Liberal Media?

[lordblazer]

lordblazer the fact that america is incapable of running these kinds of systems does not mean they cannot work. you think my country runs them because they don't work or they don't care? or the fact that since their introduction literacy and employment rates have risen? that when the nhs started deaths rates decreased? dental hygeiene went up (til that was stolen). they do and can work. look at cuba and tell me they don't. america is just incapable for whatever reason (lack of funding really) of making them work.

the new testament over-rules the old. that's why jesus contradicted it so much.

taxes are thrown away? my education is a wate of money to you? my health? this is throwing money away?

and redneck lets say tomorrow you no longer had to pay taxes (including vat) tell me what percentage would you give to social security? education? health care? or would you give none? take the money and say you need it for yourself?

and the american economy is falling. look at he strength of the dollar against the pound and euro in the last few years.

so redneck your saying i wold have to pay for my own health? every operation and scan i've ever had? the braces i had fitted? the optical care i require? life and health is not a car. it should not require money to maintain. it is not a commodity that should require cash in hand. it is a right. the state of your health should not be dictated by the size of your bank account? and what of me? when i was sick i wasn't old enough to get a job i was 13. so should what health i am entitled to be dictated to by my parents earnings? was that my fault? am i another one of those people that made bad decisions and should be punished? my parents could not have afforded what i have received. would you have let me die for not being able to afford it? life should not have a cost attached.

so yeah it would be a great shame if i had to pay for living.

and no redneck i ouldn't have went to uni witht he maount my parents earn. the tuition fees alone would have been out of their budget. so no i wouldn't be able to go to uni if my government didn't pay for it.

britain privatised the rail system because we were under the tories at the time who had a great fetish for such things. it failed miserably.

tinfoil hat? you see my vision isn't obscured by greed and hate as many people's vision is.

the bible and how you choose to interpt it is not god's judgement. it was not written by god or proof read by him. what is said at the fornt of the gates of heaven is judgement. if you want the honest truth the bible as the protestant church knows it was created by king james a few hundred years ago.

so the answer to my question was, no you cannot force a child on a mother. and even with adoption some women will not want to go through that. as there are more than one way to skin a cat there is more than one way to get rid of a unborn baby. it happens even now when abortion is legal.

now don't get me wrong i'm not all for abortion. i'm neither for or against it. but if it is to be done it needs to be done by someone who knows what he is doing. not with pennyroal tea or by some guy in a side alley surgey with bicycle parts.

and if you can water down communism and get liberalism. in the same way you can water down fascism and get conservatism. the right wing is the same as the left in this manner. it is a slding scale on both sides.

and no redneck i do not ask the state for a miracle cure. i asked them to perform a live saving operation. something i would not be too keen on trusting to god's will or letting the clergy perform. and if the church was to pay for all my medical tests and procedures as well as all others that asked then it would be pretty damn broke. unless of course evryone gave all that money from that new tax break to charity's and didn't just greedily buy what they wanted. yeah........

i kinda like my post-oliver twist society.

marx as well as being a philosopher not only predicted and influenced the greatest mass movement this world has ever seen. did not write about communism as we saw it. but i am glad you noticed the reference. to be honest nowadays the statement is not true. it would now be regarding tv, soaps and reality tv. but there you go. (sorry it was not relevant)

so redneck are you one of these people that in an other thread claimed have made bad decisions in life and deserve their poverty? from reading what you said. you borrowed alot of money. you could have saved. it's not that you don't have the money to save that amount of money becasue you paid it back and then some. you say you had alot of firearms which you pawned, i'll assume you pawned them for less money then you bought them for. this seems to me like a waste of money. for what reason did you require more than one firearm? surely it is common sense that if a firearm is needed one is needed, not a stock. if you can accept that you have made bad decisions in your life will you retract the idea that poverty is a deserved?

if you lived in a society like mine your father would have been helped through his life. you would have went to a free school. possibly received free meals there. he would have receieved support at the very minimum child tax credits. you would have been offered council accomadation when you lost the mortgage so not forcing you to move. you could have been able to pay that gas bill and had a more varied diet than ramen noodles at home.

and frankly if you think that saving my life was theft then you have lost what respect i had of you.

last point. do not insult or flame me. first of all it is not allowed in this forum. and i would not want to see that percentage on your signature drop below 50% because you cannot abide by the rules given to you. i'm not going to press that warn button because it seems del murder has had a word about it. (was there anything edited out here?) but for the sake of common descency please do not insult anyone on this forum. no matter what your views.

thank you.

