FA+
Shop
1774
Views
Views
30
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Horse
Size 800 x 458
File Size 235.1 kB
Report this content
More from AlexRaccoon
Obama 08
Category Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Horse
Size 800 x 458px
File Size 235.1 kB
Sorry? I don't believe I accused the other individual of being ignorant nor did I demand they convert to my opinion XD Oh and, "take a chill pill"? What makes you think I'm getting at all worked up over this? I do believe my comments had been made in a calm manner.
Good try though.
Good try though.
trollrapefaceplzicon
Insinuating that Obama is a communist is about as ill-informed as you can get.
It has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with my ideology, it's just not what the guy thinks, preaches, or has on his agenda.
It doesn't matter if it's someone's opinion. Opinions are not inviolable, sacred things. They can be stupid.
It has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with my ideology, it's just not what the guy thinks, preaches, or has on his agenda.
It doesn't matter if it's someone's opinion. Opinions are not inviolable, sacred things. They can be stupid.
Understanding what a joke is, helps.
I doubt the individual posting this genuinely believes Obama is a communist. It's more so making fun of his policies which are, indeed, very reminiscent of both socialist and communistic ideals.
And the reason I defend this individual's right to express his opinion is the sheer fact that dozens of people have flocked to this submission just to inform the poster that his views are stupid. Regardless of weather or not you agree, he still is entitled to express himself as he see fit.
Also, just to joke around even further with you, it's only your opinion that opinions can be stupid ;D
I doubt the individual posting this genuinely believes Obama is a communist. It's more so making fun of his policies which are, indeed, very reminiscent of both socialist and communistic ideals.
And the reason I defend this individual's right to express his opinion is the sheer fact that dozens of people have flocked to this submission just to inform the poster that his views are stupid. Regardless of weather or not you agree, he still is entitled to express himself as he see fit.
Also, just to joke around even further with you, it's only your opinion that opinions can be stupid ;D
>>"I doubt the individual posting this genuinely believes Obama is a communist."
You never know. The accusation comes up frequently in right-wing propaganda, namely radio talk shows. I don't think they're joking.
>>"It's more so making fun of his policies which are, indeed, very reminiscent of both socialist and communistic ideals."
Marx and Lenin would have fits if they saw what Obama was doing. He's giving large sums of money to private businesses. To a communist, in making the system more stable and tolerable for lower-class individuals, he's staving off revolution.
>>"And the reason I defend this individual's right to express his opinion is the sheer fact that dozens of people have flocked to this submission just to inform the poster that his views are stupid. Regardless of weather or not you agree, he still is entitled to express himself as he see fit."
Telling someone that their views are stupid doesn't prevent them from stating them.
>>"Also, just to joke around even further with you, it's only your opinion that opinions can be stupid ;D"
Your opinion that it's my opinion that opinions can be stupid is ill-informed. :P
You never know. The accusation comes up frequently in right-wing propaganda, namely radio talk shows. I don't think they're joking.
>>"It's more so making fun of his policies which are, indeed, very reminiscent of both socialist and communistic ideals."
Marx and Lenin would have fits if they saw what Obama was doing. He's giving large sums of money to private businesses. To a communist, in making the system more stable and tolerable for lower-class individuals, he's staving off revolution.
>>"And the reason I defend this individual's right to express his opinion is the sheer fact that dozens of people have flocked to this submission just to inform the poster that his views are stupid. Regardless of weather or not you agree, he still is entitled to express himself as he see fit."
Telling someone that their views are stupid doesn't prevent them from stating them.
>>"Also, just to joke around even further with you, it's only your opinion that opinions can be stupid ;D"
Your opinion that it's my opinion that opinions can be stupid is ill-informed. :P
No, That's not ignorant, that is RETARDED... :)
What he's going to do ? build a time machine and go back in time to fix it the way he wanted to be?
Even I know that the new president was already elected, too late to complain.
http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net.....ut-last-night/
I bet there's a cave he can hide for the next 4 maybe 8 years ^^
What he's going to do ? build a time machine and go back in time to fix it the way he wanted to be?
Even I know that the new president was already elected, too late to complain.
http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net.....ut-last-night/
I bet there's a cave he can hide for the next 4 maybe 8 years ^^
I was thinking more in a balanced artwork kind of way. I don't consider any of the people's political opinions around here to amount to a hill of beans. Yer all furries! Half of whom are likely underage, living with their mothers, or were too stoned to vote. Oh wait, must be nice. Bad Ryan, bad.
After all, I think it is kind of hypocritical to complain about media biases on your own form of media in which you are expressing a political opinion.
Lets just say I am taking this as rather humerous. Besides, he makes for a rather handsome donkey. And if you say otherwise, why that is speciesist! Good joke, no one cares.
Kids these days, thinking FA is a medium for political agendas. It brings a smile to my face. Keep at it. Tis cute.
Now, if you want to know the truth on media biases, don't listen to them. 5 bucks say anyone claiming to know the truth is biased. We all are, and groups are even more so. It is only human(furry) nature.
After all, I think it is kind of hypocritical to complain about media biases on your own form of media in which you are expressing a political opinion.
Lets just say I am taking this as rather humerous. Besides, he makes for a rather handsome donkey. And if you say otherwise, why that is speciesist! Good joke, no one cares.
Kids these days, thinking FA is a medium for political agendas. It brings a smile to my face. Keep at it. Tis cute.
Now, if you want to know the truth on media biases, don't listen to them. 5 bucks say anyone claiming to know the truth is biased. We all are, and groups are even more so. It is only human(furry) nature.
Actually my preferred side did win. But I could go into my reasons for thinking both sides campaigns were disappointing yet comical, if you like.
Also, unlike the stereotype, I voted for Obama but am not an obamabot who automatically agrees with everything Obama says or does with a cult-like mentality.
Also, unlike the stereotype, I voted for Obama but am not an obamabot who automatically agrees with everything Obama says or does with a cult-like mentality.
