Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

 

2008-01-13 10:04:39
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

1. All you will have then is fewer people in smaller govts that are corrupt and greedy. X's 50
Wrong. You will have government brought much closer to the people, much more easily scrutinised and much more visible/acccountable, which much less opportunity to be fraudulent on a grand scale. It truly is bizarre that you are trying to suggest that devolved government would be less efficient and more corrupt than big government. Truly bizarre. Is that you lowing? Have you had your account hacked?

lowing wrote:

2. You are dreaming if you think all of these separate govts. are going to pull together for a common good. It is natural for everyone to out for themselves at the cost of the weaker members. I love the assumption that each govt. is willing to strive to pull together. How do you plan on guaranteeing this?
Well they all have to operate in accordance with the one constitution. States would pull together for the common good by virtue of the mutual economic benefits of cooperation. You guarantee it by stating in the framework that there is free passage of goods, capital and ideas amongst all states.

lowing wrote:

3. Great but without power  ( because you have each state more or less on its own with its own power), how is the federal govt. supposed to accomplish anything?
The federal government would take care of defence and foreign policy and some other areas of commonality. Taxation and the economic and legal management of much of the country would be devolved to the individual states. Power to the people, you know? To paraphrase - putting 'the responsibilities for MY LIFE in MY hands'. lol

lowing wrote:

4. I am all for good stiff competition it keeps prices down ,but if you think the ultimate goal of competition is NOT to drive your rivals out of business you are nuts. If that is not the goal what is it you are competing for. I am all for this, but I see a difference between driving a company out of business compared to driving a state out of business. Don't you?
You can't drive a state out of business. You're really clutching at straws here. If a state isn't worth investing in then it'll force them to make themselves marketable. The state won't disintegrate into nothingness. Your analogy is ludicrous. Each state has their own distinct qualities and resources. One state can offer things another can't, etc. The ultimate goal of business is to produce efficiently and cheaply so that you can offer your products at a comparable or cheaper price than your competitors, not to put them out of business. If there was a risk that you would put all competitors out of business the monopoly commission would have stepped in a long time ago.

lowing wrote:

5.How do you plan on enforcing this "framework" when all 50 states interpret your framework 50 different ways?
That's part of the minimised role of the federal government.

lowing wrote:

6. Luxembourg?!! Sweden?!!.Yeah there are some comparable sized countries with comparable sized problems. Where are they on the world stage again? How are they handling world affairs? Are there any 2 countries MORE on the sidelines of world affairs than these 2?
The example shows how small government produces rich countries with high living standards and transparent government. You need to rid yourself of your balance-sapping idea of how America should be 'handling world affairs'. The world is sick of it, half your country is sick of it and it gets you nowhere but further in debt with China and the rest of the world. Learn some humility, some sense and some fiscal responsibility.

lowing wrote:

7. I am glad you all have come together, who is first to bail out France with their exceedingly difficult financial issues because of handing out so much FREE life to its citizens through its "fantastic" social infrastructure? How long before France goes bankrupt? Then who is next? Then what are the rest of you prepared to do about it, besides conquer them, AGAIN.
EU countries have an obligation to make sure their budget deficit, if they incur one, can be no larger than a certain percentage of their GNP - otherwise they are penalised by the EU. Quite different from continuing to spend Chinese money without any regard for the term 'balanced budget'. Nothing Europe could spend would come close to the dollar haemorrhaging you guys indulge in. The US is bankrupt, wake up and smell the coffee.

lowing wrote:

9. Last time I looked Russia was part of Europe. I guess with all of their problems you kinda disowned them, and they all of a sudden do not count huh.
This is typical lowing. I am speaking from the point of view of the EU and lowing seems to try and rope Russia into the argument, completely and utterly off the point. Nice. Very nice.

lowing wrote:

10. Yer right, our socialist/liberals are trying to do just that, become an extension of SOCIALIST Europe. This is what I am against. I want to keep the responsibilities for MY LIFE in MY hands, I do not want the govt. involved.
It must be tough battling your own brain with all this self-contradiction eh, lowing?

lowing wrote:

Childishness? Only a child wants to be coddled by their parents for life. Only a child wants life given to them without earning anything. These are the characteristics of EUROPEANS. To want to be free to choose and earn a life on my own hardly makes me a child. Now, don't you have some govt. tit to suck on? Or is it not feeding time in Europe?
The characteristics of Europeans include producing some of the best quality products in the world without having to step over our grandmothers to do it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-13 10:10:18)

2008-01-13 15:51:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. All you will have then is fewer people in smaller govts that are corrupt and greedy. X's 50
Wrong. You will have government brought much closer to the people, much more easily scrutinised and much more visible/acccountable, which much less opportunity to be fraudulent on a grand scale. It truly is bizarre that you are trying to suggest that devolved government would be less efficient and more corrupt than big government. Truly bizarre. Is that you lowing? Have you had your account hacked?

lowing wrote:

2. You are dreaming if you think all of these separate govts. are going to pull together for a common good. It is natural for everyone to out for themselves at the cost of the weaker members. I love the assumption that each govt. is willing to strive to pull together. How do you plan on guaranteeing this?
Well they all have to operate in accordance with the one constitution. States would pull together for the common good by virtue of the mutual economic benefits of cooperation. You guarantee it by stating in the framework that there is free passage of goods, capital and ideas amongst all states.

lowing wrote:

