It's not as if i just ran over your kid or something... sheesh.

Anyway, I like the idea of having a spot to be able to cut loose and rip into somebody, even if I mostly don't agree with the shit I see in here. It's free speech.

Where else can I simply state that Smed (aka Gorf) is a stupid-ass, urine drinking turd burglar, if not the TM section. And hey, isn't that something we can all agree on?

EDIT: No hard feelings Gorf. Just having a laugh at your expense, like shooting fish in a barrel.

--------------------

we are a pretty diverse bunch here politically and thats never going to change. ive got to point out that in over 12 years of reading/ moderating internet message boards that had plenty of political posturing, ive yet to read one post by one person who ever said "OH! you really changed my mind about my political slant!". i think the more obvious truth about where all this bickering goes lies right there.

--------------------

Argument for the sake of argument is pointless.
Name-calling and hurt feelings happen too often.
Well...maybe less hurt feelings for you bunch of hardened criminal Metalheads. lol

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skul:
Btw, this entire Technocratic Manipulators section will be deleted soon, so enjoy it while it lasts. That's enough of this bullshit.

---

why... this was a killer concept but somehow in this section only political/religious topics. (and why the sub-description of this section has been changed is beyond me) for the narrow definition it now gives...

you guys should try the philosophy forums, whats really odd is almost everyone there is truly a VoiVod fan and they don't even know it !

quote:

---

First, it should be clarified that Plato is pointing up, but Aristotle is holding his hand out flat. He is not pointing down. The standard interpretation of this is that it represents Plato's belief that truth belonged solely to the realm of the Heavens, whereas Aristotle believed that this world was where truth was rooted. The interpretation is putatively complicated, however, by the books they are holding. Plato is holding the Timaeus, whereas Aristotle is holding his Ethics. How this is supposed to change things, however, baffles me. The Timaeus is about the physical world, yes; but the key to understanding the dialogue is its definition of our world in contrast with an eternal realm. And the common element of Aristotle's ethical works is that they eschew Platonic formulations and develop ethics as a form of political science that must be formulated in practical terms to be useful at all.

As has been frequently pointed out, however, it is unknown whether or not Raphael knew anything about the people he was depicting. The symbolism used for some of the figures suggests he knew enough to get the painting done, but it doesn't tell us how subtle his representation might be. There's only so much that matters, however, as the real question is what we are to take out of our experience of the painting. The original intent is almost irrelevant.

---

they are holding the opposing book to their personal philosophy... hence it is about to be understood and discussed in the forum that surrounds them depicted in the painting.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skul:
Yes, I am. What are you gonna do about it?

---

I'll slap your mama

quote:

---

Originally posted by X-D:
[QB]Hey, to be sure, I agree with my friend Skul that the TM section is full of crap, but by no means do I wish it to be closed at all. In fact, I think it wise to keep it intact, if only to keep socio-religious-political shit out of the regular sections.

Anyway, I like the idea of having a spot to be able to cut loose and rip into somebody, even if I mostly don't agree with the shit I see in here. It's free speech.

---

I can see you are all for free speech
shit for brains ...

Narrow minded shmucks live in glass houses,"let's delete the forum, its too controversial wif hurt feelings"

Fucking Boo Hoo Assholes!

"Lets all stick to music since we're all so
INSECURE. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by SmedHed:
I can see you are all for free speech
shit for brains ...

---

Alright, that's the spirit. Fuck you too, assmunch.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mezcalhead:
You know what's funny Tango? You violate #'s 1 & 2 of your original post throughout this entire thread. I even tried to do what you asked....come together on one issue(regulation of Wall Street). But you completely blew that out of the water. So this is all really pointless.

While I was waiting in the AT&T store yesterday I watched Glenn Beck for the first time....holy smokes, what an idiot!! It was almost laughable.... If I had to sit through that everyday I think I might switch sides.....

---

In reverse order...

Beck is a buffoon.

I thought we agreed on some points, and said so in my post.

Where in particular have I "violated" these self-imposed 'rules'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skul:
Uhm... didnt you just say you wouldnt lose sleep over it? Then quit freaking out with your pulling all sorts of assumptions outta your ass about me, my motives, or whatever.

---

I won't lose sleep if the forum is deleted.
I would be a tad annoyed if it was done for that particular reason.
That's all I meant.

--------------------

"You have the option to drill additional holes in the label,
causing the record to rotate off the side of the turntable"

Way to go Chris Dodd! This is what you call going out with a bang. First step to fixing a huge problem.

I notice 2 years after notice it was to be taken down TM is still here...so here goes!

Note to K:- Love you dude, always did x

I'm here because I want to be.

I am left leaning in my political views, but think that wholly 'left' or 'right' wing governance is bad for any country.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Globalisation is destroying the planet.

As a species we will be extinct within the next 500 or so years.

China is evil. Well, its Government is.

Breivik needs to be heard in person, not in quote. Censorship in all its forms sucks, even if you don't like or agree with what you hear or see.

Religion in any form has no place in a progressive society.

Nurse!

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KnickerZohnonnof:
Well fuck me if things don't change much, even after many years of not coming here

I notice 2 years after notice it was to be taken down TM is still here...so here goes!

Note to K:- Love you dude, always did x

I'm here because I want to be.

I am left leaning in my political views, but think that wholly 'left' or 'right' wing governance is bad for any country.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Globalisation is destroying the planet.

As a species we will be extinct within the next 500 or so years.

China is evil. Well, its Government is.

Breivik needs to be heard in person, not in quote. Censorship in all its forms sucks, even if you don't like or agree with what you hear or see.

Religion in any form has no place in a progressive society.

Nurse!

---

I lean to the hard right in my political views, but I don't tie my morality to it. A right-leaning government is resistant to globalization. A left-leaning government is an accelerant to globalization.

There are conspiracies at work. Globalization used to be a "conspiracy theory".

If left to progressive devices, humanity will be extinct in 500 years.

China's government is evil.

Barack Obama is evil.

Censorship a practice of the left.

I've come to the conclusion that its kind of pointless to argue...kind of a waste of time really. (And I wasted a lot of it with my stupid comments on here)

Reagan, Thatcher, Bush Snr. The prime movers behind globalisation?

There are conspiracies at work. Globalization used to be a "conspiracy theory".

I didn't say there weren't conspiracies at work, I said I am not a conspiracy theorist. Globalisation was always a theory and a bad one at that.

If left to progressive devices, humanity will be extinct in 500 years.

Why? This makes no sense.

China's government is evil.

Agreed. Leopards don't change their spots.

Barack Obama is evil.

He may not have been the messiah that the USA was hoping for but he is 1,000 times the president Bush Jnr was.

Censorship a practice of the left.

Censorship is a practise of both sides of the political divide.

Religion and progressive-ism cannot occupy the same space.

I wouldn't want them to.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KnickerZohnonnof:
I lean to the hard right in my political views, but I don't tie my morality to it. A right-leaning government is resistant to globalization. A left-leaning government is an accelerant to globalization.

Reagan, Thatcher, Bush Snr. The prime movers behind globalisation?

There are conspiracies at work. Globalization used to be a "conspiracy theory".

I didn't say there weren't conspiracies at work, I said I am not a conspiracy theorist. Globalisation was always a theory and a bad one at that.

If left to progressive devices, humanity will be extinct in 500 years.

Why? This makes no sense.

China's government is evil.

Agreed. Leopards don't change their spots.

Barack Obama is evil.

He may not have been the messiah that the USA was hoping for but he is 1,000 times the president Bush Jnr was.

Censorship a practice of the left.

Censorship is a practise of both sides of the political divide.

Religion and progressive-ism cannot occupy the same space.

I wouldn't want them to.

---

While I will agree that Bush Sr and Jr for that matter are globalists, I don't believe for a moment that Reagan falls anywhere near that category. Then again, the right doesn't really view the Bush family as conservatives.

By nature, leftist ideals are based on a utopic vision of humanity. They wrongly assume that everyone wants to get along and work together toward a unified goal. They want gun control; leaving only the military and criminals armed. They want abortion free and easy, while promoting homosexuality. All moral issues aside, that's a recipe for an ever diminishing population if I've ever seen one. Their calls for "social justice" demand equal outcome over equal opportunity. Coupled with the wealth redistribution model, you have the key elements in place to maintain healthy class warfare.

The uneducated and underinformed fully expected Obama to be the messiah. Those of us who looked into the man prior to the election knew better. He appealed to the entitlement mentality. It got him elected, but it won't get him re-elected. What's worse is that he genuinely dislikes this country. He believes we are an evil nation and has done what he can to break us. I was no fan of Bush Jr either. You are partially correct. Obama is 1000x what Bush was. 1000x worse. Our economy has worsened at warp speed in the past three years (by design).

quote:

---

Originally posted by nothingface:

While I will agree that Bush Sr and Jr for that matter are globalists, I don't believe for a moment that Reagan falls anywhere near that category. Then again, the right doesn't really view the Bush family as conservatives.

By nature, leftist ideals are based on a utopic vision of humanity. They wrongly assume that everyone wants to get along and work together toward a unified goal. They want gun control; leaving only the military and criminals armed. They want abortion free and easy, while promoting homosexuality. All moral issues aside, that's a recipe for an ever diminishing population if I've ever seen one. Their calls for "social justice" demand equal outcome over equal opportunity. Coupled with the wealth redistribution model, you have the key elements in place to maintain healthy class warfare.

The uneducated and underinformed fully expected Obama to be the messiah. Those of us who looked into the man prior to the election knew better. He appealed to the entitlement mentality. It got him elected, but it won't get him re-elected. What's worse is that he genuinely dislikes this country. He believes we are an evil nation and has done what he can to break us. I was no fan of Bush Jr either. You are partially correct. Obama is 1000x what Bush was. 1000x worse. Our economy has worsened at warp speed in the past three years (by design).

As open-minded as I can possibly be, I can't think of a single substantial effort of censorship from the right. I'm likely wrong on this, so please toss me an example. Anything I can think of has come from the left; from the PMRC to internet neutrality.

---

You can use google or other search tools to find plenty of far right censorship issues. It is not an exclusive of one wing or another and it never has been. I found at least a dozen in just one quick look. As with most things it would require a little time to find out the truth or validity of each claim but I would hedge a bet that a good number of them would stand up to scrutiny. As a left leaning person I have never believed that censorship is a good thing. I'd much rather it was out there where I could see it and judge it for what it was rather than what it is alleged to be. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. It is a good mantra.

Reagan...well he certainly started the ball rolling, although it was much more about the people behind him than Reagan himself, that much I would concede. And Thatcher...don't even get me started. That woman makes my blood curdle!

I am quite relaxed about the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses. It is not for anybody other than herself to consider the implications, personal or otherwise. That in itself is a form of censorship in my opinion, its just dressed up as some form of morality question.

The world population is 7bn and rising. We are hardly diminishing. Maybe in the west we are not growing (in some cases actually shrinking slightly) at the same rate as India or China but the planet is having enough problems coping with this amount of human life. More, especially us fossil fuel guzzling western types, is a recipe for human extinction. If anything we need to reduce the human population and reduce our ravaging consumption of its finite resources.

And speaking of population reduction...that is what homosexuality is; nature's way of reducing the birth rate. Where it comes unstuck is when they decide they want to have kids by natural means, when it was dictated to them in their genes they would not be natural parents. Simple solution - adopt, don't add. Sadly that falls down as well because of the stupid stigma attached to kids of gay parents and the ridiculous (in the UK anyway) process of adoption. What does it matter?? If they're loving and the kids are happy that's all that matters!

And I have a problem with the term "promoting homosexuality" - that is a very dangerous statement. People are who they are and they shouldn't be persecuted for it or be ashamed because of it. The so-called "trend" gays find out in time its not for them and revert to their heterosexual lives. Similarly people experiment - it is the natural order of things and in the end we all find out who we are.

I think you paint a very biased picture of Obama. I'd like to know exactly what he was going to do with a country that has progressively weaned all its rich out of paying any meaningful tax, that under Bush Jnr had run up trillions of dollars of debt after inheriting a country that was in a fairly good state of health financially, that decides that if you can't pay for your health care you can't have any - truly the most obnoxious way to treat the poor. A country that does not want to take responsibility for the fact it uses 30% of the worlds resources but only has 5% of the world's population. A country that started two wars that have achieved nothing except more hatred for the west. Yeah, it was in rude health when Bush had finished with it. NOT. Obama is many things and he has fallen short of the vision he set out but with the hand he was dealt I'm amazed he achieved anything to be honest. Your country has many fundamental flaws that, unless fixed, will lead to its downfall in the next 10-15 years. Obama knows this, many on the right seem to want to live in blissful denial. He doesn't hate the USA. He hates what it has become after decades of greed politics and he knows full well the fixes mean the rich have to start paying their share. The UK is going to end up in the same boat if we aren't careful.

Guns...what is it with your country and the second amendment? The UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and I am proud of that. There is no way on Earth I would want to allow the 'free' sale of weapons in this country and I am glad that no politician is even considering it. Criminals will get weapons regardless of the law anyway, but why would I want to carry a gun?? Why does anyone need to??

One other thing. We are born unequal but we deserve equal chances. What is done with them is up to the individual. Class warfare is in existence because of the current situation of the wealthy getting wealthier at a time when ordinary citizens are being told to tighten their belts, accept wage cuts/freezes and accept a reduction in their living standards while the richest enjoy massive pay settlements, tax breaks and ever greater immunity from the firestorm that is the current financial climate. Damn right there needs to be a bit of redistribution, not to mention a reality check. Why should the rich be immune to what has been done to so many countries across the western world - many of them caused it!! This isn't about entitlement, it is about the fact the poor and vulnerable are being made to pay for the mistakes of many very rich and powerful people and that is simply out of order.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KnickerZohnonnof:
And I have a problem with the term "promoting homosexuality" - that is a very
dangerous statement. People are who they are and they shouldn't be persecuted for
it or be ashamed because of it. The so-called "trend" gays find out in time its not for
them and revert to their heterosexual lives. Similarly people experiment - it is the
natural order of things and in the end we all find out who we are.

