Jump to content

Gomez

Members
  • Posts

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Gomez

  1. quote:

    If I had a heart attack, and needed immediate surgery, I would get it, no if's and's or but's, no scheduling, no, sorry you are way down on the list or whatever, it would be RIGHT NOW!!! even if I had NO health insurance!!! Yes, that is the truth, I would have to pay for it later, but they would save my life first and then figure out how I was going to pay for it!!


    I can vouch for this one. Not the heart attack part (never had one, and hope I never will), but there is definitely no list. They don't care if you have insurance or not (although that was not always the case). They will arrange payment methods AFTER the problem is solved. It's all about healing the sick, not worrying about being paid. But this is all at the Hospital only.

    As to quality of doctors outside of hospitals...

    I can't say they are the best. I think a LOT of doctors are more inclined to give a patient drugs, because it makes them money. A lot of doctor's offices have pharmacies in them now, and they prescribe drugs to the patient with hopes that the patient will buy their drugs in the office. Which means more money for the doctor. Even in the case of doctors with no pharmacy, they seem to do this. Which leads me to believe they get some sort of kickback from the pharmacy. A prime example of this kind of behaviour, is when someone goes to the doctor for a cold. The doctor prescribes penecillin (or a variant). Penecillin is an antibiotic. It kills bacteria. The common cold is a virus. It has nothing to do with bacteria. Worse yet, penecillin kills not just bad bacteria, but GOOD bacteria that your body needs. So why do the doctors prescribe penecillin for a cold? Money. Yeah, they'll give you some hoopla about fighting secondary infections. When was the last time anyone you knew, who got a cold, who didn't get it treated, got worse?

    So, in essence, I say that the US healthcare system is good, not great. It's often times far too motivated by greed.

    Anyone from Cuba around here? So we can compare specifics? Cause that's really the only way to judge a system. From the inside, as I said before.

  2. quote:

    I fail to see how ANYONE can not say that the USA was a PRIMARY FACTOR in the defeat of Hitler! Not only were we supplying OUR OWN ARMIES, but also supplying half of the allied armies as well! (do we need more statistics for that??)


    Again, I repeat, the US did not enter the war till 1941. It had been going on since 1938 (not sure on that date, but right around there). We had 3 (again, approximately) additional years of build up without losses. ANY country in the world could produce that significance of excess arms and troops with 3 years of preparations. The USA /was/ planning on entering the war at some point. When was the only question. The Japanese decided that. Therefore I state again, that it was NOT US economic policy that won the war, but fresh troops and supplies.

    I again state that we should drop ALL discussion about WWII. This used to be a discussion about modern day politics and WWII has no relavence to modern day. The entire world has changed since then. 60 years will do that.

    Back to present day:

    quote:

    Land areas with equivocal benefits:

    Anywhere in North America.

    Anywhere in South America.


    Anywhere in North America that is not the USA, is primarily cold, dry or mountainous. Mexico does not have close to the quality of food production land that we do, primarily because it is so dry. It also has (for the majority of it's land) the southern end of the Rocky Mountains. Canada, while having some viable landmass, has vast areas of absolute arctic landscape. Central America is predominantly jungle.

    South America has no equivalent area to ours. It is the 4th largest land mass, under N. Amer, Africa, and Asia (not in any order). The largest section of flat land available is also known as the Amazon Rain Forest. Nearly uninhabitable due to diseases like Malaria. Waters are infested with Pirahna and a high quantity of poisonous snakes, not to mention microbial problems. Most of the rest of South America is dominated by excessively tall mountains (The Andes). Evidence to this fact is indicated by the total (2000) population of the entire continent, 350 million (Encarta). Roughly what the USA alone had in 1990 with far less land area and extremely less political division.

    Although these areas (both N&S Amer) may contain high amounts of natural resources. Outside of the USA, the land is mostly inhospitable for one reason or another. So I don't think either of those areas could possibly have developed into a nation like the USA, except for the USA itself.

    quote:

    quote:

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

    My reference to the national budgets points out that despite the fact that the USA is roughly 67 times richer than Cuba, it is Cuba that provides more adequate medical care to its people.

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

    They really don't provide better care.


    Umm...I'm sorry. But you have absolutely no evidence to back up saying that they do not provide better case. Whereas the quote from Menchise DOES have evidence supporting his claims. His evidence may be biased towards Cuba. But it's better than no evidence. Furthermore, any evidence you read from the USA, will be biased towards USA policy. So it's not really fair to state that his evidence is wrong, when likely, so is yours. I think the only way to judge for certain whether one health care system is better than another, is to use it. I personally have had to deal with the US health care system. It was quick and efficient. However, my city is rated as being the highest doctor to patient ratio in the country. On the otherhand, I think they need to hire better architects! That place was a rabbit warren!!! (not kidding, but definitely humorous). I have also had to deal with the healthcare system on certain Carribean islands (not Cuba). Those were horrendous. Even those provided by the UK (Cayman Islands).

