Why Obama is so bad and why Europe loves him

[Bubblehead1980]

Dick Morris is my favorite political guy out there, the man really should run for President.


Morris explains why Obama remains popular in Europe.



http://video.foxnews.com/v/4341641/why-obama-remains-popular-in-europe/

[DarkFish]

I don't need Dick Morris for that, it's pretty simple. Obama is less right (or more far left from your viewpoint) than most other US politicians. Many changes he's been trying to introduce have already been working quite good for many decades here in Europe.

[The Third Man]

I don't need Dick Morris for that, it's pretty simple. Obama is less right (or more far left from your viewpoint) than most other US politicians. Many changes he's been trying to introduce have already been working quite good for many decades here in Europe.


The standards of what is working well are obviously much different in Europe.

[JU_88]

So basically he implying that we're a bunch of self intreasted communists? :-?
Good ol 'Faux News' scaremonging again :nope:

Two words for you "Foriegn policy"

[tater]

So basically he implying that we're a bunch of self intreasted communists? :-?
Good ol 'Faux News' scaremonging again :nope:

Two words for you "Foriegn policy"

Did you listen to what he actually said on the point? He said that the specific opinion difference in Italy is partially that the country has a substantial electorate that is well left of the US, so any "left" will be more popular than right.

More importantly, I think he's spot on when discussing the national interest of Italy (and Europe) WRT the US in terms of capital flight. The bottom line is is it in the European interest to have a strong US that doesn't "look like" Europe. The answer is "no, it's not in their interest."

The rest falls out of that. I want the kind of US that I want, and if that is "bad" for the rest of the world... I don't really care. When it's in my personal interest to care, I will.

[DarkFish]

The standards of what is working well are obviously much different in Europe.I don't know, it depends.
If the US standards mean bad prosperity, bad health, unequal wealth distribution and general unhappiness, then obviously you are right and they are very different. If not, then perhaps they are not so different as you like to think.

[Aramike]

If the US standards mean bad prosperityOnly a European would use the phrase "bad prosperity".unequal wealth distribution So wait, you say Europe has equal wealth distribution? :har:

If you did, you would all be impoverished.
general unhappinessYour gauge for this is what?

[Cohaagen]

I want the kind of US that I want, and if that is "bad" for the rest of the world... I don't really care. When it's in my personal interest to care, I will.

http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-549.gif

[Snestorm]

To try to group all the lands, and peoples of Europe as sharing a single political agenda is not realistic. I don't see him percieved as a popular president at all, but then I don't live in Italy.

[XabbaRus]

So hang on what do you make of Norway and Sweden?

Both socialist states, but regularly hitting the top of best country league tables, universal health care, happines etc....

Pretty high standards if I must say.

[DarkFish]

Only a European would use the phrase "bad prosperity".Maybe, fact is that most countries in western Europe are at least as prosperous as the US.

So wait, you say Europe has equal wealth distribution? :har:Of course not. I do say Europe has a relatively equal wealth distribution compared to the US.

If you did, you would all be impoverished.Or we would all be enriched:doh: This is just capitalist propaganda talk, that for some reason a relatively equal wealth distribution should mean that everyone is poor.

Your gauge for this is what?That most people here are happy.


Remember, I do not say all these things aren't so or cannot be in the US. I only say that TheThirdMan's claim that the US and Europe use very different standards is false.

So hang on what do you make of Norway and Sweden?

Both socialist states, but regularly hitting the top of best country league tables, universal health care, happines etc....

Pretty high standards if I must say.You hit the nail on the head:up:

[Gerald]

So hang on what do you make of Norway and Sweden?

Both socialist states, but regularly hitting the top of best country league tables, universal health care, happines etc....

Pretty high standards if I must say. so in the current situation as Norway is a socialist country, but not Sweden but when there are elections in Sweden today, and it becomes an amendment to the left side,then it becomes a completely different scenario.

[Biggles]

So hang on what do you make of Norway and Sweden?

Both socialist states, but regularly hitting the top of best country league tables, universal health care, happines etc....

Pretty high standards if I must say.

This!:yeah:

Or well, the social democratic agenda has taken some nasty hits during the conservatives last 4 years of power. Will probably be at least 4 more years of them by the look of things. They better stay of our semi-free healthcare or I might feel that I actually have to engage myself actively in politics:shifty:

[Bubblehead1980]

So hang on what do you make of Norway and Sweden?

Both socialist states, but regularly hitting the top of best country league tables, universal health care, happines etc....

Pretty high standards if I must say.


blissful ignorance is more like it.

[XabbaRus]

Blissful ignorance? Could you explain I really don't get that.

[DarkFish]

Neither do I.
You mean that XabbaRus, Biggles (who is a Swede, for the gods' sake) and I are all ignorant about Swedish and Norwegian politics?:o
You can't be serious.

[krashkart]

Remember that the words "socialism" and "socialist" are still scary words here. For some reason. :O:

[XabbaRus]

I guess that must be what is meant.

I didn't know that socialist immediately meant single party undemocratic state.

[Puster Bill]

If you are a European and you can't understand why the United States is the way it is, remember that it's a country largely made up of people who are descendants of people who *LEFT* Europe, often for *VERY* good reasons.

And while the track record of Europe as a whole isn't too bad for the last, say 20 years or so, if you go back farther than that, it starts looking a lot less rosy than it does today. Go back to within living memory, and Europe starts looking like a place to avoid at all costs.

[Happy Times]

One reason that public education and health care are widely aproved in Europe is because of the homogenius nation states we use to have.

I dont think you can take that same model to the US and the model is living its final days in Europe also.
There are studies about this, the more diverse the popultation gets there is less will for public funding of anything.

Because of the changing demographics with aging population and dissolving of the nation states, the public funding is coming to end in Europe also.

Im personally ready to continue Finnish public education and health care in principal.
I see them also an investment that saves or produces, but lot of the byrocracy have to be dissolved.

Other parts of the welfare state are something mostly we cant afford in the future.
The large byrocracy of pencil pushers dont produce anything, the large group of welfare leeches sucks the help from those that really need it etc..

After cutting these away i would make the focus of public funding to support and encourage working families to have more children, that would also be an investment to our future and money well spent.

[XabbaRus]

Puster I understand completely what you mean.

What I don't understand is when someone makes the throwaway comment 'blissful ignorance' especially when it is someone who seems to have an axe to grind at anything remotely 'social' in its operation.

I was just asking bubblhead1980 to elaborate.

[Ducimus]

blissful ignorance is more like it.

I hate saying it, but as a people , we are a fairly ignorant lot. You just don't realize it until you spend some time overseas and have to interact with people from a different country.

Remember that the words "socialism" and "socialist" are still scary words here. For some reason. :O:

The word Socialism here, is synonymous with the word communism in meaning or intent. Communism, is still considered the literal definition of an evil state. The cold war still has some deep roots in American society. Communism, by virtue of said cold war roots, is considered the anti-thesis of what it is to be American. IE, "soviet red", "mother russia", "russian bear" the "soviet bloc", etc etc. So to say something is socialsm or socialist, is, in the American phsycic, the ultimate in political derogatory remarks.


If you are a European and you can't understand why the United States is the way it is, remember that it's a country largely made up of people who are descendants of people who *LEFT* Europe, often for *VERY* good reasons.


Good point. I'd suffix that to say we are now also largely made up of people who have left Mexico. :har:

[DarkFish]

If you are a European and you can't understand why the United States is the way it is, remember that it's a country largely made up of people who are descendants of people who *LEFT* Europe, often for *VERY* good reasons.Very good reasons maybe, but only rarely socialism.;)

And while the track record of Europe as a whole isn't too bad for the last, say 20 years or so, if you go back farther than that, it starts looking a lot less rosy than it does today. Go back to within living memory, and Europe starts looking like a place to avoid at all costs.Euhm, wait a minute, you've been clearly reading some very strange history books. Everything I've heard from my parents/grandparents/uncles/aunts etc. tells a very different story.

[Bubblehead1980]

I hate saying it, but as a people , we are a fairly ignorant lot. You just don't realize it until you spend some time overseas and have to interact with people from a different country



Duci, I have spent time overseas, interacted with plenty of people from Europe etc.I believe in the American way.Morris explained it well about how they know they can't compete so want us wrangled in.



Xabbarus....

My "blissful ignorance" comment was a statement on how that Europeans claim to be happier.I was saying many may live in a state of blissful ignorance, so believe they are happy but are unaware that they have no real economic liberty under the socialist style system.So they may have their universal healthcare etc but do not have some of the liberties Americans have.The thing that bothered me most is say the NHS in Britain, even if you do no use the NHS, you still have to pay.

America is about the individual or was intended to be and most people still feel that way.Again, as Dick Morris pointed out, socialism can never really compete with capitalism.America really is that last bastion of TRUE freedom in the world and we are losing it fast under our current leadership.Obama is seen in europe as "wrangling" our country in so he is popular there.Luckily Americans have awaken and we will stop him.

[DarkFish]

Morris explained it well about how they know they can't compete so want us wrangled in.Well I'm really glad that mr. Morris knows so much about how European people think. A mind reader, is he?

Or rather not. I'm sorry to say it, but us Europeans "knowing we can't compete" is plain bull excrement.

My "blissful ignorance" comment was a statement on how that Europeans claim to be happier.I was saying many may live in a state of blissful ignorance, so believe they are happy but are unaware that they have no real economic liberty under the socialist style system.Ah, now I finally know! I've never really been happy, it's all just been an illusion!:DL
:doh:
:shifty:
<facepalm>

So they may have their universal healthcare etc but do not have some of the liberties Americans have.The thing that bothered me most is say the NHS in Britain, even if you do no use the NHS, you still have to pay.

America is about the individual or was intended to be and most people still feel that way.Again, as Dick Morris pointed out, socialism can never really compete with capitalism.America really is that last bastion of TRUE freedom in the world and we are losing it fast under our current leadership.Obama is seen in europe as "wrangling" our country in so he is popular there.Luckily Americans have awaken and we will stop him.True freedom, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately, that also includes the freedom to be selfish and let other, less fortunate people die from disease and hunger.

[TLAM Strike]

The thing that bothered me most is say the NHS in Britain, even if you do no use the NHS, you still have to pay.

Same goes for our public school system, and the fire departments, and the police, and the libraries, and the parks, and the highways... etc... etc...

:yep::yep::yep:

[Tribesman]

Same goes for our public school system, and the fire departments, and the police, and the libraries, and the parks, and the highways... etc... etc...

Thats because you live in a socialist dictatorship.:03:

[Bubblehead1980]

Same goes for our public school system, and the fire departments, and the police, and the libraries, and the parks, and the highways... etc... etc...

:yep::yep::yep:

Splitting hairs, healthcare is much, much different.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well I'm really glad that mr. Morris knows so much about how European people think. A mind reader, is he?

Or rather not. I'm sorry to say it, but us Europeans "knowing we can't compete" is plain bull excrement.

