NationStates Jolt Archive

This was passed along to me and as they said is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time.

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Aye from GA. This guy should run for President one day.

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths t o be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, bi! g screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creat! ion of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTIC LE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful! .

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(lastly...)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

lets see, rightwing of course, sorta cryptically racist... historically inaccurate and at least a bit contadictory.

lets see, rightwing of course, sorta cryptically racist... historically inaccurate and at least a bit contadictory.

Lets see, your a liberal, and leftwing of course, your sort of an idiot, and how the hell is this racist?

Articles X and XI are kinda lame. Plus I am offended by teh lack of some kind of guaranteed taco.

Probably a reference to the line about English.

Frankly, I can see how that would be construed as racist but it is not, in fact racist. Scientific studies have proven that "darkies" are capable of speaking English as well as those of us who have no skin color.

Doesn't it seem to you that fascists have aquired some basic literacy and are now trolling everywhere?

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

By the way, the author is a libertarian, and the offensive "English only" and "one true god" articles were added on by an unknown person.

Doesn't it seem to you that fascists have aquired some basic literacy and are now trolling everywhere?
Doesn't it seem to you that people who have no idea what fascism is like to apply the label to anything that makes them unhappy?

Probably a reference to the line about English.

Frankly, I can see how that would be construed as racist but it is not, in fact racist. Scientific studies have proven that "darkies" are capable of speaking English as well as those of us who have no skin color.
well that and the reference to the generations of welfare couch potatos, its not overtly racist but generally the stereotype of multigenerational welfare recipients is of african americans... okay i suppose might be a bit of a stretch.

Article XI is wrong, we wernt founded on Christianity and "In God We Trust" was added to money in the 1950s and isnt our official motto, "E Pluribus Unum" is. But I do agree with a lot of the other stuff.

Doesn't it seem to you that fascists have aquired some basic literacy and are now trolling everywhere?
No, I just thought that people's IQs had fallen yet again. I am more worried about the recent flux in noobs. I have counted at least eight people with post counts under twenty, and several other use teh noob emoticons::mp5:, :upyours:, :sniper:, and :gundge:. I cannot imagine what this means for our children.

You are aware that number XI is what we call "a lie" ?
Which is ironic, since in the first part it actually condemns this sort of lying...

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

By the way, the author is a libertarian, and the offensive "English only" and "one true god" articles were added on by an unknown person.

there are certain libertarian currents that intersect with certain white supremacist thought as in the posse comitatus movement, though those are the part of the movement most removed from the national socialists.

Doesn't it seem to you that people who have no idea what fascism is like to apply the label to anything that makes them unhappy?
Doesn't it seem to you that I know?
What do you want to talk about? National-Syndicalism? Corporatism? Irredentism?

It has maybe one point. The rest, the usual Yank propaganda crap we're so tired of hearing

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

By the way, the author is a libertarian, and the offensive "English only" and "one true god" articles were added on by an unknown person.

Oh, that's good, then.

Doesn't it seem to you that I know?
What do you want to talk about? National-Syndicalism? Corporatism? Irredentism?
wooo talk about national syndicalism, i never quite understood that but i find the left of the fascist movement fascinating... that is a left current isn't it?

Doesn't it seem to you that people who have no idea what fascism is like to apply the label to anything that makes them unhappy?I've been acused of fascism before. I am not even remotely close to fascist.

Doesn't it seem to you that I know?
What do you want to talk about? National-Syndicalism? Corporatism? Irredentism?
True Fascism is Italian Fascism (Odd that, while the Nazis are regarded as the biggest fascists, the people who actually had their movements name stolen and applied to the entire spectrum were their next door neighbors), but that is beside the point.
To use a broader, but still correct definition, fascism collects power to the state, a position not advocated at all in this peice, and is based on a master "group" (generally, the people of the nation it grows in), which doesn't exist in the Bill either (unless English speakers have recently become an exclusive group). A fascist seeks to use the government to protect the people from goddam niggers, godless commies, hedonistic capitalists, blood-sucking Jews, etc, and would never advocate a reduction in government resources/services.

Finally, it should be noted that XI (which brushes flirts with facism) was a (somewhat heretical, given the tone of the first 10 lines) addition.

True Fascism is Italian Fascism (Odd that, while the Nazis are regarded as the biggest fascists, the people who actually had their movements name stolen and applied to the entire spectrum were their next door neighbors), but that is beside the point.
To use a broader, but still correct definition, fascism collects power to the state, a position not advocated at all in this peice, and is based on a master "group" (generally, the people of the nation it grows in), which doesn't exist in the Bill either (unless English speakers have recently become an exclusive group). A fascist seeks to use the government to protect the people from goddam niggers, godless commies, hedonistic capitalists, blood-sucking Jews, etc, and would never advocate a reduction in government resources/services.



THANK YOU

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, bi! g screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.Fine by me.ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creat! ion of another generation of professional couch potatoes.Rubbish. Guaranteeing food & housing, makes sure that the disabled doesn't have to jump through hoops in hopes of being supported by people who may or may not feel inclined to help them survive.
Further more, people who doesn't have access to these basic necessities aren't in any position to seek out employment or education. I've tried living on the street, have you?ARTIC LE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.Rubbish. Free health care means poor people don't die because they're poor. It means lower & middle class people don't risk a lifetime of financial ruin when they get sick or have an accident, and it means the disabled won't have to suck someone's asshole for "charity". If you value freedom, you value the freedom of the less fortunate, as well as your own.ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.And in a perfect world, with a psychic justice system, the death penalty would be fine by me. Idiotic shit like Mumia doesn't exactly make the death punishment appealing, though.ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.What exactly does that mean, in terms of capitalims, taxation & subsidies?ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful! .The sole purpose of having a society, is to empower eachother to do what we can't do on our own. Especially in a corporatist ecomony, people can't all be self employed. That means people need the right to a job, because otherwise they can't all have one. Basically this article is plain murder, when there's no welfare system in place, and probably counter productive even if there is.ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.agreed.ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!If the implication is that legal immigrants & refugees will have the opportunity to attend a language school immediately, I agree. A primary language is needed for a functioning society.ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!plain bollox.

Now what about a right to free education?

wooo talk about national syndicalism, i never quite understood that but i find the left of the fascist movement fascinating... that is a left current isn't it?
Hard to tell what's left and right in Fascism.
It started with Sorel, and his rejection of Marxist theses from a Socialist perspective. He argued that the trade union was the basic unit for a future revolution, but, since the great strike could only be the result of a highly indusrialized society, and they saw that society as fed by unfair ventures on the outside (in underdevelopped areas), they quickly turned to a jingoism for the workers. They hated the fact that pure capitalism did not need to deal with the pretentions of a trade union, which made solidarity unlikely, so they started advocating imperialism that would feed a "healthy society" in the metropolis.
The second source is anarcho-syndicalism (talk of a paradox), with the Cercle Proudhon in France. People that were attracted to the late Proudhon works still considered themselves anarchist, but flirted with the jingo-conservative Action Francaise "integralism" (the idea that a society is an ethnical, national, cultural, religious etc. organism - always unique and autarkic - and that members of it had a duty and a necessity to cooperate). The synthetis started there, and peaked in Italy, with Corradini, de Ambris and D'Annunzio, who took the Fasces out of a revolutionary tradition. When WWI broke out, they advocated that precise oriented imperialism, and irredentism, without being less revolutionary. I think de Ambris compared the opportunity with that offered by the French Revolution, with an impact that was to be no less internationalist. In three years, the Fasces turned from their official "of revolutionary internationalist action" name to "of national etc", and cut off all links with the Socialist Party. The bullshit artist Mussolini was in admiration, and started publishing syndicalist pieces in the socialist newspaper he was leading. The Party called to him to order, asked him to explain himself, he made a scandal, they kicked him out. He took the Fasces from de Ambris' hands, petted Corradini, and we all know whathe did to D'Annunzio.
The ideology officially survived in some form, and Mussolini partly returned to it (with its republicanism and radicalism) during the Salo Republic, when he didn't have to please anyone anymore.

Y'know a little right of my preferences as this may be its really not a bad shot at trying to work things out, with a couple of small edits I would be happy to make this part of my country's policies. To be specific we would need;

(addition)
ARTICLE III: *snip* You do however have the right to be free from other peoples attempts to harm you.

(addition)
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
COROLLARY: The exemption to this is those who are genuinely physically unable to work, however being unable to walk does not make you unable to type, most jobs are done sitting down these days.


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
(Rewrite)
ARTICLE V: You have the right to make use of emergency services free of charge, however, you do not have the right to come into emergency services every time your child has a paper cut.

COROLLARY: Should we discover that you caused the accident your damn fool self (i.e. shot self with nail gun in an attempt to reattach sole of shoe) you will be charged not only for your own operation but for those for the next three people held up because of your foolishness. This will be known as the enhanced Darwinism corollary.

(Rewrite -keeping in spirit with the original idea)
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful!
ARTICLE VIII: You are not entitled to a good job, should you actively go to the effort of searching for a job we will find you one, however don't expect to just magically find yourself a CEO unless you have the qualifications for a better job you will be making minimum wage picking up trash on the streets

COROLLARY: clearly this means we must have free education to give all people an opportunity to achieve, however that is a right already and this is a bill of non rights

(Rewrite)
ARTICLE XI: You have a right to practice your religion of choice you do not however have any right to force it on other people, we all believe what we chose to believe and there is no evidence one way or another that any one faith is better. Religion is a personal matter and as such best left to your home or house of faith.

he does miss the point though, that the whole reason to have constitutions of any kind is to protect the people from the government.

granted no one owes anyone anything they don't voluntarily contract to do so.

that also just happens to include no one owing any hierarchal structure of soverignty either.

governments on the other hand, by their very existence cause suffering and harm, and are no more deserving of a free lunch in this reguard then the rest of us, and thus do, owe some compensation for the burdens of their existence.

and what CAN a government, any government, reguardless of idiology or belief do to compensate for the burdens of its existence?

it can do one or more of the following things: prevent people from freezing, starving or beating each other over the head. protect those natural cycles of renewal life as we know it, including ourselves utterly depends upon. specificly those cycles which are our only sources of oxigen, drinkable water, and nourishing food. it can also provide or motivate and encourage the provision of, such tangable infrastructures as are usefull to everyone, and see to their being compatable with the other considerations above.

it may not have to do all of these things. it may not be able to do all of these things. but it has no other justification for its existence without at least making a serious and honest effort to do some of them.

=^^=
.../\...

True Fascism is Italian Fascism (Odd that, while the Nazis are regarded as the biggest fascists, the people who actually had their movements name stolen and applied to the entire spectrum were their next door neighbors), but that is beside the point.
To use a broader, but still correct definition, fascism collects power to the state, a position not advocated at all in this peice, and is based on a master "group" (generally, the people of the nation it grows in), which doesn't exist in the Bill either (unless English speakers have recently become an exclusive group). A fascist seeks to use the government to protect the people from goddam niggers, godless commies, hedonistic capitalists, blood-sucking Jews, etc, and would never advocate a reduction in government resources/services.

Finally, it should be noted that XI (which brushes flirts with facism) was a (somewhat heretical, given the tone of the first 10 lines) addition.
Actually, this mix of Libertarianism and mysticism is characteristical of American fascism. I don't think you will meet an American Nazi who is not an advocate of states' rights, for example.
Even in general terms, Fascism may be regionalist and plurivocal, if it views the central organism as "the people itself". I'm talking here about people like Dolfuss, Petain, Maurras, Degrelle, Primo de Rivera Jr., many Italian fascists, Szalasi, Codreanu, Plinio Salgado, Vargas, Salazar etc.

he does miss the point though, that the whole reason to have constitutions of any kind is to protect the people from the government.


And vice versa. Noone wants tyranny by majority.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

HAHAHA!! Take Article 11 and SHOVE IT dumbass. Here are some quotes by our Founding Fathers:

Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.


“Point for point, the Founding Fathers’ argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans’ argument for dictatorship — but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being — not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man’s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
“This, in substance, was the American argument for man’s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.”
—Leonard Peikoff, “Religion vs. America,” The Voice of Reason


United States Constitution

The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Article VI, Section 3
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”


John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”


Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Taken from
http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html

Yay. I see Feudalism makes a return.

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Aye from GA. This guy should run for President one day.
What? You want another idiot President?

What a ranty constitution. The ONE thing I'm proud of in my lousy (RL)country is the health care system. Sure, there are lines for surgery, there are shortages, but it's free. Everyone has the right to get cured from a decease. If I was poor, I wouldn't want to die from an easily curable decease like, say, an inflamed appendix.

Seeing as the last two wasn't real, I won't say anything about them ohter than "What xenophobic, right-wing crap!"

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creat! ion of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
IV: Americans are not the most charitable people in the world. They are famed for opposition to helping the poor and thinking that the poor are all poor due to laziness (se the "American dream" fantasy).

For example, Irish people gave more per capita to Live Aid in 1985 than Americans. When Ireland was in a depression. In response to the tsunami disaster of 26/12/2004, British people gave more aid per capita than Americans.

V: Actually there is a right to free health care though it may not be in American law

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

X: The USA has no official language. I don't really see how this is a non-right though, unless it's "you have no right to speak anything but English"?

XI: This is just wrong, and hypocritical (trying to rewrite history). The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST was only added to money in 1954.

Doesn't it seem to you that fascists have aquired some basic literacy and are now trolling everywhere?
Mussolini had two degrees and was trilingual.

I've tried living on the street, have you?

I'm just making an assumption, but it occurs to me that the odds are you created the situation for yourself by your own actions. Therefore please tell me why I should waste my time caring for YOUR mistakes? If I feel like being charitable than I will be. People can demand all they want that I be, and it's their right, but I also have the right to tell you to piss off and get a job.

2nd: THE GOV'T DOES NOT HAVE TO HOUSE, CLEAN, OR FEED ANYONE. The gov't is required to defend it's citizens rights as guaranteed in the constitiution and the bill of rights (and that includes your right to be make mistakes and PAY THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ACTIONS). I absolutely loath people who think I (through my tax dollars) owe them. I we them nothing. I don't owe them health care, I don't owe them housing and I certainly don't owe them my money. Once again, If I feel like being charitable than I will be. :upyours:

3rd: Universal Health Care is a crock. In theory it's nice but in practise it simply doesn't work. What good is not having to pay for an operation if you have to wait so long it even more detritous to your health? My brother needed a replacement hip (this is back when I lived in toronto). He was told to wait 8 1/2 MONTHS for the operation to be done until the the operating schedule opened up. And this isn't some 3'rd world country were talking about here, it's CANADA. Until his surgery he was loaned a wheelchair.

The reason the US is among the worlds leader in health care is that the capitalist system works. The competition to make drugs cheaper, faster, and more effective in return for profits has proven it works. Oh, and incidentally, for anyone who says that surgeries are cost prohibitive, I say do your research. Here in Portland, OR there is a group of CATHOLIC hospitals that will take in anybody, regardless of their station in life and take care of them. If they can't afford to pay, then they will work with you. I had a hernia operation 6 months ago and since I don't have health insurance I was only able to offer $100 and I wanted to set up payments but the hospital said that because of where I am in my life that the $100 was fine and the hospital's private donations would pay the rest. Oh, and BTW the Providence Hospital System was ranked among the top 100 hositals in the country. So to anyone who dismisses the health care in this country without digging a little deeper, I say NAY,

The reason the US is among the worlds leader in health care is that the capitalist system works.


Sorry, but the US system works about as well as a piece of dog crap in a paper bag works as an air refresher.
I was in Florida, a number of time, staying with a close freind when her mother had to rush to the hospital in extreme pain with a very serious back and shoulder injury. The woman could barely stand, and they wouldn't send an ambulance. We had to drive her over an hour to the hospital only to sit in the waiting room 10 hours, of a large hospital in Ft.Lauderdale, with only 12 other people in the waiting room, despite that my freinds mother has a great insurance plan because she herself is a nurse. Then it took them two hours to examine her after they moved her to an examination room, and an hour to get the results back that she said should have taken only fifteen minutes.
Contrast that to my experiances of having my eustation tubes clogged here in Canada, hardly a life threatening or debilitating problem (although a damn painful one), when I had to rush to the hospital at 4am after some pretty heavy snow, and wait for a doctor to come in on call to examine me and pescribe some strong painkillers and relieve the clogging, all of which took 45 minutes.

As far as I'm concerned, Canada's free health care is better then the US's worthless system any day.
If it's clogged up in Ontario, maybe you should be blaming the people who abuse the system, rather then the system itself.

No, I really don't want a President that displays blatant ignorance of American history as well as our Constitution.

There should be some kind of basic health insurance plan for all Americans if they want it; if we put in a national insurance plan, everyone would benefit. Companies could save money by not needing to provide that coverage, everyone would be able to afford healthcare, and the privatized healthcare system's benefits would be retained while its drawbacks would be reduced.

Not to mention it would weaken the unions...

I'm just making an assumption, but it occurs to me that the odds are you created the situation for yourself by your own actions. Therefore please tell me why I should waste my time caring for YOUR mistakes? If I feel like being charitable than I will be. People can demand all they want that I be, and it's their right, but I also have the right to tell you to piss off and get a job.

2nd: THE GOV'T DOES NOT HAVE TO HOUSE, CLEAN, OR FEED ANYONE. The gov't is required to defend it's citizens rights as guaranteed in the constitiution and the bill of rights (and that includes your right to be make mistakes and PAY THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ACTIONS). I absolutely loath people who think I (through my tax dollars) owe them. I we them nothing. I don't owe them health care, I don't owe them housing and I certainly don't owe them my money. Once again, If I feel like being charitable than I will be. :upyours:

3rd: Universal Health Care is a crock. In theory it's nice but in practise it simply doesn't work. What good is not having to pay for an operation if you have to wait so long it even more detritous to your health? My brother needed a replacement hip (this is back when I lived in toronto). He was told to wait 8 1/2 MONTHS for the operation to be done until the the operating schedule opened up. And this isn't some 3'rd world country were talking about here, it's CANADA. Until his surgery he was loaned a wheelchair.

The reason the US is among the worlds leader in health care is that the capitalist system works. The competition to make drugs cheaper, faster, and more effective in return for profits has proven it works. Oh, and incidentally, for anyone who says that surgeries are cost prohibitive, I say do your research. Here in Portland, OR there is a group of CATHOLIC hospitals that will take in anybody, regardless of their station in life and take care of them. If they can't afford to pay, then they will work with you. I had a hernia operation 6 months ago and since I don't have health insurance I was only able to offer $100 and I wanted to set up payments but the hospital said that because of where I am in my life that the $100 was fine and the hospital's private donations would pay the rest. Oh, and BTW the Providence Hospital System was ranked among the top 100 hositals in the country. So to anyone who dismisses the health care in this country without digging a little deeper, I say NAY,
Such hypocrisy!! You don't want to be charitable but you willing except charity.

Your claim that "the US is among the worlds leader in health care" is a myth.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

And if drugs are cheaper in the US, why are so many Americans buying their drugs in Canada?

http://www.suddenlysenior.com/canadadrugnews.html

As far as your brother having to wait 8 months for a hip replacement that can be true, but there is no charge. If anyone in Canada is seriously ill and has to be hospitalized for a long period of time, there is ZERO charges.

You my friend are very fortunate that you found a "charitable" hospital to take care of you, especially since you are only one of 45 Million Americans without health care.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact

The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insur-ance. Because the uninsured are sicker than the rest of us, they can’t get better jobs, and because they can’t get better jobs they can’t afford health insurance, and because they can’t afford health insurance they get even sicker.

You my friend should be expressing graitude instead of looking down your nose at others?

I so give up on you people

Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

That's quite funny when you consider the point of no health care is to lower costs and reduce the size of government. :p

I can't understand nations that don't provide free health care. The idea that someone could be denied treatment because they can't afford it seems much more barbaric than having to wait for that treatment.

Incidentally, free health doesn't exist in a vacuum; you can still pay for private health care if that's what you desire. So, in effect, you get the best of worlds; universal health care, free at the point of use for everyone, but those who want the treatment sooner can still pay for it and get it quickly.

Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

Some of that has to do with Americans getting a lot of cosmetic surgery as well as spending money to treat conditions by medication rather than by more natural means like exercise/lifestyle changes. Also, we've got an incredibly large number of ambulance chasers that drive up the costs due to lawsuits they file to enrich themselves.

Some of that has to do with Americans getting a lot of cosmetic surgery as well as spending money to treat conditions by medication rather than by more natural means like exercise/lifestyle changes. Also, we've got an incredibly large number of ambulance chasers that drive up the costs due to lawsuits they file to enrich themselves.
The only thing that stands between Americans and universal healthcare is the lawyers' wallets and the plan administrators profits.

The only thing that stands between Americans and universal healthcare is the lawyers' wallets and the plan administrators profits.

Pretty much; the lawyers are the ones in Congress while the HMOs are the ones contributing to their campaigns.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Eww! Just Eww! Not eww in the sense that "ZOMG I'm a pagan God is evil!" No. Our country, the horrible Good Ol' USA, was founded by the beliefs of the classical period of Rome and Greece. Learn your history. The coinage of IN GOD WE TRUST didn't come around until the fifties during the whole morals morals morals trend.

Besides, our founding fathers were deist. What's that you ask? Simple. Deism in all its wonderful glory, is the belief of a God (Not the one true God, not Krishna, not Shiva...) who made the world and just sat back for the ride.

When will Christians realize that?!

I'm just making an assumption, but it occurs to me that the odds are you created the situation for yourself by your own actions. Therefore please tell me why I should waste my time caring for YOUR mistakes? If I feel like being charitable than I will be. People can demand all they want that I be, and it's their right, but I also have the right to tell you to piss off and get a job.Even if that assumption had been correct, all you'd accomplish would be to perpetuate the problem, and almost certainly make me a criminal.

Try to get this through that thick head of yours: people without basic necessities, such a food, shelter & health, aren't in any position to change their predicament, without resorting to crime.

If you're sleeping in the gutter, it's virtually impossible to show up for work. Besides, there's a few other issues as well, such as people being unwilling to hire people who reek & look like shit.

The rest of your greedy little rant have already been dealt with, so I won't bother.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(lastly...)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
Those last two are junk, the rest are good.

Incidentally:

You do not have the right to collectively monopolize and quaff fossile fuels around the world.

You do not have the right to collectively attack any nation that does not like you.

You do not have a right to materially or militarilly threaten other nations to cooperate with yours.

You do not have the right to establish a record breakling, eerily high state defecit, using negative diplomacy to protect your dollars from deserved inflation.

Seem some worthwile additions to that bill of non-rights that the people of the United States apparently need...

This article is largely a reflection of one of the great contradictions of American society. Under normal circumstances, people live between two extremes:

Extreme A: "You can be supported by someone else and be under their roof and all, but you play by their rules and do what they tell you."

Extreme B: "You can live as you please, lifestyle and all, but it's on your dime."

America expects people to live on their own dime, and that's great and all. We live in a society where people are encouraged to sneer at, avoid, and abuse the poor. People can give to charity, but they can't give directly to the homeless because the homeless are just going to spend it on beer and drugs. We hate taxes and consider the money we earn to be ours, yet we revere a book that tells us "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar," a quote from Jesus himself that tells us we need to pay our fucking taxes. But simply put, the government isn't there to help people financially.

So what is the government there to do? What do we pay our taxes for? Hmmm...so let's see. So the government isn't going to help me. I guess we're on Extreme B here. So if I choose to marry someone of the same sex, or if I choose to join the military while living with that same person, or hell, if my same-sex partner and I need a lift out of a disaster area because our car's in the shop having its fuel pump repaired, or even if I want to stay behind and hang onto my life, no biggie, right? Considering that the government has been working hard at institutionalized discrimination since the end of the Civil War, I wouldn't be so sure. The government arrests peaceful protesters, detains potentially innocent people without a charge or a trial, and has a history of busting into gay bars and rounding people up into police vans just for being at those bars (I refer to the Stonewall incidents that kicked off the gay rights movement.) We have a government that believes that the economy is not a priority and that banning gay marriage is. Simply put, the Bill of No Rights is appropriate.

Article I. You don't have the right to a job. If you're dirt poor, too bad. We'll just avoid your neighborhood and yell at you to get a job when we really wouldn't hire you to begin with.

Article II. You don't have the right to happiness. If drinking liquor and watching the world go by makes you happy, we don't want you to be happy. We want you in our factories and our fast-food restaurants working long hours for little pay. And no, we won't hire you to do so.

Article III. You don't have the right to your own lifestyle. You're expected to get married, get a job, and have kids, in that order. Oh yeah, and you have to get married to someon of the opposite sex. And you have to have your own kids, or we're going to look down our nose at you and patronize you for not being able to, even if you wanted to adopt. And you had damn well better make sure your kids are the same color as you are, or they're going to get beaten up at school while the principal watches and laughs.

Article IV. As a caveat to the last bit in Article III, you don't have the right to a quality education. You have the right to the best education your parents can buy you. And remember, no matter how badly you did, all people are going to remember is where you got into.

Article V. You don't have the right to a good sex life. As a society, we don't like to talk about sex. We sweep it under the rug. Sure, corporations like to exploit it for gain. Why do you suppose Viagra's so popular? But if you're on it, we don't want to hear about it. Keep it in the bedroom and the locker rooms.

Article VI. You don't have the right to free health care, and in some cases, you don't have the right to health care at all. In some countries, you can wait months for a procedure you really need, whereas here, because your HMO doesn't cover it, you can't get it at all.

Article VII. You don't have the right to keep your job. Your employer is bigger and uglier than you are, and if they want to send your job to some young whippersnapper in India who can do your job for pennies on the dollar, then I hope you like flipping burgers. And whatever you do, don't tell your employer you're gay.

Article VIII. You don't have the right to a fair trial. If you're charged with a crime, you better either make sure you're rich enough to get away with it, that you have a good alibi, or that you're willing to bust your ass cutting deals with the prosecution to give them who they really want. And if you're part of a group the government is "watching," it doesn't matter how innocent you are; your ass is grass.

Article IX. You don't have the right to what you pay for. Don't get too cozy in your new house; if Wal-Mart decides they can make more money for the state by buying it, you're out on your ear. And if someone takes your money, don't really expect your bank, your telephone company, or your credit card company to help you; why should they spend ther money just to help you get $1,000 some identity thief stole from you back? And don't call the police; all they're going to do is tell you there's nothing they can do while they prepare to write you a ticket for driving with a broken taillight.

Article X. You don't have the right to be respected. You're helping to cure cancer? You're a U.S. soldier who fought in Vietnam? You rescued people on 9/11? Great. No one cares. We'll cut your pay, think of reasons NOT to respect you, and even spit on you and call you a baby-killer. We would rather watch what Paris Hilton's doing. So what if she doesn't do anything? She's young, she's hot, and she's got lots of money.

OK, read, review, and flame.

The reason the US is among the worlds leader in health care is that the capitalist system works. The competition to make drugs cheaper, faster, and more effective in return for profits has proven it works. *snip*

Then why is the US infant mortality rate (7.0) higher than that of Cuba (6.3)?
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/serATab3.pdf

...
Did you come up with that yourself? If you did, I think you should have it published.

This article is largely a reflection of one of the great contradictions of American society. Under normal circumstances, people live between two extremes:

Extreme A: "You can be supported by someone else and be under their roof and all, but you play by their rules and do what they tell you."

Extreme B: "You can live as you please, lifestyle and all, but it's on your dime."

America expects people to live on their own dime, and that's great and all. We live in a society where people are encouraged to sneer at, avoid, and abuse the poor. People can give to charity, but they can't give directly to the homeless because the homeless are just going to spend it on beer and drugs. We hate taxes and consider the money we earn to be ours, yet we revere a book that tells us "Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar," a quote from Jesus himself that tells us we need to pay our fucking taxes. But simply put, the government isn't there to help people financially.

So what is the government there to do? What do we pay our taxes for? Hmmm...so let's see. So the government isn't going to help me. I guess we're on Extreme B here. So if I choose to marry someone of the same sex, or if I choose to join the military while living with that same person, or hell, if my same-sex partner and I need a lift out of a disaster area because our car's in the shop having its fuel pump repaired, or even if I want to stay behind and hang onto my life, no biggie, right? Considering that the government has been working hard at institutionalized discrimination since the end of the Civil War, I wouldn't be so sure. The government arrests peaceful protesters, detains potentially innocent people without a charge or a trial, and has a history of busting into gay bars and rounding people up into police vans just for being at those bars (I refer to the Stonewall incidents that kicked off the gay rights movement.) We have a government that believes that the economy is not a priority and that banning gay marriage is. Simply put, the Bill of No Rights is appropriate.

Article I. You don't have the right to a job. If you're dirt poor, too bad. We'll just avoid your neighborhood and yell at you to get a job when we really wouldn't hire you to begin with.

Article II. You don't have the right to happiness. If drinking liquor and watching the world go by makes you happy, we don't want you to be happy. We want you in our factories and our fast-food restaurants working long hours for little pay. And no, we won't hire you to do so.

Article III. You don't have the right to your own lifestyle. You're expected to get married, get a job, and have kids, in that order. Oh yeah, and you have to get married to someon of the opposite sex. And you have to have your own kids, or we're going to look down our nose at you and patronize you for not being able to, even if you wanted to adopt. And you had damn well better make sure your kids are the same color as you are, or they're going to get beaten up at school while the principal watches and laughs.

Article IV. As a caveat to the last bit in Article III, you don't have the right to a quality education. You have the right to the best education your parents can buy you. And remember, no matter how badly you did, all people are going to remember is where you got into.

Article V. You don't have the right to a good sex life. As a society, we don't like to talk about sex. We sweep it under the rug. Sure, corporations like to exploit it for gain. Why do you suppose Viagra's so popular? But if you're on it, we don't want to hear about it. Keep it in the bedroom and the locker rooms.

Article VI. You don't have the right to free health care, and in some cases, you don't have the right to health care at all. In some countries, you can wait months for a procedure you really need, whereas here, because your HMO doesn't cover it, you can't get it at all.

Article VII. You don't have the right to keep your job. Your employer is bigger and uglier than you are, and if they want to send your job to some young whippersnapper in India who can do your job for pennies on the dollar, then I hope you like flipping burgers. And whatever you do, don't tell your employer you're gay.

Article VIII. You don't have the right to a fair trial. If you're charged with a crime, you better either make sure you're rich enough to get away with it, that you have a good alibi, or that you're willing to bust your ass cutting deals with the prosecution to give them who they really want. And if you're part of a group the government is "watching," it doesn't matter how innocent you are; your ass is grass.

Article IX. You don't have the right to what you pay for. Don't get too cozy in your new house; if Wal-Mart decides they can make more money for the state by buying it, you're out on your ear. And if someone takes your money, don't really expect your bank, your telephone company, or your credit card company to help you; why should they spend ther money just to help you get $1,000 some identity thief stole from you back? And don't call the police; all they're going to do is tell you there's nothing they can do while they prepare to write you a ticket for driving with a broken taillight.

Article X. You don't have the right to be respected. You're helping to cure cancer? You're a U.S. soldier who fought in Vietnam? You rescued people on 9/11? Great. No one cares. We'll cut your pay, think of reasons NOT to respect you, and even spit on you and call you a baby-killer. We would rather watch what Paris Hilton's doing. So what if she doesn't do anything? She's young, she's hot, and she's got lots of money.

OK, read, review, and flame.
I can't flame what I'm agreeing with to the point of gut-laughing myself into a hernia.

Bravo.

Did you come up with that yourself? If you did, I think you should have it published.

Just rolled off the top of my head. Took me about an hour, and I was watching SportsCenter at the same time. And at the same time, my fiancee wanted me to wake her up, but I never did because I was wrapped up in writing this.

Next up, I'll take pictures of my dog and my cat wrestling.

That was some of the most scary stuff I've ever read...

That was some of the most scary stuff I've ever read...

What, the original post or what I wrote? I don't know what i was going for in my post, except for just being cynical and slightly insane.

I'm just making an assumption, but it occurs to me that the odds are you created the situation for yourself by your own actions. Therefore please tell me why I should waste my time caring for YOUR mistakes? If I feel like being charitable than I will be. People can demand all they want that I be, and it's their right, but I also have the right to tell you to piss off and get a job.

Must be nice to live in your fairy tale world where everyone who wants a job can get one, and not just ANY job, but a job that pays them what they want. You are probably a student who has not had to go out and find a job to support yourself. You probably think that you can just say "hey, i want to be a rock star/ NFL quarterback/ real estate tycoon and POOF the job appears before you with your name on it.

Get real. No one chooses to have a job that won't pay the bills. Not too many people say "I want to be homeless" or "i want a minimum wage job" or "I want to be a janitor". The choices you seem to think everyone has are a figment of your cold-hearted imagination.



3rd: Universal Health Care is a crock. In theory it's nice but in practise it simply doesn't work. What good is not having to pay for an operation if you have to wait so long it even more detritous to your health? My brother needed a replacement hip (this is back when I lived in toronto). He was told to wait 8 1/2 MONTHS for the operation to be done until the the operating schedule opened up. And this isn't some 3'rd world country were talking about here, it's CANADA. Until his surgery he was loaned a wheelchair.

Well, if I needed a hip replacement, I WOULDNT EVER GET ONE because i can't afford it. Its not right when some schmuck that never worked a day in his life because Daddy's money supports him gets first rate medical care, while I, who work two jobs to make ends meet can't afford to even go to the dentist, because that guy's Daddy won't pay me a living wage because he is a greedy f*** who is subsidizing his son to be a worthless SOB with the money he should be paying me.

The reason the US is among the worlds leader in health care is that the capitalist system works. The competition to make drugs cheaper, faster, and more effective in return for profits has proven it works. Oh, and incidentally, for anyone who says that surgeries are cost prohibitive, I say do your research. Here in Portland, OR there is a group of CATHOLIC hospitals that will take in anybody, regardless of their station in life and take care of them. If they can't afford to pay, then they will work with you. I had a hernia operation 6 months ago and since I don't have health insurance I was only able to offer $100 and I wanted to set up payments but the hospital said that because of where I am in my life that the $100 was fine and the hospital's private donations would pay the rest. Oh, and BTW the Providence Hospital System was ranked among the top 100 hositals in the country. So to anyone who dismisses the health care in this country without digging a little deeper, I say NAY,
okay, so who's gonna pay my trip to Portland?

In a perfect world where everyone can find a job they like, making the money they want, I would concede your points. Show me that world.

A state rep huh? I have some new rules!


Article IV, Ammendment 1: Representatives of the people shall not be paid with public funds. We are tired of our representatives taking large amounts of money away from the public trust to pay themselves for doing practically nothing.

Article V, Ammendment 1: Representatives of the people shall not have access to the healthcare provided to public officials.

Article XII: Lobbyists will be barred from giving money or gifts to representatives of the people.

Nevermind, I just woke up and thought Eutrusca posted this, misread the name.

I was a little shocked, but now I see its some no-account spammer.

Rubbish. Guaranteeing food & housing, makes sure that the disabled doesn't have to jump through hoops in hopes of being supported by people who may or may not feel inclined to help them survive.
Further more, people who doesn't have access to these basic necessities aren't in any position to seek out employment or education. I've tried living on the street, have you?

We should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, those with no way of getting up from the couch. And if you're laid off, maybe a couple months of help (if you need it) while you find another job. As for subsidizing people who don't feel like working, imo that's not cool.

Rubbish. Free health care means poor people don't die because they're poor. It means lower & middle class people don't risk a lifetime of financial ruin when they get sick or have an accident, and it means the disabled won't have to suck someone's asshole for "charity". If you value freedom, you value the freedom of the less fortunate, as well as your own.

Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it... free housing, free food and free health care = even less reason to work. Unemployment rises, socialism rises, economy suffers, more people lose jobs because more of their (and their employers') money is going to the lazy ones, investors have less money to invest (further hurting businesses)... it's a nasty chain of events that would occur to guarantee free health care. Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.

What exactly does that mean, in terms of capitalims, taxation & subsidies?The sole purpose of having a society, is to empower eachother to do what we can't do on our own. Especially in a corporatist ecomony, people can't all be self employed. That means people need the right to a job, because otherwise they can't all have one. Basically this article is plain murder, when there's no welfare system in place, and probably counter productive even if there is.

Far more people could be working if they went out and sought what was available. Hell, I'm not working anywhere near what I'd refer to as my dream job, but it allows me to buy what I need, gives me cheap health and dental care, some decent vacation time, and a nice 401(k) program option. Sometimes beggars can't be choosers (sounds cruel, but it's true). If it'll put food on the table, take it... work hard and who knows what doors could open?

Now what about a right to free education?

Nothing worth anything is free. Who would pay for it?

Article XIII: Due to the prohibition and faith in God in this wonderful country, the sky shall rain men every second Saturday at exactly 18:37 of every month. A rain-man must be caught in a wheelbarrow and brought to the local police station before 20.00 for registering for the cost of an average gigilo. Limit one man and one wheelbarrow per woman.

On the third Saturday, men may be allowed to remove one of their ribs to be magically transformed into a woman between 08.00 and 17.00 if one places it on Ben Franklin's grave. The woman will can be returned within the next ninty days if the woman's partner if unstaisfied. Rib-women may not be traded or sold under any circumstances. Rib-women are not transformed into ribs upon return.

Article IV, Ammendment 1: Representatives of the people shall not be paid with public funds. We are tired of our representatives taking large amounts of money away from the public trust to pay themselves for doing practically nothing.

they really do lots of things. its just that none of it is of any value.

Article XIII: Due to the prohibition and faith in God in this wonderful country, the sky shall rain men every second Saturday at exactly 18:37 of every month. A rain-man must be caught in a wheelbarrow and brought to the local police station before 20.00 for registering for the cost of an average gigilo. Limit one man and one wheelbarrow per woman.

On the third Saturday, men may be allowed to remove one of their ribs to be magically transformed into a woman between 08.00 and 17.00 if one places it on Ben Franklin's grave. The woman will can be returned within the next ninty days if the woman's partner if unstaisfied. Rib-women may not be traded or sold under any circumstances. Rib-women are not transformed into ribs upon return.

hehe

and every Friday at 18:37, a beautiful woman knocks on my door.

Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it... free housing, free food and free health care = even less reason to work. Unemployment rises, socialism rises, economy suffers, more people lose jobs because more of their (and their employers') money is going to the lazy ones, investors have less money to invest (further hurting businesses)... it's a nasty chain of events that would occur to guarantee free health care. Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.


Son I'm going to simply refer you to the UK employment rate of around 5% which has council housing, free healthcare and all sorts of extensive welfare programs.

Surely, the UK should be suffering from MASSIVE unemployment problems? I'm mighty confused here Frangface, please explain this little result

The way America should be?
Another part of the British (http://static.flickr.com/21/24292040_70c617a732_o.jpg) Empire (http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T012876A.gif) in which it was a minor colony and would not have existed without our expansion.

Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.

Retirees. People who have just lost their jobs. Part-time workers. Students. Recent divorcees who were on their spouse's insurance. There are plenty of groups of people who don't have anything that would resemble affordable health insurance, and I talk to them every day.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

But if you're Christian, you have the right to ban anything that offends you. Freedom is freedom to live as the Church demands, and not as you desire!

And it has the be the right Church. Gotta live according to my churches rules, not any other interpretation of the Bible.


ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God....

While He's mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution avoids talking about him at all.

In fact, I thought this country was founded on the principles that people in power tend to cause too much trouble, so an inefficient government with many limitations is best!

The way America should be?
Thank Rome for your sweetness. Not to mention the Saxons, the Jutes, the Celts, the Normans ...

The spammer responsible for this thread should have just posted "RAHOWA" and saved everyone the trouble.

Thank Rome for your sweetness. Not to mention the Saxons, the Jutes, the Celts, the Normans ...
:confused:

If you are referring to me conerting the original post into a question then the point is little clearer.

If you are referring to me conerting the original post into a question then the point is little clearer.
Twas refering to this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10530675&postcount=60
Joking and making a point. Sort of.

Retirees. People who have just lost their jobs. Part-time workers. Students. Recent divorcees who were on their spouse's insurance. There are plenty of groups of people who don't have anything that would resemble affordable health insurance, and I talk to them every day.

That's true; not to mention that many companies are becoming increasingly incapable of meeting their healthcare benefits due to rising costs and the overzealous, if not greedy, demands of their union workers (GM/Delphi come to mind). A national insurance plan, supported by taxes and/or premium payments would relieve companies of that burden and then as a result lead to stronger economic and employment growth.

From an economic standpoint, it's a great idea. HMOs would have to compete with the government, and more competition (even from the public sector) is a good thing.

Twas refering to this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10530675&postcount=60
Joking and making a point. Sort of.
I still fail to see why you were referring to it and wha's so funny.
I've got toilet paper hanging out of my trousers haven't I? Damn.

The spammer responsible for this thread should have just posted "RAHOWA" and saved everyone the trouble.
Obviously, somebody who posts about personal responsibility and what the government shouldn't do for people, who never so much as mentions race, is a racist and a Nazi. Obviously.
:rolleyes:
Interesting debate tactic though.

I still fail to see why you were referring to it and wha's so funny.
The usual, "If Great Britian didn't have an empire the USA wouldn't exist," arguement. Are you even a UKite?

Sorry, but the US system works about as well as a piece of dog crap in a paper bag works as an air refresher.
I was in Florida, a number of time, staying with a close freind when her mother had to rush to the hospital in extreme pain with a very serious back and shoulder injury. The woman could barely stand, and they wouldn't send an ambulance. We had to drive her over an hour to the hospital only to sit in the waiting room 10 hours, of a large hospital in Ft.Lauderdale, with only 12 other people in the waiting room, despite that my freinds mother has a great insurance plan because she herself is a nurse. Then it took them two hours to examine her after they moved her to an examination room, and an hour to get the results back that she said should have taken only fifteen minutes.
Contrast that to my experiances of having my eustation tubes clogged here in Canada, hardly a life threatening or debilitating problem (although a damn painful one), when I had to rush to the hospital at 4am after some pretty heavy snow, and wait for a doctor to come in on call to examine me and pescribe some strong painkillers and relieve the clogging, all of which took 45 minutes.

As far as I'm concerned, Canada's free health care is better then the US's worthless system any day.
If it's clogged up in Ontario, maybe you should be blaming the people who abuse the system, rather then the system itself.While I sympathize with your friend's mother's experience, your anecdotal evidence is hardly a basis for the condemnation of the entire US health care system. While it may be true that people occassionally have bad experiences in US hospitals and good experiences in Canadian hospitals, by and large the wait for treatment in Canada not only far exceeds that in the US, it also contributes to further health problems and death in some circumstances. It also costs far more than it does here.

March 11, 2004 The Globe and Mail: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040311%2FCANCER11%2FTPHealth%2F&ord=1141581001757&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)
Text (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cancer.html)
We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1809962005)
Figures show more patients waiting for operations (http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1498761,00.html?gusrc=rss)
British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36592)
A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine (http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html)
Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271)
Canadian health care is free and first-class -- if you can wait (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canfreeandfirst.html)
A boy's plight, a nation's problem (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canboysplight.html)
Surgery backlog tops 5,500 at kids' hospitals;One-year waits common (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canbacklog.html)
Ontario hospitals a health risk (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/healthrisk.html)

Just a few of the associated costs and health concerns of Nationalized health care. Why sould we put our lives and health care choices in the hads of politicians?

Obviously, somebody who posts about personal responsibility and what the government shouldn't do for people, who never so much as mentions race, is a racist and a Nazi. Obviously.
:rolleyes:
Interesting debate tactic though.

See Articles X and XI.

See Articles X and XI.
X is not wrong though. Seeing as English is the country's official language, it should be for anyone wanting to enter the country to learn it, either before or whilst in the country. This has nothing to do with race at all.

See Articles X and XI.
Both of which are junk, but neither of which are Nazi.
Article X is about the official language issue, if I'm reading it right, stating that everybody in the US should be forced to learn English or leave. Stupid, but I don't see how it's racist.

I don't see how Article XI has anything to do with race.

The usual, "If Great Britian didn't have an empire the USA wouldn't exist," arguement. Are you even a UKite?

Pure Britis Through and Through. America would exist, but the country as it is very most probably wouldn't. Besides, We might have to call it the Vereinigten Staaten if they chose to speak German, Which would have been offensive and insulting since they had English Roots. And the reasons they split from the Empire were silly. They paid less tax than the Homeland did, and they were smaller than many other places in the homeland without representation.
Overall theoretically I believe that if we quelled the usurper the we could've prevented the disbanding of our glorious empire. God bless the Queen! (http://www.torontoist.com/attachments/sarah/revival_queen_victoria.jpg)

X is not wrong though. Seeing as English is the country's official language, it should be for anyone wanting to enter the country to learn it, either before or whilst in the country. This has nothing to do with race at all.

That's not what it's implying. It's stating that if you don't want to learn the official language, pack your bags.

It's funny that the rest of it speaks of freedom, and then it bombards you with bullshit like that.

Just rolled off the top of my head. Took me about an hour, and I was watching SportsCenter at the same time. And at the same time, my fiancee wanted me to wake her up, but I never did because I was wrapped up in writing this.

Next up, I'll take pictures of my dog and my cat wrestling.

Jesus said to pay taxes, because to not pay them would be a criminal act. He said to obey laws, generally. Don't try to make Him look like a socialist based on that. He was in favor of personal charitable giving.

Obviously, somebody who posts about personal responsibility and what the government shouldn't do for people, who never so much as mentions race, is a racist and a Nazi. Obviously.
:rolleyes:
Interesting debate tactic though.


Where there's smoke there's fire.

This isn't the first time the forum has been spammed by provocateurs like this clown.

X is not wrong though. Seeing as English is the country's official language, it should be for anyone wanting to enter the country to learn it, either before or whilst in the country. This has nothing to do with race at all.
*cough*
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/question.htm
*cough*

That's not what it's implying. It's stating that if you don't want to learn the official language, pack your bags.

It's funny that the rest of it speaks of freedom, and then it bombards you with bullshit like that.
Well not learning the language will get you nowhere if the majority speaks it, so in effect you might as well do so. The burden would fall on you to learn it really, not the entirety of the population to learn your language.

That's not what it's implying. It's stating that if you don't want to learn the official language, pack your bags.
I don't see what that has to do with race. Italians and Germans would be kicked out just as much as would Hispanics and Blacks.
It's funny that the rest of it speaks of freedom, and then it bombards you with bullshit like that.
Agreed.

Both of which are junk, but neither of which are Nazi.
Article X is about the official language issue, if I'm reading it right, stating that everybody in the US should be forced to learn English or leave. Stupid, but I don't see how it's racist.

I don't see how Article XI has anything to do with race.

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.

2: Many darker-skinned people belong to other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. Many Asians are also Buddhists, which isn't exactly a religion, but it counts.

That's not what it's implying. It's stating that if you don't want to learn the official language, pack your bags.

It's funny that the rest of it speaks of freedom, and then it bombards you with bullshit like that.

I think it meant more that English should be used exclusively in public... EG, on signs.

*cough*
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/question.htm
*cough*
So then, what is the primary language of at least above 70% of the American population?

So then, what is the primary language of at least above 70% of the American population?


Kind of interesting how when they founded the US, they deliberately and specifically decided not to have an official language.

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.
Blacks in the US speak English, do they not? As well as many Asians. Xenophobic, maybe. Racist? No.

2: Many darker-skinned people belong to other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. Many Asians are also Buddhists, which isn't exactly a religion, but it counts.
And many darker people belong to Christianity too.

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.

2: Many darker-skinned people belong to other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. Many Asians are also Buddhists, which isn't exactly a religion, but it counts.

It's not racist. It's discriminating on the basis of language, not skin color... regardless of the effect of the discrimination. The motivation is not racist.

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.

2: Many darker-skinned people belong to other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. Many Asians are also Buddhists, which isn't exactly a religion, but it counts.

This is confusing me now, when did darker skinned stop meaning black?

Go America! Woohoo.

Kind of interesting how when they founded the US, they deliberately and specifically decided not to have an official language.
In ideological terms, fine. In the real world? What do the majority of Americans speak?

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.

2: Many darker-skinned people belong to other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. Many Asians are also Buddhists, which isn't exactly a religion, but it counts.
Those arguments don't hold true. If I said that people who didn't like rap were racist, because many rappers are black, would that be a true statement?

Blacks in the US speak English, do they not? As well as many Asians. Xenophobic, maybe. Racist? No.


And many darker people belong to Christianity too.

Hm, both are true. I didn't think about that, really.

Though when you do think about it, it's just as bad (and stupid) as racism.

Hm, both are true. I didn't think about that, really.

Though when you do think about it, it's just as bad (and stupid) as racism.
The part on language may be born of practical need, although if the country does not have an official language it would be little more than a recommendation. The other bit though, yeah it is kind of stupid.

Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it

dude, are you even trying anymore?

dude, are you even trying anymore?

Doesn't seem like it.

- snippy -
Something would exist there, that's for sure. German could very well have become the every-day-tongue. There were many German immigrants in the States. But, the USA of today has Spanish, Dutch, French, First Nation, and immigrant roots. As of today, the States has no official language. Anyhow, part of being American is hating taxes and those East Coasters like tea.

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't have been a revolution, or why we should continue speaking English for that matter.

So then, what is the primary language of at least above 70% of the American population?
Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to?
Its not official, its "defacto" and that can change.

Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to?
Its not official, its "defacto" and that can change.
That can change, yet what I am trying to establish here is what is the practicality of entering a country where the majority of the language speakers are English, if you are not willing to learn their language? I don't think it's even logical to expect the majority to learn every language under the Sun just so they can communicate with every immigrant who enters the country. Language learning is a boon, yet there are logical limits to it, in terms of how many, and even which, languages to learn.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Agreed all except the last one. The founding fathers where mostly diests who believed God set everything in motion than sat back and watched. This uninvolved God is very different than the God of the religious right. The religious right wants the right to mark the country with thier symbols than claim that the presense of the symbols gives them a right to any Bible based law they want.

I love it xp

Hmm..one of many delusional right wing libertarians who actually believes that if the government does absolutely nothing, the economy will work out absolutely perfectly by itself.

Reads like satire. This is one of those people who thinks that the wealthy are more entitled to even more wealth solely on the basis that they're skilled at taking it than the poor, who are poor by no fault of their own, are entitled to a reasonably decent standard of living.

With our elected government, if 50% of the people felt strongly about not paying taxes to help out the unfortunate (You know..those of use WITHOUT millionaire parents), they would elect people who would do so.

Conservatives like this guy need to stop whining about having to pay a slightly higher tax rate to make the lives of everyone better.

I do agree with him on some of the minor points though. We need an end to frivelous lawsuits and make people personally accountable for their actions. Besides that..this guy is delusional.

Lets see, your a liberal, and leftwing of course, your sort of an idiot, and how the hell is this racist?

Right on

You can tell this guy is from the south - he's the perfect redneck.

I like how he labels everyone he doesn't like a "liberal." In the Virginia race for Governer, the Redneck.... erm... Republican cadidate used the term "liberal" as a bad thing. One advertisement was the democratic cadidate saying "I'm a liberal and proud." The sad thing is that you can get ignorant, xenophobic rednecks to gasp to that.

Article XI is wrong, we wernt founded on Christianity and "In God We Trust" was added to money in the 1950s and isnt our official motto, "E Pluribus Unum" is. But I do agree with a lot of the other stuff.

You are an idiot. This country was founded by Christains. The whole thing started when one part of the Christian church split from the Roman Catholic part, and came here! They don't have the right to change our religous beliefs. This country is, the last time I checked, 87% Christian, but the government seems to care more about the Jews and Minorities more than 87% of the country. That is ridiculous.

That can change, yet what I am trying to establish here is what is the practicality of entering a country where the majority of the language speakers are English, if you are not willing to learn their language? I don't think it's even logical to expect the majority to learn every language under the Sun just so they can communicate with every immigrant who enters the country. Language learning is a boon, yet there are logical limits to it, in terms of how many, and even which, languages to learn.
If one is not willing to learn the defacto language of the country, then why bother moving to that country? Lets just say that there was a large enough immigrant or native population that was not willing to do that. That would encourage the majority of Americans (as some of us are bilingual) to pick up the slack and not just study a language, but gain fluency in it.

By this I mean, it is totally possible for an English speaker to move to Finland and never even bother learning Finnish or Swedish. Where's the practicality in that if everyone can already communicate well enough in English, with the English speaking immigrant? However, if one wishes to thrive in the new environment, one must conform somewhat. In the US, those immigrants that don't learn the language get to pick berries and do menial jobs we won't stoop to for the most part.

As far as which languages to learn, that's hard. I would like an international language, more multicultural than Esperanto, to communicate. Why? English is not an international language. Its the English language. Its nature is that of a native lanuage. Oh, I could go on for some time on this, but I must digress. Anyhow, in the Western Hemisphere, if one has English, Spanish, French, and Portugues one can speak with almost the entire population. That is not that many languages, and all have distinct similarities: they all use the same alphabet. I don't think its that hard, it just requires some sweat time.

I would go on to say that American-English will be sooner or later more influenced by Latin American Spanish, and one day, the English language will more or less resemble the Nordic languages Swedish, Danish, and Norweigan as the decades pass on by. Languages all in their own, but yet can be understood without learning the other languages through and through. There's already a notable difference in African English, from what I've noticed.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!
Go go gadget 50-year old heritage.

You are an idiot.

Oh, the irony.

dude, are you even trying anymore?

huh?

It logically follows that with free health care, people would have less incentive to work, and some (probably not very many, or at least one can hope) would take advantage of the increased public largesse.

Go go gadget 50-year old heritage.

Gold.

If one is not willing to learn the defacto language of the country, then why bother moving to that country? Lets just say that there was a large enough immigrant or native population that was not willing to do that. That would encourage the majority of Americans (as some of us are bilingual) to pick up the slack and not just study a language, but gain fluency in it.
That would refer to a major change in the de facto language to begin with. I am referring more to situations of isolated immigration.

By this I mean, it is totally possible for an English speaker to move to Finland and never even bother learning Finnish or Swedish. Where's the practicality in that if everyone can already communicate well enough in English, with the English speaking immigrant? However, if one wishes to thrive in the new environment, one must conform somewhat. In the US, those immigrants that don't learn the language get to pick berries and do menial jobs we won't stoop to for the most part.
Which would be my point. It would be more practical to learn the country's de facto language, or official one if it has one.

As far as which languages to learn, that's hard. I would like an international language, more multicultural than Esperanto, to communicate. Why? English is not an international language. Its the English language. Its nature is that of a native lanuage. Oh, I could go on for some time on this, but I must digress. Anyhow, in the Western Hemisphere, if one has English, Spanish, French, and Portugues one can speak with almost the entire population. That is not that many languages, and all have distinct similarities: they all use the same alphabet. I don't think its that hard, it just requires some sweat time.
And German. Most people can barely learn past two languages, let alone 5. This is further complicated by the existence of the Slavic languages, such as Russian, and the potential of a vast number of immigrants coming from the Far East, whose languages differ significantly from indo-european ones.

I would go on to say that American-English will be sooner or later more influenced by Latin American Spanish, and one day, the English language will more or less resemble the Nordic languages Swedish, Danish, and Norweigan as the decades pass on by. Languages all in their own, but yet can be understood without learning the other languages through and through. There's already a notable difference in African English, from what I've noticed.
It would depend on which African English you are referring to. If you mean South African English, it does not differ too much from that spoken in Britain.

I agree though that English will probably one day return to its Germanic origins.

huh?

It logically follows that with free health care, people would have less incentive to work, and some (probably not very many, or at least one can hope) would take advantage of the increased public largesse.

"woohoo! now that i won't go bankrupt if i get cancer, i no longer have to pay rent!"

I am referring more to situations of isolated immigration.
I'm referring to Latin American immigration, to be completly honest. Its country wide.
And German. Most people can barely learn past two languages, let alone 5. This is further complicated by the existence of the Slavic languages, such as Russian, and the potential of a vast number of immigrants coming from the Far East, whose languages differ significantly from indo-european ones.
German? Really, where?

Thus the need for a multicultural-international language to be used worldwide.
I agree though that English will probably one day return to its Germanic origins.
I personally rather it didn't, but I wouldn't mind if all of the "Germanic" languages returned to their proto-Germanic roots and made it all the more easier. The same goes for every other language. Get back to the roots. For example, "Ugh! Oog ook!"

I'm referring to Latin American immigration, to be completly honest. Its country wide.
What percentage of the population does it account for? Official estimates of the Economist say that by 2030 or so, the US will be 20% Hispanic.

German? Really, where?
Maybe not so much in the US, but in the EU its the language of over 100 million of our citizens.

Thus the need for a multicultural-international language to be used worldwide.
Which would be lovely, but on which bases would one create it? Which alphabet would be used? The are so many languages in the world that creating one with common features to most would be difficult at best. Esperanto failed in Europe, and it was based off indo-european languages (maybe the use of Latin as the EU's primary language would have been wiser).

I personally rather it didn't, but I wouldn't mind if all of the "Germanic" languages returned to their proto-Germanic roots and made it all the more easier. The same goes for every other language. Get back to the roots. For example, "Ugh! Oog ook!"
Nah, I like them more or less as they are :p

Maybe not so much in the US, but in the EU its the language of over 100 million of our citizens.
Oh, in Europe. Swedish. Much better that. :p
Which would be lovely, but on which bases would one create it? Which alphabet would be used? The are so many languages in the world that creating one with common features to most would be difficult at best. Esperanto failed in Europe, and it was based off indo-european languages (maybe the use of Latin as the EU's primary language would have been wiser).
Well, there are a number of proffessor fluffs that just sit around and collect dust from every country in the world that could work that out for us. It'll take time, a very long time, for something like this to come about. I'm just before my time.
Nah, I like them more or less as they are :p
Krook-krook!

You are an idiot. This country was founded by Christains. The whole thing started when one part of the Christian church split from the Roman Catholic part, and came here! They don't have the right to change our religous beliefs. This country is, the last time I checked, 87% Christian, but the government seems to care more about the Jews and Minorities more than 87% of the country. That is ridiculous.
That's funny, last time I checked, the Puritans weren't the only ones that came. All of the other colonists seem to have escaped you.

Once you address that, you can go on to addressing why some group being the first ones here is equivalent to the country which came much later being founded on their beliefs.

No, I just thought that people's IQs had fallen yet again. I am more worried about the recent flux in noobs. I have counted at least eight people with post counts under twenty, and several other use teh noob emoticons::mp5:, :upyours:, :sniper:, and :gundge:. I cannot imagine what this means for our children.

I STILL prefer :headbang:, but thats the n00b in me all the same...

Oh, in Europe. Swedish. Much better that. :p
I actually plan on learning it. Sweden is the place to be nowadays. :p There, or Switzerland, which my French should cover for anyways.

Well, there are a number of proffessor fluffs that just sit around and collect dust from every country in the world that could work that out for us. It'll take time, a very long time, for something like this to come about. I'm just before my time.
Might as well put the fossils to good use then.

I actually plan on learning it. Sweden is the place to be nowadays. :p There, or Switzerland, which my French should cover for anyways.
I learned my Swedish in Finland. Gå Suomi! :)

lets see, rightwing of course, sorta cryptically racist... historically inaccurate and at least a bit contadictory.

He does have a point about the language though. Even though America was originally made up of French, Spanish, Italian (I think) and other colonialists English is the country's official language. There are few things that make you feel more unwelcome in your own country than walking through familiar streets and not understanding a word people say, not to mention if they can't actually speak the language.

Personally i like alot of this but i would rewrite articles IV and V, and remove X and XI as they seem to have an extremely distored view of how language and culture evolve.

I learned my Swedish in Finland. Gå Suomi! :)
Well I wouldn't want to have to learn Finnish. It seems a nightmare of a language to master.

Well I wouldn't want to have to learn Finnish. It seems a nightmare of a language to master.
You don't have to. Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. So when a Finn says:

"Suomessa puhutaan suomea!"

They're wrong. Every Finn can also speak English, some can Swedish, other languages, too.

What is sad now is that Liberals and Communists, not that they are the same group of people, have nothing to bash Republicans/Conservatives/Rightwings on anymore so they pull out hurtful words such as 'The Rightwing is just a bunch of Fascists'.

Really, grow up you little children.

Infact, all of you grow up.

The very first post I am sure was supposed to be a joke, but then it shows you how much the Liftwing has lost it's sence of humour. Whenever something comes out by a Rightwing Person, you turn it into hate and say it targets a certain race and that it tries to demean other people.

So I go back to this -

Grow up.

You don't have to. Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. So when a Finn says:

"Suomessa puhutaan suomea!"

They're wrong. Every Finn can also speak English, some can Swedish, other languages, too.
I know. :) And apparently, if you can speak Swedish, you can communicate reasonably well with Norwegians and Danes too.

True Fascism is Italian Fascism (Odd that, while the Nazis are regarded as the biggest fascists, the people who actually had their movements name stolen and applied to the entire spectrum were their next door neighbors), but that is beside the point.
To use a broader, but still correct definition, fascism collects power to the state, a position not advocated at all in this peice, and is based on a master "group" (generally, the people of the nation it grows in), which doesn't exist in the Bill either (unless English speakers have recently become an exclusive group). A fascist seeks to use the government to protect the people from goddam niggers, godless commies, hedonistic capitalists, blood-sucking Jews, etc, and would never advocate a reduction in government resources/services.
Your definition of fascism is somewhat biased and incorrect.
Fascism is based on Nietzsche super-man (teh individual) and would damn well advocate a reduction in government resources/services if that furthered their own goals.

What is sad now is that Liberals and Communists, not that they are the same group of people, have nothing to bash Republicans/Conservatives/Rightwings on anymore so they pull out hurtful words such as 'The Rightwing is just a bunch of Fascists'.
Really, grow up you little children.
Infact, all of you grow up.
The very first post I am sure was supposed to be a joke, but then it shows you how much the Liftwing has lost it's sence of humour. Whenever something comes out by a Rightwing Person, you turn it into hate and say it targets a certain race and that it tries to demean other people.
You call that nothing? *gulp*
Make an holocaust joke while you're at it.

And in a perfect world, with a psychic justice system, the death penalty would be fine by me. Idiotic shit like Mumia doesn't exactly make the death punishment appealing

what about bluntly wrong cases like:

and your lunch, potentially (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm).

Words fail me.

I am not one to see justice as good/bad fence, stealing bread from a huge grocery chain for your starving family isn't a black and white issue! ...but there IS rare bad people (and rare good) as a pure... we need draconian measures for the truely few horrible people out there! (although the death penalty SHOULD be limited to only those cases)

We should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, those with no way of getting up from the couch. And if you're laid off, maybe a couple months of help (if you need it) while you find another job. As for subsidizing people who don't feel like working, imo that's not cool. <Snip>A home & enough food live, are essential for everyone. If people are in a situation where they can't provide such things for themselves, those things should be provided for them.

If such a basic system isn't enough to force people to spend every waking moment looking for work, to escape their hellish lives, it can only be because of one of two things:
Either the government have failed to provide them with an opportunity to work, or they're disabled from lack of access to sufficient health care.

Nobody in their right mind would want to live in some shoddy 1 room apartment & have nothing but emergency rations & pocket money for toilet paper. It's only a minimal improvement over prison - an American prison, that is. Prisons here are far preferrable.


Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it.Eh? I don't follow. Who would become unemployed exactly? A couple of ensurance company CEOs?


.. free housing, free food and free health care = even less reason to work.Funny you mention that. Where I'm living, the private sector is starting to complain about dangerously low unemployment levels. The reason being that they can't find qualified workers & thus growth in the private sector might soon be compromised.

Strangely, it's perfectly possible to live off the state throughout your life in this country. You'll be encouraged to work, but as far as I can tell, no-one will actually force you, or remove your privileges if you don't.

And yet the unemployment rate is so low that the private sector, of all, are complaining. Something tells me your analysis of causes for unemployment doesn't have much to doo with humans.

I'll let you in on a well known non-secret: people go insane when they don't have anything to do. If you were around in the early 80s, you might have noticed how the lack of jobs didn't go down to well in the UK.

Unemployment rises, socialism rises, economy suffers, more people lose jobs because more of their (and their employers') money is going to the lazy ones, investors have less money to invest (further hurting businesses)... it's a nasty chain of events that would occur to guarantee free health care. Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.Don't worry, I have a job. I'm even one of the lucky ones that don't have problems finding work. I had once, many years ago, but I had the opportunity to learn a trade. Since then, I've pretty much chosen my jobs. Unlike you though, I pay my taxes with a smile, because I've tried needing the things they pay for, without getting them. It isn't fun, and it is far, far more work than any job I've ever had.

Maybe you should get off your lazy ass & try what life is like without money & a safety net. Nah, it's probably not a good idea. You'd likely resort to mugging people... But I digress.

I'm still wondering where these exploding unemployment rates would come from. Are they like God, maybe - only visible to a select few?
I don't know what exactly it is you have against socialism. You've chosen to live in a society with a government. That means the government either kills a hell of a lot of people & makes even more people's lives a living hell... Or it carries out some moderate social policies.
It's cheaper too. Currently your health insurance industry is ripping you off on three fronts: Government, the private sector & individual people.

But it isn't cost effective. It isn't even moderately competitive. All it does is cost you an unreasonable amount of money, while killing & maiming people. The only way to avoid all that shit, is to be so monstrously rich that taxes aren't an issue & you can afford to live without insurance. And barring some 2-5% of your population, it isn't an option.

Far more people could be working if they went out and sought what was available. Hell, I'm not working anywhere near what I'd refer to as my dream job, but it allows me to buy what I need, gives me cheap health and dental care, some decent vacation time, and a nice 401(k) program option. Sometimes beggars can't be choosers (sounds cruel, but it's true). If it'll put food on the table, take it... work hard and who knows what doors could open?If far more people could be working, trade associations would be bitching about the lack of workers. I only hear them bitch about salaries, but maybe it's like the thing with God?

In any case, you must have missed something. I never mentioned anything about people having a right to be dipped in gold & fed grapes by oiled up naked guys. All I said was they had a right to work. Work being any sort of job that pays enough to sustain life. If your govenrment isn't there to make sure you lot can provide for yourselves & live your lives, what the hell is the point of it?

And if you could work more, but don't.. Well good for you. I could work more as well, but since I'm in a position to get a job whenever I need one, with very little waiting involved, I don't. I have all the money I need & I'd rather do volunteer work & travel. It's a personal choice, just like the one you've made.



Nothing worth anything is free. Who would pay for it?It basically pays for itself. You, as a collective, invest in the workforce. When your company needs to replace you with a more skilled worker, they can simply ask you to educate yourself instead. In most cases, it saves the company money, because almost any sort of new employee is a fairly steep investment & takes up just as much time as your extra education would. Modern countries do stuff like that.. But that's just the most immediate benefit.

Being able to send some unemployed git off to educate himself in a field with a lot of unemployment, is not only great because the guy will pay for his own education through the taxes he'll start paying, stop being a parasite on the social system, and not go insane from lack of anything meaningful to do, it's also a pretty good deal for both your society in general & whatever company that ends up hiring him, in particular. It helps your society, because it's one potentially criminal layabout less for you to worry about, and one immigant less you have to integrate. The immigrant reason is also why it's beneficial for the company in question. It won't have to import a worker & spend twice as much time & money on integrating him into the work environment.

And of course, it is an over all boost to your society & future generations. You'll instantly rid yourselves of the rut that is a population that doesn't know whether the sun revolves around the Earth, or vice versa. And your comming generations might just be skilled enough for your companies not to move all jobs out of the country. Of course, that last bit is probalbly too late already.
Still, it'll go a long way towards removing negative social inheritance. Poor people can suddenly start becomming academics in a serious way, like the rich & moderately rich do today. I know it's not nearly as oppressive towards the working class, but.. It'll help resolve your crime problem - and that's something, isn't it?

Your economy, regardless of how mismanaged it is, is pretty solid. Making the investment & providing unlimited education for all your peoples, will help insure you lot can crawl back up to the top of the "cutting edge" podium. And that is what'll keep your economy safe in the future. Nothing else can. Your cost of living is too high to compete with the workers of other countries, when yours are just as, if not more, ignorant & useless.

I've got a couple of comments to make about that thing.

"The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history".

Actually, it's not. It was only added during World War Two. Heritage and history my ass. :rolleyes:

"You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair."

Hmmm....... you do not have the right to physically harm other people. Shouldn't that also extend to the government? Oh, wait, then you can't do the death penalty without looking like a giant hypocrite, you murdering scumbags. :upyours:

You do not have the right to collectively monopolize and quaff fossile fuels around the world.

You do not have the right to collectively attack any nation that does not like you.

You do not have a right to materially or militarilly threaten other nations to cooperate with yours.

You do not have the right to establish a record breakling, eerily high state defecit, using negative diplomacy to protect your dollars from deserved inflation.


funny how that never makes it in.... :rolleyes:

Pure Britis Through and Through. America would exist, but the country as it is very most probably wouldn't. Besides, We might have to call it the Vereinigten Staaten if they chose to speak German, Which would have been offensive and insulting since they had English Roots. And the reasons they split from the Empire were silly. They paid less tax than the Homeland did, and they were smaller than many other places in the homeland without representation.
Overall theoretically I believe that if we quelled the usurper the we could've prevented the disbanding of our glorious empire. God bless the Queen! (http://www.torontoist.com/attachments/sarah/revival_queen_victoria.jpg)
America would still exist. I would just be French, which is kinda funny.

Free education:
Nothing worth anything is free. Who would pay for it?
There are a couple of good models that make sense.

The first is practiced in my country. Education at primary, secondary and third level (i.e. universities, technical colleges) is free because the government pays the tuition fees. The money to pay for this comes, as far as I know, from income taxes (charged at 20% and 42%) and corporate taxes (charged at 12.5%). This is beneficial because this way our universities churn out plenty of quality graduates that come from various sectors of society, not just the upper class. This is good because with such an educated workforce, many foreign businesses choose to invest here. They and their employees pay tax so the government basically makes the money back. The education also encourages more Irish people to sert up their own businesses, which = more jobs.

The second is, I believe practiced in Australia. Basically, the government pays your university tuition fees and once you get a well-paid job, you start making payments to the government to cover the cost of your education. So it's a loan. Mind you I don't live there so I might be wrong.

Jesus said to pay taxes, because to not pay them would be a criminal act. He said to obey laws, generally. Don't try to make Him look like a socialist based on that. He was in favor of personal charitable giving.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that whatever Jesus was like should have no bearing on modern US economic policy?

1: Do most dark-skinned people speak English? No. A lot of white-skinned people don't speak English, either. It's both racist and xenophobic.
Well, evidence shows that non-whites are not deficient in the ability to learn or speak English, so I don't think that it's racist. It may sound xenophobic, but I think it is necessary for the people of a country to understand each other.

It logically follows that with free health care, people would have less incentive to work, and some (probably not very many, or at least one can hope) would take advantage of the increased public largesse.
Not really. People still need to eat and they need shelter. Free healthcare doesn't provide that, unless you're sick and need to stay in hospital.

Fascism is based on Nietzsche super-man (teh individual) and would damn well advocate a reduction in government resources/services if that furthered their own goals.
It's rather funny, then, how Nietzsche was against the state, isn't it?
"The New Idol
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people.""- Thus Spoke Zarathustra

It's also rather funny how Fascism was advocating systems where the individual can live their whole life without exercising their individual will, putting the state before the people, etc. Doesn't sound very Nietzschean to me...

On top of that, last time I checked the Italian Fascists(the originals) didn't borrow from Nietzsche, it was the Nazis who bastardized his idea of the overman.

A home & enough food live, are essential for everyone. If people are in a situation where they can't provide such things for themselves, those things should be provided for them.

If such a basic system isn't enough to force people to spend every waking moment looking for work, to escape their hellish lives, it can only be because of one of two things:
Either the government have failed to provide them with an opportunity to work, or they're disabled from lack of access to sufficient health care.

Nobody in their right mind would want to live in some shoddy 1 room apartment & have nothing but emergency rations & pocket money for toilet paper. It's only a minimal improvement over prison - an American prison, that is. Prisons here are far preferrable.


Eh? I don't follow. Who would become unemployed exactly? A couple of ensurance company CEOs?


Funny you mention that. Where I'm living, the private sector is starting to complain about dangerously low unemployment levels. The reason being that they can't find qualified workers & thus growth in the private sector might soon be compromised.

Strangely, it's perfectly possible to live off the state throughout your life in this country. You'll be encouraged to work, but as far as I can tell, no-one will actually force you, or remove your privileges if you don't.

And yet the unemployment rate is so low that the private sector, of all, are complaining. Something tells me your analysis of causes for unemployment doesn't have much to doo with humans.

I'll let you in on a well known non-secret: people go insane when they don't have anything to do. If you were around in the early 80s, you might have noticed how the lack of jobs didn't go down to well in the UK.

Don't worry, I have a job. I'm even one of the lucky ones that don't have problems finding work. I had once, many years ago, but I had the opportunity to learn a trade. Since then, I've pretty much chosen my jobs. Unlike you though, I pay my taxes with a smile, because I've tried needing the things they pay for, without getting them. It isn't fun, and it is far, far more work than any job I've ever had.

Maybe you should get off your lazy ass & try what life is like without money & a safety net. Nah, it's probably not a good idea. You'd likely resort to mugging people... But I digress.

I'm still wondering where these exploding unemployment rates would come from. Are they like God, maybe - only visible to a select few?
I don't know what exactly it is you have against socialism. You've chosen to live in a society with a government. That means the government either kills a hell of a lot of people & makes even more people's lives a living hell... Or it carries out some moderate social policies.
It's cheaper too. Currently your health insurance industry is ripping you off on three fronts: Government, the private sector & individual people.

But it isn't cost effective. It isn't even moderately competitive. All it does is cost you an unreasonable amount of money, while killing & maiming people. The only way to avoid all that shit, is to be so monstrously rich that taxes aren't an issue & you can afford to live without insurance. And barring some 2-5% of your population, it isn't an option.

If far more people could be working, trade associations would be bitching about the lack of workers. I only hear them bitch about salaries, but maybe it's like the thing with God?

In any case, you must have missed something. I never mentioned anything about people having a right to be dipped in gold & fed grapes by oiled up naked guys. All I said was they had a right to work. Work being any sort of job that pays enough to sustain life. If your govenrment isn't there to make sure you lot can provide for yourselves & live your lives, what the hell is the point of it?

And if you could work more, but don't.. Well good for you. I could work more as well, but since I'm in a position to get a job whenever I need one, with very little waiting involved, I don't. I have all the money I need & I'd rather do volunteer work & travel. It's a personal choice, just like the one you've made.



It basically pays for itself. You, as a collective, invest in the workforce. When your company needs to replace you with a more skilled worker, they can simply ask you to educate yourself instead. In most cases, it saves the company money, because almost any sort of new employee is a fairly steep investment & takes up just as much time as your extra education would. Modern countries do stuff like that.. But that's just the most immediate benefit.

Being able to send some unemployed git off to educate himself in a field with a lot of unemployment, is not only great because the guy will pay for his own education through the taxes he'll start paying, stop being a parasite on the social system, and not go insane from lack of anything meaningful to do, it's also a pretty good deal for both your society in general & whatever company that ends up hiring him, in particular. It helps your society, because it's one potentially criminal layabout less for you to worry about, and one immigant less you have to integrate. The immigrant reason is also why it's beneficial for the company in question. It won't have to import a worker & spend twice as much time & money on integrating him into the work environment.

And of course, it is an over all boost to your society & future generations. You'll instantly rid yourselves of the rut that is a population that doesn't know whether the sun revolves around the Earth, or vice versa. And your comming generations might just be skilled enough for your companies not to move all jobs out of the country. Of course, that last bit is probalbly too late already.
Still, it'll go a long way towards removing negative social inheritance. Poor people can suddenly start becomming academics in a serious way, like the rich & moderately rich do today. I know it's not nearly as oppressive towards the working class, but.. It'll help resolve your crime problem - and that's something, isn't it?

Your economy, regardless of how mismanaged it is, is pretty solid. Making the investment & providing unlimited education for all your peoples, will help insure you lot can crawl back up to the top of the "cutting edge" podium. And that is what'll keep your economy safe in the future. Nothing else can. Your cost of living is too high to compete with the workers of other countries, when yours are just as, if not more, ignorant & useless.

Ok, I have a couple of points here.

A)Do you atheists feel a need to insult God with every post you make? Aside from article XI, which you have already proved was fake, there is no need to go there. This is now a economic, social, and political conversation. There is no more need to talk about it, let alone insult it.

B)That last part can work both ways. You need a big tax rate to take care of all those people right? And, the more people born into poverty, the more taxes you need to pour into this 'project'. The more and more money you pour into this project, the more and more people go from poor-lower middle class- poor- lower middle class- poor- lower middle class. And, the governemnt will keep having to pour more and more of it's budget into the project, until it takes up all the budget, and then some! Your gonna argue "But, how would more of the nation's budget be taken up?" I'll tell you how: Immigrants. As your country gives out free everything you need to live, people will hear about it and move to your country. And almost all of them will be poor. So it can be an endless cycle of poverty, as your nation can never give enough to actually help the poor.

C) My beef with socialism is that it is just communism with a private sector.

I agree with all points but the last.

A)Do you atheists feel a need to insult God with every post you make? Aside from article XI, which you have already proved was fake, there is no need to go there. This is now a economic, social, and political conversation. There is no more need to talk about it, let alone insult it.

Well, It does keep things fun for us. (b^_^)b

While I sympathize with your friend's mother's experience, your anecdotal evidence is hardly a basis for the condemnation of the entire US health care system. While it may be true that people occassionally have bad experiences in US hospitals and good experiences in Canadian hospitals, by and large the wait for treatment in Canada not only far exceeds that in the US, it also contributes to further health problems and death in some circumstances. It also costs far more than it does here.

March 11, 2004 The Globe and Mail: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040311%2FCANCER11%2FTPHealth%2F&ord=1141581001757&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)
Text (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/cancer.html)
We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS (http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1809962005)
Figures show more patients waiting for operations (http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1498761,00.html?gusrc=rss)
British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36592)
A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine (http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-23-96.html)
Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271)
Canadian health care is free and first-class -- if you can wait (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canfreeandfirst.html)
A boy's plight, a nation's problem (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canboysplight.html)
Surgery backlog tops 5,500 at kids' hospitals;One-year waits common (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canbacklog.html)
Ontario hospitals a health risk (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/healthrisk.html)

Just a few of the associated costs and health concerns of Nationalized health care. Why sould we put our lives and health care choices in the hads of politicians?
Bravo!! You have selected a few isolated cases regarding elective surgery in Canada (I cannot comment on the UK), but you have also made some erroneous statements, and some misleading ones as well.

1. Canada's public healthcare system costs far less per capita than the US (http://www.newrules.org/equity/CNhealthcare.html)system.

Since 1971 all Canadian citizens, regardless of income, employment or health, have enjoyed access to basic health care, whether it's provided in a hospital, home or clinic. Canada provides this coverage at a fraction of what the United States pays in health care costs. Americans spend 14 percent of their GDP on health care expenditures; Canadians only 9 percent. Yet despite its high cost, the U.S. system fails to insure more than 44 million of its citizens. Some analysts predict that figure will grow to 60 million by 2008.

The US has more uninsured people than Canada has people.

2. Canada's infant mortality rate of 5 per 1,000 births is lower than the US's 7 per 1,000 births.

Canada: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=CAN

US: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=USA

3. Canadians live 2.6 years on average longer than Americans.

See above Human Development Reorts.

Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it... free housing, free food and free health care = even less reason to work. Unemployment rises, socialism rises, economy suffers, more people lose jobs because more of their (and their employers') money is going to the lazy ones, investors have less money to invest (further hurting businesses)... it's a nasty chain of events that would occur to guarantee free health care. Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.
Please explain how free healthcare would mean a huge increase in unemployment?

Please explain how free healthcare would mean a huge increase in unemployment?

You'd have a lower mortality rate, and thus more people. Somewhere along the line some of these extra people might be unemployed!

And thus, helping others is evil.

I've seen this particular article before, from the arch-conservative at the forum where I originally heard about NationStates. Seeing as some of the articles (especially Article XI) are complete BS, it's time for my revised version:

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

Reasonable, so I leave it intact.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

This definitely remains unchanged in my list.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

No problems, so I leave it unchanged.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to permanently receive free food, housing, and/or transportation from the government. We recognize that Americans' lack of generosity may require you to use government-supplied daily necessities for a limited period of time in order to avoid starvation or homelessness, but these supplies will be terminated if it becomes clear that you are not trying to regain your independence from government supplies.

COROLLARY I: You do have the right to government-supplied basic necessities for a limited time if you are truly in need.

COROLLARY II: Actually achieving independence is not necessary for continued basic government support - we recognize that your efforts may fail due to the whims of others. Failure to attempt to regain independence is an entirely different subject.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care, unless said health care is necessary for your continued good health.

COROLLARY: You do have the right to free health care if such care is clearly medically necessary. If you visit the emergency room due to a heart attack, you will not be charged; if you visit the ER with a paper cut, then you will be billed. Also note that the cost of elective procedures such as plastic surgeries will come out of your pocketbook, not the government's.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you sit in a small room without human contact for the rest of your life, or suffer some other similarly boredom-inducing punishment.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

This stands as is for my list.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and government organizations and private charities will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness; instead, you have the right to PURSUE happiness. There is a difference.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

ARTICLE X: You are not free to force others to speak the same language as you do, even if the language you use happens to be a lingua franca such as English. Forcing others to learn your language as a school graduation requirement is an entirely different subject.

COROLLARY: The government can force you to learn a specific foreign language as a school graduation requirement.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

ARTICLE XI: You have the right to believe as you wish; you have the right to express your beliefs as you wish. You do NOT, however, have the right to force your beliefs upon others, even if your belief is the dominant belief.

Please explain how free healthcare would mean a huge increase in unemployment?
Because in Never Never Land, health care is paid for in full and no one has to work or even grow up.

It's rather funny, then, how Nietzsche was against the state, isn't it?
"The New Idol
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people.""- Thus Spoke Zarathustra

It's also rather funny how Fascism was advocating systems where the individual can live their whole life without exercising their individual will, putting the state before the people, etc. Doesn't sound very Nietzschean to me...

On top of that, last time I checked the Italian Fascists(the originals) didn't borrow from Nietzsche, it was the Nazis who bastardized his idea of the overman.
Fascists and Nazis all got some influence from Nietzsche, but they read him quite superficially. Nietzsche was against herd mentality; fascism was all about herd mentality.

C) My beef with socialism is that it is just communism with a private sector.
This doesn't make any sense, nor is it a refutation that justifies such an insanely big quote. "Communism with a private sector" reminds me of that part of Lenin's rule where he allowed private business to operate with under 20 employees. But the Similized world, as far as I know, does not endorse communist or Leninist rule in any way.

Nietzsche was against herd mentality; fascism was all about herd mentality.
Exactly.

This doesn't make any sense, nor is it a refutation that justifies such an insanely big quote. "Communism with a private sector" reminds me of that part of Lenin's rule where he allowed private business to operate with under 20 employees. But the Similized world, as far as I know, does not endorse communist or Leninist rule in any way.Indeed I do not. A Leninist rule would make me move or take up arms.

In a funny twist, I see America as a sort of inversed Leninist state. Every aspect of the society & economy is wholly left in the hands of a few staggeringly huge, monopoli-like corporations & the various sectors are effectively governed by those corporates. It's just like planned economy, execpt without the illusion of it being for the benefit of the populace.

I'll never understand why you lot put up with it.

Edit: There are a lot of us atheists & non-Christians around, especially on here. Most of us occationally feel the need to have a go at Christianity, because of a few unhinged Christians. Those two things added together, amounts to a steady stream of snide remarks.
If you aren't a neo-Con, Fascist or neo-Nazi Christian, you can safely assume that 99% of those little remarks aren't aimed at you. So don't let them bug you.

It all seems reasonable, except for the healthcare. No free healthcare is like saying only rich people can have healthcare and poor people can just die. there will always be minimum wage jobs, and people with those jobs cannot afford insurance or treatment. there needs to be at least basic healthcare available to everyone. No amount of bitching about the economy or employment or scroungers is going to change the fact that it is a necessity without which poor people die.

It's rather funny, then, how Nietzsche was against the state, isn't it?
"The New Idol
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears to me, for now I will speak to you about the death of peoples.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people.""- Thus Spoke Zarathustra
It's also rather funny how Fascism was advocating systems where the individual can live their whole life without exercising their individual will, putting the state before the people, etc. Doesn't sound very Nietzschean to me...
On top of that, last time I checked the Italian Fascists(the originals) didn't borrow from Nietzsche, it was the Nazis who bastardized his idea of the overman.
Nietzsche was against herd mentality; fascism was all about herd mentality.
But then fascism is notorious for it's lies and propaganda, how does it differs from Nietzsche "enlighten yourself and agree with me" kind of individualism?

edit:
Oh and fascists made a state where individual will (willpower, effort) was strongly encouraged and rewarded by the state; they didn't put the state before the people, they put Mussolini before everyone else and the state "between" fascists and dissenters.

You'd have a lower mortality rate, and thus more people. Somewhere along the line some of these extra people might be unemployed!

You know, it's funny, that actually makes some sense, and you only came up with it to be sarcastic. :)

But then fascism is notorious for it's lies and propaganda, how does it differs from Nietzsche "enlighten yourself and agree with me" kind of individualism?
Perhaps you need to read the quote from The Half-Hidden again, which you just quoted in your post:
"Nietzsche was against herd mentality; fascism was all about herd mentality."

Perhaps you need to read the quote from The Half-Hidden again, which you just quoted in your post:
"Nietzsche was against herd mentality; fascism was all about herd mentality."
Perhaps I'm saying that Nietzsche was a demagogue?

edit: added something to my previous post..

Just had to chip in a bit more regarding healthcare. Certainly a good read for Americans who want to know the status of their healthcare system and future problems:

Facts on the Cost of Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

A couple interesting points:

Introduction:

Total national health expenditures increased by 7.7 percent in 2003 (the latest year that data is available) over 2002 - four times the rate of inflation in 2003.(1)

In 2004, employer health insurance premiums increased by 11.2 percent - nearly four times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $10,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged $3,695.(2)

Between 2001 and 2003, increases for national spending for prescription medications averaged 14 percent.(1)

National Health Care Spending:

Although nearly 45 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. (4)

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs:

The premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 11.2 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases. All types of health plans - including health maintenance organizations (HMOs), preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and point-of-service plans (POS) demonstrated double-digit increases. (2)

The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $9,950, or $829 a month in 2004. Workers contributed $2,661, or 10 percent more than they spent in 2003. For single coverage, workers contributed an average of $558 toward the $3,695 annual premium. (2)

Health insurance premiums will rise to an average of more than $14,500 for family coverage in 2006. (6)

The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs:

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy is $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (11). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Cost of Prescription Medications:

Drug spending in the Unites States rose 11 percent in 2003 to $180 billion. (1)

Americans consume about 3 billion prescriptions on average, and people over 65 spend about $2,300 a year on medications. (14)

Co-payments for brand name drugs that have generic equivalents jumped 62 percent to $26 in 2003 from $16 in 2000, while generics rose to an average of $9 (15)

Jesus said to pay taxes, because to not pay them would be a criminal act. He said to obey laws, generally. Don't try to make Him look like a socialist based on that. He was in favor of personal charitable giving.

I wasn't implying that Jesus was a socialist. I was implying that Americans revere a man who argues that laws were to be followed, in particular ones about taxes, as I described. However, Americans whine and complain about paying taxes and insist that their money is theirs. THey also whine and complain about speed limits and get pissed when they get a speeding ticket Americans claim to be all about being people of law, but they don't want those laws enforced on them. Say what you will about Jesus and socialism; American attitudes about laws go against Jesus' teachings about following the law.

Granted, Americans have a great history of rising up against unjust laws; unfortunately, their history of finding more clever ways of inserting biases into government practices is a little more obvious.

Just with regards to healthcare:

Be realistic, folks, not ideological.

You can have one extreme, free healthcare for all, and the government therefore forces doctors to work under certain conditions. As a result, some may stay, but they will put in as little effort into their education and practice as possible. Or they might just leave.
So you're left with a cheap provision of rather basic services. I would suspect that although Cuba has great GP services and such everyday services as getting babies through their first few hours or days, but if I had to get a brain clot operated, I'd rather go to the US than Cuba.

You can have the other extreme, where health service prices are left up entirely to the market. So then being a doctor is lucrative, and being specialised even moreso. So the quality of service, particularly in very specialised areas is going to be better.
On the other hand, because the customer is relatively powerless, and the supply of the good is restricted anyways because it can be such a complex service, poor people are likely to be faced with prices too high to pay.
There are all sorts of ethical and moral issues with that, but the fact is that a bunch of poor people with the plague don't benefit anyone, not even "the economy" (tm).

So as always, the solution lies somewhere in the middle: Let doctors decide prices, but subsidise the customer. Encourage the use of healthcare by everyone, but not beyond necessity. It's a matter of careful analysis, not something that can be decided on the basis of ideology.

I should think that all people in the medical industry would support free, government run healthcare. That is the only viable way to stop all the overlitigation.

So as always, the solution lies somewhere in the middle: Let doctors decide prices, but subsidise the customer. Encourage the use of healthcare by everyone, but not beyond necessity. It's a matter of careful analysis, not something that can be decided on the basis of ideology.

I actually feel that subsidies are worse than publically owned services. I can tolerate collective action, but I cannot tolerate wealth redistribution.

I actually feel that subsidies are worse than publically owned services. I can tolerate collective action, but I cannot tolerate wealth redistribution.
Likewise.

I actually feel that subsidies are worse than publically owned services. I can tolerate collective action, but I cannot tolerate wealth redistribution.
You see though, I don't really care what you can ideologically tolerate or not. If you want everyone to have a basic healthcare, but still want to allow doctors to be able to run their own business, I don't see an alternative.

You see though, I don't really care what you can ideologically tolerate or not. If you want everyone to have a basic healthcare, but still want to allow doctors to be able to run their own business, I don't see an alternative.

A combination of public and private healthcare providers.

You can't cast off ideological morality quite as easily as you are wanting to.

A combination of public and private healthcare providers.
I suppose it all depends on how you execute it. But the fact is that the public regulation of medical services (even though not as strict as in some other European countries) is leading to trouble in Germany.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399537,00.html

You can't cast off ideological morality quite as easily as you are wanting to.
Well, that's an entirely different discussion. But faced with an immediate problem, sometimes one has to do what one would not normally want to do.

The way America should be?
Another part of the British (http://static.flickr.com/21/24292040_70c617a732_o.jpg) Empire (http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T012876A.gif) in which it was a minor colony and would not have existed without our expansion.


usally I'd be forced to make my usual BNP comparison .... but when its the US we're slagging off I guess I can let it slide ;-)

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.



What are the implications of this for corporate America?

What are the implications of this for corporate America?

If you're big and ugly enough, you can get away with damn near anything.

ARTICLE XI is stupid.

ARTICLE XI is stupid.

No shit. I think that's the conclusion we all came to. By the way, I don't believe that the U.S. HAS an official language. Individual states do, but the U.S. as a whole doesn't. I also don't believe that murder is on the federal law books, but it's on all 50 U.S. state law books.

Articles X and XI are kinda lame. Plus I am offended by teh lack of some kind of guaranteed taco.

I concur. *nod*

You can tell this guy is from the south - he's the perfect redneck.

I like how he labels everyone he doesn't like a "liberal." In the Virginia race for Governer, the Redneck.... erm... Republican cadidate used the term "liberal" as a bad thing. One advertisement was the democratic cadidate saying "I'm a liberal and proud." The sad thing is that you can get ignorant, xenophobic rednecks to gasp to that.



Actually I'm an immigrant from Canada living in Oregon.

Actually I'm an immigrant from Canada living in Oregon.
Are you from Southern Canada? :p

*snip crypto fascist rant*{/QUOTE]

This shit is too stupid, contradictory, and pseudo-racist to respond to.

[QUOTE=Entralla]ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, o r no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

This is utter poppycock. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is however, separation of church and state: Article 6 (no religious test) & Amendment I.

Historically, "In God We Trust" did not become a national motto until 1956. It has about the same historical pedigree as the right to privacy.

[QUOTE=Entralla]*snip crypto fascist rant*{/QUOTE]

This shit is too stupid, contradictory, and pseudo-racist to respond to.



This is utter poppycock. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. There is however, separation of church and state: Article 6 (no religious test) & Amendment I.

Historically, "In God We Trust" did not become a national motto until 1956. It has about the same historical pedigree as the right to privacy.

Yes, only Conservative judges and politicians have the right to re-write the nation's history and heritage. So there!

-snip-

Go-go gadget lawyer!

The Cat-Tribe has a cheerleading team now?

The Cat-Tribe has a cheerleading team now?

You know it! Ra Ra Sis Boom Ba!

Free health care would mean a huge increase in unemployment, because some would take advantage of it... free housing, free food and free health care = even less reason to work. Unemployment rises, socialism rises, economy suffers, more people lose jobs because more of their (and their employers') money is going to the lazy ones, investors have less money to invest (further hurting businesses)... it's a nasty chain of events that would occur to guarantee free health care. Outside of temp agencies, I don't know of too many employers that do not offer some sort of fairly affordable health care... so if you want health care for you and yours, go out and get a job.

I really don't know - does this situation (fewer people working) exist in Canada?

Also, I have a nice job, and my employer covers part of the costs for health insurance. I can afford an ok plan - but if I needed major hospitalization, the 20% of the costs I'd have to pay would be financially terrible.
?[/QUOTE]

I really don't know - does this situation (fewer people working) exist in Canada?

Also, I have a nice job, and my employer covers part of the costs for health insurance. I can afford an ok plan - but if I needed major hospitalization, the 20% of the costs I'd have to pay would be financially terrible.
?[/QUOTE]

The Canadian unemployment rate tends to be about 1-2% higher than the American on average, but there are a variety of factors at play there. In many ways, universal health care has been a boon for the economy. It helps many employers avoid the (often expensive) cost of setting up an employee health plan (Although most large employers will offer some form of extended coverage). This has resulted in, for example, certain automakers setting up factories in Canada rather than the US in order to take advantage of the reduced costs.

Lets see, your a liberal, and leftwing of course, your sort of an idiot, and how the hell is this racist?

LMAO that was good

im not American, but I am right wing, and I agreed with most of it

Actually I'm an immigrant from Canada living in Oregon.

California's Canada.