Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

This thread has been split out of the Ramble On thread. Please don't feel that we're trying to censor anybody, but try to keep the stark, raving e-thugging to a minimum. (eg: if your message was one that got deleted, it wasn't because I disagreed with your political philosophy, it was because it sounded like it had been typed by an angry, semiliterate 12 year old with roid rage and a crack problem.)

Thanks. -Perez

O chit.

The last "worthy" war was WWII. We were fighting for the freedom of this country. Since then, there has been no direct threat to the US by masses of soldiers from another country. Vietnam? Nope. Gulf War? Nadda. Everything since 9/11? Still shooting blanks. I respect the jobs these people do, I do NOT respect the ones giving the orders. This whole "freedom isn't free" and "fighting for your freedom" is indeed bullshit. Since 9/11 so many of our "freedoms" have been revoked and there is no forseeable future to them going back to the way they were. In my opinion, we have perminantly LOST those freedoms and all the fighting over there will never bring them back. With every knee-jerk reaction to an event, we lose more and more....and we've lost a lot. If having hundreds of thousands of troops over there, and the bodies of those fighting coming back in boxes, meant that we didn't have to get raped at the airport, or that DHS wasn't busy impounding a few dozen Skylines or any of the "changes" that have been shoved down our throats since 9/11, then they would indeed be "fighting for our freedom". But they're not. This time it is political agenda and having a reason to stuff money in the pockets of those who suck the government's dick.

Loki79

Gotta agree with fae here.
When have the "M"arines defended the US? From what I see, the "A"merican army just runs around in other countries, ******* them up. Your god damn proxy wars have raped half the world. When was the last attack on US soil, exept for the 9/11 attacks, which really didn't include any ground combat?

At the same time you have poverty and ******* crackheads in every corner of your country, and the national debit is like $2348971895728934759273465.
How about you stop joining the army, and start wiping your own *** before raping someone elses.
It's about time you start to take care of your own people, and stop worrying about others. This "terrorism" you whine about is karma, shitting you in the face. After ******* people over again and again, do you expect them to leave you alone?

I'm just sitting here, wondering where Obamas gonna drop some bombs in late 2012, so he scares all of you to vote for him again..

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

No such thing as karma *******. We did nothing to the people that attacked us except exist, same as you do. Al Qaeda hates us for "misguided" (to say the least) religious reasons. I get the idea that you dislike us for your own ignorant "ideology".

Loki79

So all the wars in the middle east, Asia and Africa wasn't your doing?
Proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, "fighting communism"?
When you take someones country, you can't really expect them to sit back and accept it?

Sorry about the timeline errors, and the lack of knowledge to ALL your wars, but here's some for starters:
You've taken the US from the Indians, half of Mexico from the Mexicans, tried to take Korea and Vietnam, Iraq from the Iraqis, Afghanistan from the Afghanis,The Philipines from the Philip-whatevers, and even tried to take your own country from yourself.

There's no doubt that there's "evildoers" all around the world, but if the US would stop caring about killing them all, then they probably wouldn't care so much about killing you.
I don't support "terrorism" at all, I'm just able to see the reason why it happens. If some country started a war here, and occupied us, I sure as **** would do everything I could to repay the favour.

To take an example from Norways history, without comparison I might add, I'm sure the Germans considered the Norwegian resistance groups during the second world war "terrorists" too..
When you invade a country, you **** people off. It's as simple as that.

Loki79

My POINT however, is that you should use your resources on removing the national debt, and clearing up the country, instead of waging war all around the world.
Use the army and the national guard to rid the streets of weapons and drugs, and use the money you save on making rockets and ammunition to give the country a proper welfare and health system, so you can take care of your people.

I pay 30ish percent tax, and I have free welfare, retirement funds and health care. (Almost true, we have a maximum deductable of about $200 a year. Symbolic..)
What do you get for your tax money?

Bryce

iTrader: (24)

You are isolationist to the core.

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

I got $5k from my taxes, n00b!


btw, you ******* fail to the max loki, search that **** at the very least on google before you run your mouth off.


-Army IS National Guard

-Free meds never means GOOD meds

-Bitching about these so called "wars", yet you would like for us to waste military resource to police our streets on a daily basis so we can look like the countries that we are so called "taking over" and giving back to the people.

-Lets leave a nation defenseless so we can make more free **** to non-tax paying illegals, which include run-away criminals or maybe worse... great idea.

-your isolationism (as bryce pointed out) is the biggest blind spot to any reality.


