PDA

View Full Version : Shooting in downtown Orlando


Florida_Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:16 AM
At least 8 injured so far. Copycat crime perhaps?

http://www.wesh.com/news/21541263/detail.html

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:18 AM
The elephant in the room is the stupid second amendment.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:21 AM
The elephant in the room is the stupid second amendment.


Right...its the amendments fault...


:Broncos:

Florida_Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:22 AM
The elephant in the room is the stupid second amendment.

Seriously, not the time.

Florida_Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:23 AM
CNN reporting 2 dead.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:25 AM
one word or better yet 3 letters "ccp"

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 10:27 AM
what a world we live in.

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:27 AM
At least 8 injured so far. Copycat crime perhaps?

http://www.wesh.com/news/21541263/detail.html

In an office building, not a military base.
No military involvement at all.
No mention of muslim anywhere.
Shooter wasn't even wearing fatigues.

Aside from the fact that we have one person shooting multiple people, I really don't see any other connection here.

Florida_Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:29 AM
In an office building, not a military base.
No military involvement at all.
No mention of muslim anywhere.
Shooter wasn't even wearing fatigues.

Aside from the fact that we have one person shooting multiple people, I really don't see any other connection here.

When I'm talking about copycat, I'm talking about how these things seem to happen in groups.

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2009, 10:31 AM
When I'm talking about copycat, I'm talking about how these things seem to happen in groups.

The media creates the groupings.

Crimes hardly fluctuate much from year to year, yet the way the media covers certain things once they become "hot" makes the average viewer think there are spikes, etc. Based on your choice of employment, you should be well aware of the media's spin in this area.

SportinOne
11-06-2009, 10:33 AM
When I'm talking about copycat, I'm talking about how these things seem to happen in groups.

Then you'd be misusing the term "copycat."

Chris
11-06-2009, 10:34 AM
Ban guns like everywhere else in the world where this is less of a problem kthx.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:35 AM
Ban guns like everywhere else in the world where this is less of a problem kthx.


How about no?

Kthanxbai.


:Broncos:

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:35 AM
Ban guns like everywhere else in the world where this is less of a problem kthx.

Amen.

The second amendment is an epic fail in modern society.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:36 AM
Amen.

The second amendment is an epic fail in modern society.


Yeah...because people wont kill people if they dont have guns to do it with.

:Broncos:

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:38 AM
Yeah...because people wont kill people if they dont have guns to do it with.

:Broncos:

Guns facilitate killing.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:38 AM
Ban guns like everywhere else in the world where this is less of a problem kthx.

How about you choke on a cock hippie

TIA

tnedator
11-06-2009, 10:39 AM
I was wondering how long it would take for the idiots to make this into a "ban guns" poster event.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:39 AM
Guns facilitate killing.

So do drugs, Alcohol, sex, emotions..........Next

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:40 AM
Guns facilitate killing.


No. The gun is a tool. The man responsible for the killing facilitates the killing.

:Broncos:

Smiling Assassin27
11-06-2009, 10:40 AM
The amendment, like a gun in general, is neutral. It's the cowardly, arrogant, and irrational actions of individuals that take it from peaceful and just to irresponsible and dangerous.

Prayers for all involved--victims, perp, and deceased.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:42 AM
The amendment, like a gun in general, is neutral. It's the cowardly, arrogant, and irrational actions of individuals that take it from peaceful and just to irresponsible and dangerous.

Prayers for all involved--victims, perp, and deceased.


+1.


:Broncos:

DBruleU
11-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Guns facilitate killing.

Wow, you're totally right. We should ban guns and make all law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms while all the criminals keep their guns and then we're effed....why does reasoning and common sense elude morons like you?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 10:45 AM
While people kill people, guns certainly make it easier. I'm definitely for stricter gun laws as, in a perfect world, no one should own them.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Wow, you're totally right. We should ban guns and make all law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms while all the criminals keep their guns and then we're effed....why does reasoning and common sense elude morons like you?

Guns should be a controlled commodity

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:47 AM
So do drugs, Alcohol, sex, emotions..........Next

What a moronic statement

tnedator
11-06-2009, 10:47 AM
Wow, you're totally right. We should ban guns and make all law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms while all the criminals keep their guns and then we're effed....why does reasoning and common sense elude morons like you?

Don't you understand, once we outlaw guns, nobody will have them. Criminals certainly wouldn't be able to purchase smuggled guns. We would surely cut off the gun trade, just like we have cut off the drug trade...

I think it is some sick joke of God's that he put so many idiots on this earth.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:47 AM
While people kill people, guns certainly make it easier. I'm definitely for stricter gun laws as, in a perfect world, no one should own them.


Yup. The solution is more regulation...and in a perfect world, a gun never would have been invented. Since that world doesnt exist, banning guns outright because they make death easier is treating a symptom. Why not ban people?

:Broncos:

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:48 AM
Guns should be a controlled commodity

They are..........next

DomCasual
11-06-2009, 10:49 AM
If I had a gun, it would only be a matter of time before I shot my eye out. That's all I know.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:49 AM
What a moronic statement

I guess it did not fit your agenda. How about you also suck a cock

Next

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:50 AM
They are..........next

They aren't. Anything I can buy at WalMart with ease is not a controlled commodity.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:50 AM
They aren't. Anything I can buy at WalMart with ease is not a controlled commodity.

Good luck buying that gun with "ease" at walmart if you have a record.

Next.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:50 AM
I guess it did not fit your agenda. How about you also suck a cock

Next

Why don't you huff some airplane glue

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:51 AM
Why don't you huff some airplane glue

LOL you want to talk about something that should be regulated. Kids making model cars get high as **** on airplane glue.

Finally I think we agree on something here.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 10:51 AM
Good luck buying that gun with "ease" at walmart if you have a record.

Next.

You obviously don't get around much and have no sense of reality

gyldenlove
11-06-2009, 10:52 AM
How do we know the dead and injured aren't child molesting drug dealers? they are from Florida after all.

tnedator
11-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Why don't you huff some airplane glue

That's more of an anti-gun, liberal past time.

Outlaw guns, legalize drugs. Wow, liberals are idiots.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 10:53 AM
You obviously don't get around much and have no sense of reality

I know if I were to buy a pistol at walmart I would have to wait 3 days and have a background check run on me.

You obvioulsy have never bought a gun.

Next

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:02 AM
Guns should be a controlled commodity



Note to the ban gun crowd ... Do you actually think banning guns is going to make there BE no guns ??? and are you Fing retarded ???

You see there is this thing to buy illegal stuff called a black market . Be it drugs , guns , people , whatever you want ....

So if you ban guns people who want one to do crimes will still get them .

Just because you ban something doesn't mean suddenly all of them vanish from this earth and Hell you can make your own gun in a day for the love of god ...

Only simple minded dreamers actually thinks banning guns removes the problem.


And lets see there is bans on all kinds of things here in the U.S. ...
Drugs which you can get on any street corner , full automatic guns which you can get pretty easy or make them yourself , sex trade which is running wild in many states and with many underage children ....

But yea banning something makes it vanish forever and it's never a problem again ...

HELL IF WE HAVE LEARNED ONE THING FROM THE MANE ... just because you ban something or someone doesn't mean it don't return in some form or under another name ...

Dukes
11-06-2009, 11:09 AM
Speaking of guns, I'm just about to add this baby to my armory. !Booya!

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hk_45.jpg

Gort
11-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Amen.

The second amendment is an epic fail in modern society.

you're a product of government schools, huh?

the 2nd amendment is in place to protect the people from the government. when the people are unarmed, the government can do whatever it wants. the founders knew that. they were brilliant men.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. all confiscated private arms before embarking on policies that exterminated millions of people. they would agree with you about the 2nd amendment, i'm sure.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 11:11 AM
you're a product of government schools, huh?

the 2nd amendment is in place to protect the people from the government. when the people are unarmed, the government can do whatever it wants. the founders knew that. they were brilliant men.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. all confiscated private arms before embarking on policies that exterminated millions of people. they would agree with you about the 2nd amendment, i'm sure.

Ayn Rand is rearing her ugly ass head.

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:12 AM
And on a similar note ...

I seen where our new government just did a test/survery to prove that GUN OWNERS are more at risk then someone who doesn't own one to have a insurance claim caused by their own gun ... and should have their rates raised if they own guns...

Sure looks like a way for Obama to say , SEE GUNS ARE BAD ... and if you own one we can punish/tax the hell out of you to the point that you might find it easier just to not have your guns... And I wonder if you got public health care if they could tack on you have to be a non gun owner. But be assured they are going to try to link guns and health care to one another at some point.

Gort
11-06-2009, 11:17 AM
Ayn Rand is rearing her ugly ass head.

when the army and police are completely controlled by the government (e.g., in Hitler's Germany), who do you turn to protect you from the government? even a far left moonbat like yourself has to understand the value of the 2nd amendment. they didn't have that protection. we do.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 11:19 AM
And on a similar note ...

I seen where our new government just did a test/survery to prove that GUN OWNERS are more at risk then someone who doesn't own one to have a insurance claim caused by their own gun ... and should have their rates raised if they own guns...

Sure looks like a way for Obama to say , SEE GUNS ARE BAD ... and if you own one we can punish/tax the hell out of you to the point that you might find it easier just to not have your guns... And I wonder if you got public health care if they could tack on you have to be a non gun owner. But be assured they are going to try to link guns and health care to one another at some point.

They will just continue to not only raise taxes on ammo but make production not worth the cost/time/red tape to the companys who produce ammo.

Lucky some have plenty of supplies to reload their own :)

tnedator
11-06-2009, 11:19 AM
when the army and police are completely controlled by the government (e.g., in Hitler's Germany), who do you turn to protect you from the government? even a far left moonbat like yourself has to understand the value of the 2nd amendment. they didn't have that protection. we do.

It's a complete waste of effort to try and reason with a liberal.

tnedator
11-06-2009, 11:20 AM
How do you truly understand the liberal mindset? Think of a conservative with all logic and reason removed.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 11:20 AM
They will just continue to not only raise taxes on ammo but make production not worth the cost/time/red tape to the companys who produce ammo.

Lucky some have plenty of supplies to reload their own :)


What type of country will this be if the left get their way? No meat. No religions (cept islam, because its like peaceful and some junk) No guns, no independent press, constitution is a collection of nice ideas, rather than concrete law...

:Broncos:

Gort
11-06-2009, 11:22 AM
gun registration i can support!

Oct. 15, 2009
Here's an unusual and interesting proposition from Vermont in re the Second Amendment:
INTERESTING INTERPRETATION...
Finally, A Sensible Non-Gun Registration Plan

"Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register non-gun-owners and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise".

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation."

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 11:22 AM
It's a complete waste of effort to try and reason with a liberal.

Its a complete waste of effort to try to understand the logic of a conservative.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-06-2009, 11:25 AM
I guess it did not fit your agenda. How about you also suck a cock

Next

You seem obsessed with cocks.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 11:25 AM
gun registration i can support!

Now that is awesome :~ohyah!:

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 11:26 AM
You seem obsessed with cocks.

Na just the catch phrase of the day. I used it on one hippie and felt kinda bad about it so to be fair and balanced I'm using it on all hippies

Gort
11-06-2009, 11:28 AM
It's a complete waste of effort to try and reason with a liberal.

especially one that lives in the People's Gay Republic of Drugifornia. :nutkick

Archer81
11-06-2009, 11:28 AM
especially one that lives in the People's Gay Republic of Drugifornia. :nutkick


Not that there is anything wrong with that...

LOL.


:Broncos:

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:29 AM
It's a complete waste of effort to try and reason with a liberal.


Its a complete waste of effort to try to understand the logic of a conservative.



About the best and FUNNIEST 3mins on the right and left I've ever heard.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhw8DFSGzvg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhw8DFSGzvg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Besides guns dont kill people. Husbands that come home early do.

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2009, 11:33 AM
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Someone really needs to educate this author in the differences between correlation, causation and coincidence.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 11:34 AM
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Someone really needs to educate this author in the differences between correlation, causation and coincidence.


States that allow concealed weapons have some of the lowest crimes rates in the country.

:Broncos:

Gort
11-06-2009, 11:39 AM
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Someone really needs to educate this author in the differences between correlation, causation and coincidence.

laws about legal gun ownership have no impact on the use of guns in criminal enterprises. criminals will get guns through other means. but when a criminal has to worry about whether or not their intended victim can defend themselves with lethal force, that causes the criminal to think twice before trying to commit the crime. time and time again this has been proven. criminals will even tell you as much. places where the average citizen is allowed to carry a concealed firearm are the safest (w.r.t. violent crime) places in the country.

http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:46 AM
States that allow concealed weapons have some of the lowest crimes rates in the country.

:Broncos:

:thumbs: yup ... My dad and me have had our concealed carry permits for a couple years now ... He takes his EVERYWHERE ... I don't and don't take it often . But have for some things , concerts and other stuff downtown and NO you don't feel bullet proof and 100% safe ...

BUT at least you feel as if something happened you HAVE A CHANCE.