Ah, now I finally know! I've never really been happy, it's all just been an illusion!:DL
:doh:
:shifty:
<facepalm>

True freedom, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately, that also includes the freedom to be selfish and let other, less fortunate people die from disease and hunger.


No, not bull excrement.I agree with him because history backs him up.Capital did flee to UK under the Iron Lady and has since fled to the US as he said.Socialism has no real chance against Capitalism, history has shown it thus far.

No, you may be happy but I was saying that many in Europe are not aware of the limited freedom they have due to the system there but as long as they are on the dole, they feel happy, thus the state of blissful ignorance.


True freedom is what is need.Well we should have limited programs for those left behind but prob is most people who are poor are that way because of their own making.Sure if you are born poor you cant help that.However, if you go to school, work hard you can make your way, plenty have done it in America.The problem is the welfare state kills motivation.People get lazy and adopt defeatism as an attitude.Then they go and have children they are not equipped to support in any way and thus end up living off govt aka tax money.Why should a productive member of society such as myself pay for trash like that?

Now, as said before and as I have always believed, we should have a light safety net to help people get back on their feet when in hard times but no nanny state, cradle to grave system as some want in the US.This would spell our downfall for sure.

[Bubblehead1980]

Thats because you live in a socialist dictatorship.:03:


I know you are attempting to be sarcastic.However, the US is on the road at the moment.The US like in anything is different though, it'll be gradual not immediate, Americans would never stand for sudden change.Luckily, most of us are wise to what is going on now so after November and 2012, we will put a stop to it.

[TLAM Strike]

Thats because you live in a socialist dictatorship.:03:
I resent that, a dictatorship is run efficiently! The goverment of New York State is not efficient at all! :O:

Splitting hairs, healthcare is much, much different. Lets see in this country...
If you need education (all do) you go to public school, unless you pay additional tuition for a private school. :yep:
If you need security you call the police, unless you pay for a private security company. :yep:
If you want to spend time in nature you go to a park, unless you own your own undeveloped land. :yep:
If you need medical treatment... you pay a private company to subsidize it... :shifty:

[Tribesman]

Luckily, most of us are wise to what is going on now so after November and 2012, we will put a stop to it.
Since you demonstrate your wisdom on politics by parroting some rants from the crazyest fringe I wouldn't call yourself lucky Bubble as most people have more sense than to follow those loons so you will be disappointed in looking towarcds your "lucky break" as you are just going to end up with the same run of the mill politicians your country has had since it existed just like all the other countries with elections do.

[Bubblehead1980]

Since you demonstrate your wisdom on politics by parroting some rants from the crazyest fringe I wouldn't call yourself lucky Bubble as most people have more sense than to follow those loons so you will be disappointed in looking towarcds your "lucky break" as you are just going to end up with the same run of the mill politicians your country has had since it existed just like all the other countries with elections do.


Things are different.The election of Obama woke a lot of people up.Admiral Yamamoto's "sleeping giant" comment comes to mind.The Left is in denial or thinks if they save face it will deter the opposition but it will not.We shall soon see who will be laughing.

[DarkFish]

No, not bull excrement.I agree with him because history backs him up.Capital did flee to UK under the Iron Lady and has since fled to the US as he said.Socialism has no real chance against Capitalism, history has shown it thus far.Capital flees to the US?
AFAIK, the primary way for money to somehow flee to another country is by trade. If we look at the Cumulative Current Account Balance per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit#United_States_trade_deficit) we see that the US is in red while most of western Europe is green (note especially the "Socialist States" of Norway and Sweden), meaning *your* money disappears to *our* countries. Not a bad achievement by our Socialist nations, compared to you Capitalists;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Cumulative_Current_Account_Balance_per_capita.png/800px-Cumulative_Current_Account_Balance_per_capita.png

No, you may be happy but I was saying that many in Europe are not aware of the limited freedom they have due to the system there but as long as they are on the dole, they feel happy, thus the state of blissful ignorance.Most people *are* in fact aware of what you call "limited freedom". You somehow assume we are all lost souls waiting for The True Messiah Of Capitalism who will turn us towards the right path. You assume that most are happy because they wouldn't understand our current system.
I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't work that way.

The problem is the welfare state kills motivation.People get lazy and adopt defeatism as an attitude.Then they go and have children they are not equipped to support in any way and thus end up living off govt aka tax money.You assume that if the state supports you, you won't work hard. To a limited degree that's true. If you're uneducated and you get no money at all, you *have* to work hard or you can't pay your bills. But shouldn't an uneducated, unwanted laborer have an equal right to have spare time and relaxation as a highly educated professional?
Of course there are always people who abuse the system, but the extreme majority of people don't.

[DarkFish]

If you want to spend time in nature you go to a park, unless you own your own undeveloped land. :yep:
If you need medical treatment... you pay a private company to subsidize it... :shifty:Strange priorities you guys have. If you want to visit a park, you can do it for free. If you've got a life-threatening disease you either pay or die:doh:

Am I the only person here who finds it a bit weird to deem a plant more important than a man's life?

[Takeda Shingen]

Things are different.The election of Obama woke a lot of people up.

The only things that have changed are the faces. The crappy, selfish game remains the same.

[Ducimus]

(insert my usual rant about CEO fat cats outsourcing a crap ton of US jobs overseas here in response to darkfish's damning post )

Made in USA......ain't something you see very much of anymore. Until we see a helluva lot more of that, down the tubes we'll continue to go. Not that the upper 1% cares, they have theirs, country be damned.

[antikristuseke]

That is capitalism for you.

[Aramike]

Or we would all be enriched:doh: This is just capitalist propaganda talk, that for some reason a relatively equal wealth distribution should mean that everyone is poor.Capitalist propaganda?

No, sir - this is economics 101.

Wealth equates to the ability to acquire hard resources. Money is the exchange for said hard resources. The bottom line in all cases are the resources themselves, and they are of finite supply. If you equally redistribute wealth then you would stretch demand for finite resources equally. There are only so many high quality steaks, yachts, etc. to go around.

Now what happens? Everyone wants that which there is not enough to share. So who gets those things? Naturally, either the powerful by way of force (despotism and the despot's acolytes) or those who create such things reserve them for those who's own talents would make excellent barters.

Most cases the latter occurs but in many the former does. I'd much prefer the later. Now, fiat capitalism streamlines the process. Instead of the yacht maker paying, say, the doctor for services with a yacht (which would run out of value as soon as the doctor has no need for a yacht), the yacht maker makes money which which to pay the doctor. And the doctor makes money with which to buy the steak. And the butcher makes money with which to buy ....

Equal wealth redistribution artificially negates the value of those things in the highest demand. For instance (sticking with the yacht example), now that everyone can afford a yacht, there are not enough to go around. So then only some can actually have the yacht, giving the yacht a high, unequal value which defaults the very notion equal wealth distribution. Or we just forget about yachts altogether which then serves to bring down the value of both those who can own yachts and those who create them, hence the idea of the decline of overall national wealth.

Don't misunderstand me - I've written many a paragraph on here supporting why I believe some measure of socialism is inevitable due to the eminent shift to a service-based economy we are facing. However, by no means would an equal distribution of wealth be advisable - all wealth would necessarily HAVE to be lowered, because, as I stated resources are finite and there would be an intrinsic value to possession of said resources (uneven wealth) or such demand for such resources would be eliminated (reduction of wealth).

[Aramike]

(insert my usual rant about CEO fat cats outsourcing a crap ton of US jobs overseas here in response to darkfish's damning post )

Made in USA......ain't something you see very much of anymore. Until we see a helluva lot more of that, down the tubes we'll continue to go. Not that the upper 1% cares, they have theirs, country be damned.What more can the upper 1% do? It's the bottom 99% that perpetuates the outsourcing of jobs through our constant hunt for the best bargains while we continue to elect politicians who create policies making it impossible for US companies to compete...

It's up to the consumer to decide to have less but higher quality, at a higher cost. Than it is up to businesses to supply this demand. Thus far, however, that demand is practically non-existant.

[DarkFish]

Capitalist propaganda?

No, sir - this is economics 101.

[...]I'm not talking about completely equal wealth distribution. I'm talking about a relatively equal distribution. Meaning that all extremes are capped off. Because as you say, a completely equal distribution of wealth wouldn't work.

I don't believe in Communism a la USSR.
I do believe in Socialism a la many W-European countries.

[Aramike]

I'm not talking about completely equal wealth distribution. I'm talking about a relatively equal distribution. Meaning that all extremes are capped off. Because as you say, a completely equal distribution of wealth wouldn't work.

I don't believe in Communism a la USSR.
I do believe in Socialism a la many W-European countries.I don't believe in limiting wealth, period, but I do believe that the poor shouldn't be left behind. On the other hand, I'm in a nation where the poor routinely have HDTV's and spinning rims, so I believe that social welfare mechanisms should be restricted to those who have fallen on hard times - not those who CHOOSE to remain poor.

As far was Western European nations are concerned, which one that has a population anywhere near the United States do you believe we should model ourselves after?

[gimpy117]

1st off... Europe love him because he's not G.W. Bush. Second, hes more progressive like others have said.

The only reason that we are not more progressive then Europe is greed. Why would the rich in this country want to give money to help with public funded programs when they could by another Porsche, or go to cabo for a month?

[DarkFish]

As far was Western European nations are concerned, which one that has a population anywhere near the United States do you believe we should model ourselves after?Well, first of all no European nation has a population anywhere near the US:03:

Secondly, as I'm Dutch, I'm much more familiar with the Dutch system than the other European systems. I do know I like the Dutch system pretty much, but I know the other systems much less good so I can't really give a definitive answer.

And finally, I don't necessarily recommend anything. You should use the system you like. If that's plain capitalism, and it makes the average US citizen happy, so be it. It's not my place to decide for you what system you should use. I'm only defending the European system against Dick Morris and Bubblehead.

[Aramike]

Well, first of all no European nation has a population anywhere near the US:03:Precisely. :|\\I'm only defending the European system against Dick Morris and BubbleheadFair enough, but I think Dick Morris makes some pretty valid points.

[Aramike]

1st off... Europe love him because he's not G.W. Bush. Second, hes more progressive like others have said.

The only reason that we are not more progressive then Europe is greed. Why would the rich in this country want to give money to help with public funded programs when they could by another Porsche, or go to cabo for a month?So why is the US one of the most charitable nations in the world?

Case in point, liberal hatred of America and her values runs deep.

[antikristuseke]

When it comes to a percentage of their gross national income the us is in 19th place in charitability wiht 0.2% of GNI given to charity, Sweden is first with 1.12%

[Bubblehead1980]

1st off... Europe love him because he's not G.W. Bush. Second, hes more progressive like others have said.

The only reason that we are not more progressive then Europe is greed. Why would the rich in this country want to give money to help with public funded programs when they could by another Porsche, or go to cabo for a month?


