in anything. Ever.


----------



## Mr Fox (Mar 10, 2009)

Lol at this thread so far. 

I say Iran is better then Europe and America put together.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 10, 2009)

> It still puts the US lower, and calling the US a empire is funny.



one of the largest nations in the world that got much, if not most of its territory through conquest....



> You said one person, I don't see these links about that slew of people, nope nowhere to be found.



http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071016/news_1n16cubaimg.html

pfft.... try studying for once...



> US IS MUCH FUCKING LOWER



my numbers provided above, by an irrefutable resource(if links to the cia webpage are no good, then no source online is) demosntrate otherwise. us is about fucking par with the rest of the industrialised world. however people like you insist on comparing the european version san fernando vallies to the entirety of the us instead of comparing the entire european block against the entire american block. just like every european country is different every damn state in the united states is different. each with its own laws and policies. 



> I don't belive one stat in that entire slew of garbage



see, this is where you demonstrate your ABSOLUTE idiocy. im tired of you people calling me an idiot when your so fucking brainwashed by your bush hate that you cant believe valid credible resources. 

if your so damn fucking smart(which your proving you arent), find another resource that is a credible fact book, such as an online encyclopedia and try to dispute those numbers. not an article written by some slanted wackjob. i want a fucking encyclopedia link. otherwise my numbers are the most credible numbers posted, the official numbers by the cia factbook on the nations of the world. essentially a cia maintained encyclopedia. 

i've prosted that not only are the statements in that lil chart of yours misleading(how do you apply a number to "democracy" anyway? especially when the united states is a REPUBLIC), but demonstrated that the united states is about the same as the entire western world, by numbers from a credible resource. 

oh btw, you said i've never been right when you even admitted i was right in our gun arguement when i brought up the numbers of firearms in switzerland and stated that "why dont they murder each other constantly like us crazy americans", you stated "you answered your own question there". couldnt think of an argument against it so you gave me the victory, so far the only one i can think of you winning is the .50 cal myth.


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It still puts the US lower, and calling the US a empire is funny.


 well we would have to be an empire if people keep calling us imperialist all the time. An empire is a State with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture â€” unlike a federation, an extensive State voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. As a State, an empire might be either territorial or an hegemony, wherein the empireâ€™s sphere of influence dominates the lesser state(s) via divide and conquer tactics, i.e. â€œthe enemy of my enemy is my friendâ€, (cf. superpower, hyperpower).




> Doesn't matter. US is lower.
> US IS MUCH FUCKING LOWER. We're not talking one or two points lower here. We're talking BOTTOM of the 1st world nation barrel. Absolute bottom.


Because you are comparing "nations" that are the size of my county with less than a million people to the US, a nation with 300 million people..not really fair to be honest. And we actually arent as bad as you think. Most of those statistics are out of date.



> I don't belive one stat in that entire slew of garbage, and I don't know what you're trying to prove when everybody already know the USA *really really really really, really really* isn't number one in anything, and never will be.*
> Besides: morons per capita; military spending; useless spending; shit nobody cares about


 we are number 1 in several things, including number of inventions and patents, humanitarian spending, number of immigrants that come here(likely why we score lower on health and education than other countries, we take people from all over the planet, educated and heathy or not), number of PhD's awarded, best colleges and universities, and we grow more food than anywhere else(causes the fatness some americans have, we give a lot out as, you guessed it, aid)  



> tl;dr: BAWWWWW US IS NUMBAR 1 US IS NUBURGER 1!!.
> No, it's not; it's not number one in anything. Ever.


Yeah we are, you're just too arrogant to admit we are. We may not be the best country ever in everything, i can accept that, but  we arent the worst nation either, even among developed nations.



> I say Iran is better then Europe and America put together.


Iran invented algebra ya know...thats justification enough for wanting to blow them up =P


----------



## Aurali (Mar 10, 2009)

I know you o..o;


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 10, 2009)

Wow. People that actually believe the US is the number one country.
If you were here in person I'd slap you until you admit otherwise, and I'm not violent.



ceacar99 said:


> oh btw, you said i've never been right when you even admitted i was right in our gun arguement when i brought up the numbers of firearms in switzerland and stated that "why dont they murder each other constantly like us crazy americans", you stated "you answered your own question there". couldnt think of an argument against it so you gave me the victory, so far the only one i can think of you winning is the .50 cal myth.



No. You answered your own question, you asked why they don't murder each other with their firearms like *crazy Americans do*.
You don't give a rifle to a retard, do you?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 11, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Okay, so in the US what is the difference between "Social Security" and "welfare"?



You pay money into Social Security your whole life so that if you become disabled or are old enough you get money out. Welfare is just free money from the state because you supposedly can't support yourself. Octomom is getting welfare, someone who is disabled recieves Social Security.



NewfDraggie said:


> Proof?



I'll show you mine if you show me yours. No seriously, just Google Cuban Immigration and you find plenty of articles....



Mayfurr said:


> By "conservative" logic, if you are expected to fund your own healthcare and are not supposed to accept welfare (because if you do, you are bludging off everyone else), then why can't you build your own damn roads, pick up thy guns and defend thyself from foreign invasion, and personally incarcerate those who commit crimes against you? Aren't you betraying your own "conservative" ethics by expecting the government to pick up the tab?
> 
> Or can you explain why healthcare and the general welfare of citizens _isn't_ a governmental responsibility? After all, if they're worth defending and building roads for, aren't they worth keeping healthy?



Because I can't spend the time or have the money needed to build roads.  But I can afford my own health insurance. I can't afford to buy a tank, but I can afford a meal and mortgage payments.



Mayfurr said:


> And if "socialism" doesn't work, how do you explain some European countries having a higher general life expectancy than the US?



Life expectancy isn't entirely healthcare.... Crime is higher in the US. Not to mention we are lazier and generally eat less healthier. 



Mayfurr said:


> If the US system is so wonderful, why aren't other countries scrambling over themselves to implement a US-style system?



Several reasons. Once you're in a socialist society, it's harder to un-socialize it because of the people reliant on the system. Also, dictators aren't apt to having their rule taken away. And I didn't say it was perfect, far from it, our current government has lots of problems. But most of these are due to greedy people.


----------



## Gavrill (Mar 11, 2009)

I'll be moving to either Canada or Switzerland in the future. So Europe wins. (I guess?)


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 11, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> You pay money into Social Security your whole life so that if you become disabled or are old enough you get money out. Welfare is just free money from the state because you supposedly can't support yourself. Octomom is getting welfare, someone who is disabled recieves Social Security.



It seems a pretty spurious difference in that in both scenarios you're paying taxes to the government while you're earning and getting assistance if you can't (either through injury or age). One is "better" simply because it goes into and comes out of a specific government account?



Rostam The Grey said:


> Because I can't spend the time or have the money needed to build roads.  But I can afford my own health insurance. I can't afford to buy a tank, but I can afford a meal and mortgage payments.



<Conservative logic> 
_Can't spend the time or money to build roads? What a failure! You're just getting free roads from the state because you supposedly can't build them yourself.

Can't afford to buy a tank? Bill Gates can buy a tank (or two), he worked his way up from nothing to where he is today, if you can't work your way up to where you can buy a tank to defend yourself you're obviously lazy and don't deserve to be defended. Why should my taxes pay to defend you when you supposedly unable to fund one yourself? _
</Conservative logic> 

The thing is, you can apply your arguments against welfare and universal healthcare in much the same way against publicly-funded roading, defence and whatnot...


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 11, 2009)

> It seems a pretty spurious difference in that in both scenarios you're paying taxes to the government while you're earning and getting assistance if you can't (either through injury or age). One is "better" simply because it goes into and comes out of a specific government account?



one of them most of the people are completely able to work..... there are families that live on welfare for pretty much their entire existence for no other reason then "economic hardship". in other words they are capable of working, they are capable of struggling for their own existence but instead they use the ballot box to steal money from others. 

"democracy will fail when people discover that they can use the ballot box to steal money from others"- unkown french author(at least i dont remember who it was at this point...)



> <Conservative logic>
> Can't spend the time or money to build roads? What a failure! You're just getting free roads from the state because you supposedly can't build them yourself.
> 
> Can't afford to buy a tank? Bill Gates can buy a tank (or two), he worked his way up from nothing to where he is today, if you can't work your way up to where you can buy a tank to defend yourself you're obviously lazy and don't deserve to be defended. Why should my taxes pay to defend you when you supposedly unable to fund one yourself?
> ...



ya, thats why i dont go by rostram's logic. it is my responsibility to take care of myself. it is the state's responsibility to take care of the state. again my flesh is myne and will serve only me. but the roads serve everyone. i can see how you can expect people to pay to support things that everyone uses(the roads) but its ludicrous to expect others to pay for something only i use(my body).


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 11, 2009)

I think I'd like to tag ceacar99 in case we ever do a culling of the stupid. Seriously, that's the most Dale Earnhardt worshipping, meth-addict redneck I ever saw, he's enough redneck to fill Alabama's quota just by himself.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> I think I'd like to tag ceacar99 in case we ever do a culling of the stupid. Seriously, that's the most Dale Earnhardt worshipping, meth-addict redneck I ever saw, he's enough redneck to fill Alabama's quota just by himself.



Well: Rostam The Grey, ceacar99, and Roose Hurro could be considered the exact same person for all I know, and CodArk2 has the same mentality, not as bad.