Right. His polices and ideals. Which you haven't listed or linked too just alluded to through short monosyllabic sentences. Just keep trying to convince yourself that this isn't based on a deep seated need to appear trendy and get attention. I'm sure if you keep repeating that to yourself the niggling doubt will go away. Eventually. You know after everyone floods in here to comment.
I'll admit this one is a little strong of a stance for my tastes. After all, pointing fingers and calling fascism is a pretty ballsy move. That being said, though I disagree with your opinion, it is good to see you're willing to say it. After all, the fact that we're both allowed to vocally disagree with each others opinions just shows how well this system works.
It's good to see that not all furries are Obamessiah worshippers and have blinded themselves to the harsh and true realities rather than letting Obama fill their ears with hot air.
I've got a long-running series of journals on my D-Art page that archives a great deal of Obama's recent blunders.
After all, people never forgave George Bush for everything from the Asian door thing, to the war in Iraq.
But apparently Clinton's off the hook for the Mogadishu massacre and costing taxpayers billions of dollars to investigate whether or not he screwed a woman in his office.
I've got a long-running series of journals on my D-Art page that archives a great deal of Obama's recent blunders.
After all, people never forgave George Bush for everything from the Asian door thing, to the war in Iraq.
But apparently Clinton's off the hook for the Mogadishu massacre and costing taxpayers billions of dollars to investigate whether or not he screwed a woman in his office.
And over $90,000 to Hamaas taking over 75% of Christler, trying to all but do away with the second amendment, and doing every thing like Clinton to embolden the enemies. And recently many powerful people in Europe are warning him about the slippery slope that is socialism.
over $90,000 to Hamaas
I don't know the details on that one so I can't answer it. However, Obama holding out an olive branch to the Arab world has instantly cooled things down & made the US a million friends when all Bush's tough-guy routine ever did was make us a million enemies & help Al Qaeda recruit more supporters.
taking over 75% of Christler,
It's 'Chrysler,' & did he just illegally grab it or set it up with the company to save their asses?
trying to all but do away with the second amendment
Yeah, I've heard about this one - pure right-wing baloney to keep their supporters scared (& supporting them); they drag this one out whenever a Democrat runs or gets elected. BTW, how high has the price of ammo climbed recently? I heard a theory that the gun lobby started this rumor on purpose in order to create a run on ammo - 'before Obama makes it all illegal' - and a scarcity to drive the price of bullets way up.
the slippery slope that is socialism
And that's bad because otherwise health insurers won't be able to make $$$ off sick people, including denying them coverage when they can get away it?
Personally, I haven't had a problem with socialism since I found out the library was funded by the government so everyone could share the books - that's bad because...?
I don't know the details on that one so I can't answer it. However, Obama holding out an olive branch to the Arab world has instantly cooled things down & made the US a million friends when all Bush's tough-guy routine ever did was make us a million enemies & help Al Qaeda recruit more supporters.
taking over 75% of Christler,
It's 'Chrysler,' & did he just illegally grab it or set it up with the company to save their asses?
trying to all but do away with the second amendment
Yeah, I've heard about this one - pure right-wing baloney to keep their supporters scared (& supporting them); they drag this one out whenever a Democrat runs or gets elected. BTW, how high has the price of ammo climbed recently? I heard a theory that the gun lobby started this rumor on purpose in order to create a run on ammo - 'before Obama makes it all illegal' - and a scarcity to drive the price of bullets way up.
the slippery slope that is socialism
And that's bad because otherwise health insurers won't be able to make $$$ off sick people, including denying them coverage when they can get away it?
Personally, I haven't had a problem with socialism since I found out the library was funded by the government so everyone could share the books - that's bad because...?
And that's bad because otherwise health insurers won't be able to make $$$ off sick people, including denying them coverage when they can get away it?
Pinkuh's Journal! --> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/759265/
Fair isn't it?
I CURED YOU, YOU OWE ME YOUR LIFE! NOW YOU'RE MAH SLAVE! BWAHAHAHA
Pinkuh's Journal! --> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/759265/
Fair isn't it?
I CURED YOU, YOU OWE ME YOUR LIFE! NOW YOU'RE MAH SLAVE! BWAHAHAHA
Not my journal! Tell Pinkuh about that!
Here at home if a truck run over you, you can get a lousy health treatment, but you won't be sued because "you can't pay"...
And dude, even if you PAY for insurance they'd charge anyways some hospital bills the same way they'd do if you were in a hotel. >.>
Here at home if a truck run over you, you can get a lousy health treatment, but you won't be sued because "you can't pay"...
And dude, even if you PAY for insurance they'd charge anyways some hospital bills the same way they'd do if you were in a hotel. >.>
Precisely. You just *KNOW* you're doing a horrible job when VLADIMIR PUTIN of all people, talks to you about care with your economic policies!
So much more is riding on this than just THIS country, which in and of itself is a massive issue, but the world as well since we're a massive trading hub.
As goes America's economy, thus goes the world.
And all in the name of fulfilling some amorphous notion of 'The Greater Good'.
So much more is riding on this than just THIS country, which in and of itself is a massive issue, but the world as well since we're a massive trading hub.
As goes America's economy, thus goes the world.
And all in the name of fulfilling some amorphous notion of 'The Greater Good'.
costing taxpayers billions of dollars to investigate whether or not he screwed a woman in his office.
Who ran up that bill? Clinton or the right-wingers in Congress looking for any excuse to impeach him? Most people in the US couldn't care less about Clinton's private life & Congress found him innocent in 5 seconds.
BTW, back then the Republicans running things fired the original head of the investigation - a moderate Republican - and replaced him with Ken Starr, who already hated Clinton's guts so they could be guaranteed an indictment.
Oh, and you left out Clinton smuggling cocaine into Arkansas, and murdering his political opponents and cheating at parcheesi...
people never forgave George Bush for ...the war in Iraq.
And they never should. Deliberately lying the country into a needless war of aggression ("weapons of mass destruction," my ass) and okaying torture are war crimes that he, Cheney & Rumsfeld should be on trial for. Several other countries put their former leaders in jail for lesser misdeeds.