Because Bush for all his faults and bonehead moves he made as President, believes in America and our right to look out for ourselves, to hell with what Europe thinks.Obama sees things in a non American way, he's into the way Europe does things mostly.

I HATE the term Progressive because many things that Progressives aka Liberals stand for....nearly all of which go against the constitution... are REGRESSIVE nor PROGRESSIVE. A big government is REGRESSION is not PROGRESSION.So keep harping on REGRESSIVES.


Also, if a person wants to buy another car in lieu of giving a bum some money, that is their RIGHT because it is THEIR money.That is problem with "Progressives" Liberals etc they think that you are obligated to give money if you have it to other people.

[Aramike]

When it comes to a percentage of their gross national income the us is in 19th place in charitability wiht 0.2% of GNI given to charity, Sweden is first with 1.12%I prefer donation amount per citizen, which ranks 9th.

However, the statistic you are referring to doesn't account for private donations - which makes little sense considering that I was responding to a point about one deciding to buy a car rather than helping others.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Also, if a person wants to buy another car in lieu of giving a bum some money, that is their RIGHT because it is THEIR money.That is problem with "Progressives" Liberals etc they think that you are obligated to give money if you have it to other people.

And what if that money was "earned" as a huge executive bonus for offshoring that bum's job, forcing him to his present circumstances?

And STFU w/the strawmanning. You claim you're in law school, so you SHOULD know better..

[Aramike]

And what if that money was "earned" as a huge executive bonus for offshoring that bum's job, forcing him to his present circumstances?Blame stretch. That poor bum's peers allowed that offshoring to happen.

It's always so easy to blame the guy who comes out on top while wishing we were him. Such an odd dichotomy, this.

[DarkFish]

I HATE the term Progressive because many things that Progressives aka Liberals stand for....nearly all of which go against the constitution... are REGRESSIVE nor PROGRESSIVE. A big government is REGRESSION is not PROGRESSION.So keep harping on REGRESSIVES.Noun
regression (plural regressions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regressions))
1. An action of regressing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regress), a return (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/return) to a previous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/previous) state (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state).
So unless the US has been the United Socialist States of America once, there's no regression in it.

Also, if a person wants to buy another car in lieu of giving a bum some money, that is their RIGHT because it is THEIR money.That is problem with "Progressives" Liberals etc they think that you are obligated to give money if you have it to other people.That's the problem with people like you, they think that their new Ferrari is more important than someone else's wellbeing.

There are lots of egocentric asocial people in this world, and I think the world should be protected from that.


Blame stretch. That poor bum's peers allowed that offshoring to happen.

It's always so easy to blame the guy who comes out on top while wishing we were him. Such an odd dichotomy, this.Ah, now I get it. When some executive offshores work, it's the fault of the employees:doh:

I prefer donation amount per citizen, which ranks 9th.With 5 of the 8 countries above the US being European:roll: I'm very sorry, but even with your favorite statistics the US scores below many European countries.

However, the statistic you are referring to doesn't account for private donations - which makes little sense considering that I was responding to a point about one deciding to buy a car rather than helping others.I've got another nice statistic for you:The Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of U.S. households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html)
So it seems that especially the guys who can afford to give, rather buy a new big fat Ferrari than give their money to charity.

[gimpy117]

I'm sure that were not counting the amount of tax write-off's the rich got for donating their 2.1%

[Catfish]

Hello,
it's not even the biggest bullsh!t i ever heard, but it comes close. Italians voting for communists - right, this is why they have Berlusconi !
:rotfl2: :rotfl2::rotfl2:
Sorry to Italy :cry:

The EU as an organization to hold back money, so it does not leave the european continent for England or the USA, as soon as Europe becomes a socialist mêlée of countries :har:
It is at least a new idea, i never looked at it that way. :woot:

You want to know why Obama is a "star" in Europe ?
(B.t.w. he is not really, because he obviously was not strong enough to give the republicans the kick in the ass they deserved - we can see the results of the Bush administration everywhere, from the gulf of Florida to the Middle East).

Because he was the first president of the USA that had new ideas about how to deal with the rest of the world, which is a bit more than 95 percent, compared to the US.
Because he tried to settle a (for the US) new health insurance based on public spirit, which is self-evident since centuries in the civilized world.
He even had an idea of how to deal with Islam and try to settle an agreement, but his own "fellow" republicans of the US sabotized this and still do as good as they can.
Not least because he seems to be the first president since Kennedy that has a greater perception of thew world and some idealism that goes beyond playing cowboy and feigning religiousness to please the southern states, and the bible belt.

You know we would not give a damn about the US either here, but since they are bullying all over the world and have the power to do so, we watch in astonishment how this big elephant behaves, in the china porcelain shop. :D

What you hear from this tea party or the republicans, would not even fit in the german "Bild" newspaper, or the "english "Sun", which are both written for people with an IQ of less than 80.
How can you unmount your own president in such a way. 40 percent think he is a muslim (thanks to rumours of the reps), more believe he was not born in the US (thanks to ...), and the rest obviously does not like a black president or directly accuses him for being the devil. This is all so completely out of bounds and idiotic.
For Westerners in Europe it really seems as if the US has lost its american dream along with any progress, thanks to the republicans.

I have proposed it before: Why don't you take your southern states, re-introduce slavery, make your National Rifle Association president the new president of the United Southern States, let 4-year-old children work in the coal mines for the sake of capitalism and to hell with the rest of the world. I'll give you Bavaria, as a giveaway :shifty:

/rant

Greetings,
Catfish

[heartc]

I have proposed it before: Why don't you take your southern states, re-introduce slavery, make your National Rifle Association president the new president of the United Southern States, let 4-year-old children work in the coal mines for the sake of capitalism and to hell with the rest of the world. I'll give you Bavaria, as a giveaway :shifty:


Oh, you mean that place where most of the hitech industry is (Siemens, EADS, BMW etc.) and which is paying the bills of its more socialistic "enlightened" neighbours further up north?
That place? :O:

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.] ;)

[Bubblehead1980]

Noun
regression (plural regressions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regressions))
1. An action of regressing (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regress), a return (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/return) to a previous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/previous) state (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/state).
So unless the US has been the United Socialist States of America once, there's no regression in it.

That's the problem with people like you, they think that their new Ferrari is more important than someone else's wellbeing.

There are lots of egocentric asocial people in this world, and I think the world should be protected from that.


Ah, now I get it. When some executive offshores work, it's the fault of the employees:doh:

With 5 of the 8 countries above the US being European:roll: I'm very sorry, but even with your favorite statistics the US scores below many European countries.

I've got another nice statistic for you:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of U.S. households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html)
So it seems that especially the guys who can afford to give, rather buy a new big fat Ferrari than give their money to charity.


Well what I was saying is the US is seeing a regression freedom wise.We are still free , have a constitution but we are currently regressing in a sense, we will lose our liberties at some point.Our lack of freedom will be like pre revolution but with a somewhat socialist twist.Get it? So yes "Progressives" agenda is actually REGRESSIVE.

The problem with people like you and most Europeans, you do not understand the traditional American idea of individual rights. Personally, it is my RIGHT if I have the resources to purchase a new car in lieu of giving a stranger money and there is nothing wrong with that at all.I am spending MY money it is MY choice to decide if my new car is more important than another person's well being.Really it is not my job to worry about anyone elses well being other than my family and friends and only that to a point.Well, egocentric people are usually the most successful people so it's not a bad thing.:arrgh!:

[Bubblehead1980]

Oh, you mean that place where most of the hitech industry is (Siemens, EADS, BMW etc.) and which is paying the bills of its more socialistic "enlightened" neighbours further up north?
That place? :O:

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.] ;)

Well said.

[Tribesman]

So yes "Progressives" agenda is actually REGRESSIVE.

Which is funny really when conservatism is by definition regressive, especially about regtressing to a "Golden age" which happens to be pure fiction

[XabbaRus]

This is great. I'm being told I don't have the same liberties as say in the USA.

Wow thanks for showing me I didn't realise. I didn't realise that I am unable to setup my own business, travel freely around the country and abroad and vote for who I see fit rather than being told who to vote for.

Seriously someone with the determination and where withall has the same economic liberties and opportunities in the UK as anyone in the USA. Fact is bubblehead you say it irks you that the NHS you have to pay for even if you don't use it. Well you will see a doctor at some point in your adult life, you might even need them a lot, so isn't it better to pay for it and not need it than not pay for it , find you need it and get billed.

You pay insurance don't you? Would you consider not paying insurance? I'm guessing no as you don't want to risk falling ill and then getting a huge bill. Given that you can't get decent health care unless you pay for insurance you are in effect forced to take out health cover and pay for it even if you don't use it. So what difference is there between that and me having to pay it out my salary?

[Aramike]

I'm sure that were not counting the amount of tax write-off's the rich got for donating their 2.1%Do you even know what a tax write-off is and how it works? Just because you can write off a donation doesn't mean you're not taking money out of your pocket, you know - that just means such money isn't taxed.

[Gerald]

When Obama was elected, there were expectations of a different focus on the political stage, Europe found it quite interesting, but to say that all countries agree with his political message is to "throw stones in a glass cage"

[DarkFish]

Well what I was saying is the US is seeing a regression freedom wise.We are still free , have a constitution but we are currently regressing in a sense, we will lose our liberties at some point.Our lack of freedom will be like pre revolution but with a somewhat socialist twist.Get it? So yes "Progressives" agenda is actually REGRESSIVE.Ehm, no. Call it anything you want, but it is not regressive. For it to be regressive, it would have to have the desire to return to a previous state. Since the US has never in its history been Socialist, any "Socialist twist" can by definition not be regressive as it doesn't return to any previous state. You are confusing "regressive" and "bad" here.
Anyway, I don't want to be a language nazi so let's just keep it at this.

The problem with people like you and most Europeans, you do not understand the traditional American idea of individual rights. Personally, it is my RIGHT if I have the resources to purchase a new car in lieu of giving a stranger money and there is nothing wrong with that at all.I am spending MY money it is MY choice to decide if my new car is more important than another person's well being.Really it is not my job to worry about anyone elses well being other than my family and friends and only that to a point.Well, egocentric people are usually the most successful people so it's not a bad thing.:arrgh!:Are egocentric people successful because they are egocentric, or are they egocentric because they are successful?
As long as you're not egocentric towards your friends, being egocentric towards other people doesn't have too much effect on you;)

Anyway, I can agree with you that most Europeans don't understand the "American idea of individual rights". You Americans on the other hand do not understand the idea of community, caring for other people.


Also, I've got one really nice question for you: drugs.
How can it be that in the US, with its highly valued individual rights, an individual cannot decide for himself if he uses drugs or not. While in the "socialist" Netherlands where the government supposedly decides everything for you, you can?
One very enormous fail of these supposed individual rights in the US, don't you think?

[DarkFish]

I'll give you Bavaria, as a giveaway :shifty:You mean Bavaria pilsener (http://subsim.com/radioroom/bavaria.nl)?:D For a lifelong supply of Bavaria I'll become a Capitalist right away!

Hello,
it's not even the biggest bullsh!t i ever heard, but it comes close. Italians voting for communists - right, this is why they have Berlusconi !
:rotfl2: :rotfl2::rotfl2:
Sorry to Italy :cry:

[...]This is great. I'm being told I don't have the same liberties as say in the USA.

[...]Couldn't agree more with the both of you:yep:

[Aramike]

This is great. I'm being told I don't have the same liberties as say in the USA.Where are you from?

It would be interesting to analyze this from a factual standpoint rather than rhetoric, but I need a base point to being.

[Aramike]

*Sigh*Hello,
it's not even the biggest bullsh!t i ever heard, but it comes close. Italians voting for communists - right, this is why they have Berlusconi !Pehaps you should check your history prior to assuming that what you want to believe is necessarily right.

...or do Europeans prefer to percieve the world as what they want it to be rather than what it is?

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party
Outlawed during the Fascist regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism), the party played a major part in the Italian resistance movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement). It changed its name in 1943 to PCI and became the strongest political party of the Italian left after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), attracting the support of about a third of the voters during the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s). At the time it was the biggest communist party in the West (1.8 million members and 34.4% of the vote in 1976).Now, please dispute this FACT before dismissing it out of hand.

...because, in fact, this is specifically what Morris was referring to. Or are we merely going to wish that it weren't so, state it in writing, and smugly expect the rest of the objective world to come around in agreement?

I hate to say it, but while I disagree in general with Bubblehead's conclusions, Europeans and their sympathizers, at least in this thread, are offering up no resistance whatsoever, and are rather busy patting themselves on the back for their "you must be kidding" responses which actually do nothing to factually refute the concepts Morris presents.

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/21/obama_mexicans_were_here_long_before_america_was_e ven_an_idea.html

by at least 40 years at that.:hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

LOL nothing he says or does surprises me anymore really.Obviously he does not know his history very well.

[Gerald]

Like this statement puts his personality on the game, which I am not surprised at, now more anything can happen

[GoldenRivet]

Obama flaw #186

Does not believe in American greatness.

Did anyone notice how he couldn't at least choke out the "by our creator..." when he said "endowed with certain unalienable rights"?

[Gerald]

When was this interview?

[GoldenRivet]

it was just another blow hard address by a useless bird turd of a human being - I dont think it was an interview.

[Gerald]

Surely it was a bird that flew unusually wobbly, in the ether

[Sailor Steve]

While it's true the United States declared independence before Mexico did, the first permanent settlement on the North American continent was St. Augustine, founded in 1565. The first English settlement was Jamestown, founded 42 years later, in 1607.

Technically speaking, the Mexicans' ancestors had a city going here a generation before the Americans' ancestors did.

[ETR3(SS)]

While it's true the United States declared independence before Mexico did, the first permanent settlement on the North American continent was St. Augustine, founded in 1565. The first English settlement was Jamestown, founded 42 years later, in 1607.

Technically speaking, the Mexicans' ancestors had a city going here a generation before the Americans' ancestors did.Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

[Sailor Steve]

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.
Color it any way you like. The fact is that their ancestors were here before our ancestors.

I agree that Obama is just another politician, and not one I have any love for, but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

[Happy Times]

Oh, you mean that place where most of the hitech industry is (Siemens, EADS, BMW etc.) and which is paying the bills of its more socialistic "enlightened" neighbours further up north?
That place? :O:

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.] ;)

:haha:
So true, Bavaria sure has a lot going for it and the socialists envy it im sure.
I wish i could make it to the Oktoberfest this year.:woot:

[ETR3(SS)]

Color it any way you like. The fact is that their ancestors were here before our ancestors.

I agree that Obama is just another politician, and not one I have any love for, but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population. But you're right someone was here before we were. And I've also noticed this ranting, people need to show less of their D's and R's and show more brain.

[Tribesman]

To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population
But surely mexicans were mexicans as soon as mexico came about which was in the 1500s.
So does that mean that those complaining about their Presidents lack of knowledge and his rewriting of history are the ones who are displaying their own lack of knowledge and are rewriting history.

[Stealth Hunter]

But surely mexicans were mexicans as soon as mexico came about which was in the 1500s.
So does that mean that those complaining about their Presidents lack of knowledge and his rewriting of history are the ones who are displaying their own lack of knowledge and are rewriting history.

This thread's title... talk about seriously rewriting history for our 44th president...:roll:

But on, it would behoove anybody who is actually interested in this to readup on his quote. "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land."

He's actually not incorrect on this, regardless of what people choose to think or openly preach.

By the time Cortes launched his northern military campaigns, several colonial provinces had already been established by the Spanish. Situated between Michoacan, Guerrero, Morelos, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, and Queretaro was the province of Mexico. Originally, it was called Mexico-Tenochtitlan by the Nahua Aztec tribe the Mexicas who had used this term since the 14th century (they also used the shorter "Mexihco") for their home city (which is what the name translates to be: "city" or "place"; note that by this time, all the natives had all either been killed off or driven away OR had been forced into slavery). The Spanish just used "Mexico" for the region, however, and actually established the capitol Mexico City not but a short time later.

I don't think it's necessary of me or anyone else to tell you how/why they chose "Mexico City" OR for that matter what the inhabitants were called... it's pretty redundant.

Although, it's also pretty redundant that Obama is the president of the country- not some commissar... it's very sad when a person can't figure that out, or figure out how to use Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexica
http://www.aboutmexico.net/mexico/etymology.asp

[DarkFish]

Europeans and their sympathizers, at least in this thread, are offering up no resistance whatsoever, and are rather busy patting themselves on the back for their "you must be kidding" responses which actually do nothing to factually refute the concepts Morris presents.Excuse me? I (and other people) have refuted several of your and Bubbleheads arguments. You didn't refute any of these counter-arguments of mine.

So before you say that we are offering no resistance whatsoever, you may want to take a look at this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1499226&postcount=62)post. Or this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498775&postcount=52)one. Or this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498391&postcount=34). This (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498363&postcount=31). And this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498247&postcount=23). Etc. All of which contain valid counter arguments that still haven't been refuted.

[XabbaRus]

I'm from the UK and I was being sarcastic since bubblehead is intent on telling us europeans we don't have the same liberties as in the US which was news to me.

As for not understanding individual rights we do, and we exercise them everyday.

Oh btw I also lived in the US for two years when I was a teenager in Houston so I have experience of the US first hand. i want to be clear that I am not attacking the US or how her society works, there are many things I like. I just don't like someone making ill judged presumptions and presenting opinion as fact.

[Gammelpreusse]

Oh, you mean that place where most of the hitech industry is (Siemens, EADS, BMW etc.) and which is paying the bills of its more socialistic "enlightened" neighbours further up north?
That place? :O:

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.] ;)

You mean all these industries Bavaria build up from the money they got from the Länderfinanzausgleich well into the early 90ies, enabling that place to get where it is now from the agrarian state it has been before in the first place? :O:

Coming from Northrhine Westphalia, it is really astonishing how bavarians fed their egos with our money. :shucks:

So, basicly, socialism got bavaria where it is now.

[DarkFish]

I am not attacking the US or how her society works, there are many things I like. I just don't like someone making ill judged presumptions and presenting opinion as fact.:sign_yeah:
couldn't agree more

[mookiemookie]

but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

Agreed. It's become a "OMG i'm soooooo outraged! Let me show everyone how outraged I am by posting this in the right wing echo chamber.....err....I mean General Topics!"

[tater]

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

This. He explicitly refers to Americans as coming from elsewhere, can't mix and match. Americans are British (etc) until the Revolution, and Mexicans are Spaniards. Period.

If Bush had said this, the press would have been all over the "gaffe." They'd probably be chalking it up to his lack of "gravitas." Remember "gravitas?"

Mexicans are "Mexicans" when a country called "Mexico" exists, not before. "Americans" includes Native Americans who've been here since the Bering Sea ice bridge, does that mean we're 30,000 years old? (and since human migration went from North to South the US must predate the rest of the Americans (they hit Alaska before Canada) ;)

[tater]

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100922.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. :hmmm: Maybe it was the Vikings? :hmmm:

[VipertheSniper]

haha, that cartoon is priceless, although I think atleast around here "economics" shouldn't be missing.

[tater]

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. :hmmm: Maybe it was the Vikings? :hmmm:

It was land far enough back, then a mixture with ice/land past that (I wanna say it required some ice crossing as recently as 10,000 years ago. But regardless, Bering (what is now Sea) bridge was the crossing.

[The Third Man]

Walter Mondale himself sees a parallel.

By JOHN FUND (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JOHN+FUND&bylinesearch=true)


Comparisons between the Obama White House and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter are increasingly being made—and by Democrats.

Walter Mondale, Mr. Carter's vice president, told The New Yorker this week that anxious and angry voters in the late 1970s "just turned against us—same as with Obama." As the polls turned against his administration, Mr. Mondale recalled that Mr. Carter "began to lose confidence in his ability to move the public." Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saying this is happening to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Mondale says it's time for the president "to get rid of those teleprompters and connect" with voters. Another of Mr. Obama's clear errors has been to turn over the drafting of key legislation to the Democratic Congress: "That doesn't work even when you own Congress," he said. "You have to ride 'em."

Mr. Carter himself is heightening comparisons with his own presidency by publishing his White House diaries this week. "I overburdened Congress with an array of controversial and politically costly requests," he said on Monday. The parallels to Mr. Obama's experience are clear.


Comparisons between the two men were made frequently during the 2008 campaign, but in a favorable way. Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, for instance, told Fox News in August 2008 that Mr. Obama's "rhetoric is more like Jimmy Carter's than any other Democratic president in recent memory." Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg noted more recently that Mr. Obama, like Mr. Carter in his 1976 campaign, "promised a transformational presidency, a new accommodation with religion, a new centrism, a changed tone."

But within a few months, liberals were already finding fault with his rhetoric. "He's the great earnest bore at the dinner party," wrote Michael Wolff, a contributor to Vanity Fair. "He's cold; he's prickly; he's uncomfortable; he's not funny; and he's getting awfully tedious. He thinks it's all about him." That sounds like a critique of Mr. Carter.

Foreign policy experts are also picking up on similarities. Walter Russell Mead, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Economist magazine earlier this year that Mr. Obama is "avoiding the worst mistakes that plagued Carter." But he warns that presidents like Mr. Obama who emphasize "human rights" can fall prey to the temptation of picking on weak countries while ignoring more dire human rights issues in powerful countries (Russia, China, Iran). Over time that can "hollow out an administration's credibility and make a president look weak." Mr. Mead warned that Mr. Obama's foreign policy "to some degree makes him dependent on people who wish neither him nor America well. This doesn't have to end badly and I hope that it doesn't—but it's not an ideal position after one's first year in power."

Liberals increasingly can't avoid making connections between Mr. Carter's political troubles and those of Mr. Obama. In July, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked his guests if Democrats up for re-election will "run away from President O'Carter." After much laughter, John Heileman of New York Magazine quipped "Calling Dr. Freud." To which Mr. Matthews, a former Carter speechwriter, sighed "I know."

Pat Caddell, who was Mr. Carter's pollster while he was in the White House, thinks some comparisons between the two men are overblown. But he notes that any White House that is sinking in the polls takes on a "bunker mentality" that leads the president to become isolated and consult with fewer and fewer people from the outside. Mr. Caddell told me that his Democratic friends think that's happening to Mr. Obama—and that the president's ability to pull himself out of a political tailspin is hampered by his resistance to seek out fresh thinking.

The Obama White House is clearly cognizant of the comparisons being made between the two presidents. This month, environmental activist Bill McKibben met with White House aides to convince them to reinstall a set of solar panels that Mr. Carter had placed on the White House roof. They were taken down in 1986 following roof repairs. Mr. McKibben said it was time to bring them back to demonstrate Mr. Obama's support for alternative energy.

But Mr. McKibben told reporters that the White House "refused to take the Carter-era panel that we brought with us" and only said that they would continue to ponder "what is appropriate" for the White House's energy needs. Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that the Obama aides were "twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison (to Mr. Carter) in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections." Democrats need no reminding that Mr. Carter wound up costing them dearly in 1978 and 1980 as Republicans made major gains in Congress.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575505822147816104.html

[mookiemookie]

Oh look, another Obama thread.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I think I'd take this seriously if it didn't come from a Murdoch media organ or other wacky media source.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

LOL nothing he says or does surprises me anymore really.Obviously he does not know his history very well.

Coming from YOU!?!?!?!?!?
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: :har::har:

[SteamWake]

Yea we got tired of the Bush threads :haha:

I was going to post a thread yesterday about Carter.

What the hell is up with him lately he has been in the news on a number of occasions in the last few weeks.

Yesterday he (Carter) claimed that he was far superior to other presidents when it came to foreigen affairs and such. :o

[Sailor Steve]

Oh look, another Obama thread.
And another copy-and-paste job with no comments at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh look, another Obama thread.

:har:

You know what Mookie..at the end of the day I think Obama will take the next election anyway. I believe you will see him become as dynamic as he ever was in the 2008 elections. He still has that ability to mobilize people. Proof was in the pudding back in 2008. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

It was land far enough back, then a mixture with ice/land past that (I wanna say it required some ice crossing as recently as 10,000 years ago. But regardless, Bering (what is now Sea) bridge was the crossing.


Yes, ice crossing. I believe it established that humans/animals did migrate from region to region via this ice bridge. So then, I guess the US really belongs to.....the Russians!!! :o

[Sailor Steve]

Mexicans are "Mexicans" when a country called "Mexico" exists, not before. "Americans" includes Native Americans who've been here since the Bering Sea ice bridge, does that mean we're 30,000 years old? (and since human migration went from North to South the US must predate the rest of the Americans (they hit Alaska before Canada) ;)
But that's only true if you define "Americans" as denizens of the American continents. Commonly and (I think) in this context, "Americans" has to be defined as citizens of the United States, in which my argument on immediate ancestors still stands.

[SteamWake]

:har:

You know what Mookie..at the end of the day I think Obama will take the next election anyway. I believe you will see him become as dynamic as he ever was in the 2008 elections. He still has that ability to mobilize people. Proof was in the pudding back in 2008. :03:

Heh.. he might have to do something about that 40% approval rate though.

[Takeda Shingen]

Wait....wait.....

The far right doesn't like Obama?

Woah.......who knew?

Seriously, does anyone think that people is going to get their mind changed here? Talk about an exercise in predictability. This is becoming dull, even by political standards, and that's pretty bad.

[Bilge_Rat]

I am actually old enough to remember the Carter presidency...:o

I dont really see the similarity. The big problem Carter had is that he seemed overwhelmed by events and unable to take a decision, which is not a problem Obama has.

The final nail in the coffin was the continuing hostage drama when Iranian radicals seized all the US embassy personnel in Teheran in 1979 and held them all the way through 1980 without Carter taking any decisive action.

Carter was a good man, but unsuited to be president. You need someone who is not afraid to go to war and order kids to their death when the situation calls for it.

[The Third Man]

Blaming the first amendment for Obama isn't a good strategy.

[clive bradbury]

Purely for interest:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

We poor Europeans trapped in our socialist unhappiness don't seem to do all that badly....

By the way, thanks for explaining that we only think that we are happy, bullethead...could you please explain how you appear to KNOW that you are happy, rather than just thinking it?

[Alex]

I did not even know that guy was popular in Europe.

[AVGWarhawk]

Heh.. he might have to do something about that 40% approval rate though.

He can not be underestimated. Besides, who is really out there that can compete?

[The Third Man]

He can not be underestimated. Besides, who is really out there that can compete?

Was Obama a competitor in Sep 2006? Obama wasn't even a US Senator in Sep 2006.

Perhaps the next president will also sneak up on you like Obama did to Hilary Clinton.

[AVGWarhawk]

Was Obama a competitor in Sep 2006? Obama wasn't even a US Senator in Sep 2006.


Yes. This was all orchestrated long before hitting the political trail. Obama did not wake up one day and say lets run for president. He was groomed and backed by quite a few. Yes, sir, he was a competitor....the world just did not know it yet.

[The Third Man]

Yes. This was all orchestrated long before hitting the political trail. Obama did not wake up one day and say lets run for president. He was groomed and backed by quite a few. Yes, sir, he was a competitor....the world just did not know it yet.

Well then what makes you think it isn't happening again?

BTW Obama won the senate by default because his opponent was involved in a scandal. Sex.

[AVGWarhawk]

As stated above. He knows how to motivate people. I strongly believe he will have those that do not normally vote go out and vote again. His campaign was played like a first chair violin. He is by no means a dope. I would say his losing in 2012 is not in 'the bag.'

[The Third Man]

Obama is doing the same thing to the Dems as Carter. But it may be worse. Subconsciencely, many could be looking toward countries which are also governed as Obama has governed and don't want to be like those countries.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, look at the bright side...there is no Panama Canal to give away! :03:

[The Third Man]

Well, look at the bright side...there is no Panama Canal to give away! :03:

Good one!

Its a nation of 300 million people and their great-great grand children he is giving away.

Economically there are basically two ways to go. You either have policies which draw people up or policies which drag people down. Obama is of the drag people down school.

[AVGWarhawk]

Good one!

Its a nation of 300 million people and their great-great grand children he is giving away.

My I ask you...what is the answer to the worlds debacle at present? What have the Repubs have that the Dems don't? Let's not forget for a minute that the economic downturn started at the end of Bush's run. Bush signed the first stimulus bill. Did it get any better? Had it gotten any better with new stimulus packages? No sir. The maddening truth here is Reid/Pelosi and the rest of the dead weight in DC need to go.

[The Third Man]

My I ask you...what is the answer to the worlds debacle at present? What have the Repubs have that the Dems don't? Let's not forget for a minute that the economic downturn started at the end of Bush's run. Bush signed the first stimulus bill. Did it get any better? Had it gotten any better with new stimulus packages? No sir. The maddening truth here is Reid/Pelosi and the rest of the dead weight in DC need to go.

Currently no, the Repubs are too much like the Dems, thus the rise of the tea party movement. Which is just as hostile towards Repubs as Dems.

What you call the first bail out I assume you mean TARP. Those were loans which have been paid back with interest. TARP didn't take controll of an industry like Obama did with General Motors.

I don't disagree with you on this...."Reid/Pelosi and the rest of the dead weight in DC need to go."

But perhaps for different reasons.

[AVGWarhawk]

What you call the first bail out I assume you mean TARP. Those were loans which have been paid back with interest. TARP didn't take controll of an industry like Obama did with General Motors.



True but I think the natural progression of taking control of the industry after TARP was in the cards no matter who was at the wheel.

[antikristuseke]

He isn't really popular here, he is just less unpopular than Bush was.

[The Third Man]

True but I think the natural progression of taking control of the industry after TARP was in the cards no matter who was at the wheel.

I think you wrong. TARP was very limited in scope compared to the so-called stimulous package, which we now know is wasted money..

TARP was Federal Reserve money which we know, thanks to Alexander Hamilton, is not part of the US government, and its parasitic tax policy.

[tater]

Yeah, but in the context of "America" meaning USA (1776+), "Mexico" must also mean the nation. If he meant indigenous peoples, then you have to include those in what is now the US, too.

Bottom line is that had this been the previous President, the Press would be making MY argument, be sure :) Obama's gaffes are just misstatements—"we know what he meant, but he's very busy, and has to talk to a lot of people, etc." When Bush did the same "he's not that bright."

I think in general most such misstatements (by all Presidents, yes, even Bush) are actually just accidents that happen when you live under a microscope.

[Catfish]

You mean all these industries Bavaria build up from the money they got from the Länderfinanzausgleich well into the early 90ies, enabling that place to get where it is now from the agrarian state it has been before in the first place? :O:

Coming from Northrhine Westphalia, it is really astonishing how bavarians fed their egos with our money. :shucks:

So, basicly, socialism got bavaria where it is now.

^^
This.
I already wanted to mention the Länderfinanzausgleich which is "gladly" mostly forgotten :D
And hadn't the Saupreiss Frederick 2nd helped Bavaria in the potato war 1778, you bavarians would now belong to Austria :O:

Greetings,
Catfish

[The Third Man]

If one is going to quote the Declaration it would be best to do it in total. Otherwise you lose both your audiance, who also know the Declaration, and the electorate.

[Ducimus]

Ok.. that does it. I am offically NOT a liker of Obama now. Before I was indifferent. Now, i officially DO NOT like him. He's obviously trying to court the mexican vote instead of trying to do something about illegal immigration.. May as well start calling ourselves Estados Unidos de Mexico. California, is already, for all intents and purposes, a territory of mexico. Christ, this ticks me off.

[MGR1]

He isn't really popular here, he is just less unpopular than Bush was.

I'd agree with that.

Though his handling of the Gulf of Mexico situation didn't do his popularity in the UK much good.

Maybe a bit of his Kenyan ancestry coming through......:hmmm:

Mike.

[MGR1]

California, is already, for all intents and purposes, a territory of mexico.

Well, it was part of New Spain....

Maybe it's all part of a great plan to retake Mexico's old borders....?

First California, then Arizona, New Mexico and finally the Alamo.....

Where's Peter Ustinov when you want him..?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Max! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Max%21)

Mike.:O:

[Catfish]

" ... Though his handling of the Gulf of Mexico situation didn't do his popularity in the UK much good. ..."

Do you think BP's handling of the "Gulf of Mexico situation" did do BP's (or other oil companies) popularity much good :hmmm:

But it was perfectly marketing i agree :
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/BPThoseareboats.jpg

Greetings,
Catfish

[Gerald]

IMO I think he did not have 'balls' to take hold of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, but that's hardly the sole blame on Mr. Obama, while there are other human factors are involved

[MGR1]

" ... Though his handling of the Gulf of Mexico situation didn't do his popularity in the UK much good. ..."

Do you think BP's handling of the "Gulf of Mexico situation" did do BP's (or other oil companies) popularity much good :hmmm:

"Gulf of Mexico situation" - meant as a polite euphimism.:03:

I'm not absolving BP of blame - they cocked up (A polite way to put it) big time.

Obama's apparent concentration on "British" Petroleum as opposed to BP got a lot of people's back up.

BP may have started of as a UK company, but it's as multinational as any other oil conglomerate now.

Obama failed to make that distinction, for whatever reason. By implying that it was a "British" problem, he tried the blame game, instead of taking charge of the situation and doing what was actually needed. It could be argued that his Kenyan background, specifically what happened to his Grandfather during the Mau Mau Rebellion, coloured his judgement.

There was quite a bit of speculation on that last part in a few of the UK papers.....

Mike.:hmmm:

[Gerald]

To say that it is wrong that the UK tracked the whole thing out, it is a real long shot, however, so BP could have acted differently, of course, Mr. Obama, to send out signals that make it act, one that enter into a pie throwing at the political level

[Catfish]

Hello MGR1,
well i know an english historian who did never excuse or let anyone criticize England's imperial past, so if Mr. Obama knows him i might understand his notion ;). And then there was Mr. C. Rhodes and his Rhodesia etc. etc.

I do not know whether you work in the oil industry but whatever colour, nationality or multinational affiliation the company belongs to, ExxonMobil, Halliburton and Baker-Hughes are as american, as BP is english or Shell is dutch. This multinational BS is just to not pay taxes in their home country and certainly have international specialists as employees. National memorial days are being celebrated internally and officially, in all oil companies i know of.

After the events that lead to the disaster have now been summed up it indeed seems the most basic security measures have been abandoned, for this "borehole of hell" as it was called weeks before the disaster.

Having a scapegoat to present to the american public is not the invention of Mr. Obama, but he handled this situation a bit "inapt" - admitted.

Greetings,
Catfish

P.S. Hey Vendor, your name just now appears at the upper right, for donating to SubSim !

[Bubblehead1980]

Ok.. that does it. I am offically NOT a liker of Obama now. Before I was indifferent. Now, i officially DO NOT like him. He's obviously trying to court the mexican vote instead of trying to do something about illegal immigration.. May as well start calling ourselves Estados Unidos de Mexico. California, is already, for all intents and purposes, a territory of mexico. Christ, this ticks me off.


:salute:

[Bubblehead1980]

:har:

You know what Mookie..at the end of the day I think Obama will take the next election anyway. I believe you will see him become as dynamic as he ever was in the 2008 elections. He still has that ability to mobilize people. Proof was in the pudding back in 2008. :03:


No, because Obama has lost the white independent voter which is what still decides elections.Barry has not just lost them due to the economy but he numerous racist incidents in addition to coming out on the wrong side of issues like healthcare and the mosque etc as well all the other crap associate with his admin.If the economy rebounds enough, I'll say maybe but I doubt it.

Obama was way ovverated in 2008, a lot of people were just tired of Bush and the economy was on a downward spiral.McShame was not dynamic and offering anything that sounded great.Barry came in talking all centrist like after the primary when most people pay attention and compared to McCain, he looked like the most articulate statesman in a long time.Put Barry against a Reagan etc he's crap, because well he is crap and was highly overrated.I will be shocked if he gets reelected because people are sick of him and all the trash associated with him.

[ETR3(SS)]

Oh, I see we have a common "Obama sucks" thread now. Was only a matter of time I guess.

[Aramike]

Excuse me? I (and other people) have refuted several of your and Bubbleheads arguments. You didn't refute any of these counter-arguments of mine.

So before you say that we are offering no resistance whatsoever, you may want to take a look at this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1499226&postcount=62)post. Or this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498775&postcount=52)one. Or this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498391&postcount=34). This (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498363&postcount=31). And this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498247&postcount=23). Etc. All of which contain valid counter arguments that still haven't been refuted.Did you bother reading my post that you quoted or were you too busy attempting to refute it?

First off, I mentioned Morris - not Bubblehead. Secondly, as far as MY comments were concerned, and your rebuttals, I was pretty thorough in dismantling your ill-conceived ideas of social redistribution.

PS: Responses such as this: Ah, now I get it. When some executive offshores work, it's the fault of the employees...are not counter-arguments. Those are EXACTLY what I was referring to in my post.

Please again tell me how the demand of the common person for cheap goods should be completely ignored? (I really shouldn't say "again" as you never attempted to explain this the first time, but rather responded with yet another pat-yourself-on-the-back retort with absolutely no substance whatsoever.

[Aramike]

Oh, and this was ripe:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of U.S. households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...charity23.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html))
So it seems that especially the guys who can afford to give, rather buy a new big fat Ferrari than give their money to charity. So percentages, not dollar amounts, are what matters? Again, typical resdistributionist thinking - and again, no accounting whatsoever for the fact that those same people pay a MUCH HIGHER RATE OF TAXES which go to support numerous social welfare programs to begin with.

Must be fun to demand so much of others while giving so little of your own...

[Aramike]

:har:

You know what Mookie..at the end of the day I think Obama will take the next election anyway. I believe you will see him become as dynamic as he ever was in the 2008 elections. He still has that ability to mobilize people. Proof was in the pudding back in 2008. :03:I disagree ... he's so far failing miserably at mobilizing his base.

I think his re-election bid will fall flat unless he moderates himself on much of his already-passed agenda (I.E. support a "second look" at the disasterous healthcare bill). In '08 he had the talking points that no longer fly. Now even his base is pessimistic.

Quite frankly, all he's left with is an almost unanimous consent from the black community, which bothers me so incredibly greatly. It is a sad demonstration of a racial divide in which blacks are clearly agreeing with one who is black purely because he is black. In a recent poll 98% of blacks support Obama (if I recall correctly, it was Rasmussen. However, if anyone thinks I'm making this up I'll be glad to search for the poll in question as it was from a mainstream pollster). Think about that: you can't get that kind of majority to agree on ANYTHING.

[Happy Times]

Oh, and this was ripe:So percentages, not dollar amounts, are what matters? Again, typical resdistributionist thinking - and again, no accounting whatsoever for the fact that those same people pay a MUCH HIGHER RATE OF TAXES which go to support numerous social welfare programs to begin with.

Must be fun to demand so much of others while giving so little of your own...

http://givingpledge.org/

[Tribesman]

So percentages, not dollar amounts, are what matters? Again, typical resdistributionist thinking - and again, no accounting whatsoever for the fact that those same people pay a MUCH HIGHER RATE OF TAXES which go to support numerous social welfare programs to begin with.

Which has bugger all to do with validating your claims Aramike.
Using BIG LETTERS normally indicates that you digging yoursdelf deeper in the wrong direction.
Simple fact of the matter in that vein is that although the very top earners are liable to pay taxes under most systems worldwide at a higher rate good accounting means they often pay very little in dollar amounts or pecentages and indeed can often pay practicly nothing.

[antikristuseke]

When it comes to taxation I support a flat tax, same deal for everyone regardless of income. Of course I am speaking of percentages here.

[Catfish]

Hi,
when it comes to percentage of taxes, it is indeed the money of the poorer people that counts. You know if 5 percent of the population were really rich, the majority of money e.g. the US uses to keep up its Air Force and Navy, is collected from the 95 percent rest of the population, even if the rich certainly pay more per person. But they certainly can afford it.
Paying their smaller taxes hits poor people harder than people who are well off.

Can't say this often enough: Most taxes are not being collected from the "rich" or well-off people.
Has anyone here listened to economics, that a nation is better off when a lot of people have a bit more money, than only a few being really rich ? More middle class tax payers mean a lot more of taxes and development, and they even would have to pay less per person.

What the hell does those top managers do with 25 million dollars, and their only idea is to get another 25 ? when they are 75 years old or older ? They are are still as greedy as a locust. Do they think they can take it with them and buy themselves a seat on a cloud ?
Or do they think they invest the money in their sons to produce Mr. Bush the XIV. and build up a royal succession ?


It is not about whether i can buy a car from my money, and to hell with my neighbour who can not, and who pi$$es me off, with his poverty.
But if you have 25 millions, 5 cars and say 5 houses do you really care about paying those additional dollars for the general good, spirit and common sense indirctly, for people who cannot afford their health insurance ?

Certainly, caring for others and daring to question those old ideals of men that lived 400 years ago must be communism.
But when it comes to social behaviour or caring for others the right wing makes it seem as if it were a bunch of pirates that gave themselves a constitution. But then an US judge said the US were not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Aramike]

When it comes to taxation I support a flat tax, same deal for everyone regardless of income. Of course I am speaking of percentages here.Agreed.

[DarkFish]

Please again tell me how the demand of the common person for cheap goods should be completely ignored? (I really shouldn't say "again" as you never attempted to explain this the first time, but rather responded with yet another pat-yourself-on-the-back retort with absolutely no substance whatsoever.Did I ever say it should be ignored?
It doesn't matter at all if people generally go for foreign cheap products. There are enough people who still buy locally produced products that are a little more expensive. Enough people to keep the business up, were it not that the CEO's at the top put all money into their big fat pockets. Ever read any of Duci's posts?


Oh, and this was ripe:So percentages, not dollar amounts, are what matters? Again, typical resdistributionist thinking - and again, no accounting whatsoever for the fact that those same people pay a MUCH HIGHER RATE OF TAXES which go to support numerous social welfare programs to begin with.

Must be fun to demand so much of others while giving so little of your own...You do exactly the same thing with taxes. You claim (see this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498470&postcount=49)post of yours) that the US does much more in charity than Sweden. Without taking into account that the Swedish citizen pays much more taxes.
A bit hypocritical, that you accuse me of things you do yourself, don't you think?


Which has bugger all to do with validating your claims Aramike.
Using BIG LETTERS normally indicates that you digging yoursdelf deeper in the wrong direction.
Simple fact of the matter in that vein is that although the very top earners are liable to pay taxes under most systems worldwide at a higher rate good accounting means they often pay very little in dollar amounts or pecentages and indeed can often pay practicly nothing.:up:

[Aramike]

Can't say this often enough: Most taxes are not being collected from the "rich" or well-off people.Really? Or are you just saying that because you need it to be true in order to support your argument?

Because it's not even close to true.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/746.html

[Aramike]

Did I ever say it should be ignored?No, you just ignored it, and actions speak louder than words. Actually, you dismissed it.It doesn't matter at all if people generally go for foreign cheap products. Sure, buddy - that evil corporation that is Walmart doesn't economically impact anything at all... :yeah:

It matters, a great deal. You do exactly the same thing with taxes. You claim (see this (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1498470&postcount=49)post of yours) that the US does much more in charity than Sweden. Without taking into account that the Swedish citizen pays much more taxes.Really? Where did I say that?