----------



## CodArk2 (Mar 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well: Rostam The Grey, ceacar99, and Roose Hurro could be considered the exact same person for all I know, and CodArk2 has the same mentality, not as bad.


I dunno if they are or not. I think they are more nationalistic and conservative than i am, while I'm more moderate and patriotic. Nationalists are the "America is the best, america is always right, we do no wrong, love us or we bomb you types, oh and if you hate us you're a commie" types, patriotic americans  love america and want to make it better, a patriot can accept his country does wrong, but still loves his country anyway. I accept that america isn't perfect and that we aren't the best at everything. Yes we do stupid stuff as a nation, but eventually we will do the right thing. People that love america aren't necessarily stupid, i love america, it is my home. Saying america isn't the best is fine(and true, we really aren't the best at much anymore) but saying all americans(which includes me) are monic idiots and that our country is the lowest on earth and such rubs me the wrong way. I don't call canadians or europeans or australians stupid for being from their respective countries and liking or loving them, while i am stupid just for being an american and loving my country...hmm. I dunno how socialism and healthcare got into this thread so i tend not to respond to those parts.(i don't hate socialism by the way, its a good system, but greed ruins it. Most educated americans understand socialism is not the same as communism)


----------



## Aurali (Mar 11, 2009)

People... Don't worry about arguing with Newf.. He's too anti-america to agree with anything you say.. don't worry though, arrogance is a good thing in some parts of the world.

Oh.. once more.. congratulations people for falling for CLASSIC flamebait.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 11, 2009)

Strawkitty said:


> I just always have fun countering that by saying I'm from Finland.


 
Finland is my favorite "side" in WWII.  You defended your independence against both sides.  At the end of the war, only three combatants' capitals had never been occupied by foreign powers:  London, Moscow, and Helsinki.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

CodArk2 said:


> Large paragraph



I didn't call you stupid...I said you had the same mentality, if you take offense to that you should...you know, stop?



Eli said:


> People... Don't worry about arguing with Newf.. He's too anti-america to agree with anything you say.. don't worry though, arrogance is a good thing in some parts of the world.
> 
> Oh.. once more.. congratulations people for falling for CLASSIC flamebait.



I don't hate anything?
Why, oh why, would I hate America?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 11, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> I think I'd like to tag ceacar99 in case we ever do a culling of the stupid. Seriously, that's the most Dale Earnhardt worshipping, meth-addict redneck I ever saw, he's enough redneck to fill Alabama's quota just by himself.



well.... i dont drink, dont smoke, HATE nascar..... dislike country music and such themed clothing(despite having spent plenty of time living in the country on the family horse ranch), and tend to use big words, even if i wind up spelling them wrong half the time. really the only thing linking me to red necks is that i love guns. really thats the plus to my current form of employment, its my job to fix guns. 

however, lets put my viewpoint in another MUCH more simple example that you will likely to actually be able to understand.

alright, you live in an apartment complex and everyone there spent the money to get themselves an x-box 360. well one day while moving your furniture you trip and destroy your xbox. you realize that it will be a long time before you can save up enough to buy another one so you hatch a plan. you go and cry to your landlord about your hardship and somehow convince him to raise the rent the next month by a few dollars per person(yourself included). once the rent is collected the land lord gives you the extra money from that price hike so you can buy the new xbox.

now is that fair? is it fair to go to "the boss" and use that power to reach into other people's pockets so you can get something for yourself?

anyway, i never took the stance that america has the best anything, in fact i took the effort to prove that the united states is about par with the european union. in some areas we aren't quite as good, but in others we actually pull ahead a tiny bit(infant mortality and life expectancy). but in all cases the difference is so little that its almost not worth mentioning.



> Well: Rostam The Grey, ceacar99, and Roose Hurro could be considered the exact same person for all I know, and CodArk2 has the same mentality, not as bad.



says the person who is so full of the counter american culture that grew up in the past 8 years that he will state that ANY source, no matter how credible is bullshit if it doesnt support his agenda.



> I dunno if they are or not. I think they are more nationalistic and conservative than i am, while I'm more moderate and patriotic. Nationalists are the "America is the best, america is always right, we do no wrong, love us or we bomb you types, oh and if you hate us you're a commie" types, patriotic americans love america and want to make it better, a patriot can accept his country does wrong, but still loves his country anyway. I accept that america isn't perfect and that we aren't the best at everything. Yes we do stupid stuff as a nation, but eventually we will do the right thing. People that love america aren't necessarily stupid, i love america, it is my home. Saying america isn't the best is fine(and true, we really aren't the best at much anymore) but saying all americans(which includes me) are monic idiots and that our country is the lowest on earth and such rubs me the wrong way. I don't call canadians or europeans or australians stupid for being from their respective countries and liking or loving them, while i am stupid just for being an american and loving my country...hmm. I dunno how socialism and healthcare got into this thread so i tend not to respond to those parts.(i don't hate socialism by the way, its a good system, but greed ruins it. Most educated americans understand socialism is not the same as communism)



i'd say i'm nationalistic, however i take that a little differently then you think of it as. i think of being nationalistic as respecting your country and thinking of what is best for it first in terms of politics and the international stage. honestly i dont give a flying fuck of what happens to france if it means that my country will be endangered or damaged trying to protect the french interests. doesnt mean i'm not interested in co-operation, it just means i love my country and i will almost always side with it. doesnt mean i dont question or challenge my country either, i've been more frank about some of the more brutal truth's of american history then almost anyone on these forums. such as the fact that we pulled out of the great depression largely by leaching the wealth out of our allies in ww2. hell, one of the things i've been ranting about recently is how we have such pathetic leaders that they are easily coerced by fear, thats the reason why we have the patriot act, why we invaded iraq, and why we are throwing money around uselessly with countless "bailout" bills....

added: i was gonna post more sources for life expectancy(since apparently the cia isnt a credible source.....) i decided instead to post this interesting page i found...

http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_USA.html


----------



## WarMocK (Mar 11, 2009)

Eli said:


> Oh.. once more.. congratulations people for falling for CLASSIC flamebait.


Want some popcorn? 8)


----------



## Zanzer (Mar 11, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Want some popcorn? 8)


 Sure


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

ceacar99, short answer on that xbox scenario: Yes because everybody is equal, they can do it as well.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 11, 2009)

America Reason, i have over 30 places to get guns with in an half an hours drive from my house. X3

Lmao, even at Wally World!


----------



## RoscoTL (Mar 11, 2009)

Forget Europe, "America rules", until maybe I see what Europes like when I visit then maybe Europe will rule.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

Arcane hollow said:


> America Reason, i have over 30 places to get guns with in an half an hours drive from my house. X3
> 
> Lmao, even at Wally World!



That's horrible.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 11, 2009)

Arcane hollow said:


> America Reason, i have over 30 places to get guns with in an half an hours drive from my house. X3
> 
> Lmao, even at Wally World!


 
Agreed. I have to go with America. Even though our government has been ignoring more and more of our Constitution, we still have the Bill of Rights.

Which means free speech and guns!

In most other countries, the government doesn't permit citizens to own weapons, and eventually doesn't permit them to think their own thoughts.

I'd probably be heavily fined or thrown in jail in many European countries (or Canada) for expressing my conservative/right wing/nationalist political opinions.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

That's not true, in fact America doesn't even have full free speech.
You can be branded a "terrorist" and lose all those rights, even if you did nothing.

There's another thread on the go that talks about a person doing a oral presentation and getting in serious trouble with the school and law because of the topic.

You can't say certain things in certain places without getting into serious trouble, too.

Lots, and I mean lots, of countries have actual free speech among many other things better, granter lots of countries also have no free speech and are worse off.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 11, 2009)

> I'd probably be heavily fined or thrown in jail in many European countries (or Canada) for expressing my conservative/right wing/nationalist political opinions.


No, not really. Depending on how you define 'European countries' there may be a few instances (I don't pretend to know the legal codes of every European country), but that's like taking Cuba or the like to stand for 'America'. Take the EU and you can say what you like.
Extreme right-wing (as in: fascist or nazistic) ideologies may land you in trouble with the general population, but even that is unlikely to get you fined or in jail.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Mar 11, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> eventually doesn't permit them to think their own thoughts



OMG JUST LIKE 1984 WHAT A PROPHETIC WORK


THOUGHT POLICE 

THOUGHT POLICE

THOUGHT POLICE

THOUGHT POLICE

THOUGHT POLICE


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> I'd probably be heavily fined or thrown in jail in many European countries (or Canada) for expressing my conservative/right wing/nationalist political opinions.



Uhm, no. Canada doesn't give a shit, there's more freedom of speech here than in the US.
You could walk up to a police officer and tell him to go fuck his own fat, pigtailed ass. He will laugh at you.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Mar 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's horrible.



No it's not, it's awesome.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uhm, no. Canada doesn't give a shit, there's more freedom of speech here than in the US.
> You could walk up to a police officer and tell him to go fuck his own fat, pigtailed ass. He will laugh at you.


 
Look up some of the dirt on the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I frequently read about arrests and prosecutions in Europe for various forms of "hate speech."  Criticizing Muslim immigration seems to be a common way to get in trouble.

European papers sometimes compare their system to America's, and seem to think that the First Amendment is strange and excessive.  The consensus that I get from European sources is that America has far more freedom of speech than Europe...maybe too much.

***

"That's not true, in fact America doesn't even have full free speech.
You can be branded a "terrorist" and lose all those rights, even if you did nothing."

That was a completely unconstitutional claim made by the war criminals of the Bush Administration.