Who ran up that bill? Clinton or the right-wingers in Congress looking for any excuse to impeach him? Most people in the US couldn't care less about Clinton's private life & Congress found him innocent in 5 seconds.
BTW, back then the Republicans running things fired the original head of the investigation - a moderate Republican - and replaced him with Ken Starr, who already hated Clinton's guts so they could be guaranteed an indictment.
Oh, and you left out Clinton smuggling cocaine into Arkansas, and murdering his political opponents and cheating at parcheesi...
people never forgave George Bush for ...the war in Iraq.
And they never should. Deliberately lying the country into a needless war of aggression ("weapons of mass destruction," my ass) and okaying torture are war crimes that he, Cheney & Rumsfeld should be on trial for. Several other countries put their former leaders in jail for lesser misdeeds.
"And they never should. Deliberately lying the country into a needless war of aggression ("weapons of mass destruction," my ass) and okaying torture are war crimes that he, Cheney & Rumsfeld should be on trial for. Several other countries put their former leaders in jail for lesser misdeeds."
THIS.
THIS.
I left out Clinton smuggling cocaine into Arkansas, murdering his political opponents and cheating at parcheesi because I have not heard of any such problems. I don't buy his 'I smoked marijuana, but never inhaled' bullshit, but that's not a big issue.
As for Bush, he acted upon information he'd received. He's not at fault for that.
What *is* his fault though, is not stopping the war after confirming that there were no WMDs at least in immediate sight.
To his credit, I believe he decided to salvage the war in Iraq by turning the focus from WMDs to Saddam Hussein, who presented a threat to our allies. Do I totally agree with it? Not entirely. But that, I believe, was his motivation.
You see, rather than buying into the foolishness that is the American media as a whole, I prefer to do my own research.
Try it sometime, I mean that. You'll learn a great deal more. If you still disagree with me after you've done this, then let me know and we'll speak again.
As for Bush, he acted upon information he'd received. He's not at fault for that.
What *is* his fault though, is not stopping the war after confirming that there were no WMDs at least in immediate sight.
To his credit, I believe he decided to salvage the war in Iraq by turning the focus from WMDs to Saddam Hussein, who presented a threat to our allies. Do I totally agree with it? Not entirely. But that, I believe, was his motivation.
You see, rather than buying into the foolishness that is the American media as a whole, I prefer to do my own research.
Try it sometime, I mean that. You'll learn a great deal more. If you still disagree with me after you've done this, then let me know and we'll speak again.
As for Bush, he acted upon information he'd received. He's not at fault for that.
The information he received was cooked up to justify the war, most likely by Cheney; yeah, you can't blame Bush, he's just the president, it's not like he's in charge or anything...
The information he received was cooked up to justify the war, most likely by Cheney; yeah, you can't blame Bush, he's just the president, it's not like he's in charge or anything...
Cheney was not the one feeding Bush information.
Bush was given information by the CIA and by the British Intelligence agencies that told of WMDs.
He acted on that information.
The only was he could have known for certain or not was to personally look for the WMDs, and that's not a president's job.
Bush was given information by the CIA and by the British Intelligence agencies that told of WMDs.
He acted on that information.
The only was he could have known for certain or not was to personally look for the WMDs, and that's not a president's job.
Bush was given information by the CIA and by the British Intelligence agencies that told of WMDs.
Which was cooked up by Cheney, force-fed to the CIA & handed to a very gullible Tony Blair.
The only was he could have known for certain or not was to personally look for the WMDs, and that's not a president's job.
No, his job is to go to Crawford TX & 'clear brush.' Seriously, his job is to ask the tough questions and make sure he's getting straight answers - not being told what he wants to hear; not to blow off an August 2001 report 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' by telling his staffer 'you've covered your ass now get out of here;' not to answer a reporter who asked him if the invasion was going to begin soon with 'you don't get to decide, I get to decide,' as if starting a war is a privilege instead of a responsibility.
Bush drove the country off a cliff, and you guys are upset at the guy who's trying to clean up the mess? Sheesh!
Which was cooked up by Cheney, force-fed to the CIA & handed to a very gullible Tony Blair.
The only was he could have known for certain or not was to personally look for the WMDs, and that's not a president's job.
No, his job is to go to Crawford TX & 'clear brush.' Seriously, his job is to ask the tough questions and make sure he's getting straight answers - not being told what he wants to hear; not to blow off an August 2001 report 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' by telling his staffer 'you've covered your ass now get out of here;' not to answer a reporter who asked him if the invasion was going to begin soon with 'you don't get to decide, I get to decide,' as if starting a war is a privilege instead of a responsibility.
Bush drove the country off a cliff, and you guys are upset at the guy who's trying to clean up the mess? Sheesh!
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not defending Bush. I'm simply stating things objectively.
To Clinton's credit, he did great things for international trade policies. Though I think his buffing up of the laws regarding mortgages and banks were foolish, considering the housing crisis that ensued.
And as for this 'being upset with the guy trying to clean up the mess' business, let me ask you something...
If someone hired you to rake up leaves, would you shake up their trees to make more leaves fall on the lawn? That's the equivalent of what Obama is doing. He's spending money when we have none to spend.
To Clinton's credit, he did great things for international trade policies. Though I think his buffing up of the laws regarding mortgages and banks were foolish, considering the housing crisis that ensued.
And as for this 'being upset with the guy trying to clean up the mess' business, let me ask you something...
If someone hired you to rake up leaves, would you shake up their trees to make more leaves fall on the lawn? That's the equivalent of what Obama is doing. He's spending money when we have none to spend.
Well, we obviously have different perspectives on the situation, but I don't think anyone outside of God can look at a situation 'objectively.' I agree with you that Clinton went along with a lot of the banking dereg's that got us into this mess - both parties share the blame on this.
I'm not 100% sure O's making the right moves, but the guy is extremely intelligent (on his own too, and not just compared to his predecessor), he projects a lot of self-confidence which, psychologically speaking, is important for the country right now, and... he's the only president we've got at the moment. He's also winning back a lot of support for the US in the world that Bush pissed away with his tuff guy routine.