    On a slightly different topic involving the same country....

    The Elian Gonzalez case is probably one of the single most horrifying things that the USA has done in recent past. It was probably the most significant case of the police (in this case, FBI) abusing their power, with the only possible exception of Ruby Ridge. What pleases me, is that the press was right on top of it. Usually, I despise the press. But in that case, they were right where they needed to be and took the right pictures. They showed the absolute disregard for human life and the rights of privacy that the police actually have.

    For those of you not familiar with the final results, Elian was to be returned to Cuba. In lieu of letting the family surrender him, the government sent in armed police to violently take him from them. Several photographs were taken of police holding assault rifles aimed at an unarmed family. It is my understanding that the family had no intention of resisting the court order. This was simply yet another case (to add to the ever growing pile) of police abuse of power.

    For those of you not familiar with the Ruby Ridge case (which IMHO was worse than Elian Gonzales), a white supremist did what we hope all white supremists do. He isolated himself in a place where he would not bother anyone. Some time later (years), he was asked by the gov't to infiltrate a white supremist group. To help the gov't take down the organization, because it was breaking a number of laws. They lacked evidence towards this, and they needed help. So they contacted him, and asked for his aid. He was an isolationist, so obviously, he refused. The government would not accept this, and thus they continued to try to pressure him to assist them. One of the methods of doing this, was to attempt to catch him in a criminal act. He was VERY cautious and followed all the laws to the letter. Thus, the only way they could catch him, was to entrap him. Entrapment is a major crime for police officials. It basically amounts to forcing a crime upon the individual. In this case, it was a matter of an agent, who claimed to be interested in a shotgun (a legal sale). He sold the shotgun. The agent said he wanted it sawed off (still legal down to a certain length). The agent pretended to measure the gun, and marked a spot that was just under the legal limit. But it was close enough, that the man didn't notice it wasn't legal. As soon as the gun was sawed and the agent away, other agents moved in on the property. They failed to announce that they were police and just opened fire on the place. The resulting battle killed the man's wife and son, and injured him. He was arrested, and tried. The trial failed horribly because of the entrapment. The agents involved in the issue were NOT(!) held accountable. But in the end, who cares if he won. He had STILL lost his wife AND son! All this because the government was pissed off because he wouldn't help them! Tell me the government (especially the police) isn't abusive of their power.

    I'm sorry, you people that are so patriotic need a hard lesson in reality. Our country is abusing it's power right now. If you thought we were living in the land of the free, you thought wrong. The Constitution and it's amendments are ignored on a daily basis. New laws are drafted that blatantly violate people's rights as stated by the Bill of Rights. Your own local city probably has a half-dozen laws instituted that violate your rights. Your state almost definitely does, and the US Government is already well beyond. There's a t-shirt I've seen, that I'm rather fond of. It has the Bill of Rights written on it, with a stamp across it saying "Void where prohibited by law".

    If you want more information on either of those cases. Look it up. There is pleanty of material available all over the place. Both were well publicized.

    [RANT]

    And to those of you who keep telling those of us who are not patriotic to leave. Shut the Hell up! You have NO right what so ever to say that to ANYONE! I do NOT have to be patriotic to live in this country. Just because you are, does not mean we all are. And people like myself keep this government from getting worse than it already is! We rock the boat. We try to change views. We try to make this country a better place than it currently is. I will not support any country that commits crimes against it's own people. Nor will I ever. However, I will try to push that country into STOPPING! I may not like the government of this country, but that does not take away my rights to pursue making that very same government better. The main difference between you and I, is that I don't pull the wool over my eyes each time the government violates someone's rights!

    [/RANT]

    This rant is not targetted at any of the recent posters. I don't recall any of them saying such things. However, there have been a few not-so recent posters who have held the viewpoint targetted above.

  3. Heh, technically, you are on the other side of the Atlantic...just reaaaaaaly far

    quote:

    Did we Americans use our SUPERIOR technology and production to sujugate the lesser countries into submission?? Nope, We gave Japan back to the Japanese, and Europe back to the Europeans! with a few minor consessions


    Superior technology? I don't think so... In world war II our technology wasn't up to specs with the Germans at all. And with the Japanese, at the beginning of the war, it was slightly behind. By the end of the war, we had surpassed it, but not till about '44. Japanese aircraft were agile and fast. Americans built heavy aircraft that, while harder to take out, were easily danced around by the Japanese. It wasn't until the P-51 came about that we finally had something that merged power and speed.