Its not that america is incapable of running there public school systems properly its the fac tthat really they dont care due to the fact that tax money goes more into USA's prison systems than USA's school systems yet no one says anything about it.I did but igot a letter back saying that i'm not even 18 so shutup as they put it.

Anyway cloud I haven't insulted you at all?have i?besides calling oyu a girl ont eh otehr thread which i actually though you were a chick but other than that i never insulted you.I jsut said.Goto america and goto a inner city school and then tell me if the system works well.

[Cloud No.9]

"I did but igot a letter back saying that i'm not even 18 so shutup as they put it."

sorry to be a little stupd here. but is this in reply to me? i just can't see what it's in reply to. sorry about that.

and lorblazer while i'm apoligizing the person who insulted me was redneck. (wasn't actually an insult unless del murder edited it out) it was more of a flame "get bent". okay hope we got that all cleared up.

while i'm here though. if education requires more money then it's gonna need more money, which comes from more taxes. then people are only gonna whine about helping someone else learn and stuff. because for some reason bringing up the next generation to learn to spell is seen as a bad thing by some. this being the generation with the money from which they make from a nice education will be paying for pensions and health care of the folk that are whining about taxes.

or you could drop the money in the prison system. it would help though if rehabilitation wasa bigger thing becasue then you wouldn't have to pay fro re-offenders coming back every year using more money. make a short term investment for long term gains. also i read in the paper that a man was just been released after serving 35 years in jail for the theft of a tv. that is just waste of money. you could have rehabilitated him within a year and educated him and he would have been a fraction of the cost.

the prison system needs to be reformed in america and better state schools given. otherwise therw will be this constant difference between them that people will bring up.

poor kids cannot be blamed for being poor. we need to give them the best start we can give them. so they don'r fall into the same trap as their parents. a good education is the way to do this. and in state education is where they will be. if you want to end the poverty cycle you need to deal with the problem of poor state schools. in the words of the grandfather of the welfare state. "the difference between liberalism and socialism is, socialism aims to bring down the rich, liberalism seeks to lift up the poor." is that not what we want from a society? where what your parents own does not influence the chances you recieve in life?

now state schools do work. the currently do not work in america due to problems with the system and funding. but they can work. my country is proof of this. look at our univeristy occupancy levels. this is because a. everyone rich and poor are now getting a better education than before. and b. everyone rich and poor is getting this better education up to univeristy level for 5 years irrelative of their social and economic status.

our universities are no longer reserved for the rich. they are reserved for the deserving. and this is how it should be.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Yeesh does it have to be like this?

What I'd do about welfare is essentially give people who get laid off a chance to go back and get retrained for a different skill, so as the person can get retrained and be a contributing member of society. The reason behind this seems pretty simple to me -- the job skills required change almost constantly. We just don't need as many telephone receptionists in America, because our call centers are in India now. Same kind of thing with manufacturing, those jobs are gone. So the people who had those jobs need to be trained to do something that will give them a decent paycheck, i.e. repairing PCs, network admins, or accountants or something.

The problem with straight up providing $0.00 in aid is that the person will have an income low enough that they'll probably still need assistance. The problem with generous aid is that it becomes too comfortable, in fact far more comfortable than if they were working.

So if a person were willing to work 20 hours a week for the government, then i think it is only fair to help them get trained to get a decent paying job.

[DMKA]

What I don't understand is why Redneck thinks the Republicans are on his side.

You know, I've actually went through and read the entire thread (I was extremely bored)...and I'm very confused on that myself now. o_O

Yeesh does it have to be like this?