----------



## Doubler (Mar 11, 2009)

That sounds alien to me. I have no idea what your sources are, but they don't seem to be very fair 
In my experience 'hate speech' (and other such terms) is a controversial term, usually reserved for people directly inciting violence and the like but without consequence on it's own. To that end, I will point towards the word 'peacably' in your own first amendment. Violent acts are not protected by free speech.

There *is* discussion about free speech and how far it should go, and whether slander and insults should be protected as such. But you're not about to land in jail for stating an opinion.

Often there are also archaic laws against things like slander that were drafted in some past, but are no longer enforced. That before someone brings it up.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 11, 2009)

I've never heard of a single freedom of speech issue in Canada, I have heard of plenty in the US.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I've never heard of a single freedom of speech issue in Canada, I have heard of plenty in the US.


 
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmVmYzFlNGRhNzhhNGJkMzRlZDE0Nzc1NjFjNTg0NTY=


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 12, 2009)

Who the fuck is Dean Steacy?
He's nobody of importance, and is just a person. Look, I can say that too, doesn't make it happen in the rest of the country.

I guess what the christfags in the US say is what the entire country believes, correct?


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> It seems a pretty spurious difference in that in both scenarios you're paying taxes to the government while you're earning and getting assistance if you can't (either through injury or age). One is "better" simply because it goes into and comes out of a specific government account?



No Social Security is like retirement that they force you to pay. Welfare is just government hand outs.



Mayfurr said:


> <Conservative logic>
> _Can't spend the time or money to build roads? What a failure! You're just getting free roads from the state because you supposedly can't build them yourself.
> 
> Can't afford to buy a tank? Bill Gates can buy a tank (or two), he worked his way up from nothing to where he is today, if you can't work your way up to where you can buy a tank to defend yourself you're obviously lazy and don't deserve to be defended. Why should my taxes pay to defend you when you supposedly unable to fund one yourself? _
> ...



No you can't like I said, the average person can afford their own health care. The average person cannot afford a tank or road expenses. 

PS: Using the same *extreme* logic you used I could say liberal logic is that no one has to do anything and money, food, and shelter will simply rain down from heaven.... But I'm smart enough to realize that is false logic....


----------



## Kume (Mar 12, 2009)

Europe has better looking women.
Nuff said.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 12, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> I'd probably be heavily fined or thrown in jail in many European countries (or Canada) for expressing my conservative/right wing/nationalist political opinions.



On the other hand, people from Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand can visit Cuba without any fear that our government will prosecute us when we get home... unlike the USA.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 12, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> No Social Security is like retirement that they force you to pay. Welfare is just government hand outs.



Because heaven forbid that the government actually tries to _help_ anyone who is actually in need, eh?



> No you can't like I said, the average person can afford their own health care. The average person cannot afford a tank or road expenses.



Really? If the average person in the US can afford health care, then how come more patients die in the US from diseases that could be treated by timely intervention than in any other leading industrialised country?



> A decade ago, the US had the fourth worst record among a group of 19 industrialised countries in terms of deaths per 100,000 people from diseases that are amenable to treatment. These include infections, treatable cancers, diabetes, and heart and vascular disease, according to Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
> 
> Over the succeeding five years, the number of such deaths in the US fell from 115 per 100,000 to 110. But other countries improved faster, *leaving the US with the worst record, behind Portugal, Ireland and the UK, where the preventable death rate runs at 103 or 104 per 100,000.*
> 
> "*If the US performed as well as the top three countries in the study*" - France, with 65 deaths per 100,000, and Japan and Australia, both with 71 per 100,000 - "*there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year*," the authors write in the journal Health Affairs.



Or, as one blogger put it: "Surely it's a coincidence that the "leading" performer in that category is the only country without universal health care? 

But like Madeleine Albright said about the death of hundreds of thousands Iraqi kids in the 90s because of the sanctions regime, "it is worth it" - some principles are worth upholding even if it is tragically costly to do so. *These hundred thousand Americans dying earlier than could have been each year (imagine: one million preventable deaths over the past decade!) are the front line soldiers in the fight for freedom and against socialism.*"

In other words: Each year, 101,000 Americans die needlessly because they're not French.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Who the fuck is Dean Steacy?
> He's nobody of importance, and is just a person. Look, I can say that too, doesn't make it happen in the rest of the country.
> 
> I guess what the christfags in the US say is what the entire country believes, correct?



i love how your arguments are essentially "so and so isn't true, i never have heard of it!" and when someone provides a link to some information you essentially say "well that information doesnt matter"........



> Really? If the average person in the US can afford health care, then how come more patients die in the US from diseases that could be treated by timely intervention than in any other leading industrialised country?



partially because we're stingy bastards that much rather pay for a plasma screen tv. partially because there ARE families that make so little that they have trouble finding the money. however a big part is that many people dont go to the hospital or the doctor for every last thing. many people go long, long long tracts of time without seeing a doctor for various reasons and dont get checked out for everything.

further that information you provided can be a tad bit misleading. its accurate information but things like vascular disease and diabetes are in there. people die of those even if they get regular healthcare because quite simply put their diets and lifestyles are shit. its one of the american problems. it really doesnt have much to do with the quality of our healthcare but rather the number of morons who cant stop eating....


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 12, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> i love how your arguments are essentially "so and so isn't true, i never have heard of it!" and when someone provides a link to some information you essentially say "well that information doesnt matter"........



I love it when the pot calls the kettle black.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 12, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> I love it when the pot calls the kettle black.



there's a difference between outright saying "that information doesnt matter" and saying "your information is right, but the way it is presented is misleading". where his arguements essentially ammount to "nuh huh!" and "well he's a moron so that article doesnt count". my arguements rather usually involve accepting someone's source such as the one above, but picking apart the information and showing the person that there is more to his provided information then he thinks there is.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 12, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> partially because we're stingy bastards that much rather pay for a plasma screen tv. partially because there ARE families that make so little that they have trouble finding the money. however a big part is that many people dont go to the hospital or the doctor for every last thing. many people go long, long long tracts of time without seeing a doctor for various reasons and dont get checked out for everything.
> 
> further that information you provided can be a tad bit misleading. its accurate information but things like vascular disease and diabetes are in there. people die of those even if they get regular healthcare because quite simply put their diets and lifestyles are shit. its one of the american problems. it really doesnt have much to do with the quality of our healthcare but rather the number of morons who cant stop eating....



No-one is disputing the *quality* of American healthcare from the perspective of treatment - it's the _*availability*_ of American healthcare to its citizens which is the problem. *The best treatments, doctors and surgeons on the planet are no damn good to people if, through lack of cash or insurance cover, they can't afford the care to get well!*


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 12, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> i love how your arguments are essentially "so and so isn't true, i never have heard of it!" and when someone provides a link to some information you essentially say "well that information doesnt matter".......



Your post reeks of ad hominem.

It's because it -doesn't- matter, fuck-twit.
If it doesn't matter, and I say it doesn't matter; that the information makes no sense, and has -nothing- to do with the discussion other than opinion, it doesn't hold any weight, and doesn't matter. If you see a pattern of this, maybe it's because you fuck-twits can't provide a real argument.

Now, so does mine.


----------



## Mr Fox (Mar 12, 2009)

Lol.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Mar 12, 2009)

I always dreamed about going to Europe. I heard that England is nice.
Europe all the way!!! I also heard Australia is nice too.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> No-one is disputing the *quality* of American healthcare from the perspective of treatment - it's the _*availability*_ of American healthcare to its citizens which is the problem. *The best treatments, doctors and surgeons on the planet are no damn good to people if, through lack of cash or insurance cover, they can't afford the care to get well!*



well, part of the issue with the information provided as i said involves diseases related to someone eating too much or just having a poor diet. the numbers still would likely lean towards your viewpoint but substantially less so considering that those diseases represent the most common causes of american deaths. the other issue i have thought of with the information provided is how it would compare if you stacked the whole european union against the us. as i've shown before, the european union vs the us is COMPLETELY different then luxembourg or even france vs the us. 

however, your arguement above does post a pretty good point. the real question is if those numbers you provided are the result of people's lack of ability to visit the doctor due to cost, if its from a cultural thing of not wanting to visit the doctor unless something serious comes up, or if the mentioned american diet and lifestyle skews the numbers THAT much. i'd have already done some research into that and posted something on the subject but i dont have time this evening so the whole research thing will have to wait a minute.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Really? If the average person in the US can afford health care, then how come more patients die in the US from diseases that could be treated by timely intervention than in any other leading industrialised country?



In my experience it's not cost. It's many other things. A lot of people I know can pretty much go to the doctor for free due to their health insurance. But they don't... People don't like to go to the doctor until they have to. Than a lot of times, people will go to the doctor and be told that it's nothing major and then die from something major that could have been prevented with early intervention. My Dad died from lung cancer that he would have had a better chance against with early intervention, but he waited until he had full blown pnuemonia and could barely breathe to go to the doctor because he didn't want to go.



Mayfurr said:


> Or, as one blogger put it: "Surely it's a coincidence that the "leading" performer in that category is the only country without universal health care?
> 
> But like Madeleine Albright said about the death of hundreds of thousands Iraqi kids in the 90s because of the sanctions regime, "it is worth it" - some principles are worth upholding even if it is tragically costly to do so. *These hundred thousand Americans dying earlier than could have been each year (imagine: one million preventable deaths over the past decade!) are the front line soldiers in the fight for freedom and against socialism.*"
> 
> In other words: Each year, 101,000 Americans die needlessly because they're not French.



