If the election were held today...

[Lmcfalcon12]

Plain and simple. Vote and post why.

[Pimptastic]

other cos im from england and well they both seem so american and all that, if i was in america i might vote them tho lol

[leninrocks244]

I would vote for Brian Moore because our ideals are identical.

[Aussie Avenger]

i wanted hilary, so then when she went to deal with the arabs they'd tell her to get back in the kitchen, and she'd be upset, and i'd be happy, so yeah.

[Arcadian Empire]

I'd vote George Bush! =P

[tom the pit leader]

i wanted hilary, so then when she went to deal with the arabs they'd tell her to get back in the kitchen, and she'd be upset, and i'd be happy, so yeah.

Nice.

I said Obama because he's bringing something new to the table. For better or worse, he is quite diferent from Bush. On FP, he will talk to our enemies which may or may not work, but not talking hasn't worked either so might as well give it a shot. McCain on the other hand is way to much like Bush for my likeing.

[Zagato]

McCain on the other hand is way to much like Bush for my likeing.

CNN says McCain is quite different from Bush. Though then again, it's CNN. :ph34r:

[Imperial]

i wanted hilary, so then when she went to deal with the arabs they'd tell her to get back in the kitchen, and she'd be upset, and i'd be happy, so yeah.

You don't sound like a male chauvinist pig at all.

[IronsightSniper]

Barrack, just to piss the Skin Heads off.

[The Corporal]

McCain because Obama being President is one of the scariest things I can think of. I'd rather deal with a zombie uprising than suffer under 4 years of communist rule. Actually, a zombie uprising would be kinda fun, when you think about it. Maybe nothing bigger than a Class III uprising, that would be ideal. ;)

[leninrocks244]

McCain because Obama being President is one of the scariest things I can think of. I'd rather deal with a zombie uprising than suffer under 4 years of communist rule. Actually, a zombie uprising would be kinda fun, when you think about it. Maybe nothing bigger than a Class III uprising, that would be ideal. ;)

Explain to me how a supporter of the free market would put the US under Communist rule. See, if he were Communist he would've had McCain shot a long time ago along with Reverend Wright. Universal Health Care and cleaner energy. That seems alot better than Washington being ran by evangelicists who tell you what's right and what's wrong according to the Bible, eventhough Obama is a capitalist. This is what I love about the right wing. The second that a Democratic President brings up a new social project, *poof* almost like some form of fascist magic every Republican and Libertarian denounces it and calls it "socialist" because the President wants to let everybody have a decent life. Not only that, but they label him a Socialist, just like FDR during the New Deal. The right is full of paranoid, overly-christian Fascists, the left is full of caring and sane people who believe in Democracy. Nuff' said.

[The Corporal]

The Democrats and their socialist policies help some people at the expense of others. That isn't right. I don't want Bible-thumping evangelicals in office either but I'd take them over someone who associates in any way with someone like Reverend Wright (who wouldn't have been shot as much as declared the Party ideologue).

[leninrocks244]

The Democrats and their socialist policies help some people at the expense of others. That isn't right. I don't want Bible-thumping evangelicals in office either but I'd take them over someone who associates in any way with someone like Reverend Wright (who wouldn't have been shot as much as declared the Party ideologue).

So it's right to not help people at all? Where's the logic in that?

[Zagato]

Socialist policies won't work in the United States anyways. Why? Massive defence budget. We saw what happened in the Soviet Union. Disasterous to fund both at the same time. If you want it to work, do what other nations are doing and limit global military activity. Sell off the thousands of US bases in foreign countries and fund the social policies. Look after your own people. This isn't the late 50's anymore, the world can look after itself.

But obviously, that is not an option for the US government. If you want to be a global police force, so be it.

[The Corporal]

So it's right to not help people at all? Where's the logic in that?

Helping people is not something you should be forced to do. It should be of your own volition that you do good works for others, not because the government says so. Also, the welfare system has been grossly corrupted in this country - people use welfare in place of an actual job instead of using it to get by between jobs. Why should I have to pay for other people to do nothing? If the taxes that I pay that go towards lazy bums were redirected towards decent charities, then I might not have such a negative outlook on lazy wastes of air because they'd either actually work for a living or die, thusly preventing their anti-productive genes from being propagated. I work hard, other people can too. Everybody has a talent or skill that can be put to use, you just have to have the will to use it.

[ajc111213]

I vote the peanut butter jelly time banana:banana::banana::banana: cuz he is an influencial piece of society. :banana::banana::banana: and i like bananas...

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

[FreeMason]

I'd go Obama. I hate socialism, but McCain would be terrible. He's just an older version of Bush. Plus, he's not even a real conservative. There aren't any real conservatives left in the Republican party. It's just a bunch of religious right fundamentalists and a few "moderates" who say they're conservative but are really still trying to make the gov bigger (which makes them liberal). I don't agree completely with either candidate, but at least I agree with some of Obama's social issues (such as gay rights). Thus, I'd go for the lesser of two evils.

[King Seifer Almasy]

if we vote in McCain we can look forward to more of whats going on right now but if we vote in Obama things might not change right away the will head in the right direction and that's why i would want to vote in Obama and McCain already said that he will keep all of bushes failed plans going and not pull out our troops

[raziel420]

I'd vote for myself, the other choices just piss me off. It's another election where you choose the lesser of 2 evils, or someone who dosen't have the media backing them enough to have a chance.

[The Corporal]

I'd go Obama. I hate socialism, but McCain would be terrible. He's just an older version of Bush. Plus, he's not even a real conservative. There aren't any real conservatives left in the Republican party. It's just a bunch of religious right fundamentalists and a few "moderates" who say they're conservative but are really still trying to make the gov bigger (which makes them liberal). I don't agree completely with either candidate, but at least I agree with some of Obama's social issues (such as gay rights). Thus, I'd go for the lesser of two evils.

Um, you kinda have to pick one - either he's an older version of Bush, or he's not a real conservative. The two are mutually exclusive when applied generally. When you break down his voting record, then he is disturbingly not conservative when it comes to domestic issues - illegal immigration and the like. However, he is rock-solid on defense. Today I read about a poll conducted where even though a certain percentage of Americans don't like the fact that we are in Iraq they realize that we can't just drop out and leave them to their own devices. If we don't finish the job, we'll just leave the country wide open to infighting and eventual takeover by radical Islam. You know, the kind that wants to kill all of us.

[Lincongrad]

Bush isn't a real conservative.

[raziel420]

Um, you kinda have to pick one - either he's an older version of Bush, or he's not a real conservative. The two are mutually exclusive when applied generally. When you break down his voting record, then he is disturbingly not conservative when it comes to domestic issues - illegal immigration and the like. However, he is rock-solid on defense. Today I read about a poll conducted where even though a certain percentage of Americans don't like the fact that we are in Iraq they realize that we can't just drop out and leave them to their own devices. If we don't finish the job, we'll just leave the country wide open to infighting and eventual takeover by radical Islam. You know, the kind that wants to kill all of us.


Take a read of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, one of it's 7 rules is DON'T FIGHT A BATTLE YOU CAN'T WIN

[The Corporal]

Take a read of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, one of it's 7 rules is DON'T FIGHT A BATTLE YOU CAN'T WIN

The problem with applying that rule to our current situation is that the rule assumes we haven't already started it. If we leave now, we will certainly lose with no foreseeable possibility of returning to even our current, tenuous state. If we stay there, if we clean out the militants, if we rebuild schools/hospitals/parks, and (most importantly) if we can show the citizens of Iraq that they don't have to bow to centuries-old religious factionism, then we will win. It's simple on paper, a little harder in practice. But it can be done if people would stop trying to pull a Vietnam on our troops.

[FreeMason]

Um, you kinda have to pick one - either he's an older version of Bush, or he's not a real conservative. The two are mutually exclusive when applied generally. When you break down his voting record, then he is disturbingly not conservative when it comes to domestic issues - illegal immigration and the like. However, he is rock-solid on defense. Today I read about a poll conducted where even though a certain percentage of Americans don't like the fact that we are in Iraq they realize that we can't just drop out and leave them to their own devices. If we don't finish the job, we'll just leave the country wide open to infighting and eventual takeover by radical Islam. You know, the kind that wants to kill all of us.

He's not conservative at all on defence! And neither is Bush! Conservativism is about smaller government, less spending, and more letting the people do what they want. If the Republicans were truly Conservative:

1)we would not have a multi-trillion dollar deficit
2)the wiretapping incident would not have happened
3)we would not still be in this stupid, pointless war
and
4)the religious fanatics in our own country would not be running our nation.

And by the way, the radical Islamics only want to kill us because we had our troops stationed in their countries. This whole thing started because bin Laden hated the fact that there were U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, his homeland. They hate us because they see us as an overbearing, imperialistic nation with no regard for national soverignty, not because of our freedoms like Bush would have everyone believe, and we are only reinforcing that belief by remaining in Iraq.

We are a democracy. Well, a republic, really. But even so, the representatives are supposed to listen to the will of the people. If the people want our troops out of Iraq, it is our gov's responsibility to pull them out.

[leninrocks244]

Helping people is not something you should be forced to do. It should be of your own volition that you do good works for others, not because the government says so. Also, the welfare system has been grossly corrupted in this country - people use welfare in place of an actual job instead of using it to get by between jobs. Why should I have to pay for other people to do nothing? If the taxes that I pay that go towards lazy bums were redirected towards decent charities, then I might not have such a negative outlook on lazy wastes of air because they'd either actually work for a living or die, thusly preventing their anti-productive genes from being propagated. I work hard, other people can too. Everybody has a talent or skill that can be put to use, you just have to have the will to use it.

So you would rather let people lose their homes or let homeless people die just so you can save a buck? Depressing, although I do agree that they should work. Anti-productive genes? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Zagato]

If I were an American voter, I wouldn't vote for Obama. It's not that I don't like him, it's not like I don't like Democrats either. I just think a few of his policies are a bad idea for the current issues going on in the world. Pulling out of Iraq so early is like giving it to Iran on a silver plate. While Universal healthcare is a great in practice in other countries, it wouldn't work in the United States. Too much priority on defence spending to afford such a thing.

I'd vote for McCain because I don't think he'll make any major changes to the country. That's what the United States needs right now, everything to continue normally. Once Iraq's fixed up and once the United Nations actually takes up the job as the real world police, will it then be okay to try new things.

[The Corporal]

So you would rather let people lose their homes or let homeless people die just so you can save a buck? Depressing, although I do agree that they should work. Anti-productive genes? What the fuck are you talking about?

Lazy, worthless pieces of shit deserve what's coming to them. It's not my responsibility to bail other people out of their own mistakes. More often than not, a culture of laziness is passed down from parents to their children. "Hey look, dad does nothing but sit around and drink all day. The only thing he does is cash the welfare check. Man, if all I had to do all day was sit around and collect a check that'd be swell!" If Mr. I-Don't-Feel-Like-Working starves or drinks himself to death then that cycle will be broken. Granted, not everyone is like that but parents are the primary role models for their children. Who else will be a positive role model for kids? The government? Hell no (I could rant about government-sponsored, politically correct children's shows but that's better left for another topic).

If there's a genuine reason for a lost job or lost house (illness, injury, natural disaster) there are good charities that can get a person back on their feet. Constant government handouts are not the answer. Remember the old adage - give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

[leninrocks244]

Lazy, worthless pieces of shit deserve what's coming to them. It's not my responsibility to bail other people out of their own mistakes. More often than not, a culture of laziness is passed down from parents to their children. "Hey look, dad does nothing but sit around and drink all day. The only thing he does is cash the welfare check. Man, if all I had to do all day was sit around and collect a check that'd be swell!" If Mr. I-Don't-Feel-Like-Working starves or drinks himself to death then that cycle will be broken. Granted, not everyone is like that but parents are the primary role models for their children. Who else will be a positive role model for kids? The government? Hell no (I could rant about government-sponsored, politically correct children's shows but that's better left for another topic).

If there's a genuine reason for a lost job or lost house (illness, injury, natural disaster) there are good charities that can get a person back on their feet. Constant government handouts are not the answer. Remember the old adage - give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

You're just basing your whole philosophy on social benefit programs on stereotypes. That's pretty damn ignorant if you don't mind me asking. The right cares about nobody but the rich. The left cares about everybody. And about all of the political correction bullshit, I don't support that. And about charities, if charities are so fantastic and great how come there are still homeless people walking around town (at least where I live)? They get government hand-outs and help from different charities, and it's STILL a problem. See, I care more about people whereas you guys care about money while you can give two shits about your neighbor as long as you're sitting on a mound of cash.

[Hubb]

You're just basing your whole philosophy on social benefit programs on stereotypes. That's pretty damn ignorant if you don't mind me asking. The right cares about nobody but the rich. The left cares about everybody. And about all of the political correction bullshit, I don't support that. And about charities, if charities are so fantastic and great how come there are still homeless people walking around town (at least where I live)? They get government hand-outs and help from different charities, and it's STILL a problem. See, I care more about people whereas you guys care about money while you can give two shits about your neighbor as long as you're sitting on a mound of cash.


I think I'm just going to follow you around for awhile, clowning your posts. You said:

You're just basing your whole philosophy on social benefit programs on stereotypes. That's pretty damn ignorant if you don't mind me asking.

You wouldn't be asking, you'd be telling, by the way. After you just said it would be "pretty damn ignorant" to stereotype, you go on to say:

The right cares about nobody but the rich.

and then

The left cares about everybody.

LOL! You just used TWO stereotypes, of which both are lies.

And about charities, if charities are so fantastic and great how come there are still homeless people walking around town (at least where I live)?

Because the vast majority of them choose to do so, that's why! Your "entitlement" mindset is morally and financially bankrupt! Of course, I'm not talking about homeless individuals who are mentally ill, or people who lose their homes because of some unforseen circumstance. But people who don't work and choose to accept government checks (aka- my taxes at work) deserve no extra help.

Life is behavior. Behavior is choice, and choices have consequences.

See, I care more about people whereas you guys care about money while you can give two shits about your neighbor as long as you're sitting on a mound of cash.

How can we "see" your bleeding heart spilling out its love? We can't. The same way you have NO CLUE whether The Corporal gives "two shits" about anything. He may give three or four shits about a lot of things.

Come back when you've refined your positions and you can have an argument with facts and evidence instead of insults. You have no clue who any of these people are on this board, and it's incorrect to assume you know how anyone would react until they TELL you how they would react.

[leninrocks244]

I think I'm just going to follow you around for awhile, clowning your posts. You said:



You wouldn't be asking, you'd be telling, by the way. After you just said it would be "pretty damn ignorant" to stereotype, you go on to say:



and then



LOL! You just used TWO stereotypes, of which both are lies.



Because the vast majority of them choose to do so, that's why! Your "entitlement" mindset is morally and financially bankrupt! Of course, I'm not talking about homeless individuals who are mentally ill, or people who lose their homes because of some unforseen circumstance. But people who don't work and choose to accept government checks (aka- my taxes at work) deserve no extra help.

Life is behavior. Behavior is choice, and choices have consequences.



How can we "see" your bleeding heart spilling out its love? We can't. The same way you have NO CLUE whether The Corporal gives "two shits" about anything. He may give three or four shits about a lot of things.

Come back when you've refined your positions and you can have an argument with facts and evidence instead of insults. You have no clue who any of these people are on this board, and it's incorrect to assume you know how anyone would react until they TELL you how they would react.

It's immoral for the government to help people out in there times of need?? Not only that, but if they're not working (which usually means they're looking for work) they don't deserve any extra help, which would increase the homeless population?? Wow. Just wow.....

[Villalba]

Will vote for Obama, because he is the most exiting candidate.

[Hubb]

It's immoral for the government to help people out in there times of need?? Not only that, but if they're not working (which usually means they're looking for work) they don't deserve any extra help, which would increase the homeless population?? Wow. Just wow.....

No, it's immoral for a people to depend on the bloated, bureaucratic mess that is the federal government. "Times of need" is a subjective phrase. I have times of need, too. My family has times of need, as well, but I don't depend on government to give me a hand out. I work two jobs, and, contrary to popular belief, I'm a Conservative and don't sit on a pile of cash.

As I said, someone who is mentally ill and homeless deserves to get the help they desperately need. People who, for some unforeseen circumstance, find themselves needing help to get back on their feet (i.e.- short term) deserve limited help.

It's the "serial offenders" who take and take that deserve nothing. Get a job. If I lost my job, I'd dig ditches all day to provide for my family. I would not expect the government to prop me up for the rest of my days. It disgusts me when others feel the government should function as en loco parentis instead of taking control of their own lives.

If you have a job and/or a family to provide for, you should understand this concept. If not, then wait until you do, then talk to me about your taxes and how your money goes to pay for failed social programs. Throwing money at people who have no desire to work or take responsibility for their actions disgusts me.

[leninrocks244]

No, it's immoral for a people to depend on the bloated, bureaucratic mess that is the federal government. "Times of need" is a subjective phrase. I have times of need, too. My family has times of need, as well, but I don't depend on government to give me a hand out. I work two jobs, and, contrary to popular belief, I'm a Conservative and don't sit on a pile of cash.

As I said, someone who is mentally ill and homeless deserves to get the help they desperately need. People who, for some unforeseen circumstance, find themselves needing help to get back on their feet (i.e.- short term) deserve limited help.

It's the "serial offenders" who take and take that deserve nothing. Get a job. If I lost my job, I'd dig ditches all day to provide for my family. I would not expect the government to prop me up for the rest of my days. It disgusts me when others feel the government should function as en loco parentis instead of taking control of their own lives.

If you have a job and/or a family to provide for, you should understand this concept. If not, then wait until you do, then talk to me about your taxes and how your money goes to pay for failed social programs. Throwing money at people who have no desire to work or take responsibility for their actions disgusts me.

Sure, I think those who do nothing but live off of government hand-outs should get a job but I still want them to live for christ sake. People who are unemployed and have a family to provide for should recieve all of the help they need until they find employment. The government isn't taking control of their lives. That's absurd. The government is there to help you, not to become "big brother".

[The Corporal]

Sure, I think those who do nothing but live off of government hand-outs should get a job but I still want them to live for christ sake. People who are unemployed and have a family to provide for should recieve all of the help they need until they find employment. The government isn't taking control of their lives. That's absurd. The government is there to help you, not to become "big brother".

Unfortunately, "until they find employment" tends to become "forever" much more often than is necessary. Here are two examples that explain what I'm on about:

1) Bob is a certified arc welder, husband, and father of two young children. They own a little ranch-style home, a station wagon, and an acre of woods behind their house. They get by alright because Bob works real hard at his job and because Bob's wife Mary's side job as a piano teacher makes decent money and is something that Mary really enjoys. One day, a tornado levels their home, their woods, and tosses their car nonchalantly into the local Wal-Mart. In this instance, the family gets assistance from the Red Cross, the local Lions Club, their insurance, and the government to rebuild/replace their house, get a new car, and generally get their life back together. Bob gets checks from the government for a few months in order to cover the lost time at work that is spent on getting his affairs back in order. After a reasonably short time (3-9 months, depending on a lot of circumstances I'm not willing to write down) Bob and his family have gotten their lives back on track and live happily ever after.

2) Jim is a drunk. He dropped out of high school so he could tour with his friends, playing at music festivals all over the country. Jim hooks up with, impregnates, and eventually marries a groupie he met, named Carol. Carol wanted to go to college, but decided to be a stay-at-home mom so Jim could try his hand at being an electrician. Unfortunately, Jim is so busted up about being tied down so early in life (and the fact that he is a crappy guitarist) that he starts hitting the bottle. One day, he shows up at work drunk and is fired. He figures he can collect checks from the government instead of sobering up and getting a new job. Jim gets some occasional work here and there (odd jobs and such), but never breaks out of the welfare cycle because, frankly, it's easier than working.

If the welfare system always worked like situation 1, I wouldn't complain about it. But more often than not situation 2 is the case, and that makes me pretty angry. I have no problem helping out people who are in genuine need, but I have a big problem with paying for other people's lack of good judgment.

Also, on a lighter note, don't forget what Ronald Reagan said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

[leninrocks244]

Unfortunately, "until they find employment" tends to become "forever" much more often than is necessary. Here are two examples that explain what I'm on about:

1) Bob is a certified arc welder, husband, and father of two young children. They own a little ranch-style home, a station wagon, and an acre of woods behind their house. They get by alright because Bob works real hard at his job and because Bob's wife Mary's side job as a piano teacher makes decent money and is something that Mary really enjoys. One day, a tornado levels their home, their woods, and tosses their car nonchalantly into the local Wal-Mart. In this instance, the family gets assistance from the Red Cross, the local Lions Club, their insurance, and the government to rebuild/replace their house, get a new car, and generally get their life back together. Bob gets checks from the government for a few months in order to cover the lost time at work that is spent on getting his affairs back in order. After a reasonably short time (3-9 months, depending on a lot of circumstances I'm not willing to write down) Bob and his family have gotten their lives back on track and live happily ever after.

2) Jim is a drunk. He dropped out of high school so he could tour with his friends, playing at music festivals all over the country. Jim hooks up with, impregnates, and eventually marries a groupie he met, named Carol. Carol wanted to go to college, but decided to be a stay-at-home mom so Jim could try his hand at being an electrician. Unfortunately, Jim is so busted up about being tied down so early in life (and the fact that he is a crappy guitarist) that he starts hitting the bottle. One day, he shows up at work drunk and is fired. He figures he can collect checks from the government instead of sobering up and getting a new job. Jim gets some occasional work here and there (odd jobs and such), but never breaks out of the welfare cycle because, frankly, it's easier than working.

If the welfare system always worked like situation 1, I wouldn't complain about it. But more often than not situation 2 is the case, and that makes me pretty angry. I have no problem helping out people who are in genuine need, but I have a big problem with paying for other people's lack of good judgment.

Also, on a lighter note, don't forget what Ronald Reagan said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

The guy in situation one made some bad choices, but that doesn't mean that he should live on scraps. He's still human. Reagan also supported the Taliban and many other totalitarian dictatorships.

[Zagato]

Reagan also supported the Taliban and many other totalitarian dictatorships.

Let's not get into another debate here.

[leninrocks244]

Helping people is not something you should be forced to do.

Oh, and it's not really being taxed by force if any social program passes in Congress.

[The Corporal]

Oh, and it's not really being taxed by force if any social program passes in Congress.

In that, you would be wrong. Example: let's assume that Congress passes a $800 billion universal healthcare bill (that number may be off, but there are a lot of people in this country and hospital bills are really, really large). If I choose to not pay the extra couple hundred (or thousand) dollars that is added to my taxes, the IRS comes and pounds me in the ass. I'd call that being forced to support social programs against my will.

[FreeMason]

Oh, and it's not really being taxed by force if any social program passes in Congress.

Um...taxation is actually the gov forcing you to give them money. I'm fine with the taxes so long as the money goes into the protection of my personal rights. However, it violates my rights to have the gov steal my hard earned cash and put it in the hands of some crack addict. I'm not saying all people on welfare are crack addicts. I'm just saying that's where some of the money ends up. And that is not right. It's not even right to take my money (which is my property) and give it to anyone. I give to charity of my own free will. Why should I be forced to pay more?

[Hubb]

Um...taxation is actually the gov forcing you to give them money. I'm fine with the taxes so long as the money goes into the protection of my personal rights. However, it violates my rights to have the gov steal my hard earned cash and put it in the hands of some crack addict. I'm not saying all people on welfare are crack addicts. I'm just saying that's where some of the money ends up. And that is not right. It's not even right to take my money (which is my property) and give it to anyone. I give to charity of my own free will. Why should I be forced to pay more?

This. A lot.

[Zagato]

As I've said many times before, universal healthcare is a good idea, and good in practice.
But, it's not what the United States needs. The system already in use seems okay, I guess. But if some American citizens want it, then they have the right to vote for it. Nothing stopping them.

Canada didn't have universal healthcare until the 60's. Though it's okay to have it up here because the population is about the same as California, and the smaller defence budget. I guess a smaller population means a closer one. We seem to feel the government should manage the healthcare, but that's our views.
I mean, I live in a town, which is in a deeply Liberal province, where there are many drug addicts. Yet, recently a brand new modern hospital was built here with new doctors moving into nice houses. But then again, this is much to do with the smaller Canadian population, allowing many projects like these to happen.

Such projects to take place in the United States would be hugely expensive to maintain, like Corporal said. But, if American citizens want it, it's up to them.

[FreeMason]

As I've said many times before, universal healthcare is a good idea, and good in practice.
But, it's not what the United States needs. The system already in use seems okay, I guess. But if some American citizens want it, then they have the right to vote for it. Nothing stopping them.

Canada didn't have universal healthcare until the 60's. Though it's okay to have it up here because the population is about the same as California, and the smaller defence budget. I guess a smaller population means a closer one. We seem to feel the government should manage the healthcare, but that's our views.
I mean, I live in a town, which is in a deeply Liberal province, where there are many drug addicts. Yet, recently a brand new modern hospital was built here with new doctors moving into nice houses. But then again, this is much to do with the smaller Canadian population, allowing many projects like these to happen.

Such projects to take place in the United States would be hugely expensive to maintain, like Corporal said. But, if American citizens want it, it's up to them.

Yes, if the citizens want it, they should have it. That's how the U.S. gov should work, even if it doesn't really work that way. However, I still reserve the right to tell people that I think it's a bad idea. The problem with universal healthcare goes back to my post about general taxation:

My money should not be stolen from me to pay for someone else. If a person smokes all their life and is hospitalized for lung cancer, I shouldn't have to pay for it. If a person eats McDonalds every day and has a heart attack because they're morbidly obese, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Their pesonal stupidity should not have an impact on my wallet.

The U.S. healthcare system is majorly screwed up. But that doesn't mean the gov should take over it. The gov should be less involved in my personal life. I think that the gov should regulate the health industry so that the price remains in the "affordable" range, but stays away from direct gov control. When the gov begins to control the industry, the more invasive and overbearing the government becomes.

[Villalba]

I really couldn't care about the healthcare system, is not the government's responsibility to handle it, healthcare is best to be left to the private sector.

Also is not the government's job to fix housing, if the people were so screwed to make this kind of mistakes then they should screw themselves over, and the govt should not waste the tax money on bailing them out.

[hArRyBeAvEr]

I really couldn't care about the healthcare system, is not the government's responsibility to handle it, healthcare is best to be left to the private sector.

Also is not the government's job to fix housing, if the people were so screwed to make this kind of mistakes then they should screw themselves over, and the govt should not waste the tax money on bailing them out.


So the victims of Katrina shouldn't have been helped? (not that they were helped as much as they should have been)


Also, a long time ago someone said Osama hates us because of our troops in Saudi Arabia. While that is partially true, a huge portion of his hate stems from the U.S. not helping Afghanistan when the Soviet Union left. We chose to help the Afghanis until we got what we wanted, then we left them alone, which is exactly what many Democrats and some Republicans want us to do, leave Iraq alone. I don't think people understand how seriously pissed off the world would be at us if we did that, saying how we brought other countries into Iraq to end up leaving without accomplishing our goal, leaving many brave men and women dead for absolutely no reason.

That brings me to another "problem" with the war in Iraq. Many people are complaining about our soldiers dying and all that. If you ever talk to a soldier that has been in Iraq or Afghanistan and ask them if they would ever go back, I'm guessing the answer would be yes. One soldier was stabbed in the head, brought back home, got the knife out of his head, and decided to go back to Iraq after physical therapy.


Sorry about going completely off-topic there, but I felt like I needed to clear things up.

[asacavanagh]

.....

[FreeMason]

So the victims of Katrina shouldn't have been helped? (not that they were helped as much as they should have been)


Also, a long time ago someone said Osama hates us because of our troops in Saudi Arabia. While that is partially true, a huge portion of his hate stems from the U.S. not helping Afghanistan when the Soviet Union left. We chose to help the Afghanis until we got what we wanted, then we left them alone, which is exactly what many Democrats and some Republicans want us to do, leave Iraq alone. I don't think people understand how seriously pissed off the world would be at us if we did that, saying how we brought other countries into Iraq to end up leaving without accomplishing our goal, leaving many brave men and women dead for absolutely no reason.

That brings me to another "problem" with the war in Iraq. Many people are complaining about our soldiers dying and all that. If you ever talk to a soldier that has been in Iraq or Afghanistan and ask them if they would ever go back, I'm guessing the answer would be yes. One soldier was stabbed in the head, brought back home, got the knife out of his head, and decided to go back to Iraq after physical therapy.


Sorry about going completely off-topic there, but I felt like I needed to clear things up.

We're only making the world more pissed off by staying in Iraq. The Western, capitalist world agreed with our aid to the Afghanis during the Cold War because they hated communism. The Afghanis accepted our help because they didn't want to be taken over by Russia. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda only hates us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. The Taleban hate us because we left Afghanistan alone after we had achieved our goal. The Taleban and al-Qaeda are two seperate groups, bound together only by their hatred of the U.S., but they hate us for two completely different reasons.

And yes, some soldiers are willing to go back. But that doesn't mean they should have to. We shouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. It is a waste of lives. It is a waste of money. It is a waste of time.

Of course the Katrina victims should be helped. What Villalba was reffering to was the declining housing market, not houses destroyed by natural disasters. And I agree with him completely. Someone else's stupidity should not be my problem.

[Zagato]

We're only making the world more pissed off by staying in Iraq. The Western, capitalist world agreed with our aid to the Afghanis during the Cold War because they hated communism. The Afghanis accepted our help because they didn't want to be taken over by Russia. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda only hates us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. The Taleban hate us because we left Afghanistan alone after we had achieved our goal. The Taleban and al-Qaeda are two seperate groups, bound together only by their hatred of the U.S., but they hate us for two completely different reasons.

Come to think of it, what happened in Afghanistan could be compared to what might happen in Iraq. But such a comparison would not make me a popular man if I explain it here. :ph34r:

[FreeMason]

I know exactly what you mean. And I agree. I think.

[The Corporal]

And yes, some soldiers are willing to go back. But that doesn't mean they should have to. We shouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place.

This, folks, is called 'beating a dead horse.' We're there. We have announced to the world that we intend to restore peace, prosperity, and democracy to a country that has not had any in the last 30 years - part of which was our fault in the first place. By removing Saddam we cleaned up the mess we made in the 70s and 80s. By staying in Iraq and bring peace and order to the population, we're cleaning up the mess we made in 2004 by not having a real plan for the post-Saddam Iraq. If we don't do it, we'll just be setting up Iraq to become the next great haven of anti-American, radical Islamic psychopaths and we'll confirm to our allies that we only start things for other people to finish.

Edit: I don't think you agreed based on your post a while back, but hopefully my post will clarify things?

[FreeMason]

This, folks, is called 'beating a dead horse.' We're there. We have announced to the world that we intend to restore peace, prosperity, and democracy to a country that has not had any in the last 30 years - part of which was our fault in the first place. By removing Saddam we cleaned up the mess we made in the 70s and 80s. By staying in Iraq and bring peace and order to the population, we're cleaning up the mess we made in 2004 by not having a real plan for the post-Saddam Iraq. If we don't do it, we'll just be setting up Iraq to become the next great haven of anti-American, radical Islamic psychopaths and we'll confirm to our allies that we only start things for other people to finish.

Edit: I don't think you agreed based on your post a while back, but hopefully my post will clarify things?

This, folks, is called 'the Republican party's excuse to continue their crap'. We haven't brought peace, we've brought violence. We haven't brought prosperity, we've brought corpses. And does anyone else find it ironic that we're forcing democracy on people? The fact that we're doing this just makes me agree more with Rossovsky. The U.S. is acting now like the Soviets did then. They were trying to spread communism by force. We are trying to spread democracy...by force. It will only cause our downfall. (At least, I think that's what Rossovsky was saying. If it wasn't, I'm saying it now.)

I'm no liberal. I hate socialism. I think less government is the best government. But a stupid war is also to be despised. It is a waste of human life and taxpayer's money. And let me ask you something: are the "Islamic psychopaths" in the mid-East any worse than the Christian psychopaths over here?

[Zagato]

The fact that we're doing this just makes me agree more with Rossovsky. The U.S. is acting now like the Soviets did then. They were trying to spread communism by force. We are trying to spread democracy...by force. It will only cause our downfall. (At least, I think that's what Rossovsky was saying. If it wasn't, I'm saying it now.)

No, that wasn't what I was saying.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with spreading democracy. Though by force is too extreme and sends a bad impression to the affected country. I've studied what happened in Latin America, so I bet I know why 'spreading democracy' increases anger to the opposition.

The United Nations should perhaps work together to bring about the enforcements of human rights and such across the world. One country single-handedly doing this would just give people the impression of imperialism, establishing a puppet government to be friendly to the liberating country. I'm not saying the US is doing this in Iraq, but extremists may take it that way.

[FreeMason]

Well I'm sorry I misinterpreted. Please explain what you mean, because thats what I got. Again, sorry.

I think the U.S. is definately trying to establish a puppet government.

What I don't get is the people who think these insurgents are psychopathic killers. Look at it from their perspective: Your country is occupied by foreign troops. They are exerting a massive amount of control over your nation's government. In a situation like this, you'd better believe I'd take up a gun and shoot some occupiers. That is what started this whole thing in the first place. The U.S. intrests in Saudi Arabia (oil) caused us to put our troops in there to make sure we continued to recieve that oil. Bin Laden saw this as an attack on his homeland's soverignty. I'm not condoning his actions so far as attacks like 9/11 are concerned, but I do think there would have been justification for him to attack the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. To the Mid-East, we are INVADERS. They don't hate us because of our freedoms, as the Bush administration has so often said. They hate us because we have taken away their national freedoms. We have imposed what we think is best, what we think is right, upon nations that we have no right to meddle with. Better relations are only going to be achieved by diplomacy, not by occupying forces.

[hArRyBeAvEr]

What I don't get is the people who think these insurgents are psychopathic killers. Look at it from their perspective: Your country is occupied by foreign troops. They are exerting a massive amount of control over your nation's government. In a situation like this, you'd better believe I'd take up a gun and shoot some occupiers.

People think isurgents are psychopathic killers because our soldiers will put up schools to find that the next day it has been knocked down by insurgents; they give farmers things they need to find that insurgents have taken the things and threatened the farmers; or maybe they try to give something to someone and the person won't accept it because they were threatened by insurgents.

Don't get me wrong, if some country occupied the United States and started doing unethical things to the masses I would take up arms as well, but if the occupying country was HELPING I would let them.

[FreeMason]

People think isurgents are psychopathic killers because our soldiers will put up schools to find that the next day it has been knocked down by insurgents; they give farmers things they need to find that insurgents have taken the things and threatened the farmers; or maybe they try to give something to someone and the person won't accept it because they were threatened by insurgents.

Don't get me wrong, if some country occupied the United States and started doing unethical things to the masses I would take up arms as well, but if the occupying country was HELPING I would let them.

True. The U.S. is trying to help. But we are still an occupying force. I don't think it's right for the insurgents to destroy schools, harass farmers, etc., but I think it's important that we recognize their perspective, at the very least.

[The Corporal]

This, folks, is called 'the Republican party's excuse to continue their crap'. We haven't brought peace, we've brought violence. We haven't brought prosperity, we've brought corpses.

The corpses were there long before we arrived. Now at least the people have a chance to decide their own affairs instead of suffering under the heel of a horrible dictator. Who, by the way, wouldn't have an exit strategy. Who wouldn't build schools or hospitals unless they had a 50-foot-tall depiction of his ugly mug on the side. Who would gas people because he didn't like them very much. That sort of thing. Pacifists disgust me because if they were in power in the late 30s and early 40s, we'd all be speaking German right now.

[FreeMason]

The corpses were there long before we arrived. Now at least the people have a chance to decide their own affairs instead of suffering under the heel of a horrible dictator. Who, by the way, wouldn't have an exit strategy. Who wouldn't build schools or hospitals unless they had a 50-foot-tall depiction of his ugly mug on the side. Who would gas people because he didn't like them very much. That sort of thing. Pacifists disgust me because if they were in power in the late 30s and early 40s, we'd all be speaking German right now.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a terrible human being. Why didn't the administration use those actions as justification for the war instead of lying to the entire country about WMDs?

And I'm not a pacifist, either. I am simply capable of recognizing wasted effort when I see it.

We are not the world police. We have no right to go around to other countries and tell them what to do.

[Zagato]

We are not the world police. We have no right to go around to other countries and tell them what to do.
-to other countries which have nice resources and a large market.

World security is never the job of one country.

[The Corporal]

-to other countries which have nice resources and a large market.

World security is never the job of one country.

That's a good point. Unfortunately, the U.N. isn't exactly the most effective political system ever devised. Yes, U.N. peacekeepers do a lot of good all over the globe but they leave the big jobs to the U.S.

And FreeMason, I have no idea why toppling Saddam wasn't at the top of the list - it sure worked in Kosovo with Milosevic...

[Zagato]

That's a good point. Unfortunately, the U.N. isn't exactly the most effective political system ever devised. Yes, U.N. peacekeepers do a lot of good all over the globe but they leave the big jobs to the U.S.

The 'big jobs' should still not be left to one country. A broader coalition is still needed. For example, nations like the UK, Poland, and Australia supported and aided the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. But, a lot of other nations opposed it such as France, Germany, Russia, Canada, China, and Mexico. The sort of countries you'd want on your side for such a war.

[Hubb]

The 'big jobs' should still not be left to one country. A broader coalition is still needed. For example, nations like the UK, Poland, and Australia supported and aided the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. But, a lot of other nations opposed it such as France, Germany, Russia, Canada, China, and Mexico. The sort of countries you'd want on your side for such a war.

...well, maybe not the French. :p

[Zagato]

...well, maybe not the French. :p
I think the biggest unsurprising opposition came from the Swiss. :D

[FreeMason]

And FreeMason, I have no idea why toppling Saddam wasn't at the top of the list - it sure worked in Kosovo with Milosevic...

So lying to the nation is then justified? And I think the atrocities you used to back up your own argument could easily be considered a reason to go to war. Thats how we got the public behind the Spanish-American War way back when. Of course, we were supposedly attacked by the Spanish first, which Iraq did not do, but hey, who really cares anyway?

[The Corporal]

So lying to the nation is then justified? And I think the atrocities you used to back up your own argument could easily be considered a reason to go to war. Thats how we got the public behind the Spanish-American War way back when. Of course, we were supposedly attacked by the Spanish first, which Iraq did not do, but hey, who really cares anyway?

Where are you making that conclusion? I sure didn't. I was merely stating confusion at the fact they put WMDs at the top of the list rather than killing a horrible, mass-murdering dictator.

[hArRyBeAvEr]

About America not being the world's police force...well....the United States Marine Corps is actually known as the police force of the world

[FreeMason]

Where are you making that conclusion? I sure didn't. I was merely stating confusion at the fact they put WMDs at the top of the list rather than killing a horrible, mass-murdering dictator.

Alright, sorry, don't really know what I was thinking when I posted that. I agree with you. I'm a bit out of it at the moment, though. Sorry again.

[FreeMason]

About America not being the world's police force...well....the United States Marine Corps is actually known as the police force of the world

But what gives us the right to police the world?