Anyway, time for everyone to coool down and relax. Personally, I'm all politicked out - but it was a fun ride today - thanks Alex!
I'm not 100% sure O's making the right moves, but the guy is extremely intelligent (on his own too, and not just compared to his predecessor), he projects a lot of self-confidence which, psychologically speaking, is important for the country right now, and... he's the only president we've got at the moment. He's also winning back a lot of support for the US in the world that Bush pissed away with his tuff guy routine.
Anyway, time for everyone to coool down and relax. Personally, I'm all politicked out - but it was a fun ride today - thanks Alex!
Nice rebound, Mr. C!
I'll just add that I am amazed that there is anyone who actually thinks Bush was somehow duped into attacking Iraq because of 'bad intelligence.' Anyone that thick probably believed there really were WMDs in Iraq. That kind of willful ignorance is almost perverse, really.
I'll just add that I am amazed that there is anyone who actually thinks Bush was somehow duped into attacking Iraq because of 'bad intelligence.' Anyone that thick probably believed there really were WMDs in Iraq. That kind of willful ignorance is almost perverse, really.
you were the first one to make an unsubstantiated allegation, therefore you should be the first one to provide evidence. The gentlemen you're accusing of not having substantiation can easily find any number of anecdotal evidence for you to dismiss -- however, your claim is of objective evidence, which if not substantiated shows you're either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately being intellectually dishonest.
To his credit, I don't know any canadians who'd trade their health care system for ours, either. And to be quite honest with you, when's the last time you showed up to the doctor's office and demanded to be seen right away? Do you think Canada doesn't have ER's or something? I think I'm leaning towards assuming ignorance over deliberate dishonesty here...
To his credit, I don't know any canadians who'd trade their health care system for ours, either. And to be quite honest with you, when's the last time you showed up to the doctor's office and demanded to be seen right away? Do you think Canada doesn't have ER's or something? I think I'm leaning towards assuming ignorance over deliberate dishonesty here...
It doesn't even work in Canada, which has less people than we do, and yet a greater doctor-to-patient ratio.
I guess all those Ivy League educations weren't worth the money these career politicians' folks spent...
These are your allegations which I asked you to show your evidence of, since the first one makes its argument on a presumption of fact. I wanted you to show how you concluded the former ("It doesn't even work in Canada") from the latter statement you made.
You should ask your canadian friends if they'd seriously like to have the US system instead of their system, or whether or not they just want to improve their own system. Just cause somebody's not completely satisfied with something doesn't necessarily mean it's an awful system, and even if it weren't a great system, that doesn't automatically mean that system is worse than our system. I'm willing to bet that if any of your Canadian friends have had personal experience dealing with our system, they'd tell you right away that even if they're not satisfied with their own there'd be no way in hell they'd trade it for ours.
I guess all those Ivy League educations weren't worth the money these career politicians' folks spent...
These are your allegations which I asked you to show your evidence of, since the first one makes its argument on a presumption of fact. I wanted you to show how you concluded the former ("It doesn't even work in Canada") from the latter statement you made.
You should ask your canadian friends if they'd seriously like to have the US system instead of their system, or whether or not they just want to improve their own system. Just cause somebody's not completely satisfied with something doesn't necessarily mean it's an awful system, and even if it weren't a great system, that doesn't automatically mean that system is worse than our system. I'm willing to bet that if any of your Canadian friends have had personal experience dealing with our system, they'd tell you right away that even if they're not satisfied with their own there'd be no way in hell they'd trade it for ours.
That still does not solve the fundamental problem I worry about:
Do you HONESTLY want your health to be handled by bureaucrats? Ponder that a while.
Better companies that compete with eachother (Competition breeds innovation after all) than a bunch of saurian Vogon-esque paper pushers who view the world in numbers without adding in the human element.
I've seen the dark side of bureaucracy and it's scary...
Do you HONESTLY want your health to be handled by bureaucrats? Ponder that a while.
Better companies that compete with eachother (Competition breeds innovation after all) than a bunch of saurian Vogon-esque paper pushers who view the world in numbers without adding in the human element.
I've seen the dark side of bureaucracy and it's scary...
I've heard this talking point before and it's very sadly misguided. The people who should be making the decisions are your doctors and the experts, not bureaucrats (which ideally the bureaucracy should not and will not get in the way of this if properly implemented), and definitely not some bureaucrats at an HMO which is how it's currently done. I want you to think about the existing reality and how much closer it is to this chicken little fantasy you think socialized medicine's going to be so you can try and understand why the majority of americans now support both health care reform and a public option.
FWIW, single-payer universal healthcare is not on the table at this time. The big debate centers around the ability for the government to provide a public option to the people which would force the HMO's to adopt better standards or risk losing the majority of their business to the nonprofit government provider. Who's really scared of the choice? If in the future it turns out that public healthcare was the right choice, the HMO's would become irrelevant as an industry (ie: should've never been a large capital-incentive market in the first place) and will go back to providing supplimental insurance for future nationalized plans to fill the gaps.
I am not scared of this scenario I just painted for you. I've seen people close to me get screwed and left footing the bill by their provider first-hand, and the bureaucracy of that should be criminal. And it's not like you have much of a choice already. Either use what your employer gives you (if your employer gives you anything), or pay for a shitty plan that costs a lot and won't give you enough coverage. That's not really a choice; that's also why I personally have been uninsured for a few years now. Some people are literally afraid to change jobs for greener pastures because they might have to abandon their plan, or get rejected on their new company's plan under a "pre-existing condition". Under ideal circumstances (such as better regulation of the private industry or a full public option or both) you should never be denied coverage for something like that.
Finally, I'll say it again. People's lives shouldn't be beans to be counted on some accountant's balance sheet. This is the reality we live in today. And yet, there's still some 20-30% of guys just like you out there who are scared of the fantasies of bureaucratic socialism destroying america. I hope you can see the forest for the trees, here. This is a very serious problem that requires a very serious re-evaluation of our existing system.
