Liberalism is the single greatest threat...

[danielost]

How? you live in a secular nation and ones religious morals (many twisted) do not conform to the nation you live.

a lack of morals is still having morals, and forcing others to comply to your morals is the same thing no matter which side your on. all religious people have to comply to your morals, because it is a secular nation. to top it off with you dont even live in the usa.

[The Silver Thong]

@ the OP:

Here's the way I see it.

Liberals, through good intentions, tend to create laws based on helping society by reaching into another persons pockets forcefully to help another person. Their objective is to create a free and fair society.

-it has the negative effect because no man spends another persons money better than he spends his own.

Very true but if a man uses another man to make money that money should be payed to the worker. To often the worker see's the big guy raking it in with no trickle down. If the rich were not taxed or regulated the slave trade would soon be back.

[The Silver Thong]

a lack of morals is still having morals, and forcing others to comply to your morals is the same thing no matter which side your on. all religious people have to comply to your morals, because it is a secular nation. to top it off with you dont even live in the usa.

Are you saying I'm teaching other people's children my morals? I am most certainly not! however add a teaspoon of religion and it's the duty of that teaspoon to do just that.

Edited February 19, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[acidhead]

Very true but if a man uses another man to make money that money should be payed to the worker. To often the worker see's the big guy raking it in with no trickle down. If the rich were not taxed or regulated the slave trade would soon be back.

Ahhhh.... but in a taxed and regulated society such as ours, the cost of employing an individual goes into the cost of

running the business. The employee is fixed into the cost of operating the business. A clear example would be the stagnant grow of wages over the past decades compared to inflation.

[Marks_Thoughts]

In October of 1929 the stock market crashed. From my readings it appears that rampant speculation, with nothing tangible to back up the speculation, was the root cause of the collapse. This is similar to the housing market over the last few years. Loans were made to folks who in a normal market would never have qualified for the loans. For some time the saving grace in making the shoddy loans was that the properties were inflating in price and foreclosure could be averted by a sale. In both 1929 and today a correction was made, and is still being made today.

So, let's look at how Franklin D Roosevelt handled his catastrophe. The government went into debt, a great deal of debt, and began the social experiment called the New Deal. Just as Obama has attempted FDR tried to use massive government projects - and even make-work projects that had no value other than to give people something to do for a small amount of earnings. This continued for an entire decade. Full employment was not achieved until after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The world-wide Allied demand for US built military products provided the spark to get the economy back into operation; and, the loss of life from the war actually contributed to the lower unemployment numbers.

Today, looking back, it is clear that the New Deal has become the most disastrous legislation the US has ever passed. In FDR's time the demographics were vastly different from what they are now. People, on average, did not live nearly as long. Life expectancy is moving to our 80s. The workforce itself was predominantly male, with a few selected occupations for women. The genders are much more equal across all of the fields and professions today. Military recruiters up until the late 1950's were faced with applicants who were often under weight, with issues related to malnutrition. Today, the pool of recruits are wildly over weight, and still suffering from their diet. And there were some 32 people on some kind of payroll to pay for the New Deal programs, while today the demographics are approaching nearly a 1 to 1 ratio (in large part due to government expansion of the pool of recipients for government programs).

Obama, in the face of the worst economic crisis since 1929 has forced through government health care. Just as the New Deal was, and is, a massive Ponzi Scheme, any casually interested person can see this, the new health care law is the same. Obama attempted his stimulus plan, supposedly for 'shovel ready' projects, but in fact it was little more than a bail out to the states to keep union employees at work.

Both FDR and Obama took exactly the wrong approach to the calamity they each faced. Markets will balance, regardless of what the government attempts to do stop the red ink in the economy. In 1929 and following the stock market had to reach an appropriate level, a point where people could and would purchase stocks again. In our time the homes will drop to the point where they can be sold. In other words, businesses that should fail will. Homes loans that should never have been made in the first place will be foreclosed.

The point of all of this is that Liberals have for well over a century attempted to put the government in the same position over our nation as the Soviets had over Russia and their empire (and the Chinese communists still have today). The saving grace in the US has been the innovation and the entreprenurial spirit of its people and those who made the choice to come here legally to seek their own and their childrens' future.