But im not going to get into this, because it seems like everyone that isnt aware of what is really going on is going to say the same ****.






Someone get the ban hammer out...

Loki79

Yeah, I know, I'm talking to deaf ears. It makes me sad, really.
But hey, if you prefer policing other countries and not your own, it's your choice.

Call me what you like, we still rule the ******* world in life quality.

But I'll let the subject be, it's pretty futile anyway.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The ban hammer remains safely sheathed.

The fact is, Loki makes some good points. Granted, I've only spent a grand total of about a month in EU-land (and I have never been to Norway; only France, Germany, and the Netherlands) but from my admittedly very limited experience, they do seem to have a lot of things together.

As a matter of historical precedent, the US finds itself today in much the same position as Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries, and even Rome at the dawn of the first millennium. We have, perhaps unintentionally, become a so-called "superpower."

It is certainly within our ability to act as the world's police. And yet, from a historical perspective, we are a young and immature nation. A few months ago, I was drinking beer at a restaurant which was considerably older than my own country. It puts things into a rather interesting perspective.

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

I got called a ***** (and some other things I didnt understand, I think one of them was nancy...) in Dublin.

I understand we are not perfect, I for one never claimed we were, but to ignorantly make false accusations like "we are blood thirsty" or "our military is full of killers" doesnt make a point for you.

We are not "policing", we are supporting those who have none yet need it.




I remember my first tour to Kandahar, hell of a place. I stayed within the fence, but to say we are "taking over", that makes my blood boil. I never have seen so many oppressed people in my entire life, I for one couldnt tell the little girls from boys. It WAS hell, but now it has been alot better since we (as you put, loki) took over. I like to believe with the start of events there has been one hell of a chain reaction of reform for many extremist islamic controlled countries.

I always believe in two sides to every story, and I always try my best to see both.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Ok Joe, I be good now.

A) We aren't at really war with anyone. Believe it or not, we want to and do, do good in the world. We are not war mongers, when there is a Dictator making his people diappear and the world cryes out for somebody to do something, we do something about it, other countries follow. A few years later when the UN is gone, we are still cleaning up the mess and taking all the flack. Nation building isn's an example of war, when we stopped Hitler from taking over Europe, that was a war. [(Not to belittle the sacrifices of those who served in Afghanistan/Iraq) To give credit where it's due, the Soviats and Brits also played a major role it defeating the Axis powers]

B) The military is not supposed to act as a policing force in America, the National Guard can do some things in certain circumstances, but what you describe sounds like policeing. The military could however be used to go to the source of the drugs and take action if the local Gov. was cool with it.

C) I'm a huge supporter of free healthcare, but we aren't taxed like you all are and people go insane if rasing taxes is ever so much as mutterd. Plus, the current political climate wont allow anything that is deemed "socialist", even if the right wing cheerleading channel know as FOX News uh, organization (must.. not.. be.. politically incorrect.. as not.. to get.. permabanned..) making the accusation has no idea what socialism is, or just wants to keep the people uninformed.
btw, we are good people, but when you say something like 9/11 was "karma" we take offence to that. We have every right to, put yourself in our shoes.

Loki79

Haha, nobody said the Irish were civilized :P

And thank you, Joe. Didn't think I'd see someone in here that looked at it from outside the box. Pretty sure there's some quote in the bible, saying something about a speck in your brother's eye, and a log in your own, and it seems hard for people to understand that there are ways of life better then their own. After all, there's 1 billion people in China, and as wicked as it seems, they're probably happy with their life too.

For us looking at this from the outside, watching Michael Moore movies and watching Cops, it's hard to understand how people can defend the way of life.
There is no doubt that this only gives us a very limited part of the picture, but there are still some enormous issues concerning the country.
For us, having all the benefits we have, living without free healthcare and welfare seems unreal. But I do see why penguin argues like he does, although it's pretty frightening to see that people are so oblivious to the real issues.

The problems you face with criminals, weapons, drugs and illegal immigrant issues are all as a result of poor economy and a general lack of preventive measures. It's an evil cycle, and it just gets worse and worse.
Until something is done, from the core, it will never get better.

I might be an isolationist, but I can walk the streets safe, go to the doctor when I feel ill, get welfare if I'm sick, retire with a proper fund (regardless of where I worked, although the more years you work, the more money you get.), not worry about terrorism, not get assfucked if I end up in jail and not get beat up by the cops if I don't stop at at stop sign.

So thank god, I was blessed with being one in Norway

Loki79

Yeah, I was out of line with that one.
Sorry

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

Explain to me what are the real issues outside of this "lousy" country of ours you seem to be claiming im oblivious to. I am about to ship out for Operation Tomodachi, so enlighten me.

Loki79

Ok, then tell me the percentages and numbers for this:

Gunshot kills per year.
Gang members.
Imprisoned people.
Percentage of population under the poverty limit.
People killed in traffic per year.
Number of handguns in the population. (I know it's in your constitution, that's not the issue)
Unemployment percentage.
National debt, and I would also like to know what was your last year without debt.

And I would also like to know what the military budget is yearly.

Since I am so ignorant, please do enlighten me

Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

Way to not answer.

yet you said


I didnt call you ignorant, but you did to me (oblivious is a synonym for ignorant).

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

no worries, we're cool.
Guns/Gangs/Prison:
Gun related deaths per year, number of gang members and imprisoned people are all very related. Red clothed gangbanger shoots blue clothed gangbanger with gun*. Banger-in-blue is dead, (what a tragedy) his red shirted assailant spends 20 to life rotting in jail on taxpayer coin. Or, he gets the death penelty which is actually more expensive due to the cost of appeals, this is fine with me cuz' once a person is dead it's over, if it turns out he was not guilty then an innocent man is dead.
*Some gangs have "communal" weapons, since major firepower like AK's are harder to come by then a 9mm or .38 pistol. So x # of shootings does not mean x # of guns, fyi.

Working poor in America:
The number of people living under the poverty line in America is absolutely unacceptable. An old boss of mine worked 50 hours a week at a place he's been at 20ish years (not in a row, I dont think), he's been promoted maybe 3-5 times, and he has some college, not sure how much. Another guy closer to my age worked 60 hours a week, I'm sure both of them make less then $20K a year, which is not a lot of money. Both of them worked hard and where good to very good employees. Not even close to fair.
If I where in charge there would be a major redistribution of wealth. The Bush era tax cuts would so gone, it doesn't make **** for sence to give the wealthy lower taxes and not give a break to those who struggle to make ends meet.
Raise taxes for wealthy, significantly for those who are very ritch. I know this wouldn't be popular, but a personal wealth cap of of maybe 50 million would be imposed. Have more then that? Now the diffrence is going to the working poor.
That being said, if somebody is caught "working the system" punishment would be stiff.

Trafffic deaths:
We really really need to make it more difficult to get a drivers license, and keep it when a person is getting too old to drive. Between my jouner year and high school and now (2-2.5 ish years) 2 of the people I started school with have died in car accadents (didn't know eather of them too well, but I wouldn't say they where reckeless). People should have to learn how to control a car in all sorts of situations before getting a license. My drivers test consisted of driving around the block and parallel parking. Sad.

# of guns.
Remimber that most American households that have a gun, have several. We have 4, although one is an antique, and one is a bold action .22 rifle so it's somewhere between a real gun and a bb gun. I don't like how easy it is to get a gun, and I don't like the idea of assault weapons being legal, although I do want one. When owned by a responsible person and treated properly, guns aren't overly dangerous, just like Turbo Miata's. *This does not justify the legality of assault weapons, there just too dangerous in the wrong hands. Since the gov doesn't keep track weapons, the public at large can not be trusted with them.

Unemployment, Mil. budget, & debt:
Unemployment is a big problem obviously, would be solved with a redistrabution of wealth (trickle down effect is BS, more like a golden shower ).
Got no idea what the military budget is, I know it's really big though.
We own the Chinese all of our 1st born sons. The last year we where not in debt was George Bush Jr.'s 1st year in office, we where in the black severl years before that too. Notice that Pres. Bill Clinton got us into the black, (surplus instead of debt) but apparently he's a bad guy cuz he got a *******.
Pfft, player haters.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I think that this specific piece of data is commonly misinterpreted.

In terms of the "national debt", we haven't not had one in quite a long time. What happened during the time periods which you mention is that the federal budget for one particular year was not in deficit. In other words, the total amount of the national debt decreased slightly during those years, whereas during other years, when the federal budget was in deficit, the total debt increased.

So, (and I'm just pulling round numbers at random here), the national debt during Dubya's first year in office might have fallen from 8 trillion dollars to 7.5 trillion dollars, because the federal budget for that year was in surplus by 0.5 trillion.

It's not unlike your credit card bill.

Assume you are fiscally irresponsible and have an outstanding balance on your credit card. Sometimes, you find yourself with extra cash at the end of the month, so you pay more than the minimum payment and the balance on your card goes down. Usually, however, you blow all your cash on Filipino hookers and cocaine, and have to use the credit card to pay the electric bill at the end of the month, so your balance increases.