FWIW, single-payer universal healthcare is not on the table at this time. The big debate centers around the ability for the government to provide a public option to the people which would force the HMO's to adopt better standards or risk losing the majority of their business to the nonprofit government provider. Who's really scared of the choice? If in the future it turns out that public healthcare was the right choice, the HMO's would become irrelevant as an industry (ie: should've never been a large capital-incentive market in the first place) and will go back to providing supplimental insurance for future nationalized plans to fill the gaps.
I am not scared of this scenario I just painted for you. I've seen people close to me get screwed and left footing the bill by their provider first-hand, and the bureaucracy of that should be criminal. And it's not like you have much of a choice already. Either use what your employer gives you (if your employer gives you anything), or pay for a shitty plan that costs a lot and won't give you enough coverage. That's not really a choice; that's also why I personally have been uninsured for a few years now. Some people are literally afraid to change jobs for greener pastures because they might have to abandon their plan, or get rejected on their new company's plan under a "pre-existing condition". Under ideal circumstances (such as better regulation of the private industry or a full public option or both) you should never be denied coverage for something like that.
Finally, I'll say it again. People's lives shouldn't be beans to be counted on some accountant's balance sheet. This is the reality we live in today. And yet, there's still some 20-30% of guys just like you out there who are scared of the fantasies of bureaucratic socialism destroying america. I hope you can see the forest for the trees, here. This is a very serious problem that requires a very serious re-evaluation of our existing system.
and just in case you're skeptical of the numbers, here's a quick google of a recent one (keep in mind the people doing the polling, but also that it still reflects the trend seen by other pollsters who aren't partisan):
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h.....nsurance-plan/
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h.....nsurance-plan/
Hi, dude from a socialistic country here.
I can see a doctor within 24 hours at any time of the week with only a max. 3 hour wait time in the office. Specialists i can get to within 3 weeks, less if i'm crafty (show up after lunch time).
Mind you, i'm self-employed and paying for my own insurance, but still, even if i were unemployed the german office for unemployed people which helps them find jobs also pays for state insurance which is exactly the same thing i'm paying for right now.
I can see a doctor within 24 hours at any time of the week with only a max. 3 hour wait time in the office. Specialists i can get to within 3 weeks, less if i'm crafty (show up after lunch time).
Mind you, i'm self-employed and paying for my own insurance, but still, even if i were unemployed the german office for unemployed people which helps them find jobs also pays for state insurance which is exactly the same thing i'm paying for right now.
come on, dude. It's right for America when it comes to the police department, the fire department, the department of transportation, and the list goes on and on..... some people just don't think it's right to make a profit off people's sickness; our attitudes changed over time for paying to have stuff like police officers and firefighters to serve the public, and we still have privatized versions of some of those, in a limited capacity where they're still relevant.
This is just a story about an industry which values its own existence over the lives and livelihood of regular people not in their fold
This is just a story about an industry which values its own existence over the lives and livelihood of regular people not in their fold
Because America's fundamentals are based upon freedom. There are laws to protect people from being hurt, but it's never before been the governments job to hold your hand.
Did you know that Obama's massive 'stimulus bill' includes a taxation of both charities and the charitable? He's trying to whittle down private charities so that the truly needy will have noplace else but the government to stay in power.
We've done exceedingly well without a Socialism system. We're a system that, in 300 short years, turned a colony of farmers and pioneers into a massive superpower.
That is why I don't think Socialism is right for us.
Did you know that Obama's massive 'stimulus bill' includes a taxation of both charities and the charitable? He's trying to whittle down private charities so that the truly needy will have noplace else but the government to stay in power.
We've done exceedingly well without a Socialism system. We're a system that, in 300 short years, turned a colony of farmers and pioneers into a massive superpower.
That is why I don't think Socialism is right for us.
Freedom is not what made you a super power. What made you one was the fact that you had an entire fucking continent available along with all its ressources and nearly uncontestedly so. However that time is drawing to an end. America has been claimed. Every square meter has an owner and there are no unknown riches to be made anymore.
But that's not for long anymore. Note how the dollar is weaker than the euro. That has its reasons.
Also, society is changing. Science is advancing and manual labor is needed less and less. Speaking in larger terms, it won't be much longer until a 20/80 society is reached, which means that there literally is only work available for 20% of the populace. Exactly what do you suggest the other people should do then? Without government support they would not have an income with which to support themselves and ironically this would also destroy the income of the 20% who do have work.
As for charities: They should not need to exist. Their existence is a hint that your society is flat out broken and not doing what it should do: Support its entirety. We have charities in germany too, but until recently they were only there for two purposes: Either to support foreign countries or to function as lobby bureaus. Only recently and thanks to politics inspired by the USA have certain charities here in germany actually gained importance.
You need to look ahead as well, not only behind you.
But that's not for long anymore. Note how the dollar is weaker than the euro. That has its reasons.
Also, society is changing. Science is advancing and manual labor is needed less and less. Speaking in larger terms, it won't be much longer until a 20/80 society is reached, which means that there literally is only work available for 20% of the populace. Exactly what do you suggest the other people should do then? Without government support they would not have an income with which to support themselves and ironically this would also destroy the income of the 20% who do have work.
As for charities: They should not need to exist. Their existence is a hint that your society is flat out broken and not doing what it should do: Support its entirety. We have charities in germany too, but until recently they were only there for two purposes: Either to support foreign countries or to function as lobby bureaus. Only recently and thanks to politics inspired by the USA have certain charities here in germany actually gained importance.
You need to look ahead as well, not only behind you.
There will always be a need for food, and that's something that doesn't lend itself well to automation.
As for your other unsubstantiated claim, that America got where it is due to resources, why then, has Canada not reached superpower level then?
Besides, there's more to riches than resources mined from the ground or sliced by the plow.
You're not thinking fourth dimensionally here and while intelligent, you seem to have a one-track mind where societal needs are concerned.
You speak a contradiction. The society is at fault because charities exist?
That's just a fact of life, Xeno. Some people get lent a bad hand. But you don't need the goddamned government to help you.
