http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Wellposter.jpg
Printable View
lol!!! No, it won't.
redb, this seems to be the second conflict you've been involved in here today. I'm going to recommend some anbesol & a nap. If you are still fussy later on then we're going to have to consider some time out.
Personally, I think you guys are way too hard on redb. I may have to step in on the big government vs small government debate. Quite a few of you are saying that big government = less freedom but that is far too simplistic. Obama said in his inaugural address that it was a question of what worked in what situation, and not a question of big vs little. I couldn't agree more and the best example is the question of public health care. The US has one of the expensive and least universally available systems in the world. Most Canadians find it hard to believe that the US DOESN'T have some sort of universal medical care. In any case, universal health care has all sorts of benefits and doesn't erode freedom. On the contrary, it helps to guarantee a certain level of personal security without which there can't be much freedom anyway.
The size of government has nothing to do with the enforcement of law. Personally, I think abortion should be illegal. Whether or not you agree is another question, but I don't think it has to do with the size of government any more than enforcing a law against shooting your neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
This will probably start another round of heated debate, but what the hell, Canada is cold in February. Bring it on!
Thats fine. I would just like you to consider this:Quote:
Originally Posted by 71818
was immediately followed byQuote:
Originally Posted by redb
Quote:
Originally Posted by gris
To me, that is a VERY innapropriate comment. He just told me to get out of america because of the way I think the government should be run! Remember what phantomman said?
Twice in the last 24 hours I have had forum members make what I consider to be very mean spirited comments, completely unwarranted. I really will try to keep it down, but please understand that Im not looking to pick a fight with forum members. I just want there to be an understanding that I dont come here to be insulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by phantomman
Au contraire, Doc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc W
You might explain the benefits (an' costs) of Canada's "GST", and its impact on goods an' services produced or sourced there. As well, it seems a bit incongruous in the 21st century that a Canadian would be forced to wait as long as two years for routine diagnostic tests that generally take a month to schedule and perform here in the US. While you're at it, it might interest you to know that there are more MRI scanners in the city of Philadelphia than there are in your entire country.
You guys got a great health-care system up there......as long as you don't git sick.
Edit-Nevermind. Phew.
This thread has taught me one thing -- never report that the president is visiting your area.............Bill
Redb, once again you change my words around. I never said 'get out of America,' I only said you should move there if you like socialism so much. YOU have a bad habit of making inaccurate statements then name calling when someone calls you on it. I haven't attacked you personally once, only pointed out how wrong you are on your 'facts.' You seem to take great pride in insulting people without any basis. Nothing I have said is fictional. I put myself through college on an athletic scholarship and made the Dean's list while getting a dual degree in finance and economics. I put myself through grad school by working three jobs while raising a family. I KNOW from a lifetime of experience that hard work matters, at least when you are in a non socialist country...
Guys... This thread was going pretty well for a while, but now it's going off the tracks. Let's try to refrain from the personal attacks. I don't care who started it, just don't. Both sides until recently, had presented facts and opinions without getting personal. Debate is good. Different visions are fine. Attacking each other is not. Please stop so that we can continue with honest debate. Calling names does not make your point stronger.
Regards,
Flintpunk (Al)
:laughing: Maybe if you hadn't used his surname or used two exclamation points...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilliamrose
It kinda' made it look like you were happy, and respected him.
That, or he was doing a 'Paul Revere'. "Obama is coming, Obama is coming!"Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoFauve
:laughing:
Yeah, it was an attempt at appearing to be overly excited.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoFauve
It's not that I don't respect him, he's a very sharp guy and he may do good things. Until he does something and I see the results I'll reserve judgment. If the spending spree fails in the long term, which I suspect it will,,,,,,,
........Bill
But you can't blame that on him. Bush/Paulson did an even less accountable one and any president would do the same - for political purposes if nothing else. Can't appear to be doing nothing... ;-)
Bush did a lousy job so I'd rather not use his administration as the benchmark.
The new stimulus package may have some short term benefit. Will that benefit be a lasting one? That's my question. I'd much rather see the feds downside themselves and take away the tax burden. Another way to put is; Put government workers on the street and get the private sector jobs back. The government produces nothing, the private sector is where the products come from. That would be a good trade-off to me.............Bill
Speaking of Budokan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMYIB...ext=1&index=38
:hi:
If you will offer a serious answer; why should I have to move to live in a country that matches my ideals? If I wish to live in a socialist nation, why should I have to move? Why can't I just vote to make this country more socialist if that is what I desire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gris
Your behavior is in line with a philosophy that essentially boils down to "my way or the highway". I dont know if thats you - and how could I? - but thats what I see.
Oh, and cwill, the stimilus bill and fed action will not help in the long run. The government knows that, the idea is the same as put someone on bypass, its a temporary solution, if they cant get the heart to start back up, there is no long term solution. Long run fixes require fundamental changes in the way our economy is structured.
Serious answer = because MANY people (including some close family members of mine) have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their very LIVES to preserve a way of life that overtly rejects socialism. This country as a governmental entity only exists because some brave people did not want government telling them what to do. It is not MY way, it is this country's very fabric that rejects socialism. You will not see it here in your lifetime. Ergo, if you want it you will have to move.Quote:
Originally Posted by redb
ps - FWIW, I am far from what the current mob calls a 'conservative.' In fact, I am what most would label a 'liberal,' though I don't see it that way and abhor labels. I believe in individual rights, which in my way of looking at things requires less government, though I do believe in some form of universal health care.
Adam Smith Capitalist Economics don't really work either so what do you suggest.