In every statistic I've ever seen, the Swedes are the most charitable people on Earth.

Care to continue the European pat-ourselves-on-the-back-fest without any substance? Oh, and that's rich, quoting Tribesman, the singular, most prolific troll on the forums who time and time again has demonstrated is lack of mental proclivities through his wiki-education. His point is idiotic - look at the percentage of taxes collected in the US, and look at who's paying those taxes - seems like we need better accountants. (Although I will concede that Democrat politicians are excellent at avoiding taxes.)

[Sailor Steve]

When it comes to taxation I support a flat tax, same deal for everyone regardless of income. Of course I am speaking of percentages here.
Agreed.
I don't support taxes on income at all. Ever.

[Méo]

I don't support taxes on income at all. Ever.

So how would you finance your military. :06:

[Aramike]

I don't support taxes on income at all. Ever.Fair enough, and I tend to agree with you. So let me rephrase - short of a complete overhaul of the tax code I'd much prefer a flat tax to our graduated bracket system.

[Aramike]

So how would you finance your military. :06:National sales tax.

[Takeda Shingen]

Fair enough, and I tend to agree with you. So let me rephrase - short of a complete overhaul of the tax code I'd much prefer a flat tax to our graduated bracket system.

Absolutely. I detest income taxes completely, but since we live in the real world I would settle for a flat tax.

[Méo]

National sales tax.

Would that be enough...;)

[TLAM Strike]

So how would you finance your military. :06:

Tribute... :hmmm:

[Méo]

Tribute... :hmmm:

You mean like the Treaty of Versailles...

[Aramike]

Would that be enough...;)Why wouldn't it be?

[Méo]

Why wouldn't it be?

If it would, then why isn't it already in place??

[Aramike]

If it would, then why isn't it already in place??Again, I ask why wouldn't it be?

Your question doesn't make sense, by the way. There are plenty of options for raising enough money - why aren't any of those being used? For instance, why not just have a state income tax and the states pay money to the feds?

The main reason I suspect that a sales tax isn't in place is because, when the Federal income tax was instated, we lacked the technological feesibility to enact a sales tax.

Why isn't it in place now? You have any idea how hard it is to get things done in this country? :O:

[ETR3(SS)]

You have any idea how hard it is to get good things done in this country? :O:Fixed.:O:

[Oberon]

Please continue this here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=175285

[Aramike]

Please continue this here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=175285Why? We're talking about a very specific topic that is, at this point, pretty far removed from Obama?

[Takeda Shingen]

This is the thread that Xabba already merged.

[Aramike]

Fixed.:O::haha:

[heartc]

Oh lol, you Prussian [comrades] who were getting all worked up about what I wrote. God, I'm laughing my ass off lol! Bavaria only succeeding since the 90s or something, and because of the Länderfinanzausgleich? Oh my ****ing God lol! Is it that what they are teaching you at school? No wonder then, Jesus.

Bavaria was successfull since EVER. The only thing that's happening now is that now we are PAYING for YOUR ****. The industry I was talking about was around long before any German commies from your places even tried to put their stinky fingers on it and grab from us. WE are paying YOUR god damn commie **** escapades. Heck, I would write a damn essay now if I could be bothered, but as a matter of fact, I'm too damn drunken now because I'm having way too much fun in this capitalist hell hole, especially during this time of the year. Is there even anything like F-U-N in your commie hole, or is it forbidden out of respect to the poor job-less "comrades" your wonderfull state idea somehow and totally surprisingly couldn't take care off??

God, you have my pity. Stay in your God damn self-rightous dreamworld and be glad that there are actually people around willing to pay for your idiotic escapades out of the believe in the Federation.
God damn dreamers. Dreaming is great and important, but you are making **** UP. How about coming up with something more substantial than just stupid socialist crap. You like getting fooled by your semi-socialist SPD or downright commie parties? Yeah, go on with it, but don't complain if at some point some people are getting fed up with your crap because they have to pay for the **** you made up. God, just open your damn eyes and look around you. What's working, and what doesn't??? Not too hard, is it? But first you got to lose your rose-colored COMMIE GLASSES to see anything at all.

tl;dr version: Is there actually any point in your bitching that would offset what I wrote? NO. Surprise, surprise. I was talking about what is actually happening, about where the industry is, about what damn place is actually running Germany economically. You're talking some **** about Länderfinanzausgleich lol. That shows how much you are already getting intellectually F*CKED in the head by your NANNY STATE. Please spare me this crap. Keep your socialist religion to yourselves.

[Gerald]

:yawn:

[DarkFish]

[...]
Oh my ****ing God lol!
[...]
PAYING for YOUR ****.
[...]
WE are paying YOUR god damn commie **** escapades. Heck, I would write a damn essay now if I could be bothered, but as a matter of fact, I'm too damn drunken now because I'm having way too much fun in this capitalist hell hole
[...]I'm drunk too, but at least I try not to show it;)
Maybe that'd be an idea for you as well?

[antikristuseke]

whats the point of being drunk if you hide it?

[frau kaleun]

I'm drunk too, but at least I try not to show it;)
Maybe that'd be an idea for you as well?

Be fair, everybody knows Bavarians drink a lot more since Obama was elected. And who can blame them? :O:

[DarkFish]

whats the point of being drunk if you hide it?generally speaking people take you more seriously if they don't know you're drunk;)


Sing us a song, you're the piano man! Sing us a song tonight!...:()1:
la lala ladidaha, lada dadida, dadum!:()1:

[Tribesman]

Why? We're talking about a very specific topic that is, at this point, pretty far removed from Obama?
Obamas crap, wingnuts are good...wignuts arer OK...Iait a wingnut.....nus are good......dodgy taxes...context.....liberals liberals democrats anti americans why do you hate fredom?.
Hey bubba put that into context when the only one who reads the same as you is a fruitcake junky
Aramike ...king of the neverworld:rotfl2:
wingnut junkies, don'ty ya just luv'em:up:

[antikristuseke]

generally speaking people take you more seriously if they don't know you're drunk;)


Sing us a song, you're the piano man! Sing us a song tonight!...:()1:
la lala ladidaha, lada dadida, dadum!:()1:

The internets is serious business after all:smug:

[heartc]

I'm drunk too, but at least I try not to show it;)
Maybe that'd be an idea for you as well?

What's it to you, pretty boy?

Want to continue your "wise" talk from last time, about how there's no specific implication on the immediate future when getting

a) drunken
b) stoned
c) swarmed by ho's (as the Americans like to say, or something),


, Smartass?

I would like to put the :cheers: smilie up here now, but I can't find it. ;) Anyway, I need to leave now again to work on all of the above, so that at some point I may be as cool as as you are, "DarkFish".
Cheers buddy. :woot:

[Gammelpreusse]

Oh lol, you Prussian [comrades] who were getting all worked up about what I wrote. God, I'm laughing my ass off lol! Bavaria only succeeding since the 90s or something, and because of the Länderfinanzausgleich? Oh my ****ing God lol! Is it that what they are teaching you at school? No wonder then, Jesus.

Bavaria was successfull since EVER. The only thing that's happening now is that now we are PAYING for YOUR ****. The industry I was talking about was around long before any German commies from your places even tried to put their stinky fingers on it and grab from us. WE are paying YOUR god damn commie **** escapades. Heck, I would write a damn essay now if I could be bothered, but as a matter of fact, I'm too damn drunken now because I'm having way too much fun in this capitalist hell hole, especially during this time of the year. Is there even anything like F-U-N in your commie hole, or is it forbidden out of respect to the poor job-less "comrades" your wonderfull state idea somehow and totally surprisingly couldn't take care off??

God, you have my pity. Stay in your God damn self-rightous dreamworld and be glad that there are actually people around willing to pay for your idiotic escapades out of the believe in the Federation.
God damn dreamers. Dreaming is great and important, but you are making **** UP. How about coming up with something more substantial than just stupid socialist crap. You like getting fooled by your semi-socialist SPD or downright commie parties? Yeah, go on with it, but don't complain if at some point some people are getting fed up with your crap because they have to pay for the **** you made up. God, just open your damn eyes and look around you. What's working, and what doesn't??? Not too hard, is it? But first you got to lose your rose-colored COMMIE GLASSES to see anything at all.

tl;dr version: Is there actually any point in your bitching that would offset what I wrote? NO. Surprise, surprise. I was talking about what is actually happening, about where the industry is, about what damn place is actually running Germany economically. You're talking some **** about Länderfinanzausgleich lol. That shows how much you are already getting intellectually F*CKED in the head by your NANNY STATE. Please spare me this crap. Keep your socialist religion to yourselves.


:haha:

Oktoberfest obviously left its mark :cool:

[Méo]

Your question doesn't make sense, by the way.

Try to be wise next time you tell someone he doesn't make sense...

Cuz this is your proposition:

National sales tax.

No public finance analysis, hmm... wait, absolutely no numbers at all !!

Just 3 words and everything is magically solved!:woot:

[DarkFish]

What's it to you, pretty boy?I always knew I'm pretty, but that my looks are so famous that they're known all the way over in Bavaria does scare me a bit:timeout:

Want to continue your "wise" talk from last time, about how there's no specific implication on the immediate future when getting

a) drunken
b) stoned
c) swarmed by ho's (as the Americans like to say, or something),Drinking and smoking weed does have immediate effects;)
I don't get exactly what "wise talk" in which I said it doesn't you're talking about though...:hmmm:

I would like to put the :cheers: smilie up here now, but I can't find it. ;) Anyway, I need to leave now again to work on all of the above, so that at some point I may be as cool as as you are, "DarkFish". One day you will:|\\

Cheers buddy. :woot:Cheers!:()1:

[Aramike]

Try to be wise next time you tell someone he doesn't make sense...Your question didn't make sense, and it still doesn't.

It was based upon the false notion that all ideas are on the table or even formulated at all times along with being technologically feesible, and that all lawmakers have to do is select from those ideas.

In the real world, however, not all options are at all times already formulated as practical, workable ideas.

Try to be wise next time you try to accuse one of not being such. Or, at least, try not to be so obviously unwise.No public finance analysis, hmm... wait, absolutely no numbers at all !!What a silly response. What, do you think that every thread should include a spreadsheet attached?

Any sales tax would raise money. How much it would raise would be dependent upon the percentage of the tax and the volume of consumer spending.
However, I was not making any argument for the idea but rather I was saying that I would be in favor of it. Your responses are still pointless and make little sense.

Again, for the third time, why WOULDN'T a national sales tax be able to raise as much money as an income tax? Are you so incredibly obtuse as to not understand that how much raised would depend upon the rate and the consumer buying power? Furthermore, it would allow for previous untaxable funds to actually see taxation (really, you thought of this, right?). As such, it could quite possibly raise revenues. In any case, it would be a completely fair tax.

Here, if you want to study it further (I suspect you don't and you're just trying to be obnoxious), a link to a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTaxJust 3 words and everything is magically solved!Again, it would help for you to be wise ... I wasn't just attempting to solve everything with three words, and only a fool would suggest that.

What, if I say I would prefer tennis shoes over loafers should I write a 10 page dissertation explaining why, when it is only slightly relevant to the topic at hand? Really, dude, you can't be serious, because even Tribesman wouldn't use such stupidity veiled rhetoric as an "argument" as you have.

[Tribesman]

Really, dude, you can't be serious, because even Tribesman wouldn't use such stupidity veiled rhetoric as an "argument" as you have.
In what context?
Oh sorry I forgot, you and Rush both get lost understanding that word:rotfl2:

[TarJak]

:haha:

Oktoberfest obviously left its mark :cool:
Did somebody mention Oktoberfest?

http://www.purecostumes.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/F0655_mid_1.jpg

[heartc]

Oh, you mean more like:

http://thefillmorejive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Oktoberfest-ElCajon2.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/SNj57Yiu4EI/AAAAAAAATXs/9at2fv0fjDY/s400/Oktoberfest_17.jpg

http://www.beersteak.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/oktoberfest-2008-munich.jpg


http://www.muenchener-rundschau.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/wiesn.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2914176436_fb4e8ff035.jpg


http://horres.info/Wiesn%202007%20%281%29.jpg

:()1:

[frau kaleun]

:hmmm:

I just googled "hot guys oktoberfest" and got

http://www.sauerkrautcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/german-hunk-oktoberfest.jpg

and

http://www.destination-munich.com/images/oktoberfest-munich-2010-men.jpg

and

http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Oktoberfest+2008+Opening+MaAAva3wei_l.jpg

:damn:

[Aramike]

In what context?
Oh sorry I forgot, you and Rush both get lost understanding that word
I bet you dream of me at night, don't you? Me and Skybird. I bet you can't get us out of your head.

Obsession isn't healthy you know.

I just hope that we're clothed in your dreams, but your teenage-like propensity for chasing us around the proverbial school yard with the same tired, innane, antagonistic remarks punctuated with the usual assortment of smilies suggests otherwise. :yep:

Oh wait, I forgot - you might not understand without a :har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Méo]

@Aramike

As you wish dude!!

Have fun in reinventing the whole society. :sunny:

[Aramike]

@Aramike

As you wish dude!!

Have fun in reinventing the whole society. :sunny:Umm, what? Changing how the public funds its government reinvents a society?

[Méo]

Umm, what? Changing how the public funds its government reinvents a society?

With drastic changes you suggest, yep.

But you know, you're absolutely right, your ideas are undoubtedly the best. :yep:

[Aramike]

With drastic changes you suggest, yep.

But you know, you're absolutely right, your ideas are undoubtedly the best. :yep:Umm, how?

Dude, seriously? Are you trying to be taken seriously? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I mean, really, you haven't supported a single thing you've either posited or alluded to.

Do you have an actual REASON why I would be wrong? Do you have an alternative? Do you have ANYTHING substantive to add to the discussion?

My concept of a flat tax is merely a preference and alternative to what we have now. It is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of trying to streamline the process for the sake of efficiency and fairness. It is my OPINION that this would work. You have offered NOTHING as a counter point. In fact, your responses are nothing more than one-liners implying that my idea must be wrong without any reason as to WHY is must be wrong. In fact, I suspect that any outside party would see you as someone who has not even the first clue about what's being discussed.

For the fourth time, why wouldn't a sales tax be able to raise "enough"? Or are you simply unable to answer the question? Also, with the so-called "drastic changes" I suggest, why would it reinvent society? Or do you not know, but you just "feel" it might? Do you even know what the word "society" means, or do you just hear it repeated on talk radio so much that you feel that every alternative to any governmental norm must relate to society?

Really, unless you insist upon portraying yourself as a mental midget in a grow-up's discussion you should try a simpler topic or come prepared with meaningful responses.

[JokerOfFate]

*Stares completely lost*
I have no idea what you guys are on about but whats wrong with Obama (other than his name)
Leave him alone and maybe he'll do a good job :DL

[Méo]

For the fourth time, why wouldn't a sales tax be able to raise "enough"?

It's not about ''enough'', it's about the side effects of too high sales tax.

Do you have an actual REASON why I would be wrong?

No, you're right, period.

[Aramike]

It's not about ''enough'', it's about the side effects of too high sales tax....what about the side effects of having a low one?

I suspect you really haven't thought this through. Think about it: next time a true economic stimulus would be needed, it could be revenue neutral. Lower rates, boost sales. Sales boost compensates for lower rates. At the same time, inflation could be fought more directly.

Right now we rely on the Fed's interest rates to essentially pace our economy. I believe we've outgrown such a system. The average consumer just doesn't give a damn if we raise the rate half a point or not. Indeed, banks do, but they've always relied upon the consumer taking out loans. We are looking at the double whammy of banks not wanting to lend money and consumers not needing to borrow all that much due to the declining value of homes combined with the excess of uninhabited properties owned.

In other words, the consumer that needs a loan doesn't have much choice, but there aren't many consumers out there looking for one in the first place. Ergo, fed interest rates mean little as the resulting consumer rates aren't effecting borrowing.

Can you keep up?

A national sales tax ceases to tax earnings but rather earnings SPENT, which ultimately leads to further earnings. It allows for a very specific control mechanism - lower rates to increase consumerism, raise rates to fight inflation. Tax ALL sales.

In one final amendment to my idea, I believe that the federal budget should be set to the previous year. We all have heard the phrase "tax and spend". Unfortunately, right now we "spend and tax" (that's ultimately what deficits do). The federal budget should be nothing more than the allocation of the previous year's tax revenues, with perhaps some allowable percentage of deficit. What we can't afford, we cut.

This would help stabilize and even increase the value of US currency abroad resulting in more buying power in US dollars, encouraging domestic industry. This would give us greater traction in Most Favored Nation (Permanant Normalized Trade Relations) negotiations. Those are important in correcting trade imbalances, which are a huge reason why we are losing jobs overseas. If businesses are encouraged to produce US dollars due to their value, we will see a mitigation of them attempting to produce US dollars at reduced value through overseas production.

This is complicated stuff, and I could go on. I suspect however that you understand none of it, and can't be bothered to. Hence:No, you're right, period. What an odd, clearly sarcastic answer to the direct question you quoted: "Do you have an actual REASON why I would be wrong?"

Really? You are okay with implying that someone is wrong without any reason as to why they are? That sounds pretty idiotic to me. Quite frankly, you seem like someone who got in well over his head and is now trying to exit the discussion as though you made your point and are done.

Except you never bothered to make a point and therefore just look foolish for entering the discussion in the first place.

[Méo]

Dude, when will you get over it ?

[Tribesman]

Really, unless you insist upon portraying yourself as a mental midget in a grow-up's discussion you should try a simpler topic or come prepared with meaningful responses.
Isn't it funny that yet again your are deriding someones intellect when you have demonstrasted that your intellect cannot manage a basic understanding of the english language once some wingnut shockjock sets you off on an ideological rant.

It's not about ''enough'', it's about the side effects of too high sales tax.

Thats pretty basic isn't it, the same problem every society has faced for centuries in relation too high a sales tax(or even any sales tax), but I am afraid your apparently low intellect makes such simple things far too complicated for you to understand it like Aramike does.
what about them revenue men eh?:rotfl2:

[Méo]

I believe that when you discuss with people you must accept the principle that you do not hold the truth (Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality).

Other than that, it's not a discussion, it's a monologue.

----

So that's why I don't want to spend more time arguing here.

I'm gonna stay out of all that and check only less serious threads. ;)

[JokerOfFate]

Always nice to have a back door thats what I always say :up:

[Tribesman]

I believe that when you discuss with people you must accept the principle that you do not hold the truth
No one holds the truth, but the flaws and associated serious problems with sales tax are as old as the hills and so well documented its amazing that he refuses to see it.
It works counterproductive to the very thing he says he wants to achieve:doh:

[Aramike]

I believe that when you discuss with people you must accept the principle that you do not hold the truth (Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality).

Other than that, it's not a discussion, it's a monologue.

----

So that's why I don't want to spend more time arguing here.

I'm gonna stay out of all that and check only less serious threads. ;)Dude, who said anything about anything being an absolute truth OTHER than you?
This message is hidden because Tribesman is on your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=ignorelist). Oh, and is Tribesman still dreaming about me?

[Méo]

Dude, who said anything about anything being an absolute truth OTHER than you?
http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/implied-facepalm.jpg?w=500&h=387

[The Third Man]

It’s the electorate, stupid!


John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.


No. It is that very arrogance of the political elit which has raised the ire of the electorate.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1284069

[Sailor Steve]

Dude, when will you get over it ?
When will you? :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

It’s the electorate, stupid!



No. It is that very arrogance of the political elit which has raised the ire of the electorate.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1284069
Don't be frightened, but...

I agree with you on Kerry. :D

[Méo]

When will you? :sunny:

Come on...

We could have come to an agreement, I've said many times he was right.

[The Third Man]

Kerry added that voters should be mad at stonewalling Republicans and “big money” in politics ....

This just show's you how little this man knows about the electorate. Everyone and his uncle in the 'stupid' class knows you are married to the H.J. Heinz fortune. If that isn't big money........ beyond that the so called stonewalling is also a check on out of control government controlled by one party and should be extolled ISO attacked. It is the check within our checks and balance.

Out of Touch, North East Liberal/Progressive Democrat who has been laying turds on the US since he returned from Viet Nam.

people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth

Simple slogans; as in “Hope”, “Change”, or “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”?

[The Third Man]

Don't be frightened, but...



Psalm 23

[Tribesman]

Oh, and is Tribesman still dreaming about me?
I am pointing out that your "intellect" fails at a very basic level in regards to sales tax:up:

[Aramike]

This message is hidden because Tribesman is on your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=ignorelist). More dreams...

[Gerald]

bad dreams

[Tribesman]

More dreams...
In what context?
oh no its that word:rotfl2:
would you like some help?

[Aramike]

bad dreamsCan't be too bad because the guy insists upon following me around like a lost puppy.

It's all good - I don't have to bother putting his ignorance and childish behavior on display because he's doing such a great job himself, as though we needed yet another example of why stubborn lonely 16 year olds and Wikipedia don't get along too well.

Time to retire from the thread, good day! :salute:

[Tribesman]

Can't be too bad because the guy insists upon following me around like a lost puppy.

Everytime you post your usual bull excrement which you try and pass of as reasoned arguement you will get called on it in the same way as skybird does .

[Gerald]

Can't be too bad because the guy insists upon following me around like a lost puppy.

It's all good - I don't have to bother putting his ignorance and childish behavior on display because he's doing such a great job himself, as though we needed yet another example of why stubborn lonely 16 year olds and Wikipedia don't get along too well.

Time to retire from the thread, good day! :salute: :salute: