Damn Yankee Land!

[Traitorfish]

Damn it, not this guy again. We all know you're a militaristic, nationalist right-winger, so your viewpoint is not exactly fair.

And yet you - who blame all the world's problems on Republicans - your view is fair?

I don't hate myself enough to read the rest of this thread.