Jerry
See the original poster's post #61.
Im afraid we have some fundamental differences in our perspectives, and these are the sort of things that can never truely be worked out, especially over the internet. I will simply say how I see things and we will just have to agree that to us, our views are right, and that the other is wrong, and thats really all that can be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gris
I think those people died for freedom. That freedom means that people are free to give up their rights any time they chose.
All I hope to see in my lifetime is a country where each person starts with equal footing and succeeds or fails based on themselves. That is, however, not what these two eyes have seen from "the market".
Post 61 does not address the failure of our current economic problems. In a changing world what once appeared to work is now an obvious failure. That is why the majority of the population voted for change.
Jerry
http://www.tjadamowicz.com/img/bumper.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by thegeezer
:D
I dunno. The Repubs are all about curtailing personal freedoms based upon their own brand of 'morality.'
For a political party that touts less government they sure do like to spend taxpayers' money to keep some people from being themselves. In fact, trying to outrage people with what should be, at best, secondary issues (like gay marriage, abortion, etc) simply shows that they have no answers for the primary and important issues such as the economy, the Middle East, crumbling U.S. infrastructure, unchecked corporate greed, etc.
"We can't fix A so we'll outrage 'em with B."
+1
Nothing in that pic that says anything Republicans. Could have been a Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Anti-Federalist, etc.
There isn't one group that has a monopoly on infinite wisdom and logic to dictate what should be more important and how to prioritize issues that people feel strongly about. Why is one person's feelings less important than another's? Why should the economy and the Middle East and such be the most important issues to tackle first? Why are such things classified as 'secondary issues', when many voting citizens actually believe that they're primary issues? (rhetorical questions for the sake of discussion, nothing personal meant by it).
BTW, that's not my car...I believe it was taken in Florida. I just find it funny. :D
It outlines the modern GOP 'attack' on 'those liberals' who are, apparently, frothing at the mouth to take away your guns, rape your checkbook and who are weak on national defense.
Classic Republiscam attack propaganda whether they take 'credit' for it or not.
Don't get me wrong; the Dumbocreeps do the same types of things as well (e.g. "McSame" despite the fact that McCain and Bush so clearly despise each other).
Both parties are controlled by idealogues and that is the problem. To win a nomination you have to poison and abandon the center and play nice with the right/left wing whack jobs. Then, in the general election, everyone makes a run for centrist positions while their own words uttered in primaries (again, stated to placate the party nutballs) are used against them by the opponent. It's political folly and most people aren't clever enough to understand this.
To the detriment of our National Unity, unfortunately...
Hey Al,Quote:
Originally Posted by flintpunk
you are starting to sound like a moderator!
When President Bush remained solidified in his chair of purposes in the Ovalish Office....many things were possiblistic. The integritisitic natures of his forthgoing intensions were of monumentues meanings to peoples everywhere on the Earth globe.
http://www.q-bo.com/Images/DumbBush3.jpg
To think that I voted for him. :bawl
If anyone is thinking there's an answer in what the Democrats or Republicans are offering I believe you'll live your entire life being very disappointed. Until there's at least one more electable choice, this country will continue to be dragged in the wrong direction -- a direction that changes very little based on which party gains the advantage.
I have a question for those with a background in economics. Is there an economic model that considers a government that puts a large tax burden on the population and returns very little to those people for their money?
I could actually get behind socialized medicine if we had an efficient system of government. It should be much better than the split approach we're using now.
Cutting taxes to nil is NOT the answer nor is raising them to the ceiling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Is the role of government to extract as much tax money as possible from the economy?? That is not the same thing as minimizing the tax burden to allow the economy to flourish. The government needs to shrink, not grow as large as posible just short of killing it's host.....Bill
But shrink WHAT parts of the Gov't? To state that 'less is more' fails to take into account many critical variables. Lack of oversite is one reason we're in the mess we're in now. LESS oversite is the answer?
I don't think so. Then again, advocating more oversite is to increase the size of the Gov't and nobody get less for the dollar than the Gov't.
Shrink the lobbyists! Start becoming an objective group brought together to take care of the business of the infrastructure that serves all of our citizens. Maybe!
One need only study the law and history of the Supreme Court to see where National gvt serves a need and vice versa. Clearly it is a balancing act. Anti-trust laws are needed, enviro reg is needed, national defense is needed, etc.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Redb's suggestion that we are free to vote our freedom away. Doesn't matter I guess, since that is not a real world issue, only an argument for argument's sake...
Lobbyists are paid by groups of citizens in order to influence a local political representative. They can be paid by corporations as well as non-profit orgs.
WHICH lobbyists? And how can you legally limit the access to our elected officials? Isn't that unconstitutional?
Just demonstrating how none of this can be solved with simple actions which is why blaming 'this mess' on the 'other side' is ignorant.
The wiifm's - The gimme -gimme- gimme's -The take care of me's - The You owe me's is our problem. When it is more profitable to "work the system" than it is to actually work, we will always be in this situation. Nix the entitlement programs and our kids and grandkids won't be burdened with this mess.
Entitlements? Would you include those who 'game' the current tax codes and pay nothing? How about the super wealthy who employ lobbyists to influence politicians to write the tax laws in their favor?
Those things which do not require management on a national scale. That includes the majority of the federal government's current programs and expenditures. As I stated in another post, 30% of current size is a good target number. Local governments would pick up the programs that have value to it's citizens, the rest would go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by hudpucker
as I said, "when it is more profitable to work the system than actually work....."Quote:
Originally Posted by hudpucker