You may be right, universal healthcare may be the solution. But that's beside the point. Point is I don't want universal health care. And until a majority of Americans want it, it's not going to happen. Although, it looks like the tide is turning and I may get swept away. But based on what I've heard, initially our universal healthcare will simply be tax cuts and breaks as well as forced implementation. That wont do anything but piss people off when they get fined for not getting it or are forced to dish out money for something they aren't going to use. One step forward 2 steps back. If they are going to do it and they can get enough Americans to stand behind them, go full blown.... Don't piddle forward.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 12, 2009)

You aren't the majority. No matter what YOU want, it won't fly, especially in Capitalism.
It's like you're totally against socialism, except you want your own opinions to matter.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You aren't the majority. No matter what YOU want, it won't fly, especially in Capitalism.
> It's like you're totally against socialism, except you want your own opinions to matter.



Um, in the currently Democracy, my opinion does matter.... And I didn't say I was the majority, just that the majority doesn't want it at the moment. Although its slowly changing, half-assing it by making health insurance mandatory is going to have the reverse effect.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 12, 2009)

No, it doesn't. It's the majority that matters in a democracy and the higher ups in capitalism. Your country is both, and the majority is morons; proposition 8, anybody?

And the majority does want free health care, actually; why would they not want it, other than attempting to prove some idiotic point, using yourself as an example.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, it doesn't. It's the majority that matters in a democracy and the higher ups in capitalism. Your country is both, and the majority is morons; proposition 8, anybody?
> 
> And the majority does want free health care, actually; why would they not want it, other than attempting to prove some idiotic point, using yourself as an example.



if the majority wanted it then why do so many politicians, even liberals think of it as political suicide to push for truly universal healthcare? in our federal government those who openly support state run healthcare are the MINORITY. there's a reason such a thing hasn't passed yet moron.... 



> why would they not want it



BECAUSE MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE BETTER HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS IF WE RUN IT ON A "CAPITALIST SYSTEM" AND HAVE THE PEOPLE PAY INTO IT WHAT IT NEEDS INSTEAD OF HAVING THE GOVERNMENT TELLING IT WHAT IT NEEDS.

look at the sort of shit that happens when the state decides what people need instead of the people themselves....

http://www.caribbeanmedicine.com/article9.htm
http://www.caribbeanmedicine.com/article7.htm


> more of them are going to the U.S. for better pay and working conditions.



and its a fucking third party source. it isnt canada(which would likely naturally be lauding its own system) nor is it american(which would likely naturally be a detractor) but a third party source and "critique".

added: oh look another good article....



			
				http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1143599 said:
			
		

> At the meeting the association also released the results of a recent national public opinion poll that said that Canadians' confidence in their healthcare system has reached an all time low. The poll found that the number of Canadians who believe that waiting times in hospital emergency rooms have worsened has reached 73%, up from 54% in 1996--and six in 10 feel that their access to specialists has worsened.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> if the majority wanted it then why do so many politicians, even liberals think of it as political suicide to push for truly universal healthcare?



Um, because of lobby groups that rather enjoy the status quo, like from the insurance industry? Because of "better dead than Red" conservatives that would rather sacrifice 101,000 Americans per year from preventable diseases on the altar of politically-correct "freedom"? Because of propaganda insinuating one day public healthcare, the next day communism?



> BECAUSE MANY OF US BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE BETTER HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS IF WE RUN IT ON A "CAPITALIST SYSTEM" AND HAVE THE PEOPLE PAY INTO IT WHAT IT NEEDS INSTEAD OF HAVING THE GOVERNMENT TELLING IT WHAT IT NEEDS.



You may believe that - but that's not what the facts and figured bear out comparing the US system to those of other countries. And for your information, it _is_ perfectly possible for a publicly-funded health services and private health carers to co-exist. They certainly do in my country.

And as for the "kind of shit" that happens in public health systems - well, there's just as much shit (if not more) happening with the private US system. Things like being charged for an emergency ambulance ride... (not covered by insurance?!? Good god, someone _charges_ for a damn _ambulance?!?_)


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 13, 2009)

Hahaha...the reason it's better is because we believe it so.

Flawless argument.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 13, 2009)

> not covered by insurance?!? Good god, someone charges for a damn ambulance?!?



you have ANY idea how many costs there are in the ambulance and the personnel? ya, doubt you do.... look, a rolling emergency care unit with highly trained level headed personnel that can keep cool and can stabilize someone so they can survive the ride to the hospital doesnt come cheep. and as we discover in just about everything when you but a senile old bean counter bureaucrat in charge of things nothing seems to get the funding it needs. so instead of that being rescue racing towards you its rather a rickety wagon of death. hell, i provided links of what happens to perfectly good health care when senile old politicians are put in charge of things.



> Um, because of lobby groups that rather enjoy the status quo



and what about the lobby groups that are highly funded and motivated to create universal healthcare? people always blame the lobbyists but the truth is that in issues such as this there is a counter lobby almost every damn time. ya know what bud, the law isn't made by how much damn money you have. if that were the truth then smoking wouldnt be banned in public places such as bars and restaurants in roughly half the country...... the whole "the big corporations always win because they have all the money" is bullshit.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/470300999_bc272ccb30.jpg

the "evil block" of corperations (tobacco, oil, and the insurance companies) wins again! not really....


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 13, 2009)

In the UK it's 100% for the ambulance, and if you have kids they will get you a sitter, or so I've heard.
This is also true for France.

They'll pay for a cab home.


In Canada, depending on the emergency it's free.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> look, a rolling emergency care unit with highly trained level headed personnel that can keep cool and can stabilize someone so they can survive the ride to the hospital doesnt come cheep. and as we discover in just about everything when you but a senile old bean counter bureaucrat in charge of things nothing seems to get the funding it needs. so instead of that being rescue racing towards you its rather a rickety wagon of death.



You really _do_ have your head up your arse, don't you? Do you actually do any research, or are you just spouting off preconceptions that the US is automatically better because you say so?

The ambulances in _my_ country - under a public-funded health system, no less - are hardly "rickety wagons of death" as you so carelessly imply. Very modern, up-to-date emergency care is provided - as I can attest to first-hand when a very close friend of mine last year suffered a brain seizure and had to be taken to hospital Accident & Emergency by the local ambulance service. And how much was charged for this service? NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Not even a bill in the post afterwards.

And guess what? This same person was diagnosed with a benign brain tumour, which of course had to be removed. She had the standard MRI scans, consultations, was scheduled for cranial surgery in the public health service, and was duly operated on with the tumour removed. Post-op care was scheduled and carried out, staples removed, and a follow-up MRI scan is scheduled for next month.

What did she have to pay for all this health care? Apart from a private consultation (which was an OPTION she took, that funnily enough recommended she continued treatment in the PUBLIC system as _they_ were the ones with better back-up care), _the only costs incurred were for *parking at the hospital *for consultations._ Everything else was covered by the PUBLIC health system.

If she was living in the USA instead of New Zealand, she'd be up financial shit creek having to fork out for the costs, or having the stress of wrangling with an insurance company for what they would or wouldn't cover (assuming she WAS covered for such things) along with the inherent stress of dealing with a brain tumour.

I know what system I'd rather live with - and it ain't yours.


----------



## Gavrill (Mar 13, 2009)

In America, rides from the hospital to a behavioral facility is free, apparently.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You really _do_ have your head up your arse, don't you? Do you actually do any research, or are you just spouting off preconceptions that the US is automatically better because you say so?
> 
> The ambulances in _my_ country - under a public-funded health system, no less - are hardly "rickety wagons of death" as you so carelessly imply. Very modern, up-to-date emergency care is provided - as I can attest to first-hand when a very close friend of mine last year suffered a brain seizure and had to be taken to hospital Accident & Emergency by the local ambulance service. And how much was charged for this service? NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Not even a bill in the post afterwards.
> 
> ...


All of this.
I wish Canada would get better, actually. We have free health care, but you still have fee's in a lot of things, does any county have free dental? Like, that would be wow.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> You may be right, universal healthcare may be the solution. But that's beside the point. Point is I don't want universal health care. And until a majority of Americans want it, it's not going to happen. Although, it looks like the tide is turning and I may get swept away. But based on what I've heard, initially our universal healthcare will simply be tax cuts and breaks as well as forced implementation. That wont do anything but piss people off when they get fined for not getting it or *are forced to dish out money for something they aren't going to use. *



Er, with insurance - _any_ kind of insurance, health or otherwise - aren't you _also_ paying out for something you may not actually use? You may go through life with an insurance policy that you may (hopefully) never need to claim on, but that doesn't stop you buying insurance or it being a good idea.

Not to mention that the premiums you pay into your insurance aren't going into a shoe-box labelled with your name - they're going out to pay on _other_ people's claims. And when you claim, _other_ people's premiums are going to pay for _your_ care.

Think of universal health care as a government-guaranteed not-for-profit medical insurance corporation with 200+ million customers to spread the risk over.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You really _do_ have your head up your arse, don't you? Do you actually do any research, or are you just spouting off preconceptions that the US is automatically better because you say so?
> 
> The ambulances in _my_ country - under a public-funded health system, no less - are hardly "rickety wagons of death" as you so carelessly imply. Very modern, up-to-date emergency care is provided - as I can attest to first-hand when a very close friend of mine last year suffered a brain seizure and had to be taken to hospital Accident & Emergency by the local ambulance service. And how much was charged for this service? NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Not even a bill in the post afterwards.
> 
> ...



*sigh*.... you still paid for it.......

there are three systems. the american VOLUNTARY insurance system. the compulsory insurance system like in france and germany and the tax run system in canada and britain. 

the tax system, such as britain is actually incredibly efficient.... mostly because it has to be, it lives on the most lean diet. one of the reasons why hospitals over britain is experiencing over crowding and they are lagging behind isn't that they are wasteful, but rather the lean funding cannot process as many patients. under this system the government has the most control and regulation essentially telling the hospitals what they have to live on and supplying it with the current taxes.

the next is almost a tax. your supported by a state contracted insurance company. the state just takes money out of your paycheck every month(before you get it) and pays your insurance bill with it. now, it gets into complexities such as certain amounts of funds come from the paycheck itself, and certain amounts are "taxes" on the employer as a percentage of your paycheck. that part will translate to money out of your paycheck anyway.... now, the cost is supplemented by a few other taxes so it isnt quite as substantial. your still insured, its just that the government MAKES you become insured. those earning below a certain line dont pay. so essentially its a system that provides a better form of the american medicaid(medicaid is only accepted in slum hospitals because its so pathetic.)

you know the american system. the all out social system is the lowest cost(8-9% of british gdp), the middle ground is the compulsory (10-11% for france and germany) and the highest is the capitalistic trend (15%). in the compulsory system about 60% of the cost weighs down on paychecks, which costs the employee about 12% of his income. in a sense you can call that system assisted health care, rather then universal health care. taxes on various other things help alleviate what you have to push out of your own pocket but doesnt remove it entirely. however, since its taxes the economy takes the hit, so in that sense "your still paying for it".

now, part of the american problem isnt that we cant afford it, its that we want to spend the money on other things. places like germany pull roughly the same percentage out of the payroll system, its just that they dont show you what your loosing first. where americans get that same money in their pocket, say "well.... i fell pretty healthy, and i do eat right..... so i'll buy a plasma screen tv" and it doesnt go to health insurance. MANY people my age dont have health insurance because they simply dont feel that they need it, or spend their money right away and think they are living more lean then they actually are.

alright i got a story for you since you had to post a "my friend go sick and helped so much!" story. had a friend in high school, cool kid though was way too into pot.... guy rock climbed all the time and had dreads. anyway, he was sick as a dog for weeks and at first the doctors didnt recognize what was wrong. however they finally realized that he had brain cancer and that the pressure was causing his brain to make him feel like he had the worst flu in the world. long story short he made it through it, the total cost was well over a million and the insurance company paid it all without any complaint. his family was a smart one and actually paid into health insurance and got covered right away. no problems and the total cost quite honestly was about the same as if the government taxed their paycheck to a higher degree in one form or another. after all, your still paying the damn bill even if you dont actually read the bill in red lettering every month. $200 a month for a good policy isn't unreasonable, people often pay 150 dollars a month on their damn cell phone bill alone... though the problem there with the "$200 a month" is that quotes on the average cost of american healthcare are all over the board, from 5k annually for families to 12k.....

http://sefora.org/2008/10/17/for-the-record-just-what-is-the-average-cost-of-health-care-insurance/

dont ever think that i dont do my research....

anwyay, as i said before i like my country's system because it puts the most money into health care. it gives it as much money as it needs and helps promote rapid research and development in all manner of health care. the compulsory system allows the same diversity of hospitals, but i believe my system develops new methods and technologies faster.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 13, 2009)

You don't pay that much, and if the money isn't used in health it goes to other things, it's a very good system.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 13, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> *sigh*.... you still paid for it.......



Of COURSE I paid for it indirectly through my taxes - I'm talking about "up front" costs at the hospital door.



> dont ever think that i dont do my research....



When you come out with ill-informed and asinine comments about publicly-funded ambulances being "rickety wagons of death", it's very hard to assume anything OTHER than typical Yank "not invented here" syndrome.



> anwyay, as i said before i like my country's system because it puts the most money into health care. it gives it as much money as it needs and helps promote rapid research and development in all manner of health care. the compulsory system allows the same diversity of hospitals, but *i believe my system develops new methods and technologies faster.*



Which is all well and good, *but if people can't get access to it* because either they can't afford it or their insurance doesn't cover it, *what good is it?* Your country's system may have more money pouring through it than in any other country, but given your country doesn't have the equivalent number one ranking in health indicators (child mortality, average lifespan) there seems to be at least a shitload of WASTAGE inherent in the US system. Which means that you're paying more into your medical insurance than you *have *to - money that you could spend on something else.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And the majority does want free health care, actually; why would they not want it, other than attempting to prove some idiotic point, using yourself as an example.



Learn the meaning of free.... First of all, if you're paying for it in taxes, it isn't free. Second, the US doesn't want to start the way it should be done, they want to offer tax breaks and force people to get health insurance. Which I feel is even worse. Granted I already have health insurance. People should have the right to choose whether they want to pay for it or not. Not have it forced on them.



Mayfurr said:


> Er, with insurance - _any_ kind of insurance, health or otherwise - aren't you _also_ paying out for something you may not actually use? You may go through life with an insurance policy that you may (hopefully) never need to claim on, but that doesn't stop you buying insurance or it being a good idea.
> 
> Not to mention that the premiums you pay into your insurance aren't going into a shoe-box labelled with your name - they're going out to pay on _other_ people's claims. And when you claim, _other_ people's premiums are going to pay for _your_ care.
> 
> Think of universal health care as a government-guaranteed not-for-profit medical insurance corporation with 200+ million customers to spread the risk over.



Yes, I understand the concept. But they don't want to do it that way. They want to simply force people to get health insurance and give them a tax break. It's like car insurance. Right now, I have to have car insurance. If I don't have it, they'll take my license away. Shouldn't I have the right to choose whether I have it or not? I understand the concept that it's to protect people I hit, but they could sue me and get the money. I could go my entire life never being in an accident, paying for other people's accidents. But like I said before, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I'm saying this is America, and you should have a choice. Not have the decision made for you.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 14, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Learn the meaning of free.... First of all, if you're paying for it in taxes, it isn't free. Second, the US doesn't want to start the way it should be done, they want to offer tax breaks and force people to get health insurance. Which I feel is even worse. Granted I already have health insurance. People should have the right to choose whether they want to pay for it or not. Not have it forced on them.



It is free.
You do not pay for it, and the tax increase doesn't come close to the amount of money you'd spend on regular check-ups and any medical bills, for the average people anyway. And making the people with less money pay lower taxes compared to the people with more money that don't fucking need it pay more, a lot more, equals it out.
You'd barely fucking notice, maybe if Americans would put down the fucking fork they could afford a slightly higher tax increase to benefit the country as a whole and not the snooty fucktards, like yourself.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Learn the meaning of free.... First of all, if you're paying for it in taxes, it isn't free.



Yes, but the cost is spread across a far wider base, which means the impact on the individual is less than across a small number of policy-holders under the insurance model.



> Second, the US doesn't want to start the way it should be done, they want to offer tax breaks and force people to get health insurance. Which I feel is even worse.



That's probably because of the uproar from the entrenched medical insurance industry et al that would result if he did it properly. Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible...



> Granted I already have health insurance. People should have the right to choose whether they want to pay for it or not. Not have it forced on them.



Unfortunately from what I've read a lot of people in the US don't _have_ that choice *in that they can't afford to pay for comprehensive insurance*. Which means if anything happens they're up shit creek.

And going back to an earlier point, should you also have the right to opt out of paying the portion of your taxes that goes to your country's military, because you believe your gun collection and Second Amendment rights are sufficient to protect yourself from foreign invaders? After all, currently you're forced to pay for America's war machine whether you like it or not.



> It's like car insurance. Right now, I have to have car insurance. If I don't have it, they'll take my license away. Shouldn't I have the right to choose whether I have it or not? I understand the concept that it's to protect people I hit,* but they could sue me and get the money.*



Gee, you _really_ want to lay yourself open to be *sued?* In _America_ - the land of the lawyer-raptors? 



> I could go my entire life never being in an accident, paying for other people's accidents. But like I said before, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I'm saying this is America, and you should have a choice. Not have the decision made for you.



All I can say is that people who do have the choice are paying a lot for that privilege, and there are lots of people who have a choice between nothing and nothing - which is really no choice at all.

Or to put it another way: Each year, 101,000 Americans die needlessly so you have the "choice" of whether to have health insurance or not.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 14, 2009)

It's not so they can sue you, what if you don't have the money to pay them? They get stuck with medical bills of funeral charges, then what?

What about property damage, or if YOU get killed? THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK.


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 14, 2009)

I'm pretty alright with Belgium's system of healthcare, where you have to pay your own bills, but a doctor's receipt gets you 85% of the cost refunded by any of the multiple mutual funds in Belgium. Though, I have to say I'd think to like the above systems a little bit more.

And some things, yeah, you could have a choice, but sometimes the government should be able to make a choice for you is the other end of the spectrum is completely fucking retarded. If you implement America's system in Europe, then we're not going to become better in the eyes of thy holy lord Jesus Bob Christ, no, then we're just going to plunge into the same abyss America's in right now, an utter shithole.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 14, 2009)

> Which is all well and good, but if people can't get access to it because either they can't afford it or their insurance doesn't cover it, what good is it? Your country's system may have more money pouring through it than in any other country, but given your country doesn't have the equivalent number one ranking in health indicators (child mortality, average lifespan) there seems to be at least a shitload of WASTAGE inherent in the US system. Which means that you're paying more into your medical insurance than you have to - money that you could spend on something else.



compared to the european union as a whole we are normal in terms of child mortality, average lifespan and all that. which honestly i can explain those numbers.

in the european union you have plenty of developing areas that drag the average score down on all those areas. in terms of infant mortality rate places like latvia(total: 8.96 deaths/1,000 live births ), lithuania(total: 6.57 deaths/1,000 live births ), and romania (total: 23.73 deaths/1,000 live births ), drastically drag down the fantastic scores of places like france (total: 3.36 deaths/1,000 live births ).

the us doesnt have such conveniant borders. now we DO have some areas like five points colorado that wallow in a culture of violence, poverty and ignorance but those "gangland" areas dont do the brunt of the work. our OFFICIAL immigration rate is three times that of france. see, while the european union has the burden of developing member states to bring up to standard, the us has a constant influx of poor people that it must educate and bring 
up out of poverty. sometimes that takes more then one generation to do. a great deal of the negative trend is that some people, or often more accurately some AREAS cannot afford quality health care. note that i said quality, because in the us you still have medicaid, which despite the amount of money the us pours into it still makes slum hospitals and clinics.

now while looking up all these numbers on the cia factbook(i use it a lot for things like this because its an easy accurate resource) i found something interesting....

us death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.) 
french death rate: 8.48 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.) 
uk death rate: 10.05 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.) 
germany death rate: 10.8 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
canada death rate: 7.61 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.) 

out of all the countries posted, the ONLY one to beat the united states in death rate was canada. so, if the french, german, and the british systems are that much better why are they dieing at a higher rate then we are? you've pulled up "preventable deseases" but i'm pulling up the overall picture here. now canada actually seems to be the exception to the various socialized health care systems. 

oh ya, we have a "third world" medical system, even though in terms of the final statistic we are second best.....



> in that they can't afford to pay for comprehensive insurance.



the majority of which could afford health insurance if they could be separated from their cell phone, brand new car and cable tv.....


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> now while looking up all these [infant mortality] numbers on the cia factbook(i use it a lot for things like this because its an easy accurate resource) i found something interesting....
> 
> us death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
> french death rate: 8.48 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
> ...



Your conclusion is wrong because the CIA _estimate _is inaccurate - here's *actual* numbers:

Nationmaster - Infant Mortality (Total) Most Recent (2008 )

#185    	United States:  	*6.30* deaths/1,000 live births 
#186    	Cuba:  	        *5.93* deaths/1,000 live births 
#194    	Canada:  	        5.08 deaths/1,000 live births 
#196    	New Zealand:  	4.99 deaths/1,000 live births 
#197    	United Kingdom:  *4.93* deaths/1,000 live births
#200    	Australia:  	        4.82 deaths/1,000 live births
#201    	Netherlands:  	4.81 deaths/1,000 live births
#205    	Belgium:  	        4.50 deaths/1,000 live births
#213    	Germany:  	        *4.03* deaths/1,000 live births
#220    	France:  	        *3.36* deaths/1,000 live births

Never mind France, Germany, and Australasia - infants in *Cuba* (you know, that tin-pot Caribbean country the US has been embargoing the shit out of for over forty years) have a slightly better chance at surviving than in the US...!

The US *is *doing better than American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Saudi Arabia though...



> the majority of which could afford health insurance if they could be separated from their cell phone, brand new car and cable tv.....



That's a pretty... *convenient* assumption to make, isn't it? Absolves you of actually giving a damn by allowing you to blame the victim - or more correctly, a convenient stereotype. Wonderful.

Y'know, I'm getting the distinct impression that Americans are a pretty self-centred mercenary bunch, and that the reputation of them being kind and generous types is actually way off the mark...


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 14, 2009)

no, i posted death rate, not infant mortality rate. keep in mind that infant mortality contributes to the death rate. as i said, death rate is THE defining statistic about a health care system. the less people dieing the better the people are taken care of right?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_dea_rat-people-death-rate
8.27 deaths/1,000 population(united states)   	

my stats were on target..... so i was right, in terms of the death rate amongst the major powers in the western block canada is the only one that beats the united states. which demonstrates that our doctors do a pretty good job of patching together the steriotypical american that "tries to eat and drink himself to death and shoots everyone who tries to stop him". 



> That's a pretty... convenient assumption to make, isn't it? Absolves you of actually giving a damn by allowing you to blame the victim - or more correctly, a convenient stereotype. Wonderful.
> 
> Y'know, I'm getting the distinct impression that Americans are a pretty self-centred mercenary bunch, and that the reputation of them being kind and generous types is actually way off the mark...



i'm sorry, i dont want to pay for your damn knee surgery. its my money, i worked for it and i dont want it going to something that will NEVER benifit me. the roads, that helps me. the police, that helps me. paying for the knee surgery of someone i will never meet? nope, not on the top of my list. maybe if i become rich i'll get into philanthropy but right now i fucking work for a living.

so i went and got a set of quotes on health insurance, chose the lowest deductable and this is what came up.





you losers pay that much for your damn cell phone bill. its not an unreasonable expense. once you get the plan cooking(as in covered the deductible) there is no reason why you shouldnt be able to afford health care for yourself unless your living on nothing but food stamps and welfare.  see, people like me think its inexcusable for working people to claim that they cannot afford that. people frit that amount of money away like its nothing and then when it comes down to the line they claim bullshit that "i cant afford health insurance", when in reality its their damn choice to have more luxuries instead of having health insurance coverage.

alright, the hsa 100 plan on that list would cost me 1,688 annually. according to
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInGermany.html
the average german spends about 14% of his income on healthcare. now lets say i was a german making a rather low amount, 25,000 a year. i'd be putting 3500 dollars into the system for my health care annually. 

the situation in germany and france is not quite so cut and dry however. because the employer and the employee both donate a percentage of the value of the paycheck of the employee to heatlh insurance it is harder to pick an absolute number of how much money the employee is loosing per year for health care. sure, you could count it just as that 14%, but your forgetting that the employer is going to adjust the employees paycheck to deal with the cost of health insurance. in other words, the employee is getting paid less because the employer has to pay for health insurance, thus that cost is coming out of the employees paycheck too, though because of mathematical dynamics it isnt quite as substantial a sum as if it were to outright be pulled out of the paycheck. 

in other words, i can pay for my heatlh insurance here for CHEAPER then germany(which often claims it has the best health care in europe). wow, i didnt realize that until today....


----------



## Werevixen (Mar 14, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> i'm sorry, i dont want to pay for your damn knee surgery. its my money, i worked for it and i dont want it going to something that will NEVER benifit me. the roads, that helps me. the police, that helps me. paying for the knee surgery of someone i will never meet? nope, not on the top of my list. maybe if i become rich i'll get into philanthropy but right now i fucking work for a living.




And this is why we sharing, (health)caring Europeans get the impressions all Americans are assholes. Thanks to people like you.


Fuck the common good right? You have you to think about!


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> no, i posted death rate, not infant mortality rate. keep in mind that infant mortality contributes to the death rate. as i said, death rate is THE defining statistic about a health care system. the less people dieing the better the people are taken care of right?
> 
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_dea_rat-people-death-rate
> 8.27 deaths/1,000 population(united states)
> ...



However, using the SAME statistics from your link:

#106    	*United States:  	8.27 deaths*/1,000 population
#116    	Ireland:  	7.77 deaths/1,000 population
#120    	Canada:  	7.61 deaths/1,000 population
#127    	*Korea, North:  	7.29 deaths*/1,000 population
#128    	*Cuba:  	7.19 deaths*/1,000 population   	
#130    	*China:  	7.03 deaths*/1,000 population
#131    	*New Zealand:  	7 deaths*/1,000 population
#134    	Papua New Guinea:  	6.96 deaths/1,000 population 
#140    	*Australia:  	6.68 deaths*/1,000 population

Your claim that the overall death rate of the US justifies your free-market health care system compared to other countries is rather undermined by the fact that New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and even *North Korea*, China and *Cuba* have *lower* death rates than the United States. Care to try again?

(I _am_ rather surprised that *Papua New Guinea* beats _both_ our countries though... I wonder what _they're_ doing right?)

And Australia and New Zealand AREN'T "part of the Western bloc"? (Yeah, I know, anyone outside of Europe and North America doesn't count...)



> i'm sorry, i dont want to pay for your damn knee surgery. its my money, i worked for it and i dont want it going to something that will NEVER benifit me. the roads, that helps me. the police, that helps me. paying for the knee surgery of someone i will never meet?



Have you considered that the "someone you'll never meet" might be a customer of the business you work for? Might be a shareholder? Might be wanting to buy a product or service of your company but can't because they have to fork out over the odds for surgery instead? Someone who supports someone else that might patronise your business?
Someone who pays into the same healthcare plan as you that indirectly supports YOU when YOU are ill?

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean there's no benefit to you.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 14, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> And this is why we sharing, (health)caring Europeans get the impressions all Americans are assholes. Thanks to people like you.



This.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 14, 2009)

Ah the glory of the "moron:not-moron" ratio, isn't it grand?