    Conversely, nothing we built was on par with Germany. No tanks, no aircraft, no bombs, no guns. Nothing. We won both wars through tactics, and the fact that we were OUTSIDE of the war until both Germany and Japan had been fighting for a while. Then we entered (due to Pearl Harbor) with a full fledged army and angry people. Not to mention a fleet of Carriers (since our Battleships were sunk). Carriers were not perceived as a threat like Battleships were. But quickly, the Japanese learned otherwise. I have a theory, that we really only won WWII BECAUSE the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and sunk our Battleships. It forced America to rethink it's tactics, and as a result, we came up with something better.

    As to the usage of the A-bomb. It is a widely conceived notion that history is written by the victors. The story we Americans are told, is that by dropping the bomb on two Japanese cities, saved probably 500,000 American soldier's lives. Because that is what it would have cost to launch a full scale invasion of Japan. Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. I was not there. I do not know what the Japanese were thinking at the time. I only know what my history book says. And I KNOW that my history book is baised towards America. Therefore I hold it suspect, until I get facts that tell me for certain one way or the other.

    For all we Americans know, Japan could have planned an unconditional surrender or have been discussing it internally. Then the bombs were dropped and the discussion stopped, and the end came.

    Now. To those of you who so arrogantly state that it was American superior technology, and American capitalism that won WWII. You are WRONG. The above comments are supported significantly by tons of evidence. Including, discussions with my Grandfather who flew during WWII in the south Pacific. Including about every episode of Discovery Channel's Wings that covered WWII. Including just about every flight simulation, and tactical simulation that covers WWII. Get real. There was nothing superior about America during WWII, other than that our troops were fresh and heavily motivated.

    Personally, I think we should drop any discussions about WWII. This is now almost 60 years ago that America entered that war. More than that for most other countries. The world has changed substantially since then. The attitude of America has changed significantly as well. Even the attitude of the government of America has changed since then. Economically, the world has changed drastically since then. We are in a completely different technological age (Atomic vs Industrial) compared to then. In fact, some would say that we've entered a newer one (Information) in the past 10-20 years. There is virtually nothing the same, except which countries are located where.

    Back to present day politics....

    America still needs to get off it's high horse. It only offends people when we say we are the superior country in the world. This is for two reasons. #1, they are jeolous, #2, they already know that and don't like being reminded of it repeatedly. America may be the last super power. But that does not mean we are superior as a people to anyone else on this planet. It does not mean that our economic or governmental systems are better than everyone else. It just means that we ended up in a circumstance that permitted us to be on top technologically and militarily. As Menchise stated, this is primarily due to large sources of oil and other natural resources that were easily exploitable. Europe has been industrialized since before America was even colonized. This means that their sources of materials are depleted, hidden or non-existant. A state that the USA will be in eventually. Ever look at a population density chart of Europe and compare it with the USA? Or worse yet, Asia? Africa and the Americas are probably the last real sources of exploitable resources in the world, other than those that current technology does not permit access to. Africa unfortunately, was accessed by the industrial europeans before the Americas, so it is worse off. Australia, while being a low population density, and late colonization, unfortunately has proven low in natural resources. Or at least, accessible resources. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if they were also a super power. They have all the same technology and economy that we do. Just lack the means.

    So really, the only reason the USA is a super power, is because we had the FORTUNE to be in a location that was rich in resources. It has little to do with government. It has something to do with economics and work ethics, but nothing that Europe and much of the rest of the world don't share with us.

    So next time you feel like rubbing it in the face of someone that we are the last super power (although I still consider China to be one *flames ignored, topic closed*), consider yourself officially arrogant.

  4. With regard to permits for protesting, not every city has that law. It is a city by city thing. Most cities have it, not all. According to the constitution, (can't remember exact text off hand) people have a right to gather peacefully. This is what a protest is supposed to be. The problem is, invariably, someone becomes hot headed, either protestor or protestee, and starts a fight (verbal at least) with the other side. The end result, the cops are called to quell the /near/ riot. A riot breaks out shortly thereafter. People get injured (or killed) and all hell breaks loose until the police arrest nearly everyone nearby.

    Now, admittedly, sometimes the riot is already in progress. But most cases I have seen (and some in first person), the riot is not in progress prior to the police action. What this amounts to, is that the police are indeed not helping the situation. They end up being a catalyst. I don't know what /should/ be done about such things, but I DO know that the efforts the police take to quell a /near/ riot are indeed wrong.

    Where things take a drastic turn, is where we are not talking about a peaceful protest, but for instance, a party, or concert. These are not riot situations, but situations where the police perceive a riot might take place. Surprise surprise, a riot DOES take place, but not because the people were going to riot. Instead, because the police presence enraged them to the point of rioting. I personally was in one of these situations a number of years ago, which is why I am so adamant about this problem. I could go into details of the event, but I will spare you all that. Let's just say there was no riot, but the police outside the concert decided there was going to be one.

    Switching topics...

    About the decay of civilizations into more liberal systems. I wouldn't necessarily use the word decay. Yes, it's true, that society has moved towards a more liberal system since the dark ages. But this is a good thing! Decay/Entropy are not usually considered a good thing.