It's also important to understand that the "national debt" isn't the same thing as a trade deficit. National debt in the US is mostly internal. In other words, one agency owes another agency money, or the government owes the public money in the form of outstanding bonds, etc. Trade deficit is when we specifically owe other countries money because the value of our net imports exceeded our net exports. This amount also varies dynamically with the exchange rates of foreign currency. So, for instance, as the value of the Canadian dollar rises or falls relative to the US dollar, one country might go in and out of deficit to the other.

It's also quite possible for large volumes of the internal national debt to be essentially zero-sum. Consider, for instance, the following parable:
Debt is a tricky thing.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I've wondered what was really meant by "national debt", that makes me feel a lot better about our countries situation. All we have to do is get a bunch of hookers, and our problems will be solved!
You should right all this stuff down so people can read it, take a test on it, understand the basic reasoning behind ideas/concepts, have an educated opinion, and assuming they pass on the subjects, have the right to vote.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

1. Poverty is relative. The poverty line in the United States far exceeds the "middle class" in China.

2. Percieved value (willingness to spend one's efforts for achievement) of top-tier items in maslow's hierarchy is relative to the ability of achieving lower-tier items. The value of a top-brand t-shirt (relative to homemade textiles) to an average person in a tribal area as compared with an average person in Paris is significantly different. The person in the third world country sees "a shirt", the person in Paris sees "a status symbol".

3. Percieved value of bottom-tier items in maslow's hierarchy is absolute. In order to get food, water, and shelter (which includes "warmth"), any sane person can be expected to be willing to put forth their life efforts to achieve the bottom-tier items if necessary.

4. The definition of poverty needs to be revised to include only those individuals who are incapable of providing for themselves the bottom-tier needs in maslow's hierarchy. A firm line needs to be drawn between those who are incapable of providing for themselves, and those who are unwilling to provide for themselves. Those who are unwilling to provide for themselves can easily be made willing if the provisions which are given to them (welfare) cease to exist. You can further solve the problem by addressing those who are incapable. A large share of people who are currently incapable of providing for themselves can become capable if barriers to employment are removed. (A minimum wage law is to be considered the most significant barrier to employment.) Support for those who remain incapable of providing for themselves needs to be limited to private individuals or organizations. It should have been written into our countries bill of rights: No man shall be made to pay money for which he does not recieve equal benefit.

5. Wealth (in the form of profit, not revenue) is generated by people who create value for others. That value is *purchased* by the consumer with money, which is then used by the wealthy individual to purchase something which has value to him. As such, "earning money" is the economical equivalent of "creating value". In Obama's latest State of the Union addresss, he mentioned that "I do think there is a time when someone has earned enough money." This is equivalent to him saying "I do think there is a time when someone has created enough value." Think about that. Our Internal Revenue system is set up in a way which penalizes those who create the most value in our country by taxing the bejezus out of them. Consider that these people (who create the most wealth, and therefore pay the most in taxes) are the people who are most likely to continue to create value if they are given the opportunity (and thus stimulate the economy). If you consider this, the "stimulus package" which took money away from the rich (most able to stimulate the economy) and gave that money to the average worker (least able to stimulate the economy), then the $800B stimulus was actually closer to an $800B setback to our economy. To be honest, there IS INDEED a time when someone has earned enough money, but that is not determined by Obama, that is determined by the person earning the money. When that person has earned enough money to satisfy their own desires, they become more willing to part with the extra money they earn by making larger purchases, often in the form of infrastructure improvements. When they have an excess of money, beyond what they need to satisfy their personal desires, wealthy people become more willing to take risks with that extra money. They become more willing to make risky investments. (Read: new businesses, new jobs, new innovations, etc.) They also become more willing to hire new employees in areas that can reduce stress on current employees, or to use those new employees to pursue opportunities that they previously hadn't considered.

6. People are generally stubborn. This includes wealthy people. A wealthy person who has a standard of living in which he spends $650,000/year on personal desires (including savings/portfolio diversification/etc.) is going to continue to try to spend $650,000/year on personal desires. If his after tax income drops to $640,000/year with an increase in taxes, he is generally not going to reduce his expenditures on personal desires. Instead, he is going to put forth effort into streamlining his profit stream, which may mean reducing employee wages/benefits, cutting employees, using equipment longer (extending actual depreciation), etc. If his after tax income increases to $700k/year, he is much more likely to consider hiring additional employees, increasing wages, and making more investments.