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 14, 2009)

> Your claim that the overall death rate of the US justifies your free-market health care system compared to other countries is rather undermined by the fact that New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and even North Korea, China and Cuba have lower death rates than the United States. Care to try again?



well, if it shows the ability of the health care systems then it shows that the major powers on the western block dont have quite as effective health care as other countries. buuuut yknow i'm mostly surprised that you simply didnt try to poke holes in that simple arguement i made above instead of saying the us is worse then poor ol north korea.

really, as your starting to see, the little tidbit stats really dont matter as much as you would think. infant mortality in the us is higher then france, but our death rate is lower. part of it is the sheer wave of factors that create the numbers, not just the health care. such as the preventable diseases in the us being highly influenced by not wanting to visit a doctor for various reasons and our horrid diet.




> Have you considered that the "someone you'll never meet" might be a customer of the business you work for? Might be a shareholder? Might be wanting to buy a product or service of your company but can't because they have to fork out over the odds for surgery instead? Someone who supports someone else that might patronise your business?
> Someone who pays into the same healthcare plan as you that indirectly supports YOU when YOU are ill?
> 
> Just because you can't see them doesn't mean there's no benefit to you.



health care is a basic need. so am i expected to clothe them, feed them and put a roof over their heads as well? i demonstrated that CLEARLY health insurance is not as expensive as people claim. so, while i work all day and deal with rather stupid shit to earn my keep someone else is allowed to lay on their ass and get what they need by doing nothing but appear pathetic? am i supposed to be content with that shit? the sad truth is that people do that anyway, its called food stamps, welfare and medicaid....

its not that i'm not kind, or generous its that its wrong to expect some people to work for everyone else. the reason why a german who makes a rather low salary(the 25k a year posted above) will pay pretty much twice what i do into the system is that he has to pay for all the damn leaches that are not working for their keep. honestly there is a difference between social safety nets and a system that burdens those who do honest work with those who have figured out how to lay around and do absolutely nothing.

no i dont want to pay for your god damn knee surgery because you should have been working just like me. you needing me to pay for your knee surgery in all likelihood means your just laying on your pathetic ass all day instead of having worked for a living before whatever accident that made you need the surgery.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 14, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It is free.
> You do not pay for it, and the tax increase doesn't come close to the amount of money you'd spend on regular check-ups and any medical bills, for the average people anyway. And making the people with less money pay lower taxes compared to the people with more money that don't fucking need it pay more, a lot more, equals it out.
> You'd barely fucking notice, maybe if Americans would put down the fucking fork they could afford a slightly higher tax increase to benefit the country as a whole and not the snooty fucktards, like yourself.



You say it is free, then you say I wouldn't notice the cost.... Which is it? Like I said, it's not free. And I'm not snooty, I just believe in less government. Less government is what has made this country such a great country from the start. And now as government grows, we start going down the crapper.... You figure it out...

PS: Where did tax rates come from? We weren't even discussing that. But now that you bring it up. I believe in the flat tax. Which means everyone pays the same rate. Still means people who spend more pay more. No deductions...

PSS: Do you normally win arguments by spewing foul language and insults? Because it appears that's the only way you know how to discuss something...



Mayfurr said:


> Yes, but the cost is spread across a far wider base, which means the impact on the individual is less than across a small number of policy-holders under the insurance model.



I understand this. I'm just more into choice as opposed to forced entry.



Mayfurr said:


> That's probably because of the uproar from the entrenched medical insurance industry et al that would result if he did it properly. Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible...



Agreed, though I would say voters are playing a role in this also, because it's not a majority want at the moment.



Mayfurr said:


> Unfortunately from what I've read a lot of people in the US don't _have_ that choice *in that they can't afford to pay for comprehensive insurance*. Which means if anything happens they're up shit creek.



Though I know this is going to bring a rant from someone about how I'm hating on the poor, even though most of my family is poor, I was been poor and know what it's like, and I'm not rich now... Let's define a life-worthy job as a job which you work and expect to make a living and possibly support a family from the pay.

If you have a 'life-worthy job' in the US you are either offered health insurance through your company or can afford to pay it yourself. You should not expect to make a career flipping burgers at Burger King. If you are 30 and flipping burgers, perhaps it's time to look at the possibilities and see what you can do to get high wages, such as construction, truck driving, etc. Maybe getting a student loan, as I did, and getting an education to pull yourself out of the hole. No one is above help and being poor is not an excuse. If anything, being poor should give you the initiative to want to get better. Have you ever heard a poor person tell their children they hope they are poorer than them when they grow up. Or I want you to be a janitor when you grow up.



Mayfurr said:


> And going back to an earlier point, should you also have the right to opt out of paying the portion of your taxes that goes to your country's military, because you believe your gun collection and Second Amendment rights are sufficient to protect yourself from foreign invaders? After all, currently you're forced to pay for America's war machine whether you like it or not.



No, military is something I cannot provide for myself. I can't protect my house from China if they decided to invade it.



Mayfurr said:


> Gee, you _really_ want to lay yourself open to be *sued?* In _America_ - the land of the lawyer-raptors?



Not really, that's not my point. The point is I make the decision on whether I will be covered or not. And I can still be sued even with insurance.



Mayfurr said:


> All I can say is that people who do have the choice are paying a lot for that privilege, and there are lots of people who have a choice between nothing and nothing - which is really no choice at all.
> 
> Or to put it another way: Each year, 101,000 Americans die needlessly so you have the "choice" of whether to have health insurance or not.



What's to say they wouldn't die if they had it. Like I said before, people I know who can go to the doctor for free, don't because they don't want to. They wait till the last possible second when they are forced to go. And Americans are lazy, look at the obesity stats for us. We eat all the wrong foods and watch too much TV. I believe this contributes to our -2 years on the LE scale.



NewfDraggie said:


> It's not so they can sue you, what if you don't have the money to pay them? They get stuck with medical bills of funeral charges, then what?
> 
> What about property damage, or if YOU get killed? THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK.



I am thinking. I know the purpose. I'm just more inclined to self responsibility and less inclined to forced responsibility.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 14, 2009)

Almost forgot, our high crime rate also contributes to our -2 years.


----------



## T.Y. (Mar 14, 2009)

Europe.

Because of the Angus Statue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhHjDNnJilg

After high school im gonna go on a Euro Trip lol


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> so, while i work all day and deal with rather stupid shit to earn my keep someone else is allowed to lay on their ass and get what they need by doing nothing but appear pathetic? am i supposed to be content with that shit? the sad truth is that people do that anyway, its called food stamps, welfare and medicaid....
> [...]
> no i dont want to pay for your god damn knee surgery because you should have been working just like me. you needing me to pay for your knee surgery in all likelihood means your just laying on your pathetic ass all day instead of having worked for a living before whatever accident that made you need the surgery.



God, you are pathetic. You assume *anyone *who is in strife and can't pay their own way is a lazy-arse? 
Perhaps they were working their arse off on minimum wage to feed their family and putting food on the table today was a higher priority?
Perhaps through no fault of their own they got laid off in an area with high unemployment where THEY CAN'T IMMEDIATELY GET ANOTHER JOB?
Perhaps all their savings and so forth were wiped out by arseholes like Bernard "$50 billion Ponzi scheme" Madoff?

But no, you're so intellectually lazy and dismissive you'd automatically tag someone worse off than yourself as being lazy and therefore worthless. Because then you can stand on your high horse looking down your nose at those less fortunate than yourself and pat yourself on the back "Aren't I clever to not be like them?"

You better hope that nothing knocks you off that high horse of yours, because it's a long fall to the ground.

By the way, if you *really* don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare then I suggest you _immediately _cancel your own health insurance and funnel your health insurance premiums into a bank account instead - or better still, a shoe-box under your bed - because under ANY insurance business YOUR premiums are going to fund OTHER people's claims. And while you're at it, hire your own PERSONAL protection to replace the collective police and military protection you're funding through your taxes, because HEAVEN FORBID your tax money goes to protect those who are "laying on their pathetic ass all day instead of having worked for a living"...


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Though I know this is going to bring a rant from someone about how I'm hating on the poor, even though most of my family is poor, I was been poor and know what it's like, and I'm not rich now... Let's define a life-worthy job as a job which you work and expect to make a living and possibly support a family from the pay.
> 
> If you have a 'life-worthy job' in the US you are either offered health insurance through your company or can afford to pay it yourself. You should not expect to make a career flipping burgers at Burger King. If you are 30 and flipping burgers, perhaps it's time to look at the possibilities and see what you can do to get high wages, such as construction, truck driving, etc. Maybe getting a student loan, as I did, and getting an education to pull yourself out of the hole.



I understand, but that does assume that there are sufficient "life-worthy" jobs available for everyone who wants one to get one.  Yes, there are opportunities for advancement, but especially in today's economic climate where companies are _laying off_ staff more than hiring, it seems that if you don't have a "life-worthy" job you're screwed. At best, you'd be having to take on multiple jobs which leave you LESS time for self-improvement or time with your family (if you have one), and at worst you start sliding downhill to the point where you're expending ALL your energy just to stand still with nothing left for advancement.

And what about solo parents who have to decide between getting a job to support themselves, or looking after their kids? They're not all from the "got knocked up in school" brigade - they could be on the wrong side of a divorce, or widowed. Heck, my next-door neighbour is having to raise her _grandchild_ on her own due to family issues...



> No one is above help and being poor is not an excuse. If anything, being poor should give you the initiative to want to get better. Have you ever heard a poor person tell their children they hope they are poorer than them when they grow up. Or I want you to be a janitor when you grow up.



Having initiative and incentive is one thing and is all well and good, but it becomes somewhat meaningless without opportunity to go with it.