At the root of the US and the soul of any true American is our constitution and the rule of law. I own a home. My title to that home is legally held and my rights to the property are enforced by law against all who would challenge that right; even the government cannot take my home without 'just' compensation. That said, the New Deal and Obama Care fly in the face of the rule and spirit of the law as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The New Deal gave us administrative agencies at the federal level (and later copied by thestates) that have rulemaking authority, enforcement authority, and authority to issue opinions through administrative law courts. Does this not fly in the face of a government with three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial? Our government was built on an ideal of individual rights, and individual responsibility. A fair playing field where businesses can compete openly is essential. It is not for government to pick the 'winners' or 'losers' in business. It is not for the government to make sure every citizen is cared for from cradle to grave. It is to provide the best possible environment where anyone with talent and initiative can thrive, and even those who simply willing to work can earn a fair wage for the effort expended for their employer. It is not to determine what a fair wage for that effort should be, or what benefits should accrue as a result of anyone's employment efforts.

We are nearly 15 Trillion dollars in debt. We never could afford the New Deal. We certainly cannot afford Obama Care. If it were up to me:

Privatize Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Kill Obama Care. Dismantle every administrative agency that exists. Laws must be written, debated, and voted on by congress, signed as appropriate by the president. The executive branch enforces the law. The judiciary states what the law is and issues opinions to resolve disputes and to meet out justice. Taxes are flat, fair, and unavoidable. Every US citizen and legal resident pays taxes, regardless of age or income level. Every adult is responsible for their own success or failure - and to care for those who are dependent upon them.

I would oulaw union organizing at all levels of government. Private companies would be prohibited from providing any benefits other than wages or salaries, and rights to profits if they are company stock holders. There would be no unemployment insurance at any government level. If you want insurance, buy it. If you want a doctor, pay for it. If you want catastrophic health care, buy it. Stand up for yourself and take responsibility for those who depend upon you.

[The Silver Thong]

Ahhhh.... but in a taxed and regulated society such as ours, the cost of employing an individual goes into the cost of

running the business. The employee is fixed into the cost of operating the business. A clear example would be the stagnant grow of wages over the past decades compared to inflation.

Ahhh but what about the head office that acquires all the profit in oh lets say the US but pays it laborers in China the bare min all the while not spreading the wealth to the nation that helped them do this

[acidhead]

In October of 1929 the stock market crashed. From my readings it appears that rampant speculation, with nothing tangible to back up the speculation, was the root cause of the collapse. This is similar to the housing market over the last few years. Loans were made to folks who in a normal market would never have qualified for the loans. For some time the saving grace in making the shoddy loans was that the properties were inflating in price and foreclosure could be averted by a sale. In both 1929 and today a correction was made, and is still being made today.

So, let's look at how Franklin D Roosevelt handled his catastrophe. The government went into debt, a great deal of debt, and began the social experiment called the New Deal. Just as Obama has attempted FDR tried to use massive government projects - and even make-work projects that had no value other than to give people something to do for a small amount of earnings. This continued for an entire decade. Full employment was not achieved until after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The world-wide Allied demand for US built military products provided the spark to get the economy back into operation; and, the loss of life from the war actually contributed to the lower unemployment numbers.

Today, looking back, it is clear that the New Deal has become the most disastrous legislation the US has ever passed. In FDR's time the demographics were vastly different from what they are now. People, on average, did not live nearly as long. Life expectancy is moving to our 80s. The workforce itself was predominantly male, with a few selected occupations for women. The genders are much more equal across all of the fields and professions today. Military recruiters up until the late 1950's were faced with applicants who were often under weight, with issues related to malnutrition. Today, the pool of recruits are wildly over weight, and still suffering from their diet. And there were some 32 people on some kind of payroll to pay for the New Deal programs, while today the demographics are approaching nearly a 1 to 1 ratio (in large part due to government expansion of the pool of recipients for government programs).