Like downtown a few years ago a man jumped a couple walking home from a Reds game in a MAJORLY public place ,on a people bridge that crosses the Ohio that you can pay to walk across the top of the bridge "purple people bridge" with a gun and beat the man almost to death with the gun after holding the gun on them and then raped the girl.

Basically is the story that made me go get my permit .

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2009, 11:46 AM
laws about legal gun ownership have no impact on the use of guns in criminal enterprises. criminals will get guns through other means. but when a criminal has to worry about whether or not their intended victim can defend themselves with lethal force, that causes the criminal to think twice before trying to commit the crime. time and time again this has been proven. criminals will even tell you as much. places where the average citizen is allowed to carry a firearm are the safest (w.r.t. violent crime) places in the country.

States that allow concealed weapons have some of the lowest crimes rates in the country.

:Broncos:

Nowhere in my statement about the VT quote did I say anything about doing away with all guns. I'm not against gun ownership.

I was simply pointing out the incorrect statement that:

Plenty of guns + few laws = low crime rate.

This is a reckless statement. There are MANY factors that go into a low crime rate. Gun ownership and gun laws may or may not be a factor in their low rate of crime. It could be a dozen or more completely unrelated factors that make their rate low. And where is the context? Are they talking violent crime or nonviolent crime? What types of crime exactly?

Trust me. You don't want to go toe-to-toe with me on this one. I have a masters in criminal justice and have done more than my fair share of research on this and have seen how crime statistics and studies manipulate the numbers to their liking. How states handle gun laws, the death penalty, 3 strikes and you're out, etc. don't really matter in the long run. There is absolutely no proof one way or the other which methods work better long term at reducing crime. Sorry.

Meck77
11-06-2009, 11:49 AM
May the victims rest in peace.

Didn't realize we actually had communists on this site.

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:51 AM
My little friend ... AKA the Judge ...
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00288.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00272.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00279.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00277.jpg


info on the Taurus Judge for anyone wanting to check it out ...
fires 410 shells or 45s
http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Judge.htm

Archer81
11-06-2009, 11:52 AM
Nowhere in my statement about the VT quote did I say anything about doing away with all guns. I'm not against gun ownership.

I was simply pointing out the incorrect statement that:

Plenty of guns + few laws = low crime rate.

This is a reckless statement. There are MANY factors that go into a low crime rate. Gun ownership and gun laws may or may not be a factor in their low rate of crime. It could be a dozen or more completely unrelated factors that make their rate low. And where is the context? Are they talking violent crime or nonviolent crime? What types of crime exactly?

Trust me. You don't want to go toe-to-toe with me on this one. I have a masters in criminal justice and have done more than my fair share of research on this and have seen how crime statistics and studies manipulate the numbers to their liking. How states handle gun laws, the death penalty, 3 strikes and you're out, etc. don't really matter in the long run. There is absolutely no proof one way or the other which methods work better long term at reducing crime. Sorry.


Does everything on this board have to boil down to an internetz fistfight? I simply stated a truth, states that have concealed gun laws tend to have a lower rate of violent crime.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 11:54 AM
May the victims rest in peace.

Didn't realize we actually had communists on this site.

proud socialist democrat

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 11:54 AM
My little friend ... AKA the Judge ...
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00288.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00272.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00279.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00277.jpg

please dont fetishize your firearm...its weird

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 11:56 AM
proud socialist democrat

That's nothing to be proud of son.

TDmvp
11-06-2009, 11:57 AM
please dont fetishize your firearm...its weird

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp30041+say-hello-to-my-little-friend-al-pacino-scarface-poster.jpg


was more a movie ref then a sexual ref ... :clown:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 11:58 AM
That's nothing to be proud of son.

If you had any understand of human compassion and community, you'd agree with me. But if you want to live in a Me first society where whats yours is yours and whats mine is mine...i feel bad for you. Regardless of what you might believe, we all need our community to survive. Individualism breeds hate.

Please dont pass judgment on things you dont understand. And while youre at it, go ask Swedes, Danes, and Norwegian people how awful their lives are. Oh wait, they actually seem satisfied in their social democracy

Beantown Bronco
11-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Does everything on this board have to boil down to an internetz fistfight? I simply stated a truth, states that have concealed gun laws tend to have a lower rate of violent crime.

:Broncos:

Not fighting. Just pointing out that people make these kind of claims all the time without actually having the "whole truth." And, while your statement may be true in a sense, that doesn't mean that it is because they allow concealed guns that they have the lower crime rates. There are simply too many other factors at play to just point to one thing and say, yup, it's because of that one factor that crime is lower there.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 11:59 AM
My little friend ... AKA the Judge ...
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00288.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/Thumbs/DSC00272.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00279.jpghttp://www.gunblast.com/images/Taurus-Judge/DSC00277.jpg


info on the Taurus Judge for anyone wanting to check it out ...
fires 410 shells or 45s
http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Judge.htm

Talked about these but have yet to fire one. Do you like it?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:00 PM
That's nothing to be proud of son.

OK, that came off as mean. Plus please learn about social democracies before you pass judgement on them. Communism cannot work in theory because humans are corrupt. There's a happy medium between private and public leadership, and it lies in a social democracy.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 12:00 PM
Not fighting. Just pointing out that people make these kind of claims all the time without actually having the "whole truth." And, while your statement may be true in a sense, that doesn't mean that it is because they allow concealed guns that they have the lower crime rates. There are simply too many other factors at play to just point to one thing and say, yup, it's because of that one factor that crime is lower there.


Could always repeal the concealed gunlaws and find out I suppose.

:Broncos:

Archer81
11-06-2009, 12:03 PM
OK, that came off as mean. Plus please learn about social democracies before you pass judgement on them. Communism cannot work in theory because humans are corrupt. There's a happy medium between private and public leadership, and it lies in a social democracy.


Socialism doesnt work, either. Especially in the "advanced" EU. Declining population will crash that system, and Europe will be in a world of hurt.

But by all means, lets emulate Europe.

:Broncos:

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:07 PM
If you had any understand of human compassion and community, you'd agree with me. But if you want to live in a Me first society where whats yours is yours and whats mine is mine...i feel bad for you. Regardless of what you might believe, we all need our community to survive. Individualism breeds hate.

Please dont pass judgment on things you dont understand. And while youre at it, go ask Swedes, Danes, and Norwegian people how awful their lives are. Oh wait, they actually seem satisfied in their social democracy

Must have struck a chord.

Talk about "judging", all I said is that is nothing to be proud of. Don't wet your panties.

Tell you what sweethart, how's this: "I disagree with everything you say but I'll defend to my death your right to say it." Because, yah know, I'm not a socialist and I'm not a democrat lacky.

I'm an independent who can think for himself and yes, I promote individual freedom.

tnedator
11-06-2009, 12:07 PM
info on the Taurus Judge for anyone wanting to check it out ...
fires 410 shells or 45s
http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Judge.htm

I saw one of these a month or two ago. Much bigger than I expected. Unless you really have the need for the 410 shells, there are much better 9, .40 or .45's in smaller packages.

Pony Boy
11-06-2009, 12:10 PM
25488

baja
11-06-2009, 12:10 PM
Guns should be a controlled commodity

Guns are controlled

Unfortunately if you ban guns only the bad guys will be armed.

It is illegal here in Mexico to own anything more than a .22 but if I wanted a more powerful gun I would deal with the bad guys that smuggle every kind of weapon imaginable from the the USA.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:12 PM
Must have struck a chord.

Talk about "judging", all I said is that is nothing to be proud of. Don't wet your panties.

Tell you what sweethart, how's this: "I disagree with everything you say but I'll defend to my death your right to say it." Because, yah know, I'm not a socialist and I'm not a democrat lacky.

I'm an independent who can think for himself and yes, I promote individual freedom.


OK< this is one of the more moronic things i've heard. Trust me, I know most of you are under the impression that Obama is a socialist, which is just...laughable. He's incredibly centrist. Our entire government is center right. I'm hardly a democrat lackey. There's freedom and theirs supporting the community that supported you. And that should be our responsibility. Everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare. Everyone SHOULD have access to free university. Everyone SHOULD have access to childcare to give their child the best chances possible. Yes, this results in higher taxes, but who the **** cares? Seriously, go to Scandanavia, spend some time there...and come back and tell me they don't live in fantastic countries

Its funny that its now EASIER for social mobility in those socialist countries than it is here. Your best chance to making money in america is by growing up with it. Thats reality. The america dream is long dead. Enough with the greed, enough with the bull**** Randist philosophy. Lets be decent humans and promote a ****ing community.

TailgateNut
11-06-2009, 12:14 PM
Must have struck a chord.

Talk about "judging", all I said is that is nothing to be proud of. Don't wet your panties.

Tell you what sweethart, how's this: "I disagree with everything you say but I'll defend to my death your right to say it." Because, yah know, I'm not a socialist and I'm not a democrat lacky.

I'm an independent who can think for himself and yes, I promote individual freedom.

**** you and the ****ing horse that dragged you in here.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:14 PM
Socialism doesnt work, either. Especially in the "advanced" EU. Declining population will crash that system, and Europe will be in a world of hurt.

But by all means, lets emulate Europe.

:Broncos:

Well, nothing works perfect and because the world is so interconnected, americas problems become Europes, but their philosophy does seem work fine and their people are quite happy with the results (even though they pay high taxes.) We could use some of their sensability. After all, some of americas most popular programs are...social programs!

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 12:15 PM
you're a product of government schools, huh?

the 2nd amendment is in place to protect the people from the government. when the people are unarmed, the government can do whatever it wants. the founders knew that. they were brilliant men.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. all confiscated private arms before embarking on policies that exterminated millions of people. they would agree with you about the 2nd amendment, i'm sure.

What a dumbass.... that made sense when the constitution was written... there were no nukes and modern weapons that time...

If the government wants to squelch the people now, they can do it INSPITE of all the stupid guns you have.... can your gun handle nukes? chemical biological weapons? ... other WMDs? ... i thought so....

By your logic, all the citizens should have rights to own nukes, chemical and biological weapons and WMDs?

tnedator
11-06-2009, 12:21 PM
Obama is a socialist, which is just...laughable. He's incredibly centrist.

This is a ****ing joke, right? Obama is a centrist?

Yea, government healthcare, card check, cap and trade, gun control and his other pet projects are 'centrist'...

Give me a break.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 12:22 PM
Guns are controlled

Unfortunately if you ban guns only the bad guys will be armed.

It is illegal here in Mexico to own anything more than a .22 but if I wanted a more powerful gun I would deal with the bad guys that smuggle every kind of weapon imaginable from the the USA.

That's a 3rd graders argument. That logic went out of style long ago.

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:22 PM
OK< this is one of the more moronic things i've heard. Trust me, I know most of you are under the impression that Obama is a socialist, which is just...laughable. He's incredibly centrist. Our entire government is center right. I'm hardly a democrat lackey. There's freedom and theirs supporting the community that supported you. And that should be our responsibility. Everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare. Everyone SHOULD have access to free university. Everyone SHOULD have access to childcare to give their child the best chances possible. Yes, this results in higher taxes, but who the **** cares? Seriously, go to Scandanavia, spend some time there...and come back and tell me they don't live in fantastic countries

Its funny that its now EASIER for social mobility in those socialist countries than it is here. Your best chance to making money in america is by growing up with it. Thats reality. The america dream is long dead. Enough with the greed, enough with the bull**** Randist philosophy. Lets be decent humans and promote a ****ing community.


I'm gonna drop a bomb on you here because your kinda naive:

Scandanavia has almost no diversity. In other words they are a pretty insular and homogenous population.

That ain't the case in the USA. This is a nation that has an extremely diverse population and hence, we have social issues that the Scandanavians have absolutely no experience in.

Now I hate to say this, but it's true: If these oh-so wonderful Scandy's had a bunch of Latinos and Orientals and Rednecks and Africans and whoever else moving into their oh-so clean countries, I seriously, seriously doubt they'd be so hip on "sharing the wealth."

But here in the good ole USA, we have lots of diversity and lots of social issues where believe it or not: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.

Sorry to point this inconvinient truth out to you my friend. But your a socialist and therefore, I have to hit you over the head with a few facts.

So sorry.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:23 PM
This is a ****ing joke, right? Obama is a centrist?

Yea, government healthcare, card check, cap and trade, gun control and his other pet projects are 'centrist'...

Give me a break.

Ummm yes, you heard me. Centrist. You think any liberal likes the healthcare policy being put forth? Its a load of ****. We'd all prefer a gateway to a single payer system, not this half assed crap. As far as cap and trade and gun control, neither are NEARLY strong enough. So yes, he's a centrist democrat. A socialist? HA...i wish.

Dempsey Dog
11-06-2009, 12:23 PM
Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide

Here is a list of countries that banned or nearly banned guns prior to committing genocide against their own populations.

http://www.jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf

Civilian have been murdered by their own governments. In the 20th century alone, 170,000,000 men, women, and children who were defenseless to protect themselves. 170,000,000 victims of gun control.