Listen, I've also made my way through life and I've never been on welfare - even when I did get laid off from a job several years ago - and I definitely don't want to be on the dole from a point of pride. BUT, what that experience taught me is that sometimes despite your best efforts circumstances CAN turn against you, and it can be _bloody_ hard to try and get back on your feet if you're having to manage responsibilities to your family etc. at the same time.
Yes, I had the opportunity to go on training courses to upskill myself, but of course they cost money - so you have to decide "Do I spend this now in the hope it will get me a job? Or do I use this money to keep the household going and put food on the table for X more weeks while I keep looking for something in my current line of work?" I'm sure you know from your experience that these choices are not easy ones.



> No, military is something I cannot provide for myself. I can't protect my house from China if they decided to invade it.



That is true. BUT, your justification is that "you can't afford" to protect your house from China - well, what's the difference between that and someone saying "they can't afford healthcare"? If you say, "Oh, they should be able to afford it", then what's to stop that being used against you when it comes to defence? After all, to someone on the bones of their arse a health-insurance premium may as well be the cost of a private aircraft-carrier...

I watched part of a "Larry King Live" interview on CNN the other day with former President Clinton, and he made the point that European competitors with the US spent less on healthcare with their publicly-funded systems than the US did with its private system, which _gives them an economic advantage as the money they're not overspending on healthcare can be spent on *business *initiatives_ as opposed to simply trying to keep their citizens healthy. 

To be honest, if the US wants to hobble itself with an inefficient health system that is its business, BUT I strongly object when people arguing against the kind of health system I have in MY country are making crap out of thin air to justify their position (the "rickety wagons of death" line for public ambulances from ceacar99 is a case in point).



> Like I said before, people I know who can go to the doctor for free, don't because they don't want to. They wait till the last possible second when they are forced to go.



Yes, that is a possibility, but to be honest I rather doubt that mentality is restricted exclusively to Americans - who _really_ likes going to the doctor if they feel they don't have to? :-(


----------



## SnickersTheCat (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm not gonna lie... I like it here in America. 
Granted I've never been to Europe (I will this summer) so we'll see.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 15, 2009)

This is hilarious. Either way, the US isn't comparable to a entire continent made up of some of the best countries in the world.

If we picked -one- country in Europe, then it'd be more fair; the USA would still probably lose.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I understand, but that does assume that there are sufficient "life-worthy" jobs available for everyone who wants one to get one.  Yes, there are opportunities for advancement, but especially in today's economic climate where companies are _laying off_ staff more than hiring, it seems that if you don't have a "life-worthy" job you're screwed. At best, you'd be having to take on multiple jobs which leave you LESS time for self-improvement or time with your family (if you have one), and at worst you start sliding downhill to the point where you're expending ALL your energy just to stand still with nothing left for advancement.



Were I to loose one of my 2 jobs, I would look for another, or take one of the 2 jobs I have been offered recently. If I could not get a job in my field I would change fields. Either switching to a field that I am already qualified to work in or moving to a 'life-worthy' area that requires no experience. Were that not available I would find a field that would work and that I feel I could learn and return to college to learn it. Probably taking a non-'life-worthy' job on the side and using a student loan. I just don't see how a non-disabled person can make any excuse not to be able to get a decent job... Even with children there is daycare. And saying you loose time with your children if they are in daycare is an excuse. You have to do what you have to do to support your family. It's been only recently (within the last 50-60 years) that parents and children have had the time to spend with each other that they do. Because until recently, people were working constantly to survive and children were expected to work also.



Mayfurr said:


> And what about solo parents who have to decide between getting a job to support themselves, or looking after their kids? They're not all from the "got knocked up in school" brigade - they could be on the wrong side of a divorce, or widowed. Heck, my next-door neighbour is having to raise her _grandchild_ on her own due to family issues...



Explained above, children should not be used as an excuse.



Mayfurr said:


> Having initiative and incentive is one thing and is all well and good, but it becomes somewhat meaningless without opportunity to go with it.
> 
> Listen, I've also made my way through life and I've never been on welfare - even when I did get laid off from a job several years ago - and I definitely don't want to be on the dole from a point of pride. BUT, what that experience taught me is that sometimes despite your best efforts circumstances CAN turn against you, and it can be _bloody_ hard to try and get back on your feet if you're having to manage responsibilities to your family etc. at the same time.
> Yes, I had the opportunity to go on training courses to upskill myself, but of course they cost money - so you have to decide "Do I spend this now in the hope it will get me a job? Or do I use this money to keep the household going and put food on the table for X more weeks while I keep looking for something in my current line of work?" I'm sure you know from your experience that these choices are not easy ones.



I've had to live on student loans before, I know sometimes life can throw you a curve. As a child my mother lived on welfare. But that was because she didn't want to get a good paying job. Even now she works at a job making minimum wage, complains she doesn't have enough money, but when I tell her about openings she could work at my company that would pay her 3 times more money and have benefits she doesn't want to hear it for one reason or another. "I don't want to do that", "I can't do that".... How do you know unless you try, and I don't want to is just not an excuse I'm willing to accept. A lot of people, myself included, have had to do things they didn't want to to survive.



Mayfurr said:


> That is true. BUT, your justification is that "you can't afford" to protect your house from China - well, what's the difference between that and someone saying "they can't afford healthcare"? If you say, "Oh, they should be able to afford it", then what's to stop that being used against you when it comes to defence? After all, to someone on the bones of their arse a health-insurance premium may as well be the cost of a private aircraft-carrier...



But to protect myself from China I would need more than a carrier. I would need a military with soldiers. One person cannot fund that. Not even Bill Gates could raise an army to protect himself from China.



Mayfurr said:


> I watched part of a "Larry King Live" interview on CNN the other day with former President Clinton, and he made the point that European competitors with the US spent less on healthcare with their publicly-funded systems than the US did with its private system, which _gives them an economic advantage as the money they're not overspending on healthcare can be spent on *business *initiatives_ as opposed to simply trying to keep their citizens healthy.
> 
> To be honest, if the US wants to hobble itself with an inefficient health system that is its business, BUT I strongly object when people arguing against the kind of health system I have in MY country are making crap out of thin air to justify their position (the "rickety wagons of death" line for public ambulances from ceacar99 is a case in point).



I'm sorry, what crap have I made out of thin air?



Mayfurr said:


> Yes, that is a possibility, but to be honest I rather doubt that mentality is restricted exclusively to Americans - who _really_ likes going to the doctor if they feel they don't have to? :-(



True, but Americans are extremely lazy and unhealthy also. With a high crime rate.



NewfDraggie said:


> This is hilarious. Either way, the US isn't comparable to a entire continent made up of some of the best countries in the world.
> 
> If we picked -one- country in Europe, then it'd be more fair; the USA would still probably lose.



You are entitled to your opinion.... Why is no one else?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 15, 2009)

Because it -really- isn't better than these countries. You might -think- it's better or prefer it, doesn't make it better magically in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Mayfurr (Mar 15, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> I'm sorry, what crap have I made out of thin air?



Actually, I appreciate that you *haven't* so far... at least as far as I'm aware.

And thanks for the civil discussion.


----------



## ceacar99 (Mar 15, 2009)

> God, you are pathetic. You assume anyone who is in strife and can't pay their own way is a lazy-arse?
> Perhaps they were working their arse off on minimum wage to feed their family and putting food on the table today was a higher priority?
> Perhaps through no fault of their own they got laid off in an area with high unemployment where THEY CAN'T IMMEDIATELY GET ANOTHER JOB?
> Perhaps all their savings and so forth were wiped out by arseholes like Bernard "$50 billion Ponzi scheme" Madoff?



its called you have to do what you fuckin have to do. i'm on my knees sucking uncle sam's cock every day so that i can further my goals in life. i detest the work environment i'm in right now, i detest my peers, i hate almost every last damn thing about it save for the fact that i work with firearms every day. yet no matter how much i regret the decision i know it will get me closer to where i want to fucking be when my contract ends. 

rostram put it in a much more polite way, but thats the fact. you do what you have to do. though he probably doesnt think about that quite the same way as me. see, i am of the school that strife can generate growth, productivity and progress. if i just start handing out money to every hardship case of "oh noes, i got laid off and spent all my money on financial hookers! now i cant pay for my knee surgery!" then all sorts of people are going to figure out that they can quit their job, make up some bullshit and get by for free. happens all the damn time actually. 

see there's the thing. i dont want to promote a bullshit state of entitlement. we already have too much of that. too many people feeling entitled because they've hit a rough spot, too many of those entitled feeling people claiming that you really cant make it anymore and you need to steal from others to get by. too few people actually getting up and doing what they have to do, instead of stealing from others. 

now the thing is, that most people do what they have to do, and get by just fine. and yes, you have a few real honest to god hardship cases and then you got the people stealing from others via the ballot box. they dont live lives with lots of luxery but they get by on other people's money when they should be working, struggling and finding a way. 

necessity is the mother of invention. well, if we remove necessity then what will spawn invention?



> By the way, if you really don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare then I suggest you immediately cancel your own health insurance and funnel your health insurance premiums into a bank account instead



um.... everyone else is paying their dues in that system. there are no leaches, just people paying for a service. 

and yknow, i already covered the cops, the roads, the military and all that.....


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Mar 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Because it -really- isn't better than these countries. You might -think- it's better or prefer it, doesn't make it better magically in the grand scheme of things.



Just as you may -think- it's not, but that doesn't make it so. Opinions are not fact.


----------