3. Great but without power  ( because you have each state more or less on its own with its own power), how is the federal govt. supposed to accomplish anything?
The federal government would take care of defence and foreign policy and some other areas of commonality. Taxation and the economic and legal management of much of the country would be devolved to the individual states. Power to the people, you know? To paraphrase - putting 'the responsibilities for MY LIFE in MY hands'. lol

lowing wrote:

4. I am all for good stiff competition it keeps prices down ,but if you think the ultimate goal of competition is NOT to drive your rivals out of business you are nuts. If that is not the goal what is it you are competing for. I am all for this, but I see a difference between driving a company out of business compared to driving a state out of business. Don't you?
You can't drive a state out of business. You're really clutching at straws here. If a state isn't worth investing in then it'll force them to make themselves marketable. The state won't disintegrate into nothingness. Your analogy is ludicrous. Each state has their own distinct qualities and resources. One state can offer things another can't, etc. The ultimate goal of business is to produce efficiently and cheaply so that you can offer your products at a comparable or cheaper price than your competitors, not to put them out of business. If there was a risk that you would put all competitors out of business the monopoly commission would have stepped in a long time ago.

lowing wrote:

5.How do you plan on enforcing this "framework" when all 50 states interpret your framework 50 different ways?
That's part of the minimised role of the federal government.

lowing wrote:

6. Luxembourg?!! Sweden?!!.Yeah there are some comparable sized countries with comparable sized problems. Where are they on the world stage again? How are they handling world affairs? Are there any 2 countries MORE on the sidelines of world affairs than these 2?
The example shows how small government produces rich countries with high living standards and transparent government. You need to rid yourself of your balance-sapping idea of how America should be 'handling world affairs'. The world is sick of it, half your country is sick of it and it gets you nowhere but further in debt with China and the rest of the world. Learn some humility, some sense and some fiscal responsibility.

lowing wrote:

7. I am glad you all have come together, who is first to bail out France with their exceedingly difficult financial issues because of handing out so much FREE life to its citizens through its "fantastic" social infrastructure? How long before France goes bankrupt? Then who is next? Then what are the rest of you prepared to do about it, besides conquer them, AGAIN.
EU countries have an obligation to make sure their budget deficit, if they incur one, can be no larger than a certain percentage of their GNP - otherwise they are penalised by the EU. Quite different from continuing to spend Chinese money without any regard for the term 'balanced budget'. Nothing Europe could spend would come close to the dollar haemorrhaging you guys indulge in. The US is bankrupt, wake up and smell the coffee.

lowing wrote:

9. Last time I looked Russia was part of Europe. I guess with all of their problems you kinda disowned them, and they all of a sudden do not count huh.
This is typical lowing. I am speaking from the point of view of the EU and lowing seems to try and rope Russia into the argument, completely and utterly off the point. Nice. Very nice.

lowing wrote:

10. Yer right, our socialist/liberals are trying to do just that, become an extension of SOCIALIST Europe. This is what I am against. I want to keep the responsibilities for MY LIFE in MY hands, I do not want the govt. involved.
It must be tough battling your own brain with all this self-contradiction eh, lowing?

lowing wrote:

Childishness? Only a child wants to be coddled by their parents for life. Only a child wants life given to them without earning anything. These are the characteristics of EUROPEANS. To want to be free to choose and earn a life on my own hardly makes me a child. Now, don't you have some govt. tit to suck on? Or is it not feeding time in Europe?
The characteristics of Europeans include producing some of the best quality products in the world without having to step over our grandmothers to do it.
Bottomline Cam, the US is stronger in every aspect of the word and has surpassed Europe in every catergory. It is the EU that turns to the US to help solve their problems and NOT the other way around. SO keep sitting on yourimaginary perch and brat your chests as to how great you are, and the US, AS IT IS, will still be there when one of you fools gets out of line and starts another invasion of your nieghbors.

I have not contradicted my self one bit Cam. You claim smaller govts. would better serve the people. Well the truth is our congress is full of Senators and Congressmen from each individual state that are already so far out of touch with the people and so full of greed and corruption that it is staggering. All you have said would happen has no hint of happening yet with the power the states already have. Yet you believe more state power is the answer. Time to gimme a break.


Not sure how a collapse of a whole country ( USSR) which  has happened could never happen to a state which is on its own, yet you think a collapse of a state is just impossible. I also do not understand how the USSR doesn't count when talking about the collapse of countries in Europe.


If you wanna down size it one, lets talk about towns and cities, what do you think would happen to a steel town like Pittsburg if it were left on its own without state funding? How about Detroit? These cities need the state funding, just like individual states need federal funding. Without it, and you let compitition govern, states can and will go bankrupt. You already are saying our whole country is bankrupt, how the hell do feel it is impossible for an unassisted state to do the same thing?
2008-01-13 15:59:40
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Not sure how a collapse of a whole country ( USSR) which  has happened could never happen to a state which is on its own, yet you think a collapse of a state is just impossible. I also do not understand how the USSR doesn't count when talking about the collapse of countries in Europe.


If you wanna down size it one, lets talk about towns and cities, what do you think would happen to a steel town like Pittsburg if it were left on its own without state funding? How about Detroit? These cities need the state funding, just like individual states need federal funding. Without it, and you let compitition govern, states can and will go bankrupt. You already are saying our whole country is bankrupt, how the hell do feel it is impossible for an unassisted state to do the same thing?
There were many reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but the stagnant economy and rampant military spending (which led to neglecting its own infrastructure and domestic needs) were the nails in that coffin.

Federal government downsizing = more state money (those same tax dollars can be diverted to states to cover its enlarged role).  Then, the state will magically have funding for Pittsburgh or Detroit.  You assume that one step would be taken, but none of the logical following steps would be.
2008-01-13 16:02:17
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7110|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

1.We need a strong central govt. 50 small govts. could never come together to solve common issues. Individual states interests would ultimately overshadow any progress or solutions to issues.

2.No because separate govts. that do not answer to a common govt. is essentially separate countries, with each country valuing their own interests and never solving any community issues. "A House divided against itself can not stand"
Yes in part to the first.

Strong central govt is important, but states should have priority in everything save national affairs.
Isn't that the way it is now? I can not think of an example where the federal govt. steps into states business.
To be honest, I don't know. The details of US politics eludes me... I'd like to change that, though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-01-13 16:05:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how a collapse of a whole country ( USSR) which  has happened could never happen to a state which is on its own, yet you think a collapse of a state is just impossible. I also do not understand how the USSR doesn't count when talking about the collapse of countries in Europe.


If you wanna down size it one, lets talk about towns and cities, what do you think would happen to a steel town like Pittsburg if it were left on its own without state funding? How about Detroit? These cities need the state funding, just like individual states need federal funding. Without it, and you let compitition govern, states can and will go bankrupt. You already are saying our whole country is bankrupt, how the hell do feel it is impossible for an unassisted state to do the same thing?
There were many reasons for the collapse of the USSR, but the stagnant economy and rampant military spending (which led to neglecting its own infrastructure and domestic needs) were the nails in that coffin.

Federal government downsizing = more state money (those same tax dollars can be diverted to states to cover its enlarged role).  Then, the state will magically have funding for Pittsburgh or Detroit.  You assume that one step would be taken, but none of the logical following steps would be.
...........And you assume that all states will be willing and able to share the load and carry it. There are too many other varibles that will come into play such as corruption, greed, state agendas that are not in the interest of the common good.

What about the rest of that post? Any other comments? how about addressing the part about how the states are supposed to all be represented in DC. yet just about every state representitive has lost touch with the people of his/ her state. The states already do not have the pulse of the people yet you insist more power to them is just the solution. I don't believe it.
2008-01-13 16:07:32
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

Bottomline Cam, the US is stronger in every aspect of the word and has surpassed Europe in every catergory. It is the EU that turns to the US to help solve their problems and NOT the other way around. SO keep sitting on yourimaginary perch and brat your chests as to how great you are, and the US, AS IT IS, will still be there when one of you fools gets out of line and starts another invasion of your nieghbors.
Never in the history of the EU has the EU ever asked for help, financial or otherwise - especially nothing to do with the internal politics of the union - from the US since it was founded in 1957. You live in a dream bubble if you think otherwise. It is a hard fact that we have higher average living standards than you guys have in the US. Fact. We have a total GDP that is higher than that of the USA. Fact. Laugh it up man. While you guys chalk up more testosterone fuelled debt as the dollar plummets don't say you weren't told about the consequences.

lowing wrote:

I have not contradicted my self one bit Cam. You claim smaller govts. would better serve the people. Well the truth is our congress is full of Senators and Congressmen from each individual state that are already so far out of touch with the people and so full of greed and corruption that it is staggering. All you have said would happen has no hint of happening yet with the power the states already have. Yet you believe more state power is the answer. Time to gimme a break.
I know how distant politicians in Brussels seem to me. I know how well I know the pros and cons of every Irish politician and exactly what things they plan for me. Thankfully the guys in Brussels don't have as much power as they would like. Irish politicians are there to cater to the Irish people, ensuring that we prosper economically as well as preserving our unique identity and culture. They are the buffer to Brussels wanting to trample over what we treasure most in Europe - our various rich national and cultural identities and uniquenesses. Concentrating power in Brussels would mean more general legislation, most likely riding roughshod over the interests/concerns of smaller nations. I'm glad I have don't answer directly to Brussels but glad that all Europeans can co-operate, trade and move around freely within the confines of a loose affiliation. 

I'm afraid that most who even took a cursory glance at what you've written in this thread will realise that the left side of your mouth is saying one thing and the right side is saying another.

lowing wrote:

Not sure how a collapse of a whole country ( USSR) which  has happened could never happen to a state which is on its own, yet you think a collapse of a state is just impossible. I also do not understand how the USSR doesn't count when talking about the collapse of countries in Europe.
Did Russia cease to exist or something when its fundamentally flawed centralised economy failed? No it didn't - it enacted market reforms and after an initial rough ride (because pure free markets don't work well in reality) it has bounced back and is experiencing economic growth of over 7% p.a. Basically - it learned its lesson.

lowing wrote:

If you wanna down size it one, lets talk about towns and cities, what do you think would happen to a steel town like Pittsburg if it were left on its own without state funding? How about Detroit? These cities need the state funding, just like individual states need federal funding. Without it, and you let compitition govern, states can and will go bankrupt. You already are saying our whole country is bankrupt, how the hell do feel it is impossible for an unassisted state to do the same thing?
So you are advocating governmental subsidisation of business ventures that would inevitably fail without governmental aid? Are you sure your account hasn't been hacked?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-13 16:12:46)

2008-01-13 16:08:05
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7067|949

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:


Yes in part to the first.

Strong central govt is important, but states should have priority in everything save national affairs.
Isn't that the way it is now? I can not think of an example where the federal govt. steps into states business.
To be honest, I don't know. The details of US politics eludes me... I'd like to change that, though.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=88798
2008-01-13 16:25:25
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6565|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

...........And you assume that all states will be willing and able to share the load and carry it. There are too many other varibles that will come into play such as corruption, greed, state agendas that are not in the interest of the common good.

What about the rest of that post? Any other comments? how about addressing the part about how the states are supposed to all be represented in DC. yet just about every state representitive has lost touch with the people of his/ her state. The states already do not have the pulse of the people yet you insist more power to them is just the solution. I don't believe it.
I didn't address the other parts of that post because I thought Cam could do a much better job of refuting the EU claims.  And I see that he did.

About the rest of the above:  State representatives in Washington lose touch with the state.  Yes.  But why not have your local representatives in the state legislature have more decision making power?  You know, so the guy who lives across town can be the guy who knows what your town needs.  And as an added bonus, he can be held accountable much more easily.

It looks like you suggest we say "to hell with what the people want, make the feds have more influence ignoring the rampant corruption and greed".
2008-01-13 20:57:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Yes in part to the first.

Strong central govt is important, but states should have priority in everything save national affairs.
Isn't that the way it is now? I can not think of an example where the federal govt. steps into states business.
To be honest, I don't know. The details of US politics eludes me... I'd like to change that, though.
Everything they do outside of the "power to tax, borrow and coin money, maintain armies and navies, conduct foreign relations, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce" is an invasion of state powers. I've already given examples. I'll give more if needed.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-13 22:16:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bottomline Cam, the US is stronger in every aspect of the word and has surpassed Europe in every catergory. It is the EU that turns to the US to help solve their problems and NOT the other way around. SO keep sitting on yourimaginary perch and brat your chests as to how great you are, and the US, AS IT IS, will still be there when one of you fools gets out of line and starts another invasion of your nieghbors.
Never in the history of the EU has the EU ever asked for help, financial or otherwise - especially nothing to do with the internal politics of the union - from the US since it was founded in 1957. You live in a dream bubble if you think otherwise. It is a hard fact that we have higher average living standards than you guys have in the US. Fact. We have a total GDP that is higher than that of the USA. Fact. Laugh it up man. While you guys chalk up more testosterone fuelled debt as the dollar plummets don't say you weren't told about the consequences.

lowing wrote:

I have not contradicted my self one bit Cam. You claim smaller govts. would better serve the people. Well the truth is our congress is full of Senators and Congressmen from each individual state that are already so far out of touch with the people and so full of greed and corruption that it is staggering. All you have said would happen has no hint of happening yet with the power the states already have. Yet you believe more state power is the answer. Time to gimme a break.
I know how distant politicians in Brussels seem to me. I know how well I know the pros and cons of every Irish politician and exactly what things they plan for me. Thankfully the guys in Brussels don't have as much power as they would like. Irish politicians are there to cater to the Irish people, ensuring that we prosper economically as well as preserving our unique identity and culture. They are the buffer to Brussels wanting to trample over what we treasure most in Europe - our various rich national and cultural identities and uniquenesses. Concentrating power in Brussels would mean more general legislation, most likely riding roughshod over the interests/concerns of smaller nations. I'm glad I have don't answer directly to Brussels but glad that all Europeans can co-operate, trade and move around freely within the confines of a loose affiliation. 

I'm afraid that most who even took a cursory glance at what you've written in this thread will realise that the left side of your mouth is saying one thing and the right side is saying another.

lowing wrote:

Not sure how a collapse of a whole country ( USSR) which  has happened could never happen to a state which is on its own, yet you think a collapse of a state is just impossible. I also do not understand how the USSR doesn't count when talking about the collapse of countries in Europe.
Did Russia cease to exist or something when its fundamentally flawed centralised economy failed? No it didn't - it enacted market reforms and after an initial rough ride (because pure free markets don't work well in reality) it has bounced back and is experiencing economic growth of over 7% p.a. Basically - it learned its lesson.

lowing wrote:

If you wanna down size it one, lets talk about towns and cities, what do you think would happen to a steel town like Pittsburg if it were left on its own without state funding? How about Detroit? These cities need the state funding, just like individual states need federal funding. Without it, and you let compitition govern, states can and will go bankrupt. You already are saying our whole country is bankrupt, how the hell do feel it is impossible for an unassisted state to do the same thing?
So you are advocating governmental subsidisation of business ventures that would inevitably fail without governmental aid? Are you sure your account hasn't been hacked?
1. Oh well hell, I didn't know we were going to go wayyyyyyy the hell back to 1957. Conveniently, 12 years AFTER the war and we went home. Good thing we gave you all that money so you could rebuild your countries and your continent. How about you guys pay back some of that money then we will see how well you are doing.

2. You have a higher average of living standard in Europe than we do here?? Really?? My house sits on an acre of land overlooking the Blue Ridge Mountains, It is over 2000 sq ft NOT including the basement, it has a wrap around porch with 2 full decks on the back and a 2 car garage. I am surrounded by forest and am secluded from my neighbors and it isn't even as big as most middle income homes. How bout you guys? Those sardine cans you live in as middle class got a lot of elbow room do they? Let everyone know when ya wanna roll over so you can all shift at the same time. I guess living standard is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as the EU and the US GDP. I don't give 2 flying fucks about either one. I go to work, I make my living, I pay my bills and I raise my family. The GDP is not a daily topic amongst most Americans, perhaps it is in Europe, which would explain why you all stay drunk. So I will live it at this, the day the US asks Europe to bail us out and save us (like we did you). I will say. HOLY SHIT!!, HAS ANYONE CHECK THE GDP LATELY???

3. Nice to know politics in Europe is near perfect. NO agenda except to spread love, peace and free social care amongst the masses. Now that the car bombings have died down a bit, maybe I will come for a visit.

4. Russia didn't collapse the USSR did, and created havoc amongst the masses. Map makers couldn't keep up with all the shit happening when the USSR collapse. Please stop talking about it like it was merely the changing of the guard or some shit.


5. big difference between an individual going bankrupt by his own hand and an entire state going down the tubes dragging the masses with it, who are mostly blameless and have no control over it. Sorry if you can't see that.
2008-01-13 22:18:56
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

Very nice post lowing.
2008-01-13 22:39:43
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

In all fairness the Marshall plan paid huge dividends to the US. It opened many markets to the United States allowing us the explode into an economic super power.

But on the whole it seems Americans are more happy. At least according to some polls. Whether it is bliss or not is irrelevant.. really.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-13 23:06:08
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Canada's just as big
Eh?
2008-01-14 01:19:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

1. Oh well hell, I didn't know we were going to go wayyyyyyy the hell back to 1957. Conveniently, 12 years AFTER the war and we went home. Good thing we gave you all that money so you could rebuild your countries and your continent. How about you guys pay back some of that money then we will see how well you are doing.
You stated, and I quote, "It is the EU that turns to the US to help solve their problems and NOT the other way around." and you were wrong. Case closed. Ever heard of the term 'Coalition of the Willing' by the way?

lowing wrote:

2. You have a higher average of living standard in Europe than we do here?? Really?? My house sits on an acre of land overlooking the Blue Ridge Mountains, It is over 2000 sq ft NOT including the basement, it has a wrap around porch with 2 full decks on the back and a 2 car garage. I am surrounded by forest and am secluded from my neighbors and it isn't even as big as most middle income homes. How bout you guys? Those sardine cans you live in as middle class got a lot of elbow room do they? Let everyone know when ya wanna roll over so you can all shift at the same time. I guess living standard is in the eye of the beholder.
Oh that's right: you represent everybody in America. I'm sure the gang bangers in the ghetto have a lovely view over the Hollywood hills. What you're describing sounds idyllic and the fact of the matter there is more space per person in America than there is in Europe - but that is but one aspect contributing towards AVERAGE living standard.

lowing wrote:

As far as the EU and the US GDP. I don't give 2 flying fucks about either one. I go to work, I make my living, I pay my bills and I raise my family. The GDP is not a daily topic amongst most Americans, perhaps it is in Europe, which would explain why you all stay drunk. So I will live it at this, the day the US asks Europe to bail us out and save us (like we did you). I will say. HOLY SHIT!!, HAS ANYONE CHECK THE GDP LATELY???
It was just kind of odd the way you said the US surpasses the EU in every aspect when in fact you were talking nonsense, that's all. Case closed on that account also...

lowing wrote:

3. Nice to know politics in Europe is near perfect. NO agenda except to spread love, peace and free social care amongst the masses. Now that the car bombings have died down a bit, maybe I will come for a visit.
Just because I am espousing the merits of certain aspects of Europe does not for a second mean that I don't know or believe that Europe has a massive raft of its own problems, like any nation or confederation. I never realised we had a car bomb problem. Are you talking about 7/7 or something? Didn't you guys lose 3000 people in an incident involving some aeroplanes?

lowing wrote:

4. Russia didn't collapse the USSR did, and created havoc amongst the masses. Map makers couldn't keep up with all the shit happening when the USSR collapse. Please stop talking about it like it was merely the changing of the guard or some shit.
You are talking about the collapse of a regime that concentrated too much power in the hands of too few people. Way to bust your own argument! You are talking about the collapse of the UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics - a confederation of states of various sizes with a strong central government (which coincidentally didn't know when to stop when it came to military spending)....

lowing wrote:

5. big difference between an individual going bankrupt by his own hand and an entire state going down the tubes dragging the masses with it, who are mostly blameless and have no control over it. Sorry if you can't see that.
No state can go completely down the tubes as all states have resources, a large group of inhabitants for which goods and services must be provided and the will to do better. How come the brilliant central federal government didn't manage to stop Flint, Michigan from turning into a good impression of downtown Calcutta? The reason is because it was not economically or financially viable or astute to do so. Flint was no longer profitable. You think that the federal government preserves/subsidises entities that are not functioning economically? Please...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-14 02:05:25)

2008-01-14 01:21:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

usmarine2005 wrote:

Very nice post lowing.
Good qft usmarine. Very inciteful. Another Republican diehard agreeing with values opposed to the Republican cause.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-14 01:22:19)

2008-01-14 01:28:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7036|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Oh that's right: you represent everybody in America. I'm sure the gang bangers in the ghetto have a lovely view over the Hollywood hills.
https://i13.tinypic.com/6yxmsy1.gif
He looks content... I think he drew that on with a sharpie.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-01-14 04:18:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Oh well hell, I didn't know we were going to go wayyyyyyy the hell back to 1957. Conveniently, 12 years AFTER the war and we went home. Good thing we gave you all that money so you could rebuild your countries and your continent. How about you guys pay back some of that money then we will see how well you are doing.
You stated, and I quote, "It is the EU that turns to the US to help solve their problems and NOT the other way around." and you were wrong. Case closed. Ever heard of the term 'Coalition of the Willing' by the way?

lowing wrote:

2. You have a higher average of living standard in Europe than we do here?? Really?? My house sits on an acre of land overlooking the Blue Ridge Mountains, It is over 2000 sq ft NOT including the basement, it has a wrap around porch with 2 full decks on the back and a 2 car garage. I am surrounded by forest and am secluded from my neighbors and it isn't even as big as most middle income homes. How bout you guys? Those sardine cans you live in as middle class got a lot of elbow room do they? Let everyone know when ya wanna roll over so you can all shift at the same time. I guess living standard is in the eye of the beholder.
Oh that's right: you represent everybody in America. I'm sure the gang bangers in the ghetto have a lovely view over the Hollywood hills. What you're describing sounds idyllic and the fact of the matter there is more space per person in America than there is in Europe - but that is but one aspect contributing towards AVERAGE living standard.

lowing wrote:

As far as the EU and the US GDP. I don't give 2 flying fucks about either one. I go to work, I make my living, I pay my bills and I raise my family. The GDP is not a daily topic amongst most Americans, perhaps it is in Europe, which would explain why you all stay drunk. So I will live it at this, the day the US asks Europe to bail us out and save us (like we did you). I will say. HOLY SHIT!!, HAS ANYONE CHECK THE GDP LATELY???
It was just kind of odd the way you said the US surpasses the EU in every aspect when in fact you were talking nonsense, that's all. Case closed on that account also...

lowing wrote:

3. Nice to know politics in Europe is near perfect. NO agenda except to spread love, peace and free social care amongst the masses. Now that the car bombings have died down a bit, maybe I will come for a visit.
Just because I am espousing the merits of certain aspects of Europe does not for a second mean that I don't know or believe that Europe has a massive raft of its own problems, like any nation or confederation. I never realised we had a car bomb problem. Are you talking about 7/7 or something? Didn't you guys lose 3000 people in an incident involving some aeroplanes?

lowing wrote:

4. Russia didn't collapse the USSR did, and created havoc amongst the masses. Map makers couldn't keep up with all the shit happening when the USSR collapse. Please stop talking about it like it was merely the changing of the guard or some shit.
You are talking about the collapse of a regime that concentrated too much power in the hands of too few people. Way to bust your own argument! You are talking about the collapse of the UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics - a confederation of states of various sizes with a strong central government (which coincidentally didn't know when to stop when it came to military spending)....

lowing wrote:

5. big difference between an individual going bankrupt by his own hand and an entire state going down the tubes dragging the masses with it, who are mostly blameless and have no control over it. Sorry if you can't see that.
No state can go completely down the tubes as all states have resources, a large group of inhabitants for which goods and services must be provided and the will to do better. How come the brilliant central federal government didn't manage to stop Flint, Michigan from turning into a good impression of downtown Calcutta? The reason is because it was not economically or financially viable or astute to do so. Flint was no longer profitable. You think that the federal government preserves/subsidises entities that are not functioning economically? Please...
1. Didn't know we were gunna split hairs but ok.

2. Since we are splitting hairs, the gangstas in the ghettos do not represent the AVERAGE American lifestyle. Not by a long shot.  You said average. Or are you insinuating that there are no such rif raf in Europe?

3. Oh sorry, I did say car bombings didn't I?  Lets just leave it at violence, like that between Ireland and England, Protestants and Catholics, The war in Bosnia etc..........you get the picture, bottom line is...........It is safe to come over now isn't it?

4. Yeah I do, It subsidized all the airlines after 911 to keep them all from collapsing, it continues to subsidize AMTRAK one of the passenger rail systems. Without assistance AMTRAK woulda been long gone I think.
2008-01-14 04:23:27
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

1. Didn't know we were gunna split hairs but ok.
We always do lowing, and you're every bit as guilty as me of it yourself in both our long histories on this website.

lowing wrote:

2. Since we are splitting hairs, the gangstas in the ghettos do not represent the AVERAGE American lifestyle. Not by a long shot.  You said average. Or are you insinuating that there are no such rif raf in Europe?
Did I say they did? No I did not. I said that you didn't represent everybody in America. I offered that as an example of another 'American lifestyle'. We have similar here in Europe.

lowing wrote:

3. Oh sorry, I did say car bombings didn't I?  Lets just leave it at violence, like that between Ireland and England, Protestants and Catholics, The war in Bosnia etc..........you get the picture, bottom line is...........It is safe to come over now isn't it?
Bosnia - not in the EU. Ireland and England, peace agreement in place. It's probably safer over here than over there, given our far lower gun crime and murder rates...

lowing wrote:

4. Yeah I do, It subsidized all the airlines after 911 to keep them all from collapsing, it continues to subsidize AMTRAK one of the passenger rail systems. Without assistance AMTRAK woulda been long gone I think.
That's not very American is it? Subsidising business that can't stand on its own two feet. You're becoming quite the democrat...
2008-01-14 09:17:36
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Very nice post lowing.
Good qft usmarine. Very inciteful. Another Republican diehard agreeing with values opposed to the Republican cause.
Wow I can't agree with him?  Sorry Mr. Cam.  Did not mean to interrupt your world changing quote tree fest.

Also, very insightful by you also Mr. Cam.

CameronPoe wrote:

Jepeto87 wrote:

Listen, if you cant trust the UVF to dispense justice fairly who can you trust?!
lol

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-14 09:18:41)

2008-01-14 09:24:27
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Very nice post lowing.
Good qft usmarine. Very inciteful. Another Republican diehard agreeing with values opposed to the Republican cause.
Wow I can't agree with him?  Sorry Mr. Cam.  Did not mean to interrupt your world changing quote tree fest.
You can but you might want to flesh it out a bit as to why. I'd like to hear your structured arguments on the topic.... Try actually adding something to D&ST for a change rather than posting a comment that would ordinarily be contained in a karma message.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Also, very insightful by you also Mr. Cam.

CameronPoe wrote:

Jepeto87 wrote:

Listen, if you cant trust the UVF to dispense justice fairly who can you trust?!
lol
You obviously didn't get the fact that what Jepeto87 was saying was a JOKE. But I can't blame you - who are you to know the difference between the UVF, the LVF, the IRA, the INLA, the PIRA, the CIRA, the UDA, etc... it's confusing enough for Irish folk never mind foreigners. A US equivalent of what he said would be 'Listen, if you can't trust the Crips to dispense justice fairly who can you trust?'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-14 09:34:09)

2008-01-14 09:44:29
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

CameronPoe wrote:

You obviously didn't get the fact that what Jepeto87 was saying was a JOKE. But I can't blame you - who are you to know the difference between the UVF, the LVF, the IRA, the INLA, the PIRA, the CIRA, the UDA, etc... it's confusing enough for Irish folk never mind foreigners. A US equivalent of what he said would be 'Listen, if you can't trust the Crips to dispense justice fairly who can you trust?'.
You cry too much about me, yet do not say shit to other people.  Try and be fair for a change.  I agreed with lowing, and I will say it if I want.  And I do not give a fuck what you say.  You cannot tell me whether I can agree with him or not.  I thought it was a very nice post.  And I will say so.  So why don't you just ignore me and continue on with your quote tree.

And I will add something if I want to.  He said pretty much would I would say, so why just regurgitate it like you guys do?

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-14 09:47:07)

2008-01-14 14:44:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Didn't know we were gunna split hairs but ok.
We always do lowing, and you're every bit as guilty as me of it yourself in both our long histories on this website.

lowing wrote:

2. Since we are splitting hairs, the gangstas in the ghettos do not represent the AVERAGE American lifestyle. Not by a long shot.  You said average. Or are you insinuating that there are no such rif raf in Europe?
Did I say they did? No I did not. I said that you didn't represent everybody in America. I offered that as an example of another 'American lifestyle'. We have similar here in Europe.

lowing wrote:

3. Oh sorry, I did say car bombings didn't I?  Lets just leave it at violence, like that between Ireland and England, Protestants and Catholics, The war in Bosnia etc..........you get the picture, bottom line is...........It is safe to come over now isn't it?
Bosnia - not in the EU. Ireland and England, peace agreement in place. It's probably safer over here than over there, given our far lower gun crime and murder rates...

lowing wrote:

4. Yeah I do, It subsidized all the airlines after 911 to keep them all from collapsing, it continues to subsidize AMTRAK one of the passenger rail systems. Without assistance AMTRAK woulda been long gone I think.
That's not very American is it? Subsidising business that can't stand on its own two feet. You're becoming quite the democrat...
1. Yer right I do the same thing at times

2. I do NOT represent everyone in the America, I am just an AVERAGE middle class citizen with a good sized house, land, 2 cars, 2.5 kids and dog, and a fuckin cat. When I get back from Iraq again I just might even buy an airplane. Most of us middle class folk buy boats and nicer cars and shit, I like to fly myself.

3. I guess you are proud that you all are not allowed to defend actually raise and arm up and point.

4. Subsidizing the airlines was the right thing to do. The collapse of our airlines is only the first step of collapse in a trickle down effect that would affect the entire country. So I have no problem with this. I have always said I am willing to help those that help themselves or tries. An airline provides jobs for literally hundreds of thousands of people. Multiply that by 6 major airlines and you are affecting a shit load of people. Our country could not afford to have that kind of impact on our economy.
2008-01-14 15:00:02
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

2. I do NOT represent everyone in the America, I am just an AVERAGE middle class citizen with a good sized house, land, 2 cars, 2.5 kids and dog, and a fuckin cat. When I get back from Iraq again I just might even buy an airplane. Most of us middle class folk buy boats and nicer cars and shit, I like to fly myself.
AVERAGE middle class folk in America DO NOT buy planes. I'd like to see the plane ownership rates for the US but I can't readily find them on the web. My parents fully own a good sized house, land, 1 car (Merc), 1 van, 3 kids, no pets. What's your point? Plenty of middle class folk here own yachts too. I don't see what point you're trying to make. How big is the US middle class anyway and where does the classification start and end? Europeans would rather spend their hard earned cash on an investment property rather than frittering their savings away on a frivolous and unnecessary thing like an airplane. Although admittedly I did notice a good few helicopter owners along the river Shannon - more money than sense perhaps.

lowing wrote:

3. I guess you are proud that you all are not allowed to defend actually raise and arm up and point.
Seems to keep the homicide and violent crime rates down anyway...

Homicide rate per 100k

United States - 5.9
Palestine - 4.4 (warzone)
Northern Ireland - 2.48 (ethnic violence flareups)
Germany - 0.98
Ireland - 0.91

lowing wrote:

4. Subsidizing the airlines was the right thing to do. The collapse of our airlines is only the first step of collapse in a trickle down effect that would affect the entire country. So I have no problem with this. I have always said I am willing to help those that help themselves or tries. An airline provides jobs for literally hundreds of thousands of people. Multiply that by 6 major airlines and you are affecting a shit load of people. Our country could not afford to have that kind of impact on our economy.
Okay I get it - subsidize faceless corporations with fat cat boards that have fallen on hard times but not subsidize ordinary American human beings that have fallen on hard times. It's quite clear to me. You have completely traded in all of your values. You are now advocating the government paying for the upkeep of failing business. Is it a case of keep ploughing the money in until the company pulls through? If I own a business employing 80 people should I expect the US government to bail me out? Where's the line, lowing? If my airline is managing to stay afloat should I have my corporate tax dollars used to prop up my competitors? Baffling.

What about the sub primers? Agree with a bail out there too because there are so many of them? Or does your position only apply to business entities?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-14 16:18:48)

2008-01-14 16:59:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7086|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

2. I do NOT represent everyone in the America, I am just an AVERAGE middle class citizen with a good sized house, land, 2 cars, 2.5 kids and dog, and a fuckin cat. When I get back from Iraq again I just might even buy an airplane. Most of us middle class folk buy boats and nicer cars and shit, I like to fly myself.
AVERAGE middle class folk in America DO NOT buy planes. I'd like to see the plane ownership rates for the US but I can't readily find them on the web. My parents fully own a good sized house, land, 1 car (Merc), 1 van, 3 kids, no pets. What's your point? Plenty of middle class folk here own yachts too. I don't see what point you're trying to make. How big is the US middle class anyway and where does the classification start and end? Europeans would rather spend their hard earned cash on an investment property rather than frittering their savings away on a frivolous and unnecessary thing like an airplane. Although admittedly I did notice a good few helicopter owners along the river Shannon - more money than sense perhaps.

lowing wrote:

3. I guess you are proud that you all are not allowed to defend actually raise and arm up and point.
Seems to keep the homicide and violent crime rates down anyway...

Homicide rate per 100k

United States - 5.9
Palestine - 4.4 (warzone)
Northern Ireland - 2.48 (ethnic violence flareups)
Germany - 0.98
Ireland - 0.91

lowing wrote:

4. Subsidizing the airlines was the right thing to do. The collapse of our airlines is only the first step of collapse in a trickle down effect that would affect the entire country. So I have no problem with this. I have always said I am willing to help those that help themselves or tries. An airline provides jobs for literally hundreds of thousands of people. Multiply that by 6 major airlines and you are affecting a shit load of people. Our country could not afford to have that kind of impact on our economy.
Okay I get it - subsidize faceless corporations with fat cat boards that have fallen on hard times but not subsidize ordinary American human beings that have fallen on hard times. It's quite clear to me. You have completely traded in all of your values. You are now advocating the government paying for the upkeep of failing business. Is it a case of keep ploughing the money in until the company pulls through? If I own a business employing 80 people should I expect the US government to bail me out? Where's the line, lowing? If my airline is managing to stay afloat should I have my corporate tax dollars used to prop up my competitors? Baffling.

What about the sub primers? Agree with a bail out there too because there are so many of them? Or does your position only apply to business entities?
1. Actually owning a C-172 or a Piper Cherokee is not that big of a deal. It is about the same price as a nice new car. BMW or such. So you are telling me that the EU middle class are land and HOUSE owners? I guess I watch too many movies.

2. How many of those killings in the US are felon on felon crimes? How many are home defenders taking care of intruders compared to actual criminals shooting innocent people?

3. Like I said, 911 was out of every ones control it would be impractical to just simply let our nations airlines collapse. It would have wiped out our economy. Extraordinary circumstances calls for extraordinary solutions. This had nothing to do with corporate competition, ALL of our lines were going to fail at the same time. NOT the same thing as some idiot that buys shit on credit they can not afford so they look at more credit cards for their solution. Personal financial irresponsibility should hardly be high on the priority list of problems our taxpayers should be solving.
2008-01-14 23:59:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

lowing wrote:

1. Actually owning a C-172 or a Piper Cherokee is not that big of a deal. It is about the same price as a nice new car. BMW or such. So you are telling me that the EU middle class are land and HOUSE owners? I guess I watch too many movies.
Perhaps so, in Ireland at any rate the middle class demands to own a house, which is contributing to massive urban sprawl and with our recent affluence some horrendous looking behemoths of houses in the countryside.

lowing wrote:

2. How many of those killings in the US are felon on felon crimes? How many are home defenders taking care of intruders compared to actual criminals shooting innocent people?
I don't know exactly and I don't think it's relevant. The fact of the matter is the US has a homicide rate 5 times higher than the largest European nation.

lowing wrote:

3. Like I said, 911 was out of every ones control it would be impractical to just simply let our nations airlines collapse. It would have wiped out our economy. Extraordinary circumstances calls for extraordinary solutions. This had nothing to do with corporate competition, ALL of our lines were going to fail at the same time. NOT the same thing as some idiot that buys shit on credit they can not afford so they look at more credit cards for their solution. Personal financial irresponsibility should hardly be high on the priority list of problems our taxpayers should be solving.
I get it - 9/11 out of our control, bail out the airlines, Hurrican Katrina out of our control - fuck the residents of New Orleans. It's quite clear now. How hypocritical: you don't want to see an airline or a state go under but you're quite happy to see a several hundred years old shipping city full of American citizens bite the dust. Quite clear.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-15 00:12:17)

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard