Why Obama is so bad and why Europe loves him

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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%

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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)
1. An action of regressing, a return to a previous 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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Originally Posted by Aramike

I prefer donation amount per citizen, which ranks 9th.

With 5 of the 8 countries above the US being European 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/htm...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 !

Sorry to Italy

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
It is at least a new idea, i never looked at it that way.

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.

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

/rant

Greetings,
Catfish

[heartc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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

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?

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.]

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Noun
regression (plural regressions)
1. An action of regressing, a return to a previous 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

With 5 of the 8 countries above the US being European 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/htm...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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by heartc

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?

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.]

Well said.

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]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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.