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:24 PM
**** you and the ****ing horse that dragged you in here.

:rofl:

TailgateNut
11-06-2009, 12:26 PM
:rofl:


You act as if Democrats have not fought to preserve our/your rights.
****ing asshole!

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:27 PM
I'm gonna drop a bomb on you here because your kinda naive:

Scandanavia has almost no diversity. In other words they are a pretty insular and homogenous population.

That ain't the case in the USA. This is a nation that has an extremely diverse population and hence, we have social issues that the Scandanavians have absolutely no experience in.

Now I hate to say this, but it's true: If these oh-so wonderful Scandy's had a bunch of Latinos and Orientals and Rednecks and Africans and whoever else moving into their oh-so clean countries, I seriously, seriously doubt they'd be so hip on "sharing the wealth."

But here in the good ole USA, we have lots of diversity and lots of social issues where believe it or not: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.

Sorry to point this inconvinient truth out to you my friend. But your a socialist and therefore, I have to hit you over the head with a few facts.

So sorry.


OK, you mother ****ing asshole. God i dont know why i bother. I never said, LETS BE SWEDEN. I implied that we can take some of the good from those countries and implement it into our own. Obviously, sweden has a population of only 9 million to our 300 (though our GDP is obviously much higher), but the simple rule of higher taxes for social programs is steadfast.

by the way, scandanavia actually is a hot bed for diversity at the moment and it is causing some problems. Yes, they are still a homogeneous community, but they are dealing with a huge muslim population moving in.

Of course America will never have this because, well, america is a racist ****ing country. But yes, we COULD have something like a single payer healthsystem if we werent so afraid of the health industry. We have plenty of social programs ALREADY that work (SS, medicare, your ****ing police system).

Don't dare come to me with your "facts" when you're just an ignorant asshole.

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:31 PM
OK, you mother ****ing a-hole. God i dont know why i bother. I never said, LETS BE SWEDEN. I implied that we can take some of the good from those countries and implement it into our own. Obviously, sweden has a population of only 9 million to our 300 (though our GDP is obviously much higher), but the simple rule of higher taxes for social programs is steadfast.

by the way, scandanavia actually is a hot bed for diversity at the moment and it is causing some problems. Yes, they are still a homogeneous community, but they are dealing with a huge muslim population moving in.

Of course America will never have this because, well, america is a racist ****ing country. But yes, we COULD have something like a single payer healthsystem if we werent so afraid of the health industry. We have plenty of social programs ALREADY that work (SS, medicare, your ****ing police system).

Don't dare come to me with your "facts" when you're just an ignorant a-hole.


Oh the irony.

:welcome:

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:32 PM
you act as if democrats have not fought to preserve our/your rights.
****ing a-hole!

Hilarious!

tsiguy96
11-06-2009, 12:33 PM
i think its funny that people think if you ban guns, criminals will just turn theirs over. did you forget that they are CRIMINALS? the pure act of breaking the law is what has turned them into criminals, you think telling them they must turn their guns in will do anything? yes the average law abiding citizen might, because they abide by teh law, criminals do not. then you create the situation that criminals still have guns and normal citizens do not. retarded.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:34 PM
Oh the irony.

:welcome:

You are just a ****ing asshole. its people like you who have ruined our country. Yes, i said it. Ruined it. Taking your conservative mantra and ran it off a ****ing cliff. Now we are paying for it. And because democrats are ****ing pussies, things wont seem to change

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 12:36 PM
i think its funny that people think if you ban guns, criminals will just turn theirs over. did you forget that they are CRIMINALS? the pure act of breaking the law is what has turned them into criminals, you think telling them they must turn their guns in will do anything? yes the average law abiding citizen might, because they abide by teh law, criminals do not. then you create the situation that criminals still have guns and normal citizens do not. retarded.

Dude, this is not a high school debate class.... make a more adult-like argument... this stupid hair brained cliche argument has run its course eons ago.... no one said criminals will lay down their guns...

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:36 PM
You are just a ****ing a-hole. its people like you who have ruined our country. Yes, i said it. Ruined it. Taking your conservative mantra and ran it off a ****ing cliff. Now we are paying for it. And because democrats are ****ing pussies, things wont seem to change

I'm an Independent so take that how ever you want to. I'm pro-rights for all peoples. I love the fact that this county is a melting pot for peoples of all different backgrounds.

What I don't like is you telling me how I should think. Thank you very little.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 12:38 PM
Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornados, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

The Blue States

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm an Independent so take that how ever you want to. I'm pro-rights for all peoples. I love the fact that this county is a melting pot for peoples of all different backgrounds.

What I don't like is you telling me how I should think. Thank you very little.

And you should give back to the community you love so much. Thats all im saying. And whats this have to do with diversity? Why are you even making this conversation about this. I'm speaking about economics.

tsiguy96
11-06-2009, 12:40 PM
Dude, this is not a high school debate class.... make a more adult-like argument... this stupid hair brained cliche argument has run its course eons ago.... no one said criminals will lay down their guns...

so you will admit criminals will not lay down their guns, yet want citizens to give up their guns. good one.

a more adult-like argument would be necessary in some cases, but when you are making the case for me, its not necessary. especially for such a ridiculous argument that we should UNARM the entire population, except the govt and those in control.

TailgateNut
11-06-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm an Independent so take that how ever you want to. I'm pro-rights for all peoples. I love the fact that this county is a melting pot for peoples of all different backgrounds.

What I don't like is you telling me how I should think. Thank you very little.

All ex BushBots are Independent NOW!:spit:

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:53 PM
And you should give back to the community you love so much. Thats all im saying. And whats this have to do with diversity? Why are you even making this conversation about this. I'm speaking about economics.

I do give back, but not the way you want me to. I work (pay taxes), I volunteer, I give to charities (the one's I like), I support local businesses, I watch out for my neighbors, I vote, I support my friends when they need help... dude, it's called individual freedom.

The difference between you and me is I accept my personal responsibilities and hence, I support my community and my country. You on the other hand want the government to accept your personal responsibilities, and that ain't right.

I respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them. We can have a civil discussion about our differences but the fact is I live in a country that has many, many issues and I feel the best way to tackle those issues is for the states to have more rights and for the federal government to step the phuck back and quit trying to control everything.

And as for the diversity question you ask: I simply pointed out that Scandanavia is not as diverse as the USA and therefore sharing the wealth is easier there when everyone thinks along the same lines. That's all. Take that however you want.

Pony Boy
11-06-2009, 12:55 PM
so you will admit criminals will not lay down their guns, yet want citizens to give up their guns. good one.

a more adult-like argument would be necessary in some cases, but when you are making the case for me, its not necessary. especially for such a ridiculous argument that we should UNARM the entire population, except the govt and those in control.

It will never happen, the sportsmanís lobby alone is too big. Does anyone think we will give up are prizes rifles and shotguns to be stored somewhere so we can check them out to use during hunting season. Not a chance in hell that will ever happen. I love to deer and pheasant hunt and just because some dips**t in Orlando goes on a rampage isn't going to make me change.....

Tombstone RJ
11-06-2009, 12:56 PM
All ex BushBots are Independent NOW!:spit:

Wow, your really offended aren't you? Well, I'm happy to disappoint you. :P

PS, please do a search of all my posts. Go ahead. But, if you don't wanna take the time to do that, here's some info for you: I too think Bush is a joke.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 12:58 PM
I do give back, but not the way you want me to. I work (pay taxes), I volunteer, I give to charities (the one's I like), I support local businesses, I watch out for my neighbors, I vote, I support my friends when they need help... dude, it's called individual freedom.

The difference between you and me is I accept my personal responsibilities and hence, I support my community and my country. You on the other hand want the government to accept your personal responsibilities, and that ain't right.

I respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them. We can have a civil discussion about our differences but the fact is I live in a country that has many, many issues and I feel the best way to tackle those issues is for the states to have more rights and for the federal government to step the pink puppy belli back and quit trying to control everything.

And as for the diversity question you ask: I simply pointed out that Scandanavia is not as diverse as the USA and therefore sharing the wealth is easier there when everyone thinks along the same lines. That's all. Take that however you want.


But no one is taking your freedoms. Democratic socialism does not restrict your liberties. They have high tax rates that create a stronger middle class by providing very strong social prgrams. Quality of living in quite high in these places due to things like universal healthcare.

Obviously, i believe in a strong federal government, i think the states do some things better than the feds, but when it comes to healthcare, thats not one of them. People in america are not born equal. We all dont have equal opportunities, this can be due to socio-economic conditions or even mental capacity. If paying higher taxes helps ensure a strong middle class (and spending class), you won't see such economic diversity in this country (which is currently appalling.) I just think it would create a better society.

that is all.

gyldenlove
11-06-2009, 12:58 PM
And as for the diversity question you ask: I simply pointed out that Scandanavia is not as diverse as the USA and therefore sharing the wealth is easier there when everyone thinks along the same lines. That's all. Take that however you want.

The other reason it is easier to share the wealth in Scandinavia is that it has been going on for quite a while so the gap between the have and have-nots is not nearly as big as it is in the States. That means that the rich people do not have to give up as large a portion of their money to make up the difference since the poor people are not as comparatively poor.

If you had to do a Robin Hood on rich people in the States to bring all the poor people up to what most of us would consider acceptable levels of living, education and employment would cost a fortune. I doubt that Warren Buffett could fund that with all of his money, it is a HUGE undertaking.

If a system had been in place to equalize resources that had kept the gap from widening to where it is now it would have been much more feasable to combat poverty and under-education.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 01:00 PM
The other reason it is easier to share the wealth in Scandinavia is that it has been going on for quite a while so the gap between the have and have-nots is not nearly as big as it is in the States. That means that the rich people do not have to give up as large a portion of their money to make up the difference since the poor people are not as comparatively poor.

If you had to do a Robin Hood on rich people in the States to bring all the poor people up to what most of us would consider acceptable levels of living, education and employment would cost a fortune. I doubt that Warren Buffett could fund that with all of his money, it is a HUGE undertaking.

If a system had been in place to equalize resources that had kept the gap from widening to where it is now it would have been much more feasable to combat poverty and under-education.

This is a good point. Sadly, america wasn't always this way. Its a construct of the conservative movement of the last 25 years when the tax rate dropped and "trickle down econ" came about

Gort
11-06-2009, 01:09 PM
OK< this is one of the more moronic things i've heard. Trust me, I know most of you are under the impression that Obama is a socialist, which is just...laughable. He's incredibly centrist. Our entire government is center right. I'm hardly a democrat lackey. There's freedom and theirs supporting the community that supported you. And that should be our responsibility. Everyone SHOULD have access to healthcare. Everyone SHOULD have access to free university. Everyone SHOULD have access to childcare to give their child the best chances possible. Yes, this results in higher taxes, but who the **** cares? Seriously, go to Scandanavia, spend some time there...and come back and tell me they don't live in fantastic countries

Its funny that its now EASIER for social mobility in those socialist countries than it is here. Your best chance to making money in america is by growing up with it. Thats reality. The america dream is long dead. Enough with the greed, enough with the bull**** Randist philosophy. Lets be decent humans and promote a ****ing community.

you are seriously bat**** crazy. did you know that?

Archer81
11-06-2009, 01:14 PM
You create a stronger middle class by taking 70% of their income? How does that work?


:Broncos:

Gort
11-06-2009, 01:14 PM
What a dumbass.... that made sense when the constitution was written... there were no nukes and modern weapons that time...

If the government wants to squelch the people now, they can do it INSPITE of all the stupid guns you have.... can your gun handle nukes? chemical biological weapons? ... other WMDs? ... i thought so....

By your logic, all the citizens should have rights to own nukes, chemical and biological weapons and WMDs?

yes, that's right. when the police come to kick down your door and drag you away because you didn't pay your universal healthcare taxes, they will be carrying nukes with them.

the lesson is clear. pay your taxes and whatever else the government demands form you. shut your mouth. or you will be nuked.

/sarcasm off

24champ
11-06-2009, 01:16 PM
This is a good point. Sadly, america wasn't always this way. Its a construct of the conservative movement of the last 25 years when the tax rate dropped and "trickle down econ" came about

Since you live in California, are you happy with the fact they just jacked up your income tax by 10 percent?

Gort
11-06-2009, 01:22 PM
I'm an Independent so take that how ever you want to. I'm pro-rights for all peoples. I love the fact that this county is a melting pot for peoples of all different backgrounds.

What I don't like is you telling me how I should think. Thank you very little.

that's only the first step. once you are disarmed and people of his ilk are in power, you'll be required to think like him. if not, you'll become the proud owner of 2 shiny new government issued bullets, deposited in the back of your skull.

scratch any socialist, and you'll find a fascist underneath.

TexanBob
11-06-2009, 01:39 PM
The media creates the groupings.


Indeed. Remember that summer with all the shark attacks? They happen every year but, for some reason, the media went ga-ga about it and so each shark sighting raised the bar even further.