I think you paint a very biased picture of Obama. I'd like to know exactly what he
was going to do with a country that has progressively weaned all its rich out of
paying any meaningful tax, that under Bush Jnr had run up trillions of dollars of debt
after inheriting a country that was in a fairly good state of health financially, that
decides that if you can't pay for your health care you can't have any - truly the most
obnoxious way to treat the poor. A country that does not want to take responsibility
for the fact it uses 30% of the worlds resources but only has 5% of the world's
population. A country that started two wars that have achieved nothing except more
hatred for the west. Yeah, it was in rude health when Bush had finished with it. NOT.
Obama is many things and he has fallen short of the vision he set out but with the
hand he was dealt I'm amazed he achieved anything to be honest. Your country has
many fundamental flaws that, unless fixed, will lead to its downfall in the next 10-15
years. Obama knows this, many on the right seem to want to live in blissful denial.
He doesn't hate the USA. He hates what it has become after decades of greed politics
and he knows full well the fixes mean the rich have to start paying their share. The
UK is going to end up in the same boat if we aren't careful.

Guns...what is it with your country and the second amendment? The UK has some of
the strictest gun laws in the world and I am proud of that. There is no way on Earth
I would want to allow the 'free' sale of weapons in this country and I am glad that
no politician is even considering it. Criminals will get weapons regardless of the law
anyway, but why would I want to carry a gun?? Why does anyone need to??

One other thing. We are born unequal but we deserve equal chances. What is done
with them is up to the individual. Class warfare is in existence because of the current
situation of the wealthy getting wealthier at a time when ordinary citizens are being
told to tighten their belts, accept wage cuts/freezes and accept a reduction in their
living standards while the richest enjoy massive pay settlements, tax breaks and
ever greater immunity from the firestorm that is the current financial climate. Damn
right there needs to be a bit of redistribution, not to mention a reality check. Why
should the rich be immune to what has been done to so many countries across the
western world - many of them caused it!! This isn't about entitlement, it is about the
fact the poor and vulnerable are being made to pay for the mistakes of many very
rich and powerful people and that is simply out of order.

---

I don't have a problem with gay people, but I don't see the need to push the mindset everywhere you can. It's as if gay people are trying to convince themselves that its okay. In addition, the media (at least here in the US) is bent on working a pro-gay message into much of what it puts out. Fine, be gay, but I don't want to hear about it 24/7.

I could go on and on and on about the socialist President we have to put up with for a few more months.

* - The bottom 49% of our population (financially speaking) pay no taxes at all. The "criminal rich" which make up less than 10% of the population pay over 70%. This idea that the rich pay nothing is simply bullshit used by the left to amp up class warfare.

* - In three years, Obama has run up more debt than nearly all previous presidents combined. If you are going to run a campaign based on the spending habits of the previous president, don't you think you'd stop spending historic amounts of money we don't have? Instead, he's accelerated spending while continuing to blame someone who hasn't been president in over 3 years. While we are at it, keep in mind that the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives during the final years of Bush Jr's last term, where spending began to get out of control. All financial decisions start in the House. Stopping that spending ultimately would have been Bush's responsibility, and we don't hold him harmless for going along with that. Bush Jr inherited a healthy economy that was created by a Republican controlled House during all the Clinton years.

*- Socialized medicine. Where do I start? 16% of Americans are uninsured. However, federal law prohibits hospitals from denying care based on the inability to pay. The taxpayers pick up that bill. A casual view of the president's "health care reform law" would seem to show that he's concerned with making health care available to everyone; when in fact it already is. The trouble with this law is in the thousands of pages of details. What it boils down to is this: This law establishes the government's authority to require its citizens to purchase something; in this case, medical insurance from the government. With this precedent, they can essentially require you to purchase whatever they deem necessary or in the public's best interest. I don't know how other countries work, but that premise goes against the Constitution of this country. In fact, our Supreme Court is about to deem that entire law unconstitutional here by June.

The entire idea was a power grab, an attempt by government to socialize a private industry. In his own words, Obama said that it would take time to eliminate private insurance companies and bring everyone onto the government plan.

quote:

---

"A country that does not want to take responsibility for the fact it uses 30% of the worlds resources but only has 5% of the world's population."

---

*- In three years, Obama has achieved nothing productive aside from galvanizing the American people against him and people like him. He has NO record to run on, as everyone will see when campaigning begins.

Obama is many things; among them, a Socialist (in this country, that's not a good thing), a Marxist, and a man driven by race. History will remember him as the worst, most devisive, and damaging president this country has ever had. The US is the lone successful experiment in self-governance in human history. Unless we allow the likes of Obama to continue, we will rebound.

*- Obama has stated in both of his autobiographies (btw, what sort of egomaniac needs 2 autobiographies?) that he is at odds with this nation as it was founded, not as it has grown to become. We have a president who does not like this nation. How much do the rich need to pay? Is 50% of what they earn enough? That's what they pay now. Class warfare is a tool of the left.