    Furthermore, I think most of us here would consider it decay, if our current system moved into a facist police state. Which would clearly be extreme conservatism. So decay is a bad term to use when suggesting liberal motion.

    On the other hand, decadence is a solid form of decay. And decadence is something our country is experiencing. This of course has nothing to do with Conservative/Liberal, but more greed. The USA and a fair amount of the rest of the world (not targetting anyone in particular since I don't know specifics) have moved to an extremely materialistic viewpoint on life. "The more I have, the better I am." I wholeheartedly disagree with this ideal. There are more aspects to life than material worth. Spiritual worth being one. One sad statement, is that most world religions have a large quantity of followers that do not actually follow their religion.

    Of course, that is completely off topic and should be dealt with in another thread if at all.

    Now, here's an interesting fact. In the USA, did you know that when a crime is committed, the crime is not actually committed against the victim, but against the state. A friend of mine was involved in a car accident recently. He was the victim in the accident. However, when it came to the court case surrounding the laws that were broken, and the determination of guilt, he was NOT subpoenaed. He found out later that because there were no 'witnesses' that the case was thrown out for lack of evidence and thus the lady who hit him was not responsible for covering damages to his car. There was a witness, him. Why was he not called? Because the victim does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. These are not my words, I am quoting him. When someone commits a crime, it is NOT against the victim, but against the state. Only the state has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial (according to the state). Again, this sounds like fasicm, yet this is entirely within the USA. Now, I'm not trying to say the USA is a facist system. I am however saying that we are somehow moving towards it.

    I must say, that although the general trend is towards more liberal forms of government, it is quite possible for a government to move radically towards the right, without chaos. Hitler came to power in a semi-democracy environment. But he was such a powerful individual, that with a few carefully planned assassinations, he was able to seize power entirely. Minimal chaos lead to total fasicm. With this in mind, I must state that it is entirely possible and plausible that the USA is edging towards fasicm, even if at a snail's pace.

    One major flaw I see in the current US Government, is that we have created a monstrous beaurocracy. While one group in it is elected by the people, another group is constantly employed. Yes, the elected people provide the laws, but the employed people provide enforcement and interpretation of those laws. When was the last time you had a vote for who should be a patrolman, or seargeant, or detective? As far as I'm aware, the only person we elect into office in the police department, is the sheriff. And the Sheriff is a county office. Not city. Police chiefs are elected in some places, others not. Mostly, the police department is run by people who are NOT elected, and do NOT have to answer to voters. As a result, we have a system of people who enforce laws, that are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of the people as a whole. Therefore, they feel they can enforce laws a bit more flexibly. Either loosely, or strictly. Either word for word, or by the spirit of the law. Thus, the police have too much power. And that power is corrupting them.

    Now, I will say this, I DO support my police. I am not against having a police force. I just think we need a fair amount of police reform in this country.

    (I would continue to rant, but I have to go)

  5. Jaguar, you aren't reading my posts very clearly. I am not advocating rioting. I am whole heartedly against it. I am also against inciting to riot. I am blaming the police (locally at least) for inciting a number of riots. Get /your/ facts straight before you start trying to defame another. And, clearly, you have been influenced by the current propaganda that the USA has been spewing since the cold war. I have seen the flaws in that propaganda, so I talk about what I have seen. I HAVE facts to back them up. My own eyes. Unfortunately, the media is so screwed (as you've all said yourselves), that I cannot provide /you/ with facts.

    Secondly, the ABM treaty was signed by the USSR, USA, China, UK, France, etc etc etc...all the nuclear powers. It was signed under similar circumstances as the non-proliferation treaty.

    By going against it, we are going against what we agreed upon with ALL those countries. We are also showing that we cannot be trusted.

    I want a world that I can live in, and that my children can live in. The one I live in now, is not such a world. One where I fear that my own very country could be the next cause of a world war.

    I have never suggested socialism or any other economic form. I have advocated only one government form, true democracy.

    I do not hate human nature. I have faith that humans can overcome their problems. I have greater faith in large scale treaties, because then, it's not just one country involved. More motivations are involved than just what the US standpoint on something is.

    For someone complaining about my not getting facts perfectly straight, you sure do misquote and misinterpret something written right above your own statements quite a bit.

    As to offensive capability, what ever happened to the conventional military that so many people bolster is the best in the world? Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the world. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never again have they been used in any war anywhere. Therefore, our own power with nuclear weapons is not being wielded. We use conventional warfare. We use it well. Who cares about nukes! Let's end this age of being able to destroy the world right here and now! Give the entire world ABMs. It makes little difference to the USA's capability to defend it's interests. If it did, it would have used nuclear weapons many times in the past.

    And since you bring up the Constitution, let's talk about that. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it decree that socialism is bad? Or liberalism? Or for that matter, conservatism is good? Nowhere. It dictates the process by which our government will enact laws. It doesn't even discuss enforcement. It does describe the judicial branch to a great degree. But that is not enforcement, more, how we determine whether someone is the criminal once we have a fairly good impression they are. Punishment is dictated to a small degree, in that there is a prohibition against cruelty. Mostly the Constitution says nothing about economics (socialism vs free market vs green vs anything else). Nor does it suggest that any particular methodology (liberal, conservative, etc) behind laws is of particular interest. I support the Constitution completely, in it's present form. Especially that part about FREE SPEECH. I also support the Declaration of Independence completely, in that I have the right to my own pursuit of happiness. Which presently, my own happiness is severely hindered by people who think we should have a fascist government. And yes, that is exactly what extreme right-wing is. Fascism. The way I see the current structure of US government, Liberals are practically centrists now. Conservatives are far-right. And I'm left out here somewhere on a limb. I get called socialist, communist and all kinds of things. But I support NONE of those ideas. I am currently a semi-supporter of the Green party. We're talking ecology meets politics. That's all. I also have some things in common with Libertarians. Freedom in the absolute. Minimal government federally, state and local would be boosted. I probably sit somewhere on the left side, but mostly I sit in the air above it. I don't proscribe any one particular party. I don't believe in a party system, in all honesty.

    As to trying to change this government...

    I have missed only 1 election since I was 18. It was a May election (off year for federal and state gov't) on some local issues that I wasn't concerned about. Yes, you read that right. I vote even in the May elections, not just the November.

    Have my votes had much of an effect? No. Ohio voted for Bush. Locally we have a zillion republicans in office. And Democrats for that matter. I don't support either of them.

    This next section is aimed at most of the comments made in reference to my posts. Not one individual.

    My vote is important. And I will continue to utilize it as best I can. Your vote is just as important. Everyone's votes are important. That's what you call a Democracy. However, your attitude is all wrong. I welcome your vote, but you hate what I stand for therefore you'd rather I left your country instead of vote. You make judgements on me based on stereotypes. I try to ignore stereotypes and not pass judgement as a whole. This doesn't make me a better person than you. I have my problems, just like everyone else. This does, however, make me a less prejudiced person than you. Prejudice will be the downfall of our country. It is a multicultural country and ideologies will conflict. The only way we can continue to exist as a country, is if we outgrow our petty hatreds of difference, and accept people for who they are. Ignore the stereotypes, color, gender, and lifestyle differences. This IS a free country. That is the principal on which it was founded, and it shall remain so. We are all human. We all bleed. We all hurt. We all love. I don't care who you are. You are welcome in my country. Just give me the same welcome that I give you.

  6. quote:

    quote:

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

    I think the USA has some serious problems. Problems that will not be solved any time soon. I see only decay of this American Civilization. Bush is not the answer, neither was Clinton. Honestly, I am half tempted to say that representative-democracy is not the answer. I've always been fond of true democracy. The people make all the laws. But I also agree with the libertarians on occasion, why have so many laws? Laws are taking away our freedom. Chipping it little by little, till we are in a facist government, with no freedom at all. Oh wait...we might already be there....

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

    Wait - you're half on removing freedoms but half on keeping them?


    Where in my quoted statement, did I advocate taking away freedom? Nowhere. I do NOT advocate taking away freedom. I have never advocated it. On the other hand, the majority of the USA population advocates it on a daily basis. Racism and sexism are serious problems in this glorious USA that you are so proud of being a part of. Considering equally qualified individuals, a woman makes less than a man of the same ethnicity, in the same job. A man of an ethnicity other than white, makes less than a white man in the same job. This takes away freedom of these groups. Money, as we all know, is a major way of pursuing happiness, which is supposedly a right to all citizens of the USA.

    quote:

    quote:

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

    If any one country gets too powerful with regards to nuclear weapons, that's it. Game over for humanity.

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

    Not hardly. The ideology of the country with that power is important. Would the USSR use it faster than the US? Yep.


    Would the USA use it if it was economically the easiest solution? Yep. Look at the results of the Kyoto treaty. Economics overruled destroying the environment. Well, same thing with nukes. It destroys the environment, kills people (both civilian and military), and ruins territory. So does destruction of the environment. Try living in the middle of the Sahara at some point. The Sahara desert is growing at an unprecidented rate. And most scientists involved in researching why, agree that the depletion of the ozone is why (as well as a few other ecological impacts caused by pollution). Kyoto would have reduced that impact. So what's the difference? How immediately the impact is. That's it. Nuke 'em till they glow. Then they won't be a problem to anyone ever again. The USA is NOT above this. Neither is any other country. We have NOT outgrown the need for the ABM treaty. I seriously doubt we will for hundreds of years.

    quote:

    quote:

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

    Until the USA, 30-40 years after the treaty was signed, decides to go against it.

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

    How can we go against a treaty that is no longer politically viable? We can't.

    Further, what difference does it make? It's not like, in today's climate, the US would launch a strike on ANYONE? So, all we're are doing is protecting our interests.

    I didn't know that was criminal.


    Protecting our interests. That is a HIGHLY flexible term. In fact, the Germans were only protecting their interests when they invaded Belgium and France. The USSR was only protecting it's interests when it was dealing with the Cold War and we almost obliterated ourselves. The USA's interests are money, money and money.

    Hypothetical situation, a country is accused of human rights violations. The UN decides to invoke sanctions against them. But that doesn't stop them. So the UN bands together a peace keeping force and starts bombing the capital city (sounds familiar eh?). Now, the UN has it's way of doing things, and it's an expensive one. But the USA has another agenda, greed. It's far too costly to send over troops, keep them fed, arm them, etc. Not to mention losses. So why not just nuke the living daylights out of the country? It's more cost effective that way. Why not? Because then we are guilty of those same human rights violations. Well, who cares? You can't touch us. We're the USA and we're the biggest and strongest. Not to mention we're immune to nuclear weapons. This is ALL within OUR interests. We lost no lives. We spent as few tax dollars as was possible. And heck, if the government wanted to, they could make it sound good enough that the people would support it.

    I don't like this idea one bit. The ONLY viable solution to the ABM treaty is a global project, where ALLLLLLL countries would be protected from nuclear attack. No ONE single country, no matter how good their motives are can be permitted to be immune to nuclear weapons, unless they, themselves do not have, nor ever will have, nuclear weapons. I don't care what people say about his Holiness, the President, or his Archangels, the Congress. They are NOT above nuking the hell out of some country because it is profitable.

    quote:

    Oh yeah, because it disagrees with you, it is biased.

    I would think that the story would be biased towards the STUDENTS, if the police were actually at fault, thanks to the liberal media.


    The papers here in Columbus, are not "liberal" media. They almost always bias their stories towards the viewpoints of the highly conservative population of the city. The television and radio media are more akin to the type of media you are familiar with. And as far as whether they are "liberal" or not, well...I seem to recall a certain part of the Bill of Rights stating freedom of the press. They have the right to publish what they find out. Admittedly, this is an imperfect situation. They publish things skewed to their own view point. Often times skewed past the point of being true. But they are permitted, by law, to do so, so long as it is within a certain range of the truth, or has enough evidence to suggest that possibility. Outside that, you hit areas like liable. Now, another issue concerning our media. You say that the media would eat up the fact that the students were unfairly assaulted by the police. How many students do you know, that are regular subscribers to a newspaper? And how many people living in the suburbs (who would be disturbed by excessive use of force against students) are regular subscribers? The papers and television media in general, are NOT going to report what the vast majority of their readers do not want to hear.

    quote:

    China is NOT a superpower, no matter how much they pretend they are. We cut them off from trade and they are toast!! China depends on the US far too much to be a superpower.


    If we cut off China, we would similarly be ruined. We depend on them for the products they make. Heavily. Just as much as they depend on us for quite a bit. I would say, cutting off China would hurt both sides. Next time you buy something, check the label. It probably says Made in China, or Made in Hong Kong. There are always exceptions, but this is pretty commonplace.

    quote:

    Then leave. There isn't a better country out there. Name one and I'll tell you how screwed you'd be living there.

    Again, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. The US ain't gonna miss you.


    Another reason I don't like the USA. Arrogance. I agree there isn't anywhere else on this planet to live. Because ALL the governments of the world are corrupt, biased, contemptable. I don't want to live in any of the other countries. This is especially true since my family and my wife's family live here in this country. You say the US won't miss me. I rather think it will. For without people who rock the boat. The US will die!

    quote:

    Actually, chief, you're wrong. And right. Clinton taxed the hell out of us, UNNECESSARILY. That's part of the reason.


    Erm....I don't recall any substantial tax increases recently. Not within the last decade. 40% tax bracket still pays only 40%. That's how it's been since about Reagan. Local taxes aren't the President's doing. Neither are State taxes. If those have gone up where you are, you should be talking to your congressmen locally, not whining about an ex-president. Furthermore, I didn't say Clinton caused the surplus. I said he rode the benefits of a previous administration, just like Bush is doing. Bush may have pushed through a tax cut, but where does that get the average American? Most Americans don't even realize they pay taxes. They "get refunds". As I corrected one of my friends, a refund is money you already paid to the government, that was over and above what you should have paid. My guess, is that this tax cut will have 1 of 2 effects (possibly both).

    1: The next president in office will be cursed because he has to raise the taxes again.

    2: VERY wealthy individuals will get a good break on taxes, but moderate to poor individuals will get virtually nothing.

    IMHO what they should have done, instead of reducing taxes from the top, is reduce the bottom part only, and to a larger degree. Although I hate the "tax the rich" idea, I have to admit, that they are the ones who can afford it more than the average person. So why not instead of dropping the over all taxes, drop the low end taxes by a degree that results in the same money reaching the federal government? This would please the HELL out of average citizens, and be absolutely status quo for the rich. This has been my thoughts on the subject for a long time.

    quote:

    Does the person matter more than the idea? Nope.


    For once, I agree with you. So why does everyone say "It's Bush's idea!" "It's Clinton's idea!" Who the hell cares who's idea it is! Is it good? Bad? Meaningless?

    quote:

    Surprise! I don't totally believe you.


    Shameless flame ignored.

    quote:

    So? Are you saying that ADULTS can't exhibit any sense of control in the face of the POLICE? Interesting...

    Another blow to personal accountability


    I am saying that adults exhibit emotions of anger, when they are faced with a mob of police armed with billy clubs, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The event that I spoke of was a party. It was an out of control party. It was NOT a riot. By morning, all the drunken fools would have been unconcious or asleep. Very little would have been broken. There would have been a mess (beer cans and other trash). However, the police showed up in riot gear, and attempted to break up the party. They did this by shooting tear gas into the crowd, macing people, shooting rubber bullets, pushing people with riot shields and HORSES, and various other assaults. In the end, we had a riot, not a huge out of control party. Drunk people generally respond to violence WITH violence. They do not think clearly. And those that were thinking clearly and NOT doing anything wrong, were assaulted just like the rest. Some of this was captured on film. A nice scene of some guy standing on HIS porch, being told to go inside. He was armed with the almighty CAMERA! The police maced him, because he wouldn't go inside. He was merely recording the event. Oddly enough, so was someone across the street, who recorded the whole conversation with the vicious cameraman on tape. Now, why wouldn't the guy go inside. #1, he was on his own property. #2, he was not doing even the slightest thing illegal. #3, he was making sure that the cops who DID do things illegally, were caught on film and similarly punished for it. #4, his house was down the street from the riot, not in the riot itself. He was outside it, unarmed, harmless, not drunk, not disorderly, not commiting any other crime except video taping something. Last I checked, video taping isn't a crime. Who is personally accountable for causing a disturbance? The students who were drunk. Who is accountable for inciting to riot? The police! Who is accountable for unscrupulous breaches of laws this country was founded on? The police! What we are talking about is oppression. Not shifting blame. I hold the police personally accountable for that riot.

    The television showed some of this. The papers sided with the police entirely. They both know their audiences. Metro area of Columbus is over 1 million. Total population of students, 55,000. If the media said the police were accountable, the media would be dead.

    Where do I get my facts? Personal experience with the exact same situation. Not the same exact riot, but similar circumstances. Also, I get quite a few from watching the events unfold. I had the opportunity to catch the news just as it was happening. Much unlike those in the suburbs who most likely read the newspaper the next day. Additionally, the Columbus Police Department has been under investigation for excessive use of force, and police brutality for about 10 years. I would note, that you don't hear a damn thing about this riot in the news these days. The subject is killed locally.

  7. Okay, I must state for the record that I usually never read the "General Discussions" forum. And now I see why. If I were to actually read it daily, I'd never leave! Anyway...

    Note: I am not a conservative, nor a liberal. I'm a radical. I have views that neither side likes.

    Why is it that most conservatives use liberal as a curse word?

    Why is it that conservatives use bleeding-heart liberal as a curse word?

    What is wrong with having a bleeding-heart?

    Just rhetorical questions for the masses...

    Now for my statements which I fully expect to get completely flamed for.

    The United States of America is NOT the only super power. Everyone likes to forget China. China, who's total population is approximately 1/3 the world population. Who has nuclear weapons. Who can be hit by nuclear weapons in most of it's major population centers and still have enough people to invade EVERY country in the world at about 2:1 (maybe more). If this doesn't equate being a super power...what does????

    Some will say, China doesn't have a strong enough economy to be considered a 'super power'. I say bull. China has a communist economy that OUTLIVED the former USSR.

    Some will say, China doesn't have enough arms to deal a fatal blow to most 'western' world countries. Again, bull. China is a nuclear power, just like the USA. It could dig a hole probably the size of the USA with it's nuclear arsenal. It also utilizes former soviet technologies along side it's own. It's army is modern. Admittedly, not fully equipped, but then, their army is about 5 times the size of the USA, possibly more.

    Now, why do I bring this up? Because I am SICK to DEATH of people thinking America is the be-all end-all country in the world! I live in America. I despise our government for what it is doing both globally and locally. I think it's probably one of THE most corrupt systems out there. I think America is no better a place to live than Antarctica in a bad winter! At least in Antarctica you won't have to worry about being shot by the police during a student riot that was mostly started by the police! And for those of you who disbelieve what I am saying about police, check the newspaper records of about a month ago for Columbus Ohio. Mind you, it's biased as HELL towards the police side of the issue.

    America is a messed up country. That's that.

    Now, you conservatives and liberals out there. You are trying to claim that Bush's high and might tax cut is all his to claim. You forget that the surplus taxes were NOT earned by him, but were earned by Clinton's administration. And that Clinton's administration was riding on the benefits of Bush Sr.'s policies. Which in turn were mostly Reagan's policies. Which were inspired by policies prior to Reagan (not sure who's). The person who is in office has VERY little to do with what actually gets put into effect. The idea is spawned probably 15-20 years prior, and it takes that friggin long for it to finally get refined enough that the house and senate can agree on it. Either that, or they've heard it so many times that they thought it was already in effect. For example, School Voucher program. We must have heard those words 50-100 times during Clinton's administration. Yet now, you hear it daily because Bush is pushing it. I doubt it was Clinton's idea either, but it sure as HELL wasn't Bush's. And what a surprise, it was voted down. That's because there's no money in improving schools in bad parts of town.

    The US government is all about making money. That is all they really care about. Greed. Green. Mulah. It makes me sick, in all honesty. Now, you probably are out there thinking, ahh, this guy is just jealous of those with money. Surprise. I have more than enough money to live off of without working. And I'm only 30! I have pleanty of money, and I would gladly give a fair share of it to people that actually NEED it, if I thought they would use it wisely (not just go buy crack, alcohol, or whatever other 'addiction' they have).

    I think the USA has some serious problems. Problems that will not be solved any time soon. I see only decay of this American Civilization. Bush is not the answer, neither was Clinton. Honestly, I am half tempted to say that representative-democracy is not the answer. I've always been fond of true democracy. The people make all the laws. But I also agree with the libertarians on occasion, why have so many laws? Laws are taking away our freedom. Chipping it little by little, till we are in a facist government, with no freedom at all. Oh wait...we might already be there....

    *sprays flame retardant on above text*

    Next. United Nations. I'm actually rather fond of the concept of the united nations. It means that even the pesky USA can't get away with things it shouldn't be. Note that the USA was recently not reinstated into the humanitarian issues commitee. This is a comitee that since it's founding, the USA has been a member of. The USA's seat was up for re-election. It was turned DOWN. Why? Because the USA has commited atrocities against it's own people and others. Just like the rest of the world. No, they aren't spraying chemical agents on us, but they are having serious riots lately caused by none other than the police themselves! They decided NOT to ratify a treaty that involved the reduction of pollutants being produced by the country (Kyoto treaty). They decided to go against a LOOONG standing treaty against the production of an Anti-Ballistic Missile system (ABM).

    Now, explanations of why this is all major causes for them not being re-instated on the humanitarian issues commitee.

    Riots: Numerous times in the past several years, in a city that has an outstandingly low crime rate (Columbus OH, my city). We have had riots. Almost yearly at this point. What do they all have in common? They all started the moment the police arrived in riot gear. There was no riot prior. There was a riot shortly after. You figure it out.

    Kyoto treaty: The Kyoto treaty was designed to reduce pollutants produced by many 1st world countries over the course of the next couple decades. Now, the treaty itself wasn't the best, but it was better than anything else anyone had cooked up. Why did the USA deny it? Not profitable. Since when was profitability part of removing pollutants from the air? Never. The concern is that if we keep at our current rate, we won't HAVE a world within a hundred years. So a bunch of greedy corporations convinced a greedy government to ditch the treaty. Side note: the USA is THE WORST polluter in the world at present. 2nd place isn't even remotely close.

    ABM: The ABM treaty was devised by the collection of nuclear powers across the entire globe. The idea was that if any ONE country created an ABM system, they could launch their missiles at anyone without fear of retaliation. The idea was to create stasis, so as to prevent any one country from getting too big for it's britches. Nuclear weapons are a threat to the continued existance of life on this planet. If any one country gets too powerful with regards to nuclear weapons, that's it. Game over for humanity. Thus, ALL nuclear powers, including the USA, agreed, signed, ratified, the ABM treaty back in the 70s (or was it 60s?). There will be no ABMs in the entire world. Until the USA, 30-40 years after the treaty was signed, decides to go against it. Thus making themselves a threat to the security of EVERY other country in the entire world. Even our CLOSEST allies look at us with skepticism. We have offended nearly everyone on the planet. Not because of jealousy, but because we are threatening them all with the ability to shield ourselves from a nuclear threat.

    *sprays even more flame retardant on above text*

    And now, I will call it a night (morning?)

    Enjoy it while you can...I hope the USA doesn't do anything else completely assinine before I wake up tomorrow.

×
×
  • Create New...