Or flu deaths. They happen every year but, due to media hyteria, the flu cases seem to be five times worse than normal.

gyldenlove
11-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Indeed. Remember that summer with all the shark attacks? They happen every year but, for some reason, the media went ga-ga about it and so each shark sighting raised the bar even further.

Or flu deaths. They happen every year but, due to media hyteria, the flu cases seem to be five times worse than normal.

That is the way it happens, as soon as someone jumps on a phenomenon and it gets ratings everybody is going to follow suit.

JJG
11-06-2009, 01:55 PM
This is a ****ing joke, right? Obama is a centrist?

Yea, government healthcare, card check, cap and trade, gun control and his other pet projects are 'centrist'...

Give me a break.

well to be fair, when your looking at it from the extreme left, he may very well appear centrist

tnedator
11-06-2009, 01:56 PM
well to be fair, when your looking at it from the extreme left, he may very well appear centrist

Yea, but you have to be real, real, real ****ing far left to think of Obama as centrist.

JJG
11-06-2009, 02:01 PM
Yea, but you have to be real, real, real ****ing far left to think of Obama as centrist.

seems to me he fits that discription. no?

tnedator
11-06-2009, 02:05 PM
seems to me he fits that discription. no?

Clearly, he does. Poor sod.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 02:06 PM
well to be fair, when your looking at it from the extreme left, he may very well appear centrist

Or if you are looking at him from the far far far right, he might NOT appear centrist.

All the people calling Obama a socialist, should really take some time off and travel and read more, and know what socialism or communism really is, rather than repeating second-hand rhetoric.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 02:30 PM
Or if you are looking at him from the far far far right, he might NOT appear centrist.

All the people calling Obama a socialist, should really take some time off and travel and read more, and know what socialism or communism really is, rather than repeating second-hand rhetoric.

I cant tell you how happy I am that a good number of dems and a very good number of independants are realizing they have been sold a sack of **** by Barry.

tnedator
11-06-2009, 02:32 PM
I cant tell you how happy I am that a good number of dems and a very good number of independants are realizing they have been sold a sack of **** by Barry.

Where's the high five button?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 02:34 PM
you are seriously bat**** crazy. did you know that?

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Since you live in California, are you happy with the fact they just jacked up your income tax by 10 percent?

You will never hear me complain about paying taxes. I do wish our tax money went to better places though. The system is severely flawed

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 02:37 PM
I cant tell you how happy I am that a good number of dems and a very good number of independants are realizing they have been sold a sack of **** by Barry.

I dont think we've been sold "a sack of ****." Obama is just playing everything very cautiously. Then again, he always said he would. re: the economy. Pretty much all left wingers said the stimulus was not strong enough, it needed to be bigger (theres no inflationary trap going on, we can afford to do it). Economists like Krugman said the stimulus would help growth and stop the slide, but it wouldnt do enough. Low and behold, he was, once again, correct. The GDP is up 3.5 percent, which is good, but not enough to stave off job loss. We NEED MORE STIMULUS.

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 02:51 PM
I dont think we've been sold "a sack of ****." Obama is just playing everything very cautiously. Then again, he always said he would. re: the economy. Pretty much all left wingers said the stimulus was not strong enough, it needed to be bigger (theres no inflationary trap going on, we can afford to do it). Economists like Krugman said the stimulus would help growth and stop the slide, but it wouldnt do enough. Low and behold, he was, once again, correct. The GDP is up 3.5 percent, which is good, but not enough to stave off job loss. We NEED MORE STIMULUS.


**** me in the ass sideways. I'd have hated to see what Barry would have done had he been aggresive

Hotrod
11-06-2009, 02:52 PM
You will never hear me complain about paying taxes. I do wish our tax money went to better places though. The system is severely flawed

To prove I'm fair I have alot of agreement with you on this.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 02:54 PM
**** me in the ass sideways. I'd have hated to see what Barry would have done had he been aggresive

Had he been aggressive with stimulus money, youd have seen fewer job losses and a rising GDP. You also would have seen a bigger deficit, but we honestly shouldn't be worried about that at the moment. This country has carried bigger deficits than this (after ww2) and its much easier to get out of one when the economy has been jumpstarted.

Left wingers dont ALWAYS want stimulus, but keynesian economics suggests that when the fed government cant entice the private market any further (interest rates are effectively at zero) then the federal government must step in and generate spending.

JJG
11-06-2009, 02:55 PM
I dont think we've been sold "a sack of ****." Obama is just playing everything very cautiously. Then again, he always said he would. re: the economy. Pretty much all left wingers said the stimulus was not strong enough, it needed to be bigger (theres no inflationary trap going on, we can afford to do it). Economists like Krugman said the stimulus would help growth and stop the slide, but it wouldnt do enough. Low and behold, he was, once again, correct. The GDP is up 3.5 percent, which is good, but not enough to stave off job loss. We NEED MORE STIMULUS.

How long does the stimulus bubble last until it pops? Then what do we do?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 02:58 PM
How long does the stimulus bubble last until it pops? Then what do we do?

Well, thats the thing with stimulus money, it obviously provides short term relief but it should be used to finance some longer lasting projects as well (like green energy...etc). Its up to us to see that that happens, but we're more than capable. We did it once (ww2), we can do it again. Again, bigger the stimulus, the better the chance of it taking hold

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:19 PM
Well, thats the thing with stimulus money, it obviously provides short term relief but it should be used to finance some longer lasting projects as well (like green energy...etc). Its up to us to see that that happens, but we're more than capable. We did it once (ww2), we can do it again. Again, bigger the stimulus, the better the chance of it taking hold


Bigger the stimulus, larger the debt, which weakens the dollar, which forces companies overseas, which dry up jobs here and shrink the economy.

But of course...lets spend MORE. Its never worked, but dont let that stop us.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Bigger the stimulus, larger the debt, which weakens the dollar, which forces companies overseas, which dry up jobs here and shrink the economy.

But of course...lets spend MORE. Its never worked, but dont let that stop us.

:Broncos:

Its never worked? What do you call World War 2? It was the largest public works project of all time and ultimately got us out of the depression. We were left with tons of debt after that and moved on just fine. All the things you mentioned above might be true, if it actually worked that way, but it doesnt. As of now, there is no risk of inflation. i wish i could remember where I read a very very smart article on the "weak dollar" and how it really doesn't have much effect on anything. If i can find it, i'll post it.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:29 PM
Bigger the stimulus, larger the debt, which weakens the dollar, which forces companies overseas, which dry up jobs here and shrink the economy.

But of course...lets spend MORE. Its never worked, but dont let that stop us.

:Broncos:

And whats your suggestion? Stop spending? Ask herbert hoover how that worked out. I'll give you a hint...not well

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 03:29 PM
Its never worked? What do you call World War 2? It was the largest public works project of all time and ultimately got us out of the depression. We were left with tons of debt after that and moved on just fine. All the things you mentioned above might be true, if it actually worked that way, but it doesnt. As of now, there is no risk of inflation. i wish i could remember where I read a very very smart article on the "weak dollar" and how it really doesn't have much effect on anything. If i can find it, i'll post it.

+ 1

I guess (repeating rhetoric) > (gaining a thorough understanding of issues)

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:40 PM
And whats your suggestion? Stop spending? Ask herbert hoover how that worked out. I'll give you a hint...not well


Actually...a majority of the programs expanded on by Roosevelt were created by Hoover. Also, not once between 1932 and 1941 did the unemployment rate drop below 15%. It took a global war to officially end the depression. Apparently spending isnt the answer.

Cutting taxes, reducing spending and not forcing bad legislation that adds debt means these people called "small business owners" have more capital to expand facilities and hire people. I know, crazy concept. People having their own money and knowing best how to use it.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:43 PM
Actually...a majority of the programs expanded on by Roosevelt were created by Hoover. Also, not once between 1932 and 1941 did the unemployment rate drop below 15%. It took a global war to officially end the depression. Apparently spending isnt the answer.

Cutting taxes, reducing spending and not forcing bad legislation that adds debt means these people called "small business owners" have more capital to expand facilities and hire people. I know, crazy concept. People having their own money and knowing best how to use it.

:Broncos:

First off, the new deal projects were mainly roosevelt and his willingness to place money into them. Hoover creating a spending freeze and plummeted us into depression.

Let me ask a question, you mentioned it took a global war to officially get us out. So, when we won, did God give us money for being the victors? No, it was GOVERNMENT spending that re-energized that ecomony (along with rationing). We could have dumped all those tanks, planes, ammo, in the ocean and received the same desired economic effect.

You cut government spending now, watch as GDP sinks again. We've learned this lesson already!!!

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:44 PM
Its never worked? What do you call World War 2? It was the largest public works project of all time and ultimately got us out of the depression. We were left with tons of debt after that and moved on just fine. All the things you mentioned above might be true, if it actually worked that way, but it doesnt. As of now, there is no risk of inflation. i wish i could remember where I read a very very smart article on the "weak dollar" and how it really doesn't have much effect on anything. If i can find it, i'll post it.


WW2 was not a public works project.

And the "tons" of debt acquired to fight the second world war is dwarfed by the spending enacted by the Great O. The stimulus, and the cost of financing the stimulus exceeds the 10 costliest events in US history combined. That kind of debt is unsustainable.

The treasury is printing money with nothing to back it. Inflation is coming.

:Broncos:

Gort
11-06-2009, 03:45 PM
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

don't you think it's possible to appreciate the story of Atlas Shrugged without being an objectivist or Randian? for a book written 50 years ago, its amazing how prescient it is.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:48 PM
First off, the new deal projects were mainly roosevelt and his willingness to place money into them. Hoover creating a spending freeze and plummeted us into depression.

Let me ask a question, you mentioned it took a global war to officially get us out. So, when we won, did God give us money for being the victors? No, it was GOVERNMENT spending that re-energized that ecomony (along with rationing). We could have dumped all those tanks, planes, ammo, in the ocean and received the same desired economic effect.

You cut government spending now, watch as GDP sinks again. We've learned this lesson already!!!

I'd like to live in the fantasy world you are living in.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:48 PM
WW2 was not a public works project.

And the "tons" of debt acquired to fight the second world war is dwarfed by the spending enacted by the Great O. The stimulus, and the cost of financing the stimulus exceeds the 10 costliest events in US history combined. That kind of debt is unsustainable.

The treasury is printing money with nothing to back it. Inflation is coming.

:Broncos:

Are you ****ing kidding me? Who the hell do you think financed WW2??? It was totally a public works project and our debt was higher after ww2 than it is now. And by the way, thank your hero George Bush for the debt. Obama is doing what he has to (and not enough if you ask me). When the fed interest rate is zero and the economy is still faltering, you must stimulate it through government spending. its Keynes 101.

and we are in NO RISK of inflation right now. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. Seriously, read the news.

Gort
11-06-2009, 03:49 PM
Had he been aggressive with stimulus money, youd have seen fewer job losses and a rising GDP. You also would have seen a bigger deficit, but we honestly shouldn't be worried about that at the moment. This country has carried bigger deficits than this (after ww2) and its much easier to get out of one when the economy has been jumpstarted.

Left wingers dont ALWAYS want stimulus, but keynesian economics suggests that when the fed government cant entice the private market any further (interest rates are effectively at zero) then the federal government must step in and generate spending.

Keynesian economic theory is about as correct as the magic 8 ball i used to have as a kid. Obama created this recession. the stimulus was nothing more than a payout to leftist Obama allies on the taxpayers dime. the only jobs created have been government jobs. those jobs don't power an economy, they drain it.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:50 PM
don't you think it's possible to appreciate the story of Atlas Shrugged without being an objectivist or Randian? for a book written 50 years ago, its amazing how prescient it is.

Ummm, no, i don't actually. Its so fraught with her bull**** that I dont see how you can enjoy it as pure fiction if you don't agree with her sentiment. You know what else is prescient. The bible. I rest my case

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:50 PM
I'd like to live in the fantasy world you are living in.

:Broncos:

The fantasy world of facts. Youre right, its rough.

atomicbloke
11-06-2009, 03:51 PM
Keynesian economic theory is about as correct as the magic 8 ball i used to have as a kid. Obama created this recession. the stimulus was nothing more than a payout to leftist Obama allies on the taxpayers dime. the only jobs created have been government jobs. those jobs don't power an economy, they drain it.

Exactly, I yearn for the booming economic times of late 2007 and 2008.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 03:51 PM
Keynesian economic theory is about as correct as the magic 8 ball i used to have as a kid. Obama created this recession. the stimulus was nothing more than a payout to leftist Obama allies on the taxpayers dime. the only jobs created have been government jobs. those jobs don't power an economy, they drain it.

OBAMA CREATED THIS RECESSION? Ok, im no longer arguing with you. You've lost me forever. Revisionist history much?

Seriously, Go Galt already. Leave. Enjoy your rabbit farm or whatever.

Gort
11-06-2009, 03:56 PM
OBAMA CREATED THIS RECESSION? Ok, im no longer arguing with you. You've lost me forever. Revisionist history much?