In the US, we love the 2nd amendment, and with good reason. A long time ago, we had a government try to disarm the citizens. Never again. Gun prohibition will insure that only the government and criminals will have guns. No thank you. I don't own a gun, but if I wanted to, I can. There are cities in this country where carrying a gun is illegal and they are the cities with the highest violent crime rate. Imagine that.

Your last paragraph is a barrage of emotional liberal rhetoric. The US is not a socialist country, yet plagued to the hilt with an entitlement mentality that liberals have engrained in people in order to use them as pawns. As US citizens, we are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That is up to the individual.

quote:

---

"A country that does not want to take responsibility for the fact it uses 30% of the worlds resources but only has 5% of the world's population."

Please add to this that without this country, its economy, and its dedication time and time again, that the world would be truly fucked.

---

What has that got to do with anything??? Seriously, that is a ridiculous statement.

I didn't say the rich were criminal by the way, laws passed by successive governments made it perfectly legal for them to avoid paying tax and also allowed those involved in the financial sector to take huge risks with vast sums of money they didn't actually have, thus causing the near meltdown of the economy and its subsequent hangover. The gap between the poor and the rich is still widening and at a faster rate than at any time in living memory. And I don't believe for one minute the rich in the US are paying 70% tax and nor does anybody else, especially when the republican nominee Mitt Romney officially paid 15%, half what Obama paid...so where does the other 55% come from?? Please don't tell me that's another 'class war' claim of the left, they are official figures. You also claim that the bottom 49% of americans pay no tax...explain? I don't believe that for one minute either.

As for healthcare, you spend 17% of your GDP on it, far more than the rest of the world, yet your quality of care lags behind most developed nations with higher infant mortality rates, lower age expectancy and many accusations of waste, unnecessary treatment and corruption. I'd say your system needs fixing. The UK NHS has many, many flaws but I'd take it any time over the US model.

US deficit...Bush doubled the deficit between 2000 and 2008 through huge tax cuts and increased military spending. Obama increased it by another $5tn thanks to poor tax revenues inherited from the previous administration, the costs of the world recession and attempts at economic stimulus, which appear not to have worked as well as hoped. I'd say Obama was dealt a shit hand by Bush Jr and it takes much more than one term to turn that around. If he wins in November and the trend continues, then you have a point. I disagree, I think you have a good president, its just the right hate him because he wants the wealthy to pay their fair share.

quote:

---

There are cities in this country where carrying a gun is illegal and they are the cities with the highest violent crime rate. Imagine that.

---

Define "violent crime". In the UK it means pretty much every act of violence, with or without weapons, committed and reported to the police. It means different things in different countries. What does it mean in the US?

quote:

---

Your last paragraph is a barrage of emotional liberal rhetoric. The US is not a socialist country, yet plagued to the hilt with an entitlement mentality that liberals have engrained in people in order to use them as pawns. As US citizens, we are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That is up to the individual.

---

Obama is not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination - he'd be classed as right of centre in the UK!

I would conclude from that response that you would just let the poor and vulnerable rot and die instead of helping them? Its not about entitlement. It never was. Its about the inequities of society that allow the richest to pay less than the poorest, which in turn has crippled many western economies. Most of us just want a level playing field. That has nothing to do with entitlement.

Seems to me you have your own agenda, and to be honest its one which I find rather unpleasant and misleading.

--------------------

Let me clarify, the top percent of wage earners in this country pay over "75% of all tax revenue". I think that's more than fair.

Mitt Romney should earn more money than Obama. Obama has never actually worked a day in his life. He's never held a private sector job, let alone start a business.

I'm not making these figures up. They can be found anywhere. 49% of Americans pay nothing in income tax. I have better things to do than make up numbers.

If our health care is so bad, why do leaders from countries all over the world come here when they are faced with serious illness? Our system does need fixing, but it doesn't need to be commandeered by the government. Health care costs are expensive. Lobbyists have been able to keep real health care reform from happening. That's the real tragedy. However, if I had to place my life in the hands of a doctor, I'd rather be nowhere else on Earth.

Bush's deficit (not to be confused with the US debt) doubled from 2006-2008, which is when the Democrats took control of the House. We've already covered this. No one on the right considers Bush a conservative.

Obama has increased the debt, not by "poor tax revenues" but by a suicidal increase in spending; and on what? His stimulus did nothing, as intended. They were simply buyouts for big corporations and government takeover of private industries. It was all a power grab at the expense of the American taxpayer. Interestingly, much of the allocated stimulus funding was never spent, but never repaid to the US Treasury? Where did that money go? The health care debacle will be his Waterloo. Through it, America now sees him for what he is.

If Obama was dealt a "shit hand" by Bush Jr, why are we paying double for gas and have double the unemployment than the worst of the Bush years? We'll take that shit hand any day over this. The "blame Bush" excuse has long played out. No one's buying that load anymore. There hasn't been one indication that things have gotten anything but catastrophically worse over the past three years. No, as a country, we cannot afford to give him another term. The fact is, he doesn't want it to get better and his actions speak to that end. The right doesn't like him because he doesn't believe in this country or the principles it was founded on. It has nothing to do with the "fair share" rhetoric. Our tax laws have always been heavy on the rich.

In the US, "violent crime" is typically defined as assault, rape, and murder. I read that since the implementation of gun prohibition in the UK, that knife crime has gone up. There are criminals everywhere. It's not a matter of the implement, but of the mindset.

Obama may be classed right of center in the UK, but he's further left than anyone who's ever held the office in the US. It's not who we are.

Where do you get the idea that we'd just let the "vulnerable and poor rot and die"? I like exchanging thoughts with you, but this sort of shit is what bugs me about liberals. The US has developed an entitlement mentality that has been heavily promoted by what I will now refer to as the "US left". It's how they maintain their voting block. They act as the champion to the poor and minorities. The problem is that if they actually fixed either of those problems, they wouldn't be needed any longer, so they don't. It was never their intent. The intent is to keep them dependent on the government to maintain the vote. That's where the entitlement mentality comes from. It's where the class warfare is perpetuated. It's shameful. Just because someone is successful, doesn't mean they did it at the expense of someone else.

With affirmative action and other politically correct ideals, the playing field has actually shifted past level in the other direction. More entitlement reinforcement.

I have no agenda. I'm not rich and I'm not poor. However, I don't like watching my country being dismantled from within by our current president who has no respect for us as a nation.

Regardless of how much you spend on foreign aid, ect. it does not give your country the right to have a 'scorched earth' policy towards the environment. The two aren't connected, period. Overconsumption is a problem for the whole of the Western world but it is pretty much epidemic in the USA. You need to sort it and wake up to the fact we in the West have to change our ways sooner rather than later.

The comparison between Romney and Obama was about tax payments, not earnings. That is irrelevant. Romney paid half what the president did in percentage terms. That's the point.

Half of all Americans don't pay tax. Correct. but you don't say why. And here's the rub. Because when you check the statistics its the low paid taking pay cuts to keep their already badly paid jobs, the elderly, the unemployed, children...It is not the fault of the unemployed they don't pay tax, nor the low paid. It is the long term endemic failure of your government (and ours) to stop jobs going overseas to low wage economies and creating alternative employment for the jobless - which is about 10% of your workforce now (UK is about 9%). We have set about the wholesale destruction of heavy industry here and manufacturing of consumer electronics has been decimated, yet we didn't replace it with anything and as a consequence we have whole areas of the country where unemployment is a career because there is simply no work for the people that live there. That is scandalous. You have a similar issue. These problems started decades ago and they are coming home to roost now. It is the failure of both left and right wing governments across the western world, but only the poorest seem to be paying the price for this. And I congratulate Obama for at least trying to do something about it, even if the success of the various programmes has been very hit and miss.

Please elaborate on the 75% tax claim. According to data the top earners pay around 30-35% of their incomes in tax, which begs the question of how Romney only paid 15%. Yeah, I found a site that said Americans pay 70% but that seemed to be based on consumption (spending) taxes - that doesn't count in my opinion. If I include spending taxes I could say I pay >50% tax in spite of being an average wage earner - in actual fact tax on my earnings works out to be about 25% of my annual gross.

We can argue until the seas freeze over about the rights and wrongs of who is responsible for the USA's current economic climate. All I will tell you is that it doesn't fall apart in just 3 years. Obama hasn't been the messiah as I said earlier, but he is certainly not the person to blame right now - that falls at Bush's feet. If Obama wins another term and it still goes south then he's fair game. We will agree to differ on this for now.

You are paying double for gas...have a word. You pay half what I pay!! $4 (£2.62)/US gallon and only 11% of it is in tax. Try £6.50 ($8.50)/UK gallon and >60% of that is tax!! After conversions between UK and US gallons that equates to around half what I pay - and that also applies to most of Europe. So count yourself lucky you pay so little for it!

World leaders use US healthcare for one reason - because they can afford to. Would they do it if they had the base level care your system provides? Somehow I think not. I can tell you the myths and lies spread about the NHS in the USA are a right wing smear campaign and most of it complete lies. We have problems yes, but because our healthcare is funded through general taxation EVERYONE is entitled to FREE healthcare at the point of use. EVERYONE. Get that? No discrimination and we as a nation are fiercly proud of it, it was one of the greatest innovations of the post war Labour government. None of the 'Oh, your health care fund has run out', which is what happened to one Chuck Schulinder. Yeah, you can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

The public carrying of guns has been banned in the UK for a very long time. There was a general act passed in 1968 to unify the control of guns but in reality it was illegal long before this. You can only have them under strict licensing terms. The laws were tightened in 1998 after horrendous Dunblane massacre of 1996 to give us some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Violent crime has been steadily increasing in this country and it is not linked to the ownership of guns, it is linked to progressively more lenient punishment/rehab programmes and increasing social deprivation. Deaths through shootings are about 1/40th of what they are in the USA in terms of homicides per 100,000 (0.07 vs 3). Our police do not routinely carry firearms either. I'm exceptionally proud of that. Your country has been fed this bullshit about guns for years by a powerful and organised lobby and weaning you off them is now a nigh impossible task. You don't need them and we don't want them.

About the poor/vulnerable. It was a question based on a comment you made, not an opinion. But a lot of people are suffering in the USA, there is no doubt about that.

And again, what is this 'entitlement' thing? What people are asking for is not to stop people being successful, its for them to pay their way. You have to admit a person who earns what Romney does should pay a bit more than just 15% tax. We have a very similar situation in this country and it is infuriating to think that I pay a higher percentage of my salary in tax than the richest do. I just want them to pay the same percentage, that would be nice!! Its the loopholes, the tax avoidance schemes and the evasion that causes the problems, not the 'entitlement' mentality. If the rich paid their way I for one wouldn't be up in arms about what the rich pay in tax and I know I speak for the majority on this. Way back in the 1970's the then Labour chancellor set a super tax bracket of 85%. Want to know why? Because realistically he knew he'd get less than half of that because of avoidance and evasion. A case in point is an owner of a high street chain of shops boasting he paid just 4% (that is not a mistake) tax, and all because he could afford an accountant that could work the system to the maximum advantage. This with a super tax in place. You can see the scale of the problem and why there is such a backlash against the wilful avoidance of paying tax, especially in these straitened times. That tax bracket was short lived. The problems of avoidance and evasion live on to this day and are getting worse.

I will disagree with you about Obama. You paint him as poisonous and misleading, I see him as potentially your long term answer. You've stored up these problems for decades, just as we have in the UK. Its not pretty now, the western economies are still in a financial quagmire and will be for some time I think. But I also think if he prevails it will be for the benefit of the USA in the long run, and you will be in a much better position than we will under the clowns currently stamping their clumsy, oversized feet all over our country's prospects!

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KnickerZohnonnof:
OK, first off, lets get one thing straight.

Regardless of how much you spend on foreign aid, ect. it does not give your country the right to have a 'scorched earth' policy towards the environment. The two aren't connected, period. Overconsumption is a problem for the whole of the Western world but it is pretty much epidemic in the USA. You need to sort it and wake up to the fact we in the West have to change our ways sooner rather than later.

The comparison between Romney and Obama was about tax payments, not earnings. That is irrelevant. Romney paid half what the president did in percentage terms. That's the point.

Half of all Americans don't pay tax. Correct. but you don't say why. And here's the rub. Because when you check the statistics its the low paid taking pay cuts to keep their already badly paid jobs, the elderly, the unemployed, children...It is not the fault of the unemployed they don't pay tax, nor the low paid. It is the long term endemic failure of your government (and ours) to stop jobs going overseas to low wage economies and creating alternative employment for the jobless - which is about 10% of your workforce now (UK is about 9%). We have set about the wholesale destruction of heavy industry here and manufacturing of consumer electronics has been decimated, yet we didn't replace it with anything and as a consequence we have whole areas of the country where unemployment is a career because there is simply no work for the people that live there. That is scandalous. You have a similar issue. These problems started decades ago and they are coming home to roost now. It is the failure of both left and right wing governments across the western world, but only the poorest seem to be paying the price for this. And I congratulate Obama for at least trying to do something about it, even if the success of the various programmes has been very hit and miss.

Please elaborate on the 75% tax claim. According to data the top earners pay around 30-35% of their incomes in tax, which begs the question of how Romney only paid 15%. Yeah, I found a site that said Americans pay 70% but that seemed to be based on consumption (spending) taxes - that doesn't count in my opinion. If I include spending taxes I could say I pay >50% tax in spite of being an average wage earner - in actual fact tax on my earnings works out to be about 25% of my annual gross.

We can argue until the seas freeze over about the rights and wrongs of who is responsible for the USA's current economic climate. All I will tell you is that it doesn't fall apart in just 3 years. Obama hasn't been the messiah as I said earlier, but he is certainly not the person to blame right now - that falls at Bush's feet. If Obama wins another term and it still goes south then he's fair game. We will agree to differ on this for now.

You are paying double for gas...have a word. You pay half what I pay!! $4 (£2.62)/US gallon and only 11% of it is in tax. Try £6.50 ($8.50)/UK gallon and >60% of that is tax!! After conversions between UK and US gallons that equates to around half what I pay - and that also applies to most of Europe. So count yourself lucky you pay so little for it!

World leaders use US healthcare for one reason - because they can afford to. Would they do it if they had the base level care your system provides? Somehow I think not. I can tell you the myths and lies spread about the NHS in the USA are a right wing smear campaign and most of it complete lies. We have problems yes, but because our healthcare is funded through general taxation EVERYONE is entitled to FREE healthcare at the point of use. EVERYONE. Get that? No discrimination and we as a nation are fiercly proud of it, it was one of the greatest innovations of the post war Labour government. None of the 'Oh, your health care fund has run out', which is what happened to one Chuck Schulinder. Yeah, you can stick that where the sun doesn't shine.

The public carrying of guns has been banned in the UK for a very long time. There was a general act passed in 1968 to unify the control of guns but in reality it was illegal long before this. You can only have them under strict licensing terms. The laws were tightened in 1998 after horrendous Dunblane massacre of 1996 to give us some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Violent crime has been steadily increasing in this country and it is not linked to the ownership of guns, it is linked to progressively more lenient punishment/rehab programmes and increasing social deprivation. Deaths through shootings are about 1/40th of what they are in the USA in terms of homicides per 100,000 (0.07 vs 3). Our police do not routinely carry firearms either. I'm exceptionally proud of that. Your country has been fed this bullshit about guns for years by a powerful and organised lobby and weaning you off them is now a nigh impossible task. You don't need them and we don't want them.

About the poor/vulnerable. It was a question based on a comment you made, not an opinion. But a lot of people are suffering in the USA, there is no doubt about that.

And again, what is this 'entitlement' thing? What people are asking for is not to stop people being successful, its for them to pay their way. You have to admit a person who earns what Romney does should pay a bit more than just 15% tax. We have a very similar situation in this country and it is infuriating to think that I pay a higher percentage of my salary in tax than the richest do. I just want them to pay the same percentage, that would be nice!! Its the loopholes, the tax avoidance schemes and the evasion that causes the problems, not the 'entitlement' mentality. If the rich paid their way I for one wouldn't be up in arms about what the rich pay in tax and I know I speak for the majority on this. Way back in the 1970's the then Labour chancellor set a super tax bracket of 85%. Want to know why? Because realistically he knew he'd get less than half of that because of avoidance and evasion. A case in point is an owner of a high street chain of shops boasting he paid just 4% (that is not a mistake) tax, and all because he could afford an accountant that could work the system to the maximum advantage. This with a super tax in place. You can see the scale of the problem and why there is such a backlash against the wilful avoidance of paying tax, especially in these straitened times. That tax bracket was short lived. The problems of avoidance and evasion live on to this day and are getting worse.

I will disagree with you about Obama. You paint him as poisonous and misleading, I see him as potentially your long term answer. You've stored up these problems for decades, just as we have in the UK. Its not pretty now, the western economies are still in a financial quagmire and will be for some time I think. But I also think if he prevails it will be for the benefit of the USA in the long run, and you will be in a much better position than we will under the clowns currently stamping their clumsy, oversized feet all over our country's prospects!

---

Since when do we have a "scorched earth" policy toward the environment? We in the west have to change our ways? Is this where you tell me we need wind powered cars and solar powered airplanes?

The tax system is flawed. We should have a flat tax. It would solve the problem. Targeting the rich is merely class envy, not a practicality. Fix the problem. The corporations and "rich people" that are being scapegoated are not breaking the law, or else it would be a whole different ball game. The tax code is a mess. I take whatever deductions are legal. Who wouldn't? Flat tax solves the whole mess.

So, you're telling me the that the underpaid, underemployed, unemployed, elderly, and children don't count as citizens? Half of America pays no taxes, placing the full burden on the other half. This administration is spending China's money with no regard to the tax base. It's spending so fast that we will never recover. The number of underpaid, underemployed, and unemployed continues to rise because of this president's policies. It is his intent to put as many as possible on the government dole. A nation of dependents is exactly what the left wants.

If I have to hear the mindless "Bush's fault" shit once more...

I'd like to hear just one of Obama's accomplishments. He has succeeded in further dividing the country, ramping up the debt faster than anyone could have imagined, taking over private industry, sunk billions into failed green energy projects, and vacationing like he's won a game show a week for three years. His only possible accomplishment is getting Jimmy Carter off the hook as the worst US president in history.

We're paying double for gas what we were paying three years ago, largely because Obama has blocked most domestic drilling. The UK is about the size of Oregon. This is a fairly large country, requiring more gas and oil to do what needs to be done. Gas prices at $8/gal would bring everything to a halt.

I've never heard anyone, anywhere speak of the NHS, so I don't believe there's a "right wing smear" going on in the US at least. Chuck's situation with his insurance company was tragic, at best. Health care reform is necessary and there are several options the continue to get blocked by lobbyists. Nationalizing the health care system is not the answer. This government can't even run a postal service in the black and you want to put your health care in their hands? No fucking thank you.

"You don't need them (guns)". Well, in a word, "Bullshit".

Obama is not the answer long term or short term. Latest polls show that he will likely be one term. Is this country is to survive, that's exactly what needs to happen.