Obama, in the face of the worst economic crisis since 1929 has forced through government health care. Just as the New Deal was, and is, a massive Ponzi Scheme, any casually interested person can see this, the new health care law is the same. Obama attempted his stimulus plan, supposedly for 'shovel ready' projects, but in fact it was little more than a bail out to the states to keep union employees at work.

Both FDR and Obama took exactly the wrong approach to the calamity they each faced. Markets will balance, regardless of what the government attempts to do stop the red ink in the economy. In 1929 and following the stock market had to reach an appropriate level, a point where people could and would purchase stocks again. In our time the homes will drop to the point where they can be sold. In other words, businesses that should fail will. Homes loans that should never have been made in the first place will be foreclosed.

The point of all of this is that Liberals have for well over a century attempted to put the government in the same position over our nation as the Soviets had over Russia and their empire (and the Chinese communists still have today). The saving grace in the US has been the innovation and the entreprenurial spirit of its people and those who made the choice to come here legally to seek their own and their childrens' future.

At the root of the US and the soul of any true American is our constitution and the rule of law. I own a home. My title to that home is legally held and my rights to the property are enforced by law against all who would challenge that right; even the government cannot take my home without 'just' compensation. That said, the New Deal and Obama Care fly in the face of the rule and spirit of the law as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The New Deal gave us administrative agencies at the federal level (and later copied by thestates) that have rulemaking authority, enforcement authority, and authority to issue opinions through administrative law courts. Does this not fly in the face of a government with three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial? Our government was built on an ideal of individual rights, and individual responsibility. A fair playing field where businesses can compete openly is essential. It is not for government to pick the 'winners' or 'losers' in business. It is not for the government to make sure every citizen is cared for from cradle to grave. It is to provide the best possible environment where anyone with talent and initiative can thrive, and even those who simply willing to work can earn a fair wage for the effort expended for their employer. It is not to determine what a fair wage for that effort should be, or what benefits should accrue as a result of anyone's employment efforts.

We are nearly 15 Trillion dollars in debt. We never could afford the New Deal. We certainly cannot afford Obama Care. If it were up to me:

Privatize Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Kill Obama Care. Dismantle every administrative agency that exists. Laws must be written, debated, and voted on by congress, signed as appropriate by the president. The executive branch enforces the law. The judiciary states what the law is and issues opinions to resolve disputes and to meet out justice. Taxes are flat, fair, and unavoidable. Every US citizen and legal resident pays taxes, regardless of age or income level. Every adult is responsible for their own success or failure - and to care for those who are dependent upon them.

I would oulaw union organizing at all levels of government. Private companies would be prohibited from providing any benefits other than wages or salaries, and rights to profits if they are company stock holders. There would be no unemployment insurance at any government level. If you want insurance, buy it. If you want a doctor, pay for it. If you want catastrophic health care, buy it. Stand up for yourself and take responsibility for those who depend upon you.

I enjoyed this post. It articulates my readings as well.

There is one point Id like to comment on though and that is the cause of the great depression. The rampant speculation with nothing tangible to back up the speculation was the root cause of the collapse... this I totally agree on but it was the failure of the Federal reserve to stop the crash from happening. Lets not forget the sole reason the Fed was pursued by the banking industry was to prevent runs occurring on the banks when ever the economy had hiccups. Its purpose was to keep the flow of money into the system to prevent such a crisis. But they did the opposite when it was their opportunity to act. They contracted the money supply and the system was left naked to exposure. Even current Fed chief Bernanke admitted this at an event honoring the late Milton Friedman on his 90th birthday after a on-going feud over who was responsible.

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again. http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

The Glass-Steagall Act/the Banking act of 1933 was created to curb or regulate speculation by greedy gamblers on Wall Street.

[StarChild 83]

Also, that pesky Rebel Alliance when the Galactic Empire had them in the stranglehold...But that was a long long time ago....

But if you've read any of the later books the Rebels pretty much took over as the Empire, killing those loyal to the Empire on site, oppressing them etc etc.

An equal balance is normally best but people wouldn't be happy with that either. Here in the US everyone is all too spoiled. Hell even the homeless are ungrateful when you give them a dollar, they get p***ed off and say "what the hell am i supposed to do with this?" expecting more.

Edited February 19, 2011 by StarChild 83

[danielost]

Are you saying I'm teaching other people's children my morals? I am most certainly not! however add a teaspoon of religion and it's the duty of that teaspoon to do just that.

yes, you are. not only that but you demand that everyone follows yours and stop following mine.

[Bracket]

yes, you are. not only that but you demand that everyone follows yours and stop following mine.

Where'd you get that from?

[danielost]

Where'd you get that from?

From his post. religion should not force their morals on others and it should be kept out of schools.

[Guest]

In October of 1929 the stock market crashed. From my readings it appears that rampant speculation, with nothing tangible to back up the speculation, was the root cause of the collapse. This is similar to the housing market over the last few years. Loans were made to folks who in a normal market would never have qualified for the loans. For some time the saving grace in making the shoddy loans was that the properties were inflating in price and foreclosure could be averted by a sale. In both 1929 and today a correction was made, and is still being made today.

So, let's look at how Franklin D Roosevelt handled his catastrophe. The government went into debt, a great deal of debt, and began the social experiment called the New Deal. Just as Obama has attempted FDR tried to use massive government projects - and even make-work projects that had no value other than to give people something to do for a small amount of earnings. This continued for an entire decade. Full employment was not achieved until after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The world-wide Allied demand for US built military products provided the spark to get the economy back into operation; and, the loss of life from the war actually contributed to the lower unemployment numbers.

Today, looking back, it is clear that the New Deal has become the most disastrous legislation the US has ever passed. In FDR's time the demographics were vastly different from what they are now. People, on average, did not live nearly as long. Life expectancy is moving to our 80s. The workforce itself was predominantly male, with a few selected occupations for women. The genders are much more equal across all of the fields and professions today. Military recruiters up until the late 1950's were faced with applicants who were often under weight, with issues related to malnutrition. Today, the pool of recruits are wildly over weight, and still suffering from their diet. And there were some 32 people on some kind of payroll to pay for the New Deal programs, while today the demographics are approaching nearly a 1 to 1 ratio (in large part due to government expansion of the pool of recipients for government programs).

Obama, in the face of the worst economic crisis since 1929 has forced through government health care. Just as the New Deal was, and is, a massive Ponzi Scheme, any casually interested person can see this, the new health care law is the same. Obama attempted his stimulus plan, supposedly for 'shovel ready' projects, but in fact it was little more than a bail out to the states to keep union employees at work.

Both FDR and Obama took exactly the wrong approach to the calamity they each faced. Markets will balance, regardless of what the government attempts to do stop the red ink in the economy. In 1929 and following the stock market had to reach an appropriate level, a point where people could and would purchase stocks again. In our time the homes will drop to the point where they can be sold. In other words, businesses that should fail will. Homes loans that should never have been made in the first place will be foreclosed.

The point of all of this is that Liberals have for well over a century attempted to put the government in the same position over our nation as the Soviets had over Russia and their empire (and the Chinese communists still have today). The saving grace in the US has been the innovation and the entreprenurial spirit of its people and those who made the choice to come here legally to seek their own and their childrens' future.

At the root of the US and the soul of any true American is our constitution and the rule of law. I own a home. My title to that home is legally held and my rights to the property are enforced by law against all who would challenge that right; even the government cannot take my home without 'just' compensation. That said, the New Deal and Obama Care fly in the face of the rule and spirit of the law as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The New Deal gave us administrative agencies at the federal level (and later copied by thestates) that have rulemaking authority, enforcement authority, and authority to issue opinions through administrative law courts. Does this not fly in the face of a government with three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial? Our government was built on an ideal of individual rights, and individual responsibility. A fair playing field where businesses can compete openly is essential. It is not for government to pick the 'winners' or 'losers' in business. It is not for the government to make sure every citizen is cared for from cradle to grave. It is to provide the best possible environment where anyone with talent and initiative can thrive, and even those who simply willing to work can earn a fair wage for the effort expended for their employer. It is not to determine what a fair wage for that effort should be, or what benefits should accrue as a result of anyone's employment efforts.

We are nearly 15 Trillion dollars in debt. We never could afford the New Deal. We certainly cannot afford Obama Care. If it were up to me:

Privatize Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Kill Obama Care. Dismantle every administrative agency that exists. Laws must be written, debated, and voted on by congress, signed as appropriate by the president. The executive branch enforces the law. The judiciary states what the law is and issues opinions to resolve disputes and to meet out justice. Taxes are flat, fair, and unavoidable. Every US citizen and legal resident pays taxes, regardless of age or income level. Every adult is responsible for their own success or failure - and to care for those who are dependent upon them.

I would oulaw union organizing at all levels of government. Private companies would be prohibited from providing any benefits other than wages or salaries, and rights to profits if they are company stock holders. There would be no unemployment insurance at any government level. If you want insurance, buy it. If you want a doctor, pay for it. If you want catastrophic health care, buy it. Stand up for yourself and take responsibility for those who depend upon you.

Nice ideological rant there, straight out of the Milton Friedman Bible. The problem is that most of it just isn't true - America is in a terrible state and its domestic economy has been crippled by exactly the sort of speculative growth which Friedmans ideas unleashed. More deregulation will just mean more of your economy been outsourced to cheaper places. The end result will be a tiny number of super rich Americans and the rest of the country little better off than the third world economies of south America.

As someone said, it takes a complete lack of human empathy to believe the rubbish you have just spouted. Your model is not the only one, and certainly not the most effective at generating a wealthy stable economy - look to countries like Germany and the Scandinavian countries for examples of prosperous progressive and stable nations. Your ideology would lead your country back to the good old days where virtual debt slavery was the norm - dream on.

Can I suggest that if you really want to follow your dream - you move to one of the few countries in the world which really has no functional state, and report back on how you find it

Br Cornelius

Edited February 19, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

From his post. religion should not force their morals on others and it should be kept out of schools.

What's so difficult to understand that it is a parents responsibility to instil moral values - and not the states.

The states responsibility is to make certain that the machine of state functions to the betterment of all citizenry - without prejudice. That is not possible in the type of theocratic state you are advocating, I know this because I live in a country where the state was dominated by the Catholic Church and it had a terrible effect on the nation as a whole, and especially the minority faiths.

A secular Liberal is not the sort of person who harangue another about the state of their morality, and so would never force their morals on another. If you don't want your children to use condoms then tell them that and tell them why you don't want them to do so. If your moral education is compelling enough then it is highly likely that they will follow your advice and you will never have to personally worry about the fact that some kids use condoms. If however the typical situation pans out, you may find that one day your kids succumb to temptation without the benefit of Condoms, and end up with a nasty STD or pregnancy. Have you not heard the old adage, if you want an easy lay, go to a catholic girls school. The number of young girls that travelled from Ireland to England to have an abortion is testament to the ethicacy of your approach.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 19, 2011 by Guest

[AROCES]

What's so difficult to understand that it is a parents responsibility to instil moral values - and not the states.

Br Cornelius

Then do you support a voucher, where parents can pick the school for their children?

[Startraveler]

Then do you support a voucher, where parents can pick the school for their children?

Public subsidy for mandated purchase of an education at a private institution?

I thought you guys have a problem with concepts like that?

[AROCES]

Public subsidy for mandated purchase of an education at a private institution?

I thought you guys have a problem with concepts like that?

Mandated? How is that mandated?

[Startraveler]

Mandated? How is that mandated?

Last time I checked, school attendance is mandatory. But you can apply this to any number of privatization schemes. Ryan-style mandatory vouchers for private health insurance to replace Medicare. Chilean-style mandatory private retirement accounts to phase out Social Security.

What's the redeeming feature here for you? The existence of a "public option" for fulfilling the terms of the mandate? Or am I mistaking you for someone who's opposed to government mandates?

[Guest]

Then do you support a voucher, where parents can pick the school for their children?

This would mean a move away from equality of provision and hence eventual opportunity - so the answer would be no.

Another ideologially driven drive to eliminate public provision is all I see.

Br Cornelius

[AROCES]

Last time I checked, school attendance is mandatory. But you can apply this to any number of privatization schemes. Ryan-style mandatory vouchers for private health insurance to replace Medicare. Chilean-style mandatory private retirement accounts to phase out Social Security.

What's the redeeming feature here for you? The existence of a "public option" for fulfilling the terms of the mandate? Or am I mistaking you for someone who's opposed to government mandates?

You got problem with making sure someone can read and write?

Your attempt to save your Obamacare by hooking, comparing and linking it to everything else will do you no good,.

[AROCES]

This would mean a move away from equality of provision and hence eventual opportunity - so the answer would be no.

Another ideologially driven drive to eliminate public provision is all I see.

Br Cornelius

Equality? You mean like what Marxist wants? Equal education to all provided by the State, right?

[Guest]

Equality? You mean like what Marxist wants? Equal education to all provided by the State, right?

No I mean an equal right to a consistent provision regardless of the ability of the recipient to pay. That is not marxist - that is how the majorioty of the world educates its citizens. It is ideology from the Chicago school which dreamt up the novelty of the voucher system. The same sort of novel idea as trying to make it illegal for people to collect rain water because their was a private franchise in the area providing the water mains. Ideology gone mad is what I see, and I think the US has gone a bit mad with it.

Br Cornelius

[Viral]

Liberalism is the single greatest threat we have ever faced. The liberals are trying to ruin America and turn America into a left-wing country. We spent 50 years fighting communism, and now we're on the verge of turning towards the very thing we have sworn to fight against. In American politics there are primarily two types of people, liberals and normal people. While the liberals do want to make America like the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Cuba, they're primary "inspiration" comes from America's "most favored ally," the United Kingdom. Liberals believe that the government should govern every aspect of your life.

The liberals are the people who are trying to ban all guns, lower the quality of colleges and universities, lower the quality of health care, institute total government control over the economy, institute school uniforms for public high schools, legalize all illegal drugs, ban prostitution, let people in prison vote, form Sharia Courts that enforce Sharia Law, negotiate with terrorists and provide them with whatever they demand, not defend ourselves if attacked, and countless other bull Red philosophies. Remember, we are free so long as we don't submit to extreme radical philosophies such as liberalism, theocracy, and fascism.

Left wing =/= Communism

Just as

Right wing =/= Fascism

Saying that anyone who is on the left is a communist is just like saying everyone on the right is a fascist (though, the fascist one might be correct )

You're so wrong on the next few points it hurts so lets tackle them one at a time:

1) Guns should be banned and only allowed to those who need them. In 1776 it took ages to reload a gun, Hell, you could only fire one bullet and them you were screwed! When they wrote that every American had the right to bear arms they had no clue that 250 years down the line people would have AK-47s, Shotguns, Magnums. What don't you guys get about this? You guys need to be regulated. The United States has around 4 deaths for every 100,000 people. Now that doesn't seem like much but lets compare!

England and Wales - 0.15

Scotland - 0.06

Japan - 0.02

Italy - 0.81

Huh, yeah those crazy liberals! Wanting people not to die!

2) I'm sorry but this one is going to be rude. America's reaction to public healthcare showed the rest of the world how backwards and selfish you can collectively be. For a country with such a disgusting healthcare system it's annoying as Hell to see you whine about Obama wanting to make things better. Every other first world country has far superior health-care and guess what! Most of ours are social, OMGUSH we're all evil left-wing socialists who care more about ourselves than our money! OMGUSH!

Facts time!

Infant Mortality:

6.26 Deaths per 1,000 births - United States (No national Health)

4.85 Deaths per 1,000 births - United Kingdom (National Health)

3.58 Deaths per 1,000 births - Norway (National Health)

3.33 Deaths per 1,000 births - France(National Health)

Average Lifespan:

78.3 - United States

79.4 - United Kingdom and Germany (National Health)

80.7 - Canada (National Health)

80.7 - France (National Health)

You're one of the only countries that has a lot of money to refuse national health. Thing is I'm just comparing you with Europe and Canada, Asian countries such as Japan and Singapore also have a national healthcare system. In Japan the government pays 70% of all procedures and in Singapore the government ensures affordability through controlling the price. You are failing as far as healthcare goes and you rejected the best offer you got, well done dude

3) Lower the qualities of universities and colleges? You mean make them more accessible to everyone? In the UK the average cost is around 3,000 pounds but the cap is 9,000. Universities in American can charge any price they want and one I looked into (The University of Maryland) charges $40,000! Something else you're falling behind in is making people able to get into college and not get out of it in horrific levels of debt. If the government gives money to education then the fees can be cut and you need to realise that. You've fallen behind in something else it seems.

4) Uniforms.

1. A school uniform makes it easier for the school authorities to recognize students belonging to their school. It also makes it somewhat tougher for those that don’t belong to slip in; unless, of course, they go to all the trouble of buying a uniform that fits.

2. A school uniform also saves the school administrators from having to police what the students wear. There are no daily battles regarding what’s appropriate or not for school.

3. A school uniform apparently also saves students from putting their fashion tastes before their learning requirements. When they don’t have to spend time wondering what to wear and how to make a fashion statement, they can devote more time to getting an education. Theoretically, that is.

4. Wearing the same type of dress reduces social snobbery and peer pressure in educational institutions. It is also supposed to reduce incidents of bullying and theft. How do you pick on someone for wearing the same dress as yourself? Why would you steal a pair of shoes you both have and can afford? I suppose there are ways and there are reasons, but fewer.

5. School uniforms cramp the style of gang members. They have to recognize each other by names and faces instead of by flaunting aggressively painted jackets, T-shirts with obscene messages, clunky jewelry, and things like that. Instead of ‘my gang’ and ‘your gang’, they also have to think in terms of ‘our school’. It’s a hard life. On the brighter side, it helps them to live another day and go on to survive in college.

6. A school uniform can instill a sense of discipline and community feeling. This naturally reduces incidents of violence. Students can come to school without worrying about personal safety. Teachers don’t have to double as guards, and can concentrate on teaching.

I don't really see why you're so p***y about uniforms, it's actually kinda pathetic

5) "Legalise all illegal drugs"

Are... Are you ****ing stupid?

Proof please. Also, marijuana should be legal even if just to reduce the number of gangs, gang crimes and illegal trade that goes on. In fact the lovely Mrs. Clinton last week said they couldn't legalise weed because "there's just too much money in it".

They haven't pushed any legalisation of drugs. Did you get this news from Fox? I bet you got it from Fox

6) Let people in prison vote. No.

7) There's nothing wrong with Sharia law. Jews have their own courts in the US and lets face it every other court is Christian. -1 ignorant hick. +1 liberal realist. You wont have to follow Sharia, your friends wont have to, people wont be stoned, you already execute people so that's -1 for the moral highground. Sharia law would be for Muslims who choose to follow it and nobody else. They will also have to act in accordance with the main laws of the US so you're just being paranoid really.

8) On terrorism, just get the **** out of their countries and they'll leave you alone. Provide them with whatever they demand? My lord you must have Bill O'Reilly pumped into your veins just for saying this.

9) Not defend yourselves... Yeah, right. Definitely Fox News.

Now i'll tell you that Fox News isn't even a news show, it was deemed as too factually inaccurate and is just an entertainment show, chew that over for a while. Maybe if university wasn't 40,000 then you could of gone and this thread would of never been posted.

Done, done and done.

[The Silver Thong]

From his post. religion should not force their morals on others and it should be kept out of schools.

Dano I belong to no organization the imposes belief and that beliefs moral standard, you do.

[Bracket]

Left wing =/= Communism

Just as

Right wing =/= Fascism

Saying that anyone who is on the left is a communist is just like saying everyone on the right is a fascist (though, the fascist one might be correct )

You're so wrong on the next few points it hurts so lets tackle them one at a time:

1) Guns should be banned and only allowed to those who need them. In 1776 it took ages to reload a gun, Hell, you could only fire one bullet and them you were screwed! When they wrote that every American had the right to bear arms they had no clue that 250 years down the line people would have AK-47s, Shotguns, Magnums. What don't you guys get about this? You guys need to be regulated. The United States has around 4 deaths for every 100,000 people. Now that doesn't seem like much but lets compare!

England and Wales - 0.15

Scotland - 0.06

Japan - 0.02

Italy - 0.81

Huh, yeah those crazy liberals! Wanting people not to die!

2) I'm sorry but this one is going to be rude. America's reaction to public healthcare showed the rest of the world how backwards and selfish you can collectively be. For a country with such a disgusting healthcare system it's annoying as Hell to see you whine about Obama wanting to make things better. Every other first world country has far superior health-care and guess what! Most of ours are social, OMGUSH we're all evil left-wing socialists who care more about ourselves than our money! OMGUSH!

Facts time!

Infant Mortality:

6.26 Deaths per 1,000 births - United States (No national Health)

4.85 Deaths per 1,000 births - United Kingdom (National Health)

3.58 Deaths per 1,000 births - Norway (National Health)

3.33 Deaths per 1,000 births - France(National Health)

Average Lifespan:

78.3 - United States

79.4 - United Kingdom and Germany (National Health)

80.7 - Canada (National Health)

80.7 - France (National Health)

You're one of the only countries that has a lot of money to refuse national health. Thing is I'm just comparing you with Europe and Canada, Asian countries such as Japan and Singapore also have a national healthcare system. In Japan the government pays 70% of all procedures and in Singapore the government ensures affordability through controlling the price. You are failing as far as healthcare goes and you rejected the best offer you got, well done dude

3) Lower the qualities of universities and colleges? You mean make them more accessible to everyone? In the UK the average cost is around 3,000 pounds but the cap is 9,000. Universities in American can charge any price they want and one I looked into (The University of Maryland) charges $40,000! Something else you're falling behind in is making people able to get into college and not get out of it in horrific levels of debt. If the government gives money to education then the fees can be cut and you need to realise that. You've fallen behind in something else it seems.

4) Uniforms.

I don't really see why you're so p***y about uniforms, it's actually kinda pathetic

5) "Legalise all illegal drugs"

Are... Are you ****ing stupid?

Proof please. Also, marijuana should be legal even if just to reduce the number of gangs, gang crimes and illegal trade that goes on. In fact the lovely Mrs. Clinton last week said they couldn't legalise weed because "there's just too much money in it".

They haven't pushed any legalisation of drugs. Did you get this news from Fox? I bet you got it from Fox

6) Let people in prison vote. No.

7) There's nothing wrong with Sharia law. Jews have their own courts in the US and lets face it every other court is Christian. -1 ignorant hick. +1 liberal realist. You wont have to follow Sharia, your friends wont have to, people wont be stoned, you already execute people so that's -1 for the moral highground. Sharia law would be for Muslims who choose to follow it and nobody else. They will also have to act in accordance with the main laws of the US so you're just being paranoid really.

8) On terrorism, just get the **** out of their countries and they'll leave you alone. Provide them with whatever they demand? My lord you must have Bill O'Reilly pumped into your veins just for saying this.

9) Not defend yourselves... Yeah, right. Definitely Fox News.

Now i'll tell you that Fox News isn't even a news show, it was deemed as too factually inaccurate and is just an entertainment show, chew that over for a while. Maybe if university wasn't 40,000 then you could of gone and this thread would of never been posted.

Done, done and done.

I agree with you here. But, the one thing i saw a problem i have is that there obviously were ALOT of people who supported Obamacare. But the problem is that it's always the people who are against something that are more vocal than those who support it.

[AROCES]

I agree with you here. But, the one thing i saw a problem i have is that there obviously were ALOT of people who supported Obamacare. But the problem is that it's always the people who are against something that are more vocal than those who support it.

Really?

March 2010

A new CNN Opinion Research poll, conducted over the weekend as the House debated Obamacare, finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress. Just 39 percent of the poll's 1,030 respondents said they favored the bill.

I guess you have not heard that the GOP took control of Congress after the Democrats forced Obamacare to the throat of the American people.

Edited February 19, 2011 by AROCES