Philanthropy is good for people who have gotten it hard, and we can't have rich philanthropists if we don't have rich people.
Ask my brother sometime about all this economic matter. His YouTube account is 'TheGoodEconomist'.
Ask him about it and he'll tell you all you need to know.
As for your other unsubstantiated claim, that America got where it is due to resources, why then, has Canada not reached superpower level then?
Besides, there's more to riches than resources mined from the ground or sliced by the plow.
You're not thinking fourth dimensionally here and while intelligent, you seem to have a one-track mind where societal needs are concerned.
You speak a contradiction. The society is at fault because charities exist?
That's just a fact of life, Xeno. Some people get lent a bad hand. But you don't need the goddamned government to help you.
Philanthropy is good for people who have gotten it hard, and we can't have rich philanthropists if we don't have rich people.
Ask my brother sometime about all this economic matter. His YouTube account is 'TheGoodEconomist'.
Ask him about it and he'll tell you all you need to know.
> There will always be a need for food, and that's something that doesn't lend itself well to automation.
I've worked in the industry. You have no idea how much that shit can be automated.
> As for your other unsubstantiated claim, that America got where it is due to resources, why then, has Canada not reached superpower level then?
Canada is a frozen wasteland. I'm serious here, the biggest problem it has is that it's in the wrong climate zone.
> Besides, there's more to riches than resources mined from the ground or sliced by the plow.
Well duh, what do you think why the Euro is stronger? Many countries here rely on intelligence because they don't have many people nor any ressources.
> You speak a contradiction. The society is at fault because charities exist?
> That's just a fact of life, Xeno. Some people get lent a bad hand. But you don't need the goddamned government to help you.
Please explain how it is a contradiction. I have no idea how you can claim that.
Either way, let me explain why charities are bad: Government aid tends to come with strings attached. Here in germany we have different levels. The lowest level is what you get for survival, but even for that you have to simply show up at the office twice a month to look at job offers. If you've worked before you have access to a higher level depending on how long you worked and more importantly: You can maintain it longer by taking up job offers from the govt. office. Government support here doesn't mean that you get a free ride, but that they help you get back on your feet and back into work life.
With a charity, you go there, get free stuff, go back home, end of. Society gains nothing from it.
> Philanthropy is good for people who have gotten it hard, and we can't have rich philanthropists if we don't have rich people.
Did you know that with the current sum of the income of all people in germany divided equally to everyone, it is absolutely feasible for every single person, child, adult, elderly, to have a state income of 30000€ per year?
> Ask my brother sometime about all this economic matter. His YouTube account is 'TheGoodEconomist'.
> Ask him about it and he'll tell you all you need to know.
Heh, i'm curious, does he hang out on IRC?
I've worked in the industry. You have no idea how much that shit can be automated.
> As for your other unsubstantiated claim, that America got where it is due to resources, why then, has Canada not reached superpower level then?
Canada is a frozen wasteland. I'm serious here, the biggest problem it has is that it's in the wrong climate zone.
> Besides, there's more to riches than resources mined from the ground or sliced by the plow.
Well duh, what do you think why the Euro is stronger? Many countries here rely on intelligence because they don't have many people nor any ressources.
> You speak a contradiction. The society is at fault because charities exist?
> That's just a fact of life, Xeno. Some people get lent a bad hand. But you don't need the goddamned government to help you.
Please explain how it is a contradiction. I have no idea how you can claim that.
Either way, let me explain why charities are bad: Government aid tends to come with strings attached. Here in germany we have different levels. The lowest level is what you get for survival, but even for that you have to simply show up at the office twice a month to look at job offers. If you've worked before you have access to a higher level depending on how long you worked and more importantly: You can maintain it longer by taking up job offers from the govt. office. Government support here doesn't mean that you get a free ride, but that they help you get back on your feet and back into work life.
With a charity, you go there, get free stuff, go back home, end of. Society gains nothing from it.
> Philanthropy is good for people who have gotten it hard, and we can't have rich philanthropists if we don't have rich people.
Did you know that with the current sum of the income of all people in germany divided equally to everyone, it is absolutely feasible for every single person, child, adult, elderly, to have a state income of 30000€ per year?
> Ask my brother sometime about all this economic matter. His YouTube account is 'TheGoodEconomist'.
> Ask him about it and he'll tell you all you need to know.
Heh, i'm curious, does he hang out on IRC?
According to this [ http://www.findlocalweather.com/wea.....re_canada.html ] most of canada is between 5 and 20 °C now, while america is between 10 and 30.
It may not be actually frozen but for human habitation it might as well be. Large swaths of its landmass are just plain unsuited for culturing crops in a large scale, making it very difficult for humans to live there. Note how the bulk of canada's population is at the southern borders or near the warm gulf stream.
Use your brain a bit instead of picking on semantics.
Use your brain a bit instead of picking on semantics.
If you could read stuff in context, you'd notice that that comment was aimed at hooded-wanderer.
As for your question: Alright, i misunderstood it, so here's a more exact answer with the scope up extended to 50 years back:
Germany recovered from being bombed into the ground into a country that offers, on average, a better living standard, tax-funded employment programs, tax-funded unemployment support, tax-funded universal healthcare that works and all that without having oil and still being competetive on the world market on the same level as the USA.
Meanwhile the USA spent the last 50 years in a stagnation with large parts of the populace falling into poverty and having only a few of the benefits living in germany offers.
As for your question: Alright, i misunderstood it, so here's a more exact answer with the scope up extended to 50 years back:
Germany recovered from being bombed into the ground into a country that offers, on average, a better living standard, tax-funded employment programs, tax-funded unemployment support, tax-funded universal healthcare that works and all that without having oil and still being competetive on the world market on the same level as the USA.
Meanwhile the USA spent the last 50 years in a stagnation with large parts of the populace falling into poverty and having only a few of the benefits living in germany offers.
I agree on the stagnation of the US, but Socialism is not the answer to *our* problems.
If it works for you, then power to you.
But I can guarantee it won't work for America.
There has to be another way. We just haven't thought of it yet. Humanity has put a man on the moon, for pity sake. We can figure out something like this.
If it works for you, then power to you.
But I can guarantee it won't work for America.
There has to be another way. We just haven't thought of it yet. Humanity has put a man on the moon, for pity sake. We can figure out something like this.
Would you like me to tell you how we put a man on the moon?
the method was possible because one Adolf Hitler wanted a long-range explosive device capable of traveling great distances and being guided as well. A rocket.
The design, though military oriented, was adapted for another purpose, creating an artificial satellite. Russia did it first, and when they declared they'd put a man on the moon, Kennedy decided we would aim for the same goal.
Organizing the best theoretical physicists, engineers and scientists they could find, America built a rocket that put Alan Shepard in orbit, then later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on Earth's natural satellite, Luna.
So yes, many people contributed to it, but they were never *forced* to. They did it because they could.
My eldest brother who works with JP Aerospace is finding better ways of getting into space. Ways that trump NASA in safety, reliability and cost as well. They've already launched over 400 objects into low Earth Orbit and recovered them.
But nobody is forcing them. They're free to do it.
And yes, America has many resources, but we've been free to use them. Not the government.
the method was possible because one Adolf Hitler wanted a long-range explosive device capable of traveling great distances and being guided as well. A rocket.
The design, though military oriented, was adapted for another purpose, creating an artificial satellite. Russia did it first, and when they declared they'd put a man on the moon, Kennedy decided we would aim for the same goal.
Organizing the best theoretical physicists, engineers and scientists they could find, America built a rocket that put Alan Shepard in orbit, then later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on Earth's natural satellite, Luna.
So yes, many people contributed to it, but they were never *forced* to. They did it because they could.
My eldest brother who works with JP Aerospace is finding better ways of getting into space. Ways that trump NASA in safety, reliability and cost as well. They've already launched over 400 objects into low Earth Orbit and recovered them.
But nobody is forcing them. They're free to do it.
And yes, America has many resources, but we've been free to use them. Not the government.
Holy shit, now you're building a fantasy world.
First off, both the american military as well as the NASA are state agencies and funded by taxes. This includes the space flight programs of the NASA. In fact, Kennedy ensured personally that the space programs were made exempt from tax cuts in 1963.
This means that, no matter how you slice or dice it: Every single tax-paying american was in fact forced to pay to put a man on the moon no matter whether he thought it was the grandest thing ever or the most stupid thing ever.
As for JP Aerospace, they may have started out as a volunteer organization, but according to Wikipedia they are currently receiving funds from the american military, which again means that they are a tax-funded program and every tax-paying american is forced to pay for it.
As for the last thing: No, you are not, not anymore. Ever single ressource within your borders has an owner and everyone looking to exploit it will have to pay said owner. You cannot simply go collecting gold and get rich anymore.
Please learn more about how your own country works so you don't have to be schooled by a german.
First off, both the american military as well as the NASA are state agencies and funded by taxes. This includes the space flight programs of the NASA. In fact, Kennedy ensured personally that the space programs were made exempt from tax cuts in 1963.
This means that, no matter how you slice or dice it: Every single tax-paying american was in fact forced to pay to put a man on the moon no matter whether he thought it was the grandest thing ever or the most stupid thing ever.
As for JP Aerospace, they may have started out as a volunteer organization, but according to Wikipedia they are currently receiving funds from the american military, which again means that they are a tax-funded program and every tax-paying american is forced to pay for it.
As for the last thing: No, you are not, not anymore. Ever single ressource within your borders has an owner and everyone looking to exploit it will have to pay said owner. You cannot simply go collecting gold and get rich anymore.
Please learn more about how your own country works so you don't have to be schooled by a german.
Hello? Your talking to a Canadian here =/
Yes, it is unfortunately true that alot of people here in Canada tend to live close to the U.S. border, hell even John Candy made fun of that in Canadian Bacon. But dude, just with that, it's not true that Canada is unsuited for cultering crops; look at the prairies where I live in, Saskatchewan is the countries largest producers of wheat; about 45%.
It's really annoying when people like you tend to bash at Canada by stretching facts to fit your mind, like Zucca said "What was that about using your brain?"
Yes, it is unfortunately true that alot of people here in Canada tend to live close to the U.S. border, hell even John Candy made fun of that in Canadian Bacon. But dude, just with that, it's not true that Canada is unsuited for cultering crops; look at the prairies where I live in, Saskatchewan is the countries largest producers of wheat; about 45%.
It's really annoying when people like you tend to bash at Canada by stretching facts to fit your mind, like Zucca said "What was that about using your brain?"
Holy shit dude. Only because one small part of canada is usable doesn't mean that all of it is.
Here, a map of the extent of permafrost: http://www.interboreal.org/globalwa.....Permafrost.pdf
A map of the extent of agriculture in Canada: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/bor.....re_current.jpg
Note how pretty much only the lower third is usable at ALL, and it doesn't even say how usable. My claim of large swaths of it being unusable for large-scale agriculture is perfectly correct.
Here, a map of the extent of permafrost: http://www.interboreal.org/globalwa.....Permafrost.pdf
A map of the extent of agriculture in Canada: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/bor.....re_current.jpg
Note how pretty much only the lower third is usable at ALL, and it doesn't even say how usable. My claim of large swaths of it being unusable for large-scale agriculture is perfectly correct.
Yes. Absolutely.
Let me put this in numbers for you:
GDP (nominal) per capita
2004:
USA: 37,388 $US (Rank: 6)
Germany: 29,081 $US (Rank: 16)
2009:
USA: 46,859 $US (Rank: 15)
Germany: 44,660 $US (Rank: 19)
During that entire time we have had and have extensive programs that use tax money to provide living expenses for the unemployed, work on finding and creating jobs for those as well as a universal health care system that provides medical assistance in non-emergencies within 24 hours.
Let me put this in numbers for you:
GDP (nominal) per capita
2004:
USA: 37,388 $US (Rank: 6)
Germany: 29,081 $US (Rank: 16)
2009:
USA: 46,859 $US (Rank: 15)
Germany: 44,660 $US (Rank: 19)
During that entire time we have had and have extensive programs that use tax money to provide living expenses for the unemployed, work on finding and creating jobs for those as well as a universal health care system that provides medical assistance in non-emergencies within 24 hours.
I can pretty much guarantee that socialised health care can work just fine, and in an efficient, largely market-based manner. Remember, market regulation does not mean that the government controls everything ever. That's insane, no stable system works like that, and no one is suggesting that the USA do something like that.
If you are _actually_ interested in how health care works in different countries, I can suggest http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.....p;continuous=1 - it outlines several countries health care systems, from the perspective of someone from the US.
(And really, even if I actually _had_ to wait a month to see a doctor - which I do not, doctor visits and operation scheduling are actually pretty fast here, you rarely have to wait longer than a _week_ even for less important things - that'd still be vastly preferable to having to think about avoiding doctor visits as much as possible because I can't afford crap.)
If you are _actually_ interested in how health care works in different countries, I can suggest http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.....p;continuous=1 - it outlines several countries health care systems, from the perspective of someone from the US.
(And really, even if I actually _had_ to wait a month to see a doctor - which I do not, doctor visits and operation scheduling are actually pretty fast here, you rarely have to wait longer than a _week_ even for less important things - that'd still be vastly preferable to having to think about avoiding doctor visits as much as possible because I can't afford crap.)
stop being a nutjob. Snopes, factcheck.org, and even the extreme right-wing website WorldNetDaily got to take a look at the birth certificate and see it was legit, as well as taking pictures of it (along with embossed seal and everything), though to be fair, WND later rescinded ever having legitimized the birth certificate (possibly due to the number of deniers in their base of readers offended by the possibility that they're actually completely insane or cryptoracist or both).
This is about as wacky a conspiracy as me saying John McCain was ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Panama (which he was, back when Panama was under US control). You never hear any of that, though, because Obama's held to a different standard by people who don't like or trust him because he's different
This is about as wacky a conspiracy as me saying John McCain was ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Panama (which he was, back when Panama was under US control). You never hear any of that, though, because Obama's held to a different standard by people who don't like or trust him because he's different
You're correct but he has such a huge hugbox of other butthurt conservatives that "mocking him" is hardly easy.
I don't mean to say that any particular side is right or wrong, I'm just sick of the shitflood of muckraking about Obama. Unless he committed a felony there is nothing that you can bring up about him to get him out of office, so slinging mud at the point where he's already president is pointless.
I don't mean to say that any particular side is right or wrong, I'm just sick of the shitflood of muckraking about Obama. Unless he committed a felony there is nothing that you can bring up about him to get him out of office, so slinging mud at the point where he's already president is pointless.
Actually I don't like Mc Kain king of the wampyres or Obama bin laden...
but Dude, that's just an anachronism to complain about that now...I wonder if alex even voted ^^
"Cool isn't it" ?
Don't do a thing to get what you want and complain a lot when you don't get it! ^^
"Ah one vote won't make a difference"
but Dude, that's just an anachronism to complain about that now...I wonder if alex even voted ^^
"Cool isn't it" ?
Don't do a thing to get what you want and complain a lot when you don't get it! ^^
"Ah one vote won't make a difference"
no, i watched Eyes Wide Shut, like, 20 times in one week, so it came out of that.
i don't particularly think communism can work if you try to make it "proper communism" or somesuch. i guess i'm sort of middling. a little bit of this thing sounds good, a little bit of this other thing, etc. so, i dunno, i might like Ayn Rand books, but i'm not a fanatic for any side.
i don't particularly think communism can work if you try to make it "proper communism" or somesuch. i guess i'm sort of middling. a little bit of this thing sounds good, a little bit of this other thing, etc. so, i dunno, i might like Ayn Rand books, but i'm not a fanatic for any side.
So basically what you and Zucca are saying is that Obama is both a communist, and a fascist with the hitler comparision?
Wow, that's really kind of sad =P Not to disrespect you or anything, but this is really lame, especially when it's ironic that America is actually fundamented on liberal ideals.
Wow, that's really kind of sad =P Not to disrespect you or anything, but this is really lame, especially when it's ironic that America is actually fundamented on liberal ideals.
How can it be terrifying? Because of the fact it's fascism in general? Let's not forget that there's also many other kinds of fascism, military, social, you name it. Barack Obama is doing only one kind of fascism, and we need that.
It's hell of alot better to have a leader whos' force to put down economic fascist plans then to have a president who won't take over companies even though it's clearly evident that the highest people of those companies are greedy, incompetent, and corrupt. Look, I know that Obama isn't fascist, but this economic fascism would never had exist if it weren't for AIG's Bonusgate scandal.
It's hell of alot better to have a leader whos' force to put down economic fascist plans then to have a president who won't take over companies even though it's clearly evident that the highest people of those companies are greedy, incompetent, and corrupt. Look, I know that Obama isn't fascist, but this economic fascism would never had exist if it weren't for AIG's Bonusgate scandal.
You do realize that no matter what you say; I still won't believe it right? We're at different ends of the political spectrum (Yes I'm a Canadian but that's beside the point), I believe more in Obama then you do, and the way I see it he's doing at most a decent job on handling America's economy and doing the right thing on the health care reform. And I hope that you'll at least tolerate my views.
While it's a funny bumper sticker (just because, well, I really love political cartoons, they express the opinions of The People on all sides of the political field) I don't agree with it because I'm voting for Obama, for my own reasons. My girlfriend has had three heart surgeries, and has congenital problems. We're poor and can't afford any sort of medical insurance, and with what the Republicans want to do as far as that's concerned . . . I cannot even begin to side with them.I just can't.
That's my two cents, anyhow. Good on you expressing yourself. Love seeing these types of things. Shows us that people, regardless of political views, still believe in America on some level.
That's my two cents, anyhow. Good on you expressing yourself. Love seeing these types of things. Shows us that people, regardless of political views, still believe in America on some level.
Comments