What I'd do about welfare is essentially give people who get laid off a chance to go back and get retrained for a different skill, so as the person can get retrained and be a contributing member of society. The reason behind this seems pretty simple to me -- the job skills required change almost constantly. We just don't need as many telephone receptionists in America, because our call centers are in India now. Same kind of thing with manufacturing, those jobs are gone. So the people who had those jobs need to be trained to do something that will give them a decent paycheck, i.e. repairing PCs, network admins, or accountants or something.

The problem with straight up providing $0.00 in aid is that the person will have an income low enough that they'll probably still need assistance. The problem with generous aid is that it becomes too comfortable, in fact far more comfortable than if they were working.

So if a person were willing to work 20 hours a week for the government, then i think it is only fair to help them get trained to get a decent paying job.

That was a refreshing read. I agree completely.

[lordblazer]

while i'm here though. if education requires more money then it's gonna need more money, which comes from more taxes. then people are only gonna whine about helping someone else learn and stuff. because for some reason bringing up the next generation to learn to spell is seen as a bad thing by some. this being the generation with the money from which they make from a nice education will be paying for pensions and health care of the folk that are whining about taxes.

in america people are too self centered now days.Especially americans.Selflessness is a rare thing.It comes natural to me and it took me awhile to see why people apreciated me being selfless.Even though my dad thinks im selfish(last time he saw me I was 6 of course i was a kid....he still thinks like that to yeah the father missing out on his oldest son growing up and trying to make it up through his youngest son(step brother))
but yeah the sad hting is though in america prisons recieve a lot more of the peoples tax money than schools do.Which if schools recieved this tax money then prizons wouldn't need it at all.

[Gnostic Yevon]

while i'm here though. if education requires more money then it's gonna need more money, which comes from more taxes. then people are only gonna whine about helping someone else learn and stuff. because for some reason bringing up the next generation to learn to spell is seen as a bad thing by some. this being the generation with the money from which they make from a nice education will be paying for pensions and health care of the folk that are whining about taxes.

in america people are too self centered now days.Especially americans.Selflessness is a rare thing.It comes natural to me and it took me awhile to see why people apreciated me being selfless.Even though my dad thinks im selfish(last time he saw me I was 6 of course i was a kid....he still thinks like that to yeah the father missing out on his oldest son growing up and trying to make it up through his youngest son(step brother))
but yeah the sad hting is though in america prisons recieve a lot more of the peoples tax money than schools do.Which if schools recieved this tax money then prizons wouldn't need it at all.

It's not even that selfless, to be honest. Just practical. If you don't educate people with *real skills* guess what happens? You'll be paying for them every couple of years. So you can agree with my plan and still be a selfish *******.

[ShunNakamura]

Well I gotta aggree with the teaching *real skills* part. We need to get more of that done in the required schooling. I mean I haven't really learned much of anything new since about 6th grade... Then again I do spend alot of time reading.. so perhaps I picked up the curriculum early.

Anyways.. we do need more college like classes at school, that way people will come out with better skills.

[edit] btw.. I think something from this lost couple posts got mixed up.. I lost it somewhere.. yet I think I do understand the overall topic... did someone take something wrongly.. or did I take somehting differently?

[lordblazer]

What I don't understand is why Redneck thinks the Republicans are on his side.

You know, I've actually went through and read the entire thread (I was extremely bored)...and I'm very confused on that myself now. o_O

Yeesh does it have to be like this?

What I'd do about welfare is essentially give people who get laid off a chance to go back and get retrained for a different skill, so as the person can get retrained and be a contributing member of society. The reason behind this seems pretty simple to me -- the job skills required change almost constantly. We just don't need as many telephone receptionists in America, because our call centers are in India now. Same kind of thing with manufacturing, those jobs are gone. So the people who had those jobs need to be trained to do something that will give them a decent paycheck, i.e. repairing PCs, network admins, or accountants or something.

The problem with straight up providing $0.00 in aid is that the person will have an income low enough that they'll probably still need assistance. The problem with generous aid is that it becomes too comfortable, in fact far more comfortable than if they were working.

So if a person were willing to work 20 hours a week for the government, then i think it is only fair to help them get trained to get a decent paying job.

That was a refreshing read. I agree completely.

lol redneck hasn't seen the light yet lol.But seriously I am kinda confuse as well .How redneck explained his current situation.How are the republicans helping him?If redneck sees this please answer it.

[Sasquatch]

lol redneck hasn't seen the light yet lol.But seriously I am kinda confuse as well .How redneck explained his current situation.How are the republicans helping him?If redneck sees this please answer it.

Ever think that there are people out there who DON'T think "What can the government do for me" when they vote? No, The Redneck is not rich. Which means he's not one of those eeeevil rich people who hate poor people. The less money the government takes from us--in other words, the less we have to pay in taxes--is more money we keep for ourselves. More of our money. Republicans aren't against poor people in any way--they/we are for people who want to work for their money, instead of waiting for handouts. Instead of saying "You're evil because you worked for your money and disagree with it being redistributed to people that don't work as hard/long as you do", why don't you try "Why don't poor people try working a bit and getting off government assistance programs?" And don't try to tell me it can't be done, or it's too hard, or some people can't do it because America is racist or sexist or homophobic, or whatever excuse people want to make for them. And those people with serious disabilities have plenty of programs and opportunities for themselves, as well. This is the "Land of Opportunity". If you can't support yourself in America, you might as well just go ahead and kill yourself, because you don't deserve to go on.

[edczxcvbnm]

That logic does not make any sense. The government became very bloated with buracracy and more with Reagan thus requireing more money to run the government and it is happening yet again with Bush Jr. Homeland security and taking over the airports are a complete and insane waste of money. We have FBI, CIA, DOD, ATF, INS and a great variety of other agencies. To me it seems that if something gets through like 9-11 then they all utterly failed at their jobs and we don't need to add more buracracy to the process but work to reform the entire process instead.

All of that money could have gone towards education, environmental causes and a great variety of other things that we should be spending that money on.

I would also like to point out that it was under Clinton that welfare reform was done thus cutting out buracracy and making people less dependent on the government. To what degree all of this was done I am not as knowledgable about. What that all entailed I don't know. Correct and enlighten me to how all that worked.

[Cloud No.9]

what do people think of when they vote?

social security is for people who don't have a job. so lets for a minute take it away. you lose your job. you struggle getting a new one. now what? where does your money come from? what do your children eat?

or if you have an incoming-outgoing problem. for instance if your husband leaves you with 3 children to support. you suffer a debt problem. then what happens to these people? they need a safety net.

yes maybe the systemis abused more than it should be. but that is inevitable. but for people like me. government aid has got me to where i am today. it has done as the liberals promised and picked me up. i i believe more than any american live in a land of opportunity. where what i can acheive in life is not decided on the size of my or my parents bank account but purely by my merits.

ps. you last line sasquatch is hugely morally dubious. to say that if someone can't support themself for whatever reason isn't worth life is frankly disgusting and i would wish a retraction.

[edczxcvbnm]

I thought Social Security are for those who don't have a job because they are retired instead of losing your job. Losing your job means you get unemployeement benifits(which is only if you are fired and even then you don't have to get it).

[lordblazer]

what do people think of when they vote?

social security is for people who don't have a job. so lets for a minute take it away. you lose your job. you struggle getting a new one. now what? where does your money come from? what do your children eat?

or if you have an incoming-outgoing problem. for instance if your husband leaves you with 3 children to support. you suffer a debt problem. then what happens to these people? they need a safety net.

yes maybe the systemis abused more than it should be. but that is inevitable. but for people like me. government aid has got me to where i am today. it has done as the liberals promised and picked me up. i i believe more than any american live in a land of opportunity. where what i can acheive in life is not decided on the size of my or my parents bank account but purely by my merits.

ps. you last line sasquatch is hugely morally dubious. to say that if someone can't support themself for whatever reason isn't worth life is frankly disgusting and i would wish a retraction.

Social Security is for retired senoir citizens which i won't be able to see when I turn hmm 65 but anyway besides the point.
Another thing dubya did which is really recent was pass a bill allowing the destruction of national parks you know actually it lifted the ban on destroying national parks for resources.

[Cloud No.9]

sorry what does america call what the british call the dole? the thing unemployed get.

[Gnostic Yevon]

we say "on the dole" in America, but what we receive is called welfare.

So Brits say "on the dole" too, I thought that was just America!