Seriously, Go Galt already. Leave. Enjoy your rabbit farm or whatever.

the problem with you is not what you don't know, it's that what you know to be true isn't.

i'd try to explain to you the timeline for this recession, but i don't think your ideology would allow you to understand.

so let's see. you're not too bright. you're an america hater. you're a total Cutler nuthugger. that's enough reasons for me.

welcome to my ignore list.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:57 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? Who the hell do you think financed WW2??? It was totally a public works project and our debt was higher after ww2 than it is now. And by the way, thank your hero George Bush for the debt. Obama is doing what he has to (and not enough if you ask me). When the fed interest rate is zero and the economy is still faltering, you must stimulate it through government spending. its Keynes 101.

and we are in NO RISK of inflation right now. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. Seriously, read the news.

You can scream it to the mountain tops for all the good it will do you. WW2 was not a public works project.

The news...the same people that said unemployment wouldnt pass 8%? That the housing bubble would be just a blip? Those people...of course, they get their facts from the most ethical and transparent white house ever. Why would the Obama WH lie about the cluster**** they have created?

Bush is not president. Obama is. And in 10 months the jackass has spent more money in less time then the previous 43 presidents before him. Its ****ing unreal to me that people like you would blame Bush for 9/11 (9 mos into his 1st term) but give Obama a pass by saying hes only been in a year, its not his fault...

Amazing.

Archer81
11-06-2009, 03:57 PM
The fantasy world of facts. Youre right, its rough.


When you cite a fact, then it will cease to be fantasy.


:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 04:03 PM
You can scream it to the mountain tops for all the good it will do you. WW2 was not a public works project.

The news...the same people that said unemployment wouldnt pass 8%? That the housing bubble would be just a blip? Those people...of course, they get their facts from the most ethical and transparent white house ever. Why would the Obama WH lie about the cluster**** they have created?

Bush is not president. Obama is. And in 10 months the jackass has spent more money in less time then the previous 43 presidents before him. Its ****ing unreal to me that people like you would blame Bush for 9/11 (9 mos into his 1st term) but give Obama a pass by saying hes only been in a year, its not his fault...

Amazing.

Ok, ill answer both of you with this. 1) ww2 was government financed. I dont know why you can't wrap your head around that.

2) Please explain to me the timeline of the recession that CLEARLY started before Obama was in office. The bank failures happened on Bush's watch. The first tarp payments were on bush's watch. When Obama came into office, the economy was in shambles and we were on the brink of the next great depression. The fed interest rate was zero. The housing bubble had burst. Unemployment was on the rise. Most economists were predicting we'd have woes well into 2010. In february (th 17th?) government passed the first (weak stimulus bill). If there was no recession, there would have been no reasonto. This was a dire straits call. At the time, most left wing economists said this would prevent a depression, but wasnt enough of a jolt to save job loss (obama and his staff were flat wrong about the 8 percent.) Leftist economists were right. The GDP rebounded (3.5percent), but thats not enough to save job loss. There needed to be more.

Calling this Obama's recession is just laughable. Has he done enough to get us out of it, no. Had we done what the republicans wanted (more tax cuts!), unemployment would be higher, the GDP would keep sinking. The one thing the stimulus DID do was prevent further loss in GDP and did save a lot of jobs (unemployment would be a lot worse without it). We just need more of it.

To say this is ALL on Obama's watch? Thats revisionist history if i ever saw it. You just are blatently ignoring facts or have a really ****ty memory...not sure which.

And who is blaming bush for 9/11? I'm not. That was a result of bad protocol. I do blame bush for the aftermath though, the overreaction, iraq...etc.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 04:04 PM
When you cite a fact, then it will cease to be fantasy.


:Broncos:

I still can't believe you dont think the government financed ww2!

SonOfLe-loLang
11-06-2009, 04:07 PM
the problem with you is not what you don't know, it's that what you know to be true isn't.

i'd try to explain to you the timeline for this recession, but i don't think your ideology would allow you to understand.

so let's see. you're not too bright. you're an america hater. you're a total Cutler nuthugger. that's enough reasons for me.

welcome to my ignore list.


1) youre a moron
2) I dont hate america, i just hate many of the morons (yourself) who live in it and fail to see we're a crippled giant
3) I never was in love with cutler and was on the mcD bandwagon from go
4) youre an asshole. Go enjoy your Rand cult.

im happy to be on your ignore list

DenverBrit
11-06-2009, 04:20 PM
It's very difficult to argue that guns don't contribute to a horrendous murder rate in the US.

Sadly, it's easier to argue that it's too late for gun control.

In 2006 Guns Murdered
18 people in Austria
27 people in Australia
59 people in England & Wales
60 people in Spain
190 people in Canada
194 people in Germany
10,177 were murdered with guns in the United States of America

Archer81
11-06-2009, 07:08 PM
It's very difficult to argue that guns don't contribute to a horrendous murder rate in the US.

Sadly, it's easier to argue that it's too late for gun control.

In 2006 Guns Murdered
18 people in Austria
27 people in Australia
59 people in England & Wales
60 people in Spain
190 people in Canada
194 people in Germany
10,177 were murdered with guns in the United States of America

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 03rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

:Broncos:

gyldenlove
11-06-2009, 07:31 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 03rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

:Broncos:

You equate getting a smack in the mouth at a bar to having your head blown off by a .38?

I would rather live in a country where I am likely to take a few punches for spilling a drink than in a country where I am likely to get shot.

McDman
11-06-2009, 08:21 PM
I know if I were to buy a pistol at walmart I would have to wait 3 days and have a background check run on me.

You obvioulsy have never bought a gun.

Next

I actually bought my pistol here in TN within an hour. I went in and they did a twenty minute background check and I walked out with my 9mm, it was pretty great.

I'm all for people owning guns, but the laws may need to be stricter. I mean what's the point of people owning AK-47s and rifles like that?

I think we just have a violent culture, look at a country like Switzerland where everyone owns guns, they have an extremely low crime rate.

houghtam
11-06-2009, 08:33 PM
Just throwing this out here...

How is atomicbloke's banning guns argument in this thread any different than mock et al's locking up muslims argument in the other thread?

McDman
11-06-2009, 08:37 PM
I consider myself very middle of the road when it comes to politics, I believe in our right to own guns as well as free choice, and I have opinions that go with both sides, but there's something about hardcore democrats that just annoy the hell out of me.

They're so arrogant and they seem to believe that nothing bad has ever happened under a democratic President. Something about them just gets under my skin and it pisses me off.

McDman
11-06-2009, 08:41 PM
Just throwing this out here...

How is atomicbloke's banning guns argument in this thread any different than mock et al's locking up muslims argument in the other thread?

Both are ridiculous in their own ways.

Atomic's argument makes no sense on a couple different levels. One, there is absolutely no way we could ban guns now, it just couldn't work. Two, the whole foundation of this country is based on the freedom of choice, we can't start regulating people's lives like that. It will be a slippery slope if guns were outlawed.

Mock's argument is just close minded and unbelievably racist. I don't know if he was serious or not, but for anyone to honestly believe that is an idiot. To judge a whole culture on a few's behavior shows how ignorant people can be.

ZONA
11-06-2009, 09:39 PM
Guns should not be illegal to own. People who want to kill other people will always find other means. However, I do believe that assault rifles should be ban for ever to the general public. Yes, people who want to kill will do so but when you give them the means to kill so many so easily, that's bad news.

Meck77
11-06-2009, 10:01 PM
I'm fine with one shot. It's all I need for an Elk.

UberBroncoMan
11-06-2009, 10:39 PM
You equate getting a smack in the mouth at a bar to having your head blown off by a .38?

I would rather live in a country where I am likely to take a few punches for spilling a drink than in a country where I am likely to get shot.

Tell me... have you ever been knifed before? Have you felt your kidney get cut through as you laid on the floor dieing? Take away guns and you'll just get something else. Also knifes have a higher chance of killing due to how easy it is to get a guaranteed kill via artery severing or organ puncturing. England is tops in knifing. I swear so many people live in a dreamland it's pathetic. ZOMG the guns it's all the guns fault, lets regulate and control everyone?!

Archer81
11-06-2009, 10:44 PM
Tell me... have you ever been knifed before? Have you felt your kidney get cut through as you laid on the floor dieing? Take away guns and you'll just get something else. Also knifes have a higher chance of killing due to how easy it is to get a guaranteed kill via artery severing or organ puncturing. England is tops in knifing. I swear so many people live in a dreamland it's pathetic. ZOMG the guns it's all the guns fault, lets regulate and control everyone?!


Whats funny is that homicide rates between the US and Europe are comparable. US is violent though... We all carry .44 magnums and grandma can shoot a tick off a deer's ear at 700 yards, and we all wear cowboy hats abd we all chew tobacco and rob trains.

:Broncos:

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 06:46 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 03rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

:Broncos:

It's interesting that you use stats that makes the case for gun control. Austria and the UK have more violence, but have some of the lowest gun murder
rates in the world.
Would you rather be punched in the mouth during a mugging or shot and murdered?

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 06:55 AM
Whats funny is that homicide rates between the US and Europe are comparable. US is violent though... We all carry .44 magnums and grandma can shoot a tick off a deer's ear at 700 yards, and we all wear cowboy hats abd we all chew tobacco and rob trains.

:Broncos:

Try again.
If the US had the UK's gun murder rate per 100,000, there would be approx 300 murders, not TEN THOUSAND!

In 2006 Guns Murdered
18 people in Austria
27 people in Australia
59 people in England & Wales
60 people in Spain
190 people in Canada
194 people in Germany
10,177 were murdered with guns in the United States of America

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 06:59 AM
Tell me... have you ever been knifed before? Have you felt your kidney get cut through as you laid on the floor dieing? Take away guns and you'll just get something else. Also knifes have a higher chance of killing due to how easy it is to get a guaranteed kill via artery severing or organ puncturing. England is tops in knifing. I swear so many people live in a dreamland it's pathetic. ZOMG the guns it's all the guns fault, lets regulate and control everyone?!

Knifes have a higher chance of killing??

And you think others live in a dream world? Wake up, you're dreaming!!!

Of course the availability of guns kill.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 07:38 AM
I think we just have a violent culture, look at a country like Switzerland where everyone owns guns, they have an extremely low crime rate.

Two things.

First, you can't compare European mentality, especially Germanic (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) with American. It is so different, it is nearly impossible to describe.

Second, as a rule in most Western European countries, everything is regulated beyond belief. For instance, you want to own a boat and drive it on a lake? Take a course and pass a test showing you are 'capable' of driving that bass boat. Want to drive a motorcycle, take a week long course, get a permit for a 150cc bike, ride it for a while, take another week long course, and get a license for a full power bike.

Third, Switzerland has some of the more strict immigration laws. While they had incredible immigration in the past, now they make it very difficult for immigrants that aren't rich to move to Switzerland.

Anyway, the point is there really is NO easy way to compare us to Switzerland or other European countries at this time. If President Obama and some of the democrats get their way and are successful in Europeanizing us, then down the road there might be some legit comparisons, but not now.

As to gun crimes (or more important violent crimes) in general, I don't know the answer. Guns aren't the problem. People don't get shot and raped on a regular basis where I live, so don't blame guns on what happens in Chicago, DC or wherever. That's a long, emotion filled, dangerous topic (where the violence comes from), but it has little to do with guns being easy to purchase.

Really, how many bangers go into a gun shop and pass a background check?

Pony Boy
11-07-2009, 08:12 AM
Yep, take the guns away so then a disgruntled employee goes home makes a bomb out of household products in his garage and then goes back an kills everyone in the building......

tnedator
11-07-2009, 08:20 AM
Yep, take the guns away so then a disgruntled employee goes home makes a bomb out of household products in his garage and then goes back an kills everyone in the building......

Or, walks down to the same corner where he buys crack, meth, heroine or pot, and he buys a gun with his dope, and still shoots up his ex-office.

Even if guns were outlawed from honest citizens, in a country where millions of people walk into our country uncontested, and tons upon tons of illegal drugs are smuggled in, there is ZERO chance that we will ever reach a time where criminals or psychos don't have a place to buy guns.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 08:36 AM
I do agree that people kill people, but as I said before, guns do make it easier. I don't buy the "if someone wanted to kill someone and didnt have a gun, they'd find another way." I think a lot of murder isn't premeditated and it takes a lot less effort to shoot someone than to strangle someone (or knife someone) or whatever. If guns were abolished, murder rates would go down.

I dont know the answer. If people want to shoot game with an old hunting rifle, i guess im ok with it (though i dont really support it).

We have a puritanical culture in America, one based on fear and quite a bit of violence. we fetishize war. I assume all of this is here to stay forever.

Meck77
11-07-2009, 08:41 AM
No way will we give up our guns Le-lo. If you crave a socialistic lifestyle you might consider leaving our country.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 08:48 AM
I do agree that people kill people, but as I said before, guns do make it easier. I don't buy the "if someone wanted to kill someone and didnt have a gun, they'd find another way." I think a lot of murder isn't premeditated and it takes a lot less effort to shoot someone than to strangle someone (or knife someone) or whatever. If guns were abolished, murder rates would go down.

I dont know the answer. If people want to shoot game with an old hunting rifle, i guess im ok with it (though i dont really support it).

We have a puritanical culture in America, one based on fear and quite a bit of violence. we fetishize war. I assume all of this is here to stay forever.

Ok, let's explore your route for a moment.

Exactly how do we abolish guns. I mean, EXACTLY, besides no longer selling guns, how do you propose collecting the 200 million or so legally owned guns? It is estimated that about 1 in 4 people own guns, and then we have all the illegally owned guns.

So, what is your plan to abolish the guns and remove the 200 million+ guns from circulation.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 08:49 AM
No way will we give up our guns Le-lo. If you crave a socialistic lifestyle you might consider leaving our country.

You really know nothing about socialism. Seriously, read about democratic socialism and then come back and tell me why its so bad.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 08:50 AM
Ok, let's explore your route for a moment.

Exactly how do we abolish guns. I mean, EXACTLY, besides no longer selling guns, how do you propose collecting the 200 million or so legally owned guns? It is estimated that about 1 in 4 people own guns, and then we have all the illegally owned guns.

So, what is your plan to abolish the guns and remove the 200 million+ guns from circulation.

If you read what I wrote, i never said I had the answer. I was speaking idealistically. Thats why I said its here to stay. its unfortunate, but its here to stay.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 08:51 AM
And the "leave the country if you dont like it" thing is tiresome. Id like to make our country better. Though id live in scandanavia, but the winters might chase me away:)

tnedator
11-07-2009, 08:56 AM
If you read what I wrote, i never said I had the answer. I was speaking idealistically. Thats why I said its here to stay. its unfortunate, but its here to stay.

Ok, so I guess we won't have to read anymore posts about gun control, since it isn't possible. Right?

Pony Boy
11-07-2009, 08:56 AM
We are also an armed Nation no enemy will ever march across this nation as long as we are armed. God forbid a nuclear strike against our electronic weapon systems that would reduce us to that point but it not out of the realm of possibility. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o:p> </o:p>
There are several countries in the world that can’t defend themselves against their own governments, much less an enemy invasion.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 09:00 AM
Ok, so I guess we won't have to read anymore posts about gun control, since it isn't possible. Right?

I never really sounded off on the subject beyond idealistic views. You're only gonna hear me bitch about economics. I am anti-gun, will not own one, and wish no one else did either. However, i understand its something thats, unfortunately, here to stay.

Quit putting words in my mouth.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 09:03 AM
We are also an armed Nation no enemy will ever march across this nation as long as we are armed. God forbid a nuclear strike against our electronic weapon systems that would reduce us to that point but it not out of the realm of possibility. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o:p> </o:p>
There are several countries in the world that canít defend themselves against their own governments, much less an enemy invasion.

And, the "defend against your own country" part is what so many don't get. That is the whole purpose of the 2nd ammendment.

You don't take that right away from the hundreds of millions of non criminals in this country, because bangers and meth heads kill people with guns (mostly each other).

tnedator
11-07-2009, 09:05 AM
I never really sounded off on the subject beyond idealistic views. You're only gonna hear me b**** about economics. I am anti-gun, will not own one, and wish no one else did either. However, i understand its something thats, unfortunately, here to stay.

Quit putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, in this thread you have been a typical elitist, liberal Californian that is completely out of touch with the reality of life outside of California.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 09:08 AM
Sorry, in this thread you have been a typical elitist, liberal Californian that is completely out of touch with the reality of life outside of California.

Elitist maybe? I'm sick and tired of the selfish attitudes of Americans and the complete inability to bend. But California is totally in the crapper and is a completely flawed government. I'm very much in touch with reality outside of California. Cali's broke. My beliefs have zero to do with California, moron.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 09:09 AM
Sorry, in this thread you have been a typical elitist, liberal Californian that is completely out of touch with the reality of life outside of California.

I love how you guys get so threatened by us though. Makes you seem like hicks.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 09:15 AM
I love how you guys get so threatened by us though. Makes you seem like hicks.

Not threatened at all. It's just a joke to read the California liberals post on this forum, or elsewhere. Your state has become so liberal, European and broken, that you don't realize how far out of touch you are with the rest of America.

Call the rest of us hicks, no problem. Whatever helps you feel superior, while your state crumbles around you.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 09:17 AM
With that said, this hick is going to go clean his guns (didn't do it after shooting a couple weeks ago), because I am heading out in the morning to do some plinking.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 09:19 AM
Not threatened at all. It's just a joke to read the California liberals post on this forum, or elsewhere. Your state has become so liberal, European and broken, that you don't realize how far out of touch you are with the rest of America.

Call the rest of us hicks, no problem. Whatever helps you feel superior, while your state crumbles around you.

Liberals dont run california. Hardly. And the way our government is designed, nothing actually passes as you need like 66 percent of the vote to pass anything. not to mention, our governer is republican. Learn more about cali before you create it as some liberal homeland that crumbles. Outside of LA and San Fran, its not that liberal. Hell, we couldnt even pass gay marriage.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 09:20 AM
With that said, this hick is going to go clean his guns (didn't do it after shooting a couple weeks ago), because I am heading out in the morning to do some plinking.

and this liberal elite needs to go to the gym to protect himself from the gun toting hicks :)
Seriously, no hard feelings with any of this. I know i can lose my cool

tnedator
11-07-2009, 09:22 AM
Liberals dont run california. Hardly. And the way our government is designed, nothing actually passes as you need like 66 percent of the vote to pass anything. not to mention, our governer is republican. Learn more about cali before you create it as some liberal homeland that crumbles. Outside of LA and San Fran, its not that liberal. Hell, we couldnt even pass gay marriage.

You just proved how out of touch with the rest of America you are. From entitlement programs, to consumer protection laws, to more restrictive regulations on products that are sold, California is far more liberal and European than the rest of the country.

Pony Boy
11-07-2009, 09:32 AM
I love how you guys get so threatened by us though. Makes you seem like hicks.

I think you can understand how some of us feel threatened by someone like Nancy Pelosi, who is intent on ramming her liberal agenda down our throats, and it might make us look like hicks when we buck up about it. It's just I still believe in "states rights" over "federal rights". California can do as they please with gun control or anything else but don't push it on us. It was a horrible tragedy this week at Ft Hood but Texas will never disarm their citizens over it. I do respect where you are coming from on this but that's why you live in California and I don't.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 11:07 AM
I think you can understand how some of us feel threatened by someone like Nancy Pelosi, who is intent on ramming her liberal agenda down our throats, and it might make us look like hicks when we buck up about it. It's just I still believe in "states rights" over "federal rights". California can do as they please with gun control or anything else but don't push it on us. It was a horrible tragedy this week at Ft Hood but Texas will never disarm their citizens over it. I do respect where you are coming from on this but that's why you live in California and I don't.

Well said.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 11:58 AM
You just proved how out of touch with the rest of America you are. From entitlement programs, to consumer protection laws, to more restrictive regulations on products that are sold, California is far more liberal and European than the rest of the country.

Enough with me being out of touch with America. First off, you know what makes up the majority of the population in this country? Cities. Cities tend to be liberal. Its a shame that small states with terribly low populations get repped the same way in senate that larger ones do.

And trust me, economically, Cali aint that liberal. Yes, compared to colorado, we are, but to call us European in government? Thats laughable. We're slaves to corporations just like the rest of you guys.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 12:00 PM
I think you can understand how some of us feel threatened by someone like Nancy Pelosi, who is intent on ramming her liberal agenda down our throats, and it might make us look like hicks when we buck up about it. It's just I still believe in "states rights" over "federal rights". California can do as they please with gun control or anything else but don't push it on us. It was a horrible tragedy this week at Ft Hood but Texas will never disarm their citizens over it. I do respect where you are coming from on this but that's why you live in California and I don't.

I still dont understand why universal health care, something every other industrialized country enjoys, is a "liberal" agenda. Gun control is barely a blip on the radar right now and its a fight we'll never win. Plus, this health care bill they are passing is hardly liberal. Its a compromise, its centrist. If it were liberal, we'd all be voting on something single payer (like medicare) about now. If think guys like Obama are liberal, you dont know liberal. Now look at a guy like Bernie Sanders...THAT'S a liberal.

Bronco Yoda
11-07-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm for universal health care & the right to keep my guns!

compassionately armed ...lol

tnedator
11-07-2009, 12:35 PM
I still dont understand why universal health care, something every other industrialized country enjoys, is a "liberal" agenda. Gun control is barely a blip on the radar right now and its a fight we'll never win. Plus, this health care bill they are passing is hardly liberal. Its a compromise, its centrist. If it were liberal, we'd all be voting on something single payer (like medicare) about now. If think guys like Obama are liberal, you dont know liberal. Now look at a guy like Bernie Sanders...THAT'S a liberal.

Obama has been clear that he believes the ultimate system is single payer (he, like you are wrong), but he and the libs in congress know they cannot get single payer passed right now.

Archer81
11-07-2009, 03:25 PM
I still dont understand why universal health care, something every other industrialized country enjoys, is a "liberal" agenda. Gun control is barely a blip on the radar right now and its a fight we'll never win. Plus, this health care bill they are passing is hardly liberal. Its a compromise, its centrist. If it were liberal, we'd all be voting on something single payer (like medicare) about now. If think guys like Obama are liberal, you dont know liberal. Now look at a guy like Bernie Sanders...THAT'S a liberal.


"Every other industrialized country" Who gives a **** what Europe is doing? Are we european? We look at the cluster**** that is the healthcare system in Europe and see everything wrong with it. Why would we want to copy that here? If you think Obama is a centrist you must consider Bill Clinton a conservative.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 04:06 PM
Obama has been clear that he believes the ultimate system is single payer (he, like you are wrong), but he and the libs in congress know they cannot get single payer passed right now.

Yeah, except he never even played that hand. I know the quote youre speaking of, he claimed if we were starting from scratch, we'd do single payer. But single payer was laughed out of the room from go and democrats never used it as even a bargaining chip. Why? Because they are whores of the insurance companies too. Of course they cant get single payer passed, even though its the best system available. Too much corporate interest involved. So, instead, we are treated to something "uniquely american." Which is basically something slightly better than what we have now. I have a feeling costs will still spiral out of control because they are doing too much to protect insurance companies, who by the way, profit off your health.

It's funny, i just got a doctors bill in the mail. I went for a routine check up and they unfortunately found something curious about my heart that required an addtional test. My insurance, which is supposed to be good insurance, didnt cover the test. Why? because theres not a family history of it and because im still young. The left side of my heart is enlarged and i'd like to know why. Unfortunately, i had to pay nearly 500 bucks out of my own pocket. And we wonder why thousands die every year because they cant afford to go to the doctor.

Great system we have here.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 04:11 PM
"Every other industrialized country" Who gives a **** what Europe is doing? Are we european? We look at the cluster**** that is the healthcare system in Europe and see everything wrong with it. Why would we want to copy that here? If you think Obama is a centrist you must consider Bill Clinton a conservative.

:Broncos:

Oh my god, see you are one of those people who actually believe american health care is thebest in the world yet every single statistic shows you are COMPLETELY WRONG. We have something like the 39th best in the world, right behind slovenia! Slovenia! ALL the euro countries have good healthcare at half the cost. Frances health stats beat us across the board and they pay half as much per capita. Now, in Europe, they arent all single payer. The scandanavian countries have it, but switzerland and holland have hybrids like we are trying (though theres is stronger). Both germany and france, have private insurance but its base is the public model.

Yes, there are some aspects of healthcare that Americans excel at. Cancer medicine for one. But both euro and canadian healthcare blows ours away. Even the dude who runs Kaiser seems jealous of Canadian health care. And before you bluster on about long lines and whatnot, there might be some short lag time, but EVERYONE gets care. And their health rates, mortality rates, infant mortality rates are either on par with ours or better.

Read Kristof. Learn. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kristof&st=cse

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 05:17 PM
"Every other industrialized country" Who gives a **** what Europe is doing? Are we european? We look at the cluster**** that is the healthcare system in Europe and see everything wrong with it. Why would we want to copy that here? If you think Obama is a centrist you must consider Bill Clinton a conservative.

:Broncos:

Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 05:19 PM
While the U.S. Spends Heavily on Health Care, a Study Faults the Quality
Editor's note: Neither in this article, nor in any of the articles that I have read during this long debate about US health care, have I seen mention of one of the most fundamental flaws of the American health system: the deliberately created shortage of physicians - not an accident, but by law (surely passed with some help from the American Medical Association, the doctors' advocate), which for decades specifically rewards US universitie$ that limit enrolment in their medical schools. This shortage has not only resulted in a plethora of wealthy doctors and impoverished (and often dead or sicker) patients, but also the lack of easy access to doctors, drugs and hospitals by the US population. Among other tangible consequences of this mess is that the US ranks last among developed countries in limiting preventable deaths (2008) and 37th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems (2000), in which the population's access to medical care is an important component.

By REED ABELSON, The New York Times July 18, 2008

American medical care may be the most expensive in the world, but that does not mean it is worth every penny. A study to be released Thursday highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers, especially when compared with many other industrialized nations.

More.....
http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html

SonOfLe-loLang
11-07-2009, 05:25 PM
Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Ok so we are one above slovenia:)

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 05:49 PM
Ok so we are one above slovenia:)

Though the Slovenian private ward nearly tipped the scale. ;D

http://gdb.rferl.org/22305692-C91C-49A2-8301-51BCE84DBDEE_mw800_mh600.jpg

Bronco Yoda
11-07-2009, 05:52 PM
wooohooooooo..... we beat Slovenia.

we rock! Now we're living large!

I knew there was a reason we spend so much money on taking care of our own.

We don't control the world for nothing.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3407.htm

Drunk Monkey
11-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

OK, so China the air apparent to the global throne doesn't appear on this list?

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 06:58 PM
OK, so China the air apparent to the global throne doesn't appear on this list?

Sure they do @144.

tnedator
11-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

You guys know those rankings are skewed by a number of factors, like our infant mortality is skewed by crack and meth babies dieing in the innner cities which has NOTHING to do with our health care system.

Archer81
11-07-2009, 11:55 PM
Read Kristof. Learn. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=kristof&st=cse


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate In the Wrangle Over Health Care, a Low Rating for the U.S. System Keeps Emerging Despite Evident Shortcomings in Study

During the health-care debate, one damning statistic keeps popping up in newspaper columns and letters, on cable television and in politicians' statements: The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete...

:Broncos:

DenverBrit
11-07-2009, 11:57 PM
You guys know those rankings are skewed by a number of factors, like our infant mortality is skewed by crack and meth babies dieing in the innner cities which has NOTHING to do with our health care system.

Then post some credible stats that move the US up in the ranks.

But bear in mind, the infant mortality rates are a reflection of society, just like murder rates.......not sure you want to go there.

Accept that the US health system is in trouble and we are all being overcharged by a wide margin.
Drugs, for instance, are double the cost (some drugs up to six times more expensive) in the US compared to Europe.
Same drugs, same packaging coming from the same manufacturer and facility.
Can you explain that anomaly?
I can't think of another commodity where buying power (300 million people) actually makes the product twice as expensive.
Makes no sense, other than we're being screwed. ???

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=321

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 01:32 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate In the Wrangle Over Health Care, a Low Rating for the U.S. System Keeps Emerging Despite Evident Shortcomings in Study

During the health-care debate, one damning statistic keeps popping up in newspaper columns and letters, on cable television and in politicians' statements: The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete...

:Broncos:


Even if you don't want to believe these rankings (and wow, the WSJ posts a rebuttal...who would have thought a right wing paper wouldnt fight back), look at the cold hard facts. We pay a lot more money, for a lot less care. We have to haggle with insurance companies to get simple care and they often don't give it to increase their dividend. Too many people in this country are absolutely crippled by healthcare costs. 40 million dont have any sort of insurance and millions more have crappy insurance that doesn't cover tons of ****. Look at our mortality rates, look at how many people die due to ineffective or a lacking insurance. Look at my personal note about my heart and how the insurance companies didn't want to pay for that test. In Sweden, i believe the average person pays the equivilant of 60 bucks a year in healthcare costs.

Its absolutely disgusting and appalling that people support a system primarily to profit off our health. Its disgusting that insurance companies turn people away with pre-existing conditions just to increase profit.

If you really want to buy into the rhetoric that our healthcare system is TEH AMAZIGNS, then i feel really sorry for you. Open your eyes, America doesn't always do everything the best.


And let me ask you this, we all have some issues with our current government (albeit different), but would you REALLY prefer the alternative republican clowns running the show? Boehner? Grassley? Hatch? Palin? Really? These are the guys that actually presented a budget WITHOUT numbers. These are the guys that took 7 months to come up with their own healthcare plan which the CBO absolutely trashed. They are an embarrassment and they don't even come across as intelligent. You should be glad Obama is in charge rather than McCain and a republican congress. I'm not saying all republicans are bad, but the current crew running their show are just horrid.

tnedator
11-08-2009, 04:40 AM
Then post some credible stats that move the US up in the ranks.

But bear in mind, the infant mortality rates are a reflection of society, just like murder rates.......not sure you want to go there.

Accept that the US health system is in trouble and we are all being overcharged by a wide margin.
Drugs, for instance, are double the cost (some drugs up to six times more expensive) in the US compared to Europe.
Same drugs, same packaging coming from the same manufacturer and facility.
Can you explain that anomaly?
I can't think of another commodity where buying power (300 million people) actually makes the product twice as expensive.
Makes no sense, other than we're being screwed. ???

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=321

The US isn't overcharged for drugs, that is the market that sets the price. Drug companies dump tens of billions of dollars into R&D to find new drugs and selling them in the US is the reward for that R&D.

The socialized medicine countries won't pay the going rate for the best drugs, and instead would just give their patients the stuff that is off patent and cheaper, regardless of whether or not it is 'best' in terms of patient care. The drug companies know this, so they sell to those countries at a price that will be profitable when not taking into account the need to pay back the R&D costs.

Once the US stops paying the high prices for new drugs, the amount of dollars going into drug R&D is almost certainly going to dry up very quickly.

It's not all as simple as you want to make it.

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 07:10 AM
The US isn't overcharged for drugs, that is the market that sets the price. Drug companies dump tens of billions of dollars into R&D to find new drugs and selling them in the US is the reward for that R&D.

The socialized medicine countries won't pay the going rate for the best drugs, and instead would just give their patients the stuff that is off patent and cheaper, regardless of whether or not it is 'best' in terms of patient care. The drug companies know this, so they sell to those countries at a price that will be profitable when not taking into account the need to pay back the R&D costs.

Once the US stops paying the high prices for new drugs, the amount of dollars going into drug R&D is almost certainly going to dry up very quickly.

It's not all as simple as you want to make it.

Read more instead of buying the 'party' line, which is bought and paid for.

Meck77
11-08-2009, 07:15 AM
It's football sunday. This has become nothing more than a political b****fest.

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 07:17 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate In the Wrangle Over Health Care, a Low Rating for the U.S. System Keeps Emerging Despite Evident Shortcomings in Study

During the health-care debate, one damning statistic keeps popping up in newspaper columns and letters, on cable television and in politicians' statements: The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete...

:Broncos:

Isn't life expectancy important, or is early death a sign of good health care?

From the same report!

The flawed WHO report shouldn't obscure that the U.S. is lagging its peers in some major barometers of public health. For instance, the U.S. slipped from 18th to 24th in male life expectancy from 2000 to 2009, according to the United Nations, and from 28th to 35th in female life expectancy. Its rankings in preventing male and female under-5 mortality also fell, and placed in the 30s.

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 07:21 AM
Get this BS off the main forum mods. It's football sunday. This has become nothing more than a political b****fest.

Yeah, I agree. ;D

If you crave a socialistic lifestyle you might consider leaving our country.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2632268&postcount=170

McDman
11-08-2009, 12:43 PM
Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

While on the outside it looks like those countries have great health care systems, but they are just as flawed as ours. I spent a month in Italy studying and even my Italian professor talked about how poor their system really is, while it is universal if you don't have money there is a good chance it can take weeks to a month to even get in to see a doctor.

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 01:52 PM
While on the outside it looks like those countries have great health care systems, but they are just as flawed as ours. I spent a month in Italy studying and even my Italian professor talked about how poor their system really is, while it is universal if you don't have money there is a good chance it can take weeks to a month to even get in to see a doctor.

They all have flaws. I lived in France, Spain and the UK, and we grumbled about them all.
But the expense of the US system has become such a crushing burden that businesses are buckling under the strain of their share, and many individuals can no longer afford coverage.
Worse still, anyone with a pre-existing condition is either rejected or priced out of the health care system. The insurance companies 'cherry pick' and take only the healthy and none of the 65 plus. What a great deal.

The US system shouldn't cost double and not be ranked number one when comparisons are made.

If Europeans were buying American made cars for half the cost we pay in the US, there would be no question we were getting gauged.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 04:39 PM
Isn't life expectancy important, or is early death a sign of good health care?

From the same report!




No, because the article also explains that things that have nothing to do with healthcare can effect life expectancy, and if health care ranking uses life expectancy as an indicator, its flawed and skews the result.

:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
11-08-2009, 04:44 PM
Guns facilitate killing.

LOL...people kill. Outlaw all the guns and then only criminals have them. They are not hard to make.

Garcia Bronco
11-08-2009, 04:45 PM
Come on, wake up and educate yourself instead of parroting the party line.

World Health System Rankings.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The WHO rankings are meaningless since thay factor free healthcare in their rating.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 04:49 PM
They all have flaws. I lived in France, Spain and the UK, and we grumbled about them all.
But the expense of the US system has become such a crushing burden that businesses are buckling under the strain of their share, and many individuals can no longer afford coverage.
Worse still, anyone with a pre-existing condition is either rejected or priced out of the health care system. The insurance companies 'cherry pick' and take only the healthy and none of the 65 plus. What a great deal.

The US system shouldn't cost double and not be ranked number one when comparisons are made.

If Europeans were buying American made cars for half the cost we pay in the US, there would be no question we were getting gauged.


I agree the healthcare system needs to be changed, and no one should be denied care, but government involvement always has costs go up with worse results. There are ways to fix healthcare without creating 111 new bureacracies. Allowing portability, tort reform and cross state line competition are ways to drop costs without costing anything to taxpayers. Copying a European model, that has flaws (waitlists, medicinal and procedure denials for existing conditions or age of the patient) is not the thing we should do. And the myth that private insurance denies or drops coverage because someone gets sick is a joke. Medicare denies claims twice as often as private insurance.

Americans are supposed to be some of the most inventive people on earth, so there has to be a way to give coverage to every citizen without bankrupting the country down the road.

:Broncos:

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 04:57 PM
The WHO rankings are meaningless since thay factor free healthcare in their rating.

Free?? I can only speak from my experience and I've never had free health care.

With a single payer system, individuals still pay, it's deducted from wages just like taxes.

It's much cheaper and everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, are covered.

We can try and pick holes in the WHO rankings, but whether the US is rated 37th or 27th, it's still absurd considering how much it costs.

The US should be #1, but it's not even close.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Even if you don't want to believe these rankings (and wow, the WSJ posts a rebuttal...who would have thought a right wing paper wouldnt fight back), look at the cold hard facts. We pay a lot more money, for a lot less care. We have to haggle with insurance companies to get simple care and they often don't give it to increase their dividend. Too many people in this country are absolutely crippled by healthcare costs. 40 million dont have any sort of insurance and millions more have crappy insurance that doesn't cover tons of ****. Look at our mortality rates, look at how many people die due to ineffective or a lacking insurance. Look at my personal note about my heart and how the insurance companies didn't want to pay for that test. In Sweden, i believe the average person pays the equivilant of 60 bucks a year in healthcare costs.

Its absolutely disgusting and appalling that people support a system primarily to profit off our health. Its disgusting that insurance companies turn people away with pre-existing conditions just to increase profit.

If you really want to buy into the rhetoric that our healthcare system is TEH AMAZIGNS, then i feel really sorry for you. Open your eyes, America doesn't always do everything the best.


And let me ask you this, we all have some issues with our current government (albeit different), but would you REALLY prefer the alternative republican clowns running the show? Boehner? Grassley? Hatch? Palin? Really? These are the guys that actually presented a budget WITHOUT numbers. These are the guys that took 7 months to come up with their own healthcare plan which the CBO absolutely trashed. They are an embarrassment and they don't even come across as intelligent. You should be glad Obama is in charge rather than McCain and a republican congress. I'm not saying all republicans are bad, but the current crew running their show are just horrid.


You posted an OP-ED piece for the NYTimes and you are going to bitch about my source?

CBO estimates for the healthcare bill presented by democrats is 1.3 trillion, and rising.

The 40 million uninsured number is pure fantasy. Of that 40 mil, 12 mil are illegals, they would not get coverage anyway. That drops it to 28 million, of which half of them are people in their 20s and 30s who could afford coverage and dont get it...because they are in their 20s and 30s. That leaves 14 million, with 3 million of that being seniors who are eligible for medicare or medicaid and dont sign up for it.

Id also think that getting people back to work would be the primary aim of any administration. Especially since the bill proposed in the house and senate both fine people who are not insured or on the government plan. Or maybe thats the point? Enroll people in Obamacare, expand the government "option" and shut out private insurance.

I also want to know if liberals get a talking points memo, because every single one of you continually cite the same BS statistics, and when that fails, marches out some sobstory about someone being denied care, which more often than not is the exception and not the rule.

:Broncos:

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 05:12 PM
I agree the healthcare system needs to be changed, and no one should be denied care, but government involvement always has costs go up with worse results. There are ways to fix healthcare without creating 111 new bureacracies. Allowing portability, tort reform and cross state line competition are ways to drop costs without costing anything to taxpayers. Copying a European model, that has flaws (waitlists, medicinal and procedure denials for existing conditions or age of the patient) is not the thing we should do. And the myth that private insurance denies or drops coverage because someone gets sick is a joke. Medicare denies claims twice as often as private insurance.

Americans are supposed to be some of the most inventive people on earth, so there has to be a way to give coverage to every citizen without bankrupting the country down the road.

:Broncos:

I can agree with some of what you say, but some you're just making up.

For instance: Where do you get the data for insurance company vs Medicare denials??
The insurance industry has never revealed its denial rate.....except in CA.

As for the 'myth' that insurance companies drop coverage for pre-existing conditions, you're confused.
They won't insure someone with a pre-existing condition which is why approx 20 States have established 'risk pools' so those people can get coverage.
Insurance companies will drop coverage for someone who gets an expensive condition....or they will hike the premiums to a level that forces the patient to drop the coverage themselves.

You can find problems in every system, but dumping patients on the streets because they don't have coverage is a visual no western democracy should tolerate.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 05:16 PM
I can agree with some of what you say, but some you're just making up.

For instance: Where do you get the data for insurance company vs Medicare denials??
The insurance industry has never revealed its denial rate.....except in CA.

As for the 'myth' that insurance companies drop coverage for pre-existing conditions, you're confused.
They won't insure someone with a pre-existing condition which is why approx 20 States have established 'risk pools' so those people can get coverage.
Insurance companies will drop coverage for someone who gets an expensive condition....or they will hike the premiums to a level that forces the patient to drop the coverage themselves.

You can find problems in every system, but dumping patients on the streets because they don't have coverage is a visual no western democracy should tolerate.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/06/medicare-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

According to AMAís National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurerís average...

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 05:54 PM
You posted an OP-ED piece for the NYTimes and you are going to b**** about my source?

CBO estimates for the healthcare bill presented by democrats is 1.3 trillion, and rising.

The 40 million uninsured number is pure fantasy. Of that 40 mil, 12 mil are illegals, they would not get coverage anyway. That drops it to 28 million, of which half of them are people in their 20s and 30s who could afford coverage and dont get it...because they are in their 20s and 30s. That leaves 14 million, with 3 million of that being seniors who are eligible for medicare or medicaid and dont sign up for it.

Id also think that getting people back to work would be the primary aim of any administration. Especially since the bill proposed in the house and senate both fine people who are not insured or on the government plan. Or maybe thats the point? Enroll people in Obamacare, expand the government "option" and shut out private insurance.

I also want to know if liberals get a talking points memo, because every single one of you continually cite the same BS statistics, and when that fails, marches out some sobstory about someone being denied care, which more often than not is the exception and not the rule.

:Broncos:


First off, the CBO estimates that the current plan the house just past will save 129 billion over the 2010-2019 period. So i dont know what youre bitching about.

Even if the number of uninsured is skewed, it doesn't count the number of UNDER insured that would balance it out. Lots of people have health insurance but can't afford a lot of their medical payments. This includes people denied care for pre-existing conditions or just the whim of the insurance company (like I just dealt with.) And that's why i keep pulling out this "bull**** talking points memo" My friend was also just denied a mammogram by her insurance company because they claimed she was too young to have multiple ones, even though her mother got breast cancer when she was her age.

And the public option is not some evil thing to get people on the government care. its designed to 1) create competition and 2) control rising costs that will bankrupt medicare in the next 20 years. Our health costs are out of control. Also, for people who cant really afford healthcare right now, but will be required to buy under the individual mandate, there are subsidies for them. Everyone must buy in to make it work. I dont get why this is so evil...this is what every other country does.

If you think our current system is good or will sustain, youre delusional. We NEED reform. Everyone agrees with this, even most republicans.

And getting people back to work SHOULD be the aim of the government, but the answer is more stimulus and they aren't going to do that. Economists predicted the stimulus was too small and also predicted the exact effects of it. Need more stimulus, as said, we're in no inflationary danger.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 05:55 PM
I agree the healthcare system needs to be changed, and no one should be denied care, but government involvement always has costs go up with worse results. There are ways to fix healthcare without creating 111 new bureacracies. Allowing portability, tort reform and cross state line competition are ways to drop costs without costing anything to taxpayers. Copying a European model, that has flaws (waitlists, medicinal and procedure denials for existing conditions or age of the patient) is not the thing we should do. And the myth that private insurance denies or drops coverage because someone gets sick is a joke. Medicare denies claims twice as often as private insurance.

Americans are supposed to be some of the most inventive people on earth, so there has to be a way to give coverage to every citizen without bankrupting the country down the road.

:Broncos:

Insurance companies will most certainly drop you if they think you withheld information about a pre-existing condition, whether its true or not. Happened to my uncle actually.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 05:59 PM
By the way, im still waiting for the proof that WW2 wasnt a public project. Oh, and the timeline that proves this recession was created by Obama.

DenverBrit
11-08-2009, 06:09 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/06/medicare-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

According to AMAís National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurerís average...

:Broncos:

The AMA Report Card is interesting, however, it's well known in the insurance industry that the 'denial' rates are not released by health care insurers....except in CA where it is required by law.

Recently, the CA AG's office opened an investigation into denial rates in CA.

The nurses union said some of the companies had denial rates between 27 percent and 40 percent during the first six months of this year, with PacifiCare rejecting 39.6 ercent of claims it received.

The CNA said Cigna rejected 32.7 percent, Health Net 30 percent, Kaiser Permanente 28.3 percent and Blue Cross 27.9 percent.

The numbers are probably misleading because of valid denials based on paperwork or fraud etc, but it paints a very different picture from the AMA stats...the source of which is unknown.

http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/2159681.html


Are health insurance companies generally being fair and honest when they reject claims from policy holders?

That would seem to be an important question in deciding how best to fix the U.S. health system. But it hasnít been a focus of the raging health-care debate -- possibly because the answer is not publicly available.

ďThis is one of the dark corners of the black box that is private health insurance,Ē said Karen Pollitz, a professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

Data on how often insurance claims are denied -- and for what reasons -- is collected and analyzed by the insurance companies themselves. But except in California, the companies arenít required to provide those records to any state or federal agency. ďThe number is knowable, but not known by regulators or policy makers or patients,Ē Pollitz said.


http://huffpostfund.org/stories/2009/09/health-care-number-claims-denied-remains-mystery

Archer81
11-08-2009, 10:38 PM
By the way, im still waiting for the proof that WW2 wasnt a public project. Oh, and the timeline that proves this recession was created by Obama.


Calling a global conflict a US Public Works Project implies the US purposely went to war to jumpstart a sluggish economy. You chose your words incorrectly.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I never said Obama is the reason we have recession. I said his economic policies didnt help it, proved out by the sharp rise in unemployment in the last year. The stimulus was passed in February. 878 billion, of which less then 15% of it has been spent on stimulating the economy. Whats the rest for then? If we are going to add 3.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, you would think most of the money borrowed would go to job creation.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 11:02 PM
Calling a global conflict a US Public Works Project implies the US purposely went to war to jumpstart a sluggish economy. You chose your words incorrectly.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

I never said Obama is the reason we have recession. I said his economic policies didnt help it, proved out by the sharp rise in unemployment in the last year. The stimulus was passed in February. 878 billion, of which less then 15% of it has been spent on stimulating the economy. Whats the rest for then? If we are going to add 3.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, you would think most of the money borrowed would go to job creation.

:Broncos:

Apologies, i thought it was you that claimed that, but on second look, it was the Ayn Rand guy. His economic policies were not strong enough to stave off the spike in unemployment, not by a long shot. Having said that, i strongly believe UE would be worse if not for the stimulus. It certainly did save jobs.

Also, many economists predicted the spike in unemployment after the banks failed and the economy started tanking...obviously, this stuff rolls out in time. To just pin the UE on Obama is false.

And you're twisting my works on the public works project. If you prefer i say that it was ESSENTIALLY a public works project then fine. I did not claim that the situation wasn't dire or serious, but looking at world war 2 just through the eyes of the US economy, it was really just one huge stimulus.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 11:23 PM
Apologies, i thought it was you that claimed that, but on second look, it was the Ayn Rand guy. His economic policies were not strong enough to stave off the spike in unemployment, not by a long shot. Having said that, i strongly believe UE would be worse if not for the stimulus. It certainly did save jobs.

Also, many economists predicted the spike in unemployment after the banks failed and the economy started tanking...obviously, this stuff rolls out in time. To just pin the UE on Obama is false.

And you're twisting my works on the public works project. If you prefer i say that it was ESSENTIALLY a public works project then fine. I did not claim that the situation wasn't dire or serious, but looking at world war 2 just through the eyes of the US economy, it was really just one huge stimulus.


Not twisting words. pointing out calling a global war an American Public Works Project is incorrect. US borrowed money from its citizens (warbonds) to purchase wargoods, the sudden demand due to increased need for the allied militaries put 20+ million people to work. The article I linked to had the US at a 1.4 unemployment rate in 1944...thats just pure insanity.

Spending at the rate Obama is with a democrat dominated congress leads to tax increases, which will kill recovery. When you free up capital for small business owners, they hire more people. Government cant create wealth, and never has been able to.

Anyways...why is this thread still on the main board? It has gone ridiculously off topic.

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 11:41 PM
Not twisting words. pointing out calling a global war an American Public Works Project is incorrect. US borrowed money from its citizens (warbonds) to purchase wargoods, the sudden demand due to increased need for the allied militaries put 20+ million people to work. The article I linked to had the US at a 1.4 unemployment rate in 1944...thats just pure insanity.

Spending at the rate Obama is with a democrat dominated congress leads to tax increases, which will kill recovery. When you free up capital for small business owners, they hire more people. Government cant create wealth, and never has been able to.

Anyways...why is this thread still on the main board? It has gone ridiculously off topic.

:Broncos:


And what do you think put them to work? The magical work fairy? It was major deficit spending.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You can mostly ignore the article, but look at the graph. The government went into further debt to pay for the war. It created jobs and stimulated the economy. So, yes, it was essentially ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING a public works project. As mentioned earlier, we did not win pots of gold after defeating germany and japan. Had we dumped all those tanks and bullets in the ocean, we would have received the same economic effect.

Government can jumpstart the economy, as it did during the new deal and after the war. Its actually economics 101. Yes, it has to invest wisely, but the simple statement "government cannot create jobs that last." is simply false.

And raising taxes on the top 1 percent will hardly kill the economy. We've spent the majority of our history with them receiving higher rates. Seriously, its like Stockholm Syndrome with right wingers and the rich.

Bronco Yoda
11-08-2009, 11:46 PM
The US isn't overcharged for drugs, that is the market that sets the price. Drug companies dump tens of billions of dollars into R&D to find new drugs and selling them in the US is the reward for that R&D.

The socialized medicine countries won't pay the going rate for the best drugs, and instead would just give their patients the stuff that is off patent and cheaper, regardless of whether or not it is 'best' in terms of patient care. The drug companies know this, so they sell to those countries at a price that will be profitable when not taking into account the need to pay back the R&D costs.

Once the US stops paying the high prices for new drugs, the amount of dollars going into drug R&D is almost certainly going to dry up very quickly.

It's not all as simple as you want to make it.

I'm tired of paying all the R&D costs for the rest of the world. Let some other country take the hit for a change.

Archer81
11-08-2009, 11:50 PM
And what do you think put them to work? The magical work fairy? It was major deficit spending.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html You can mostly ignore the article, but look at the graph. The government went into further debt to pay for the war. It created jobs and stimulated the economy. So, yes, it was essentially ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING a public works project. As mentioned earlier, we did not win pots of gold after defeating germany and japan. Had we dumped all those tanks and bullets in the ocean, we would have received the same economic effect.

Government can jumpstart the economy, as it did during the new deal and after the war. Its actually economics 101. Yes, it has to invest wisely, but the simple statement "government cannot create jobs that last." is simply false.
And raising taxes on the top 1 percent will hardly kill the economy. We've spent the majority of our history with them receiving higher rates. Seriously, its like Stockholm Syndrome with right wingers and the rich.


The government does not create wealth. The government does not have its own money. It completely lives on what it takes in from its people, and their ability to earn and spend, thats what GDP is.

Also, the top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the tax burden. The bottom 40% pay nothing at all. So clearly taxing the rich forces their money overseas. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxburden06.htm

:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
11-08-2009, 11:59 PM
Now youre just talking semantics. The government can help an economy generate wealth. Better?

I'm not sure how you jump from tax burden to forcing money overseas, though I know its a popular line. Time will tell, I just sincerely doubt raising the taxes to pre-Bush years (still really low in the history of america) will tear apart the american economy. Just an opinion. The money needs to come from somewhere and its all tied up in that 1 percent. Such economic diversity is horrid for an economy because any healthy economy needs a middle class that spends money. And right now that's dying. So if youre solution is the status quo, America will be the next empire to fall. We're a crippled giant.

atomicbloke
12-23-2009, 01:13 AM
I knew the second amendment would destroy this country as long as it takes out all the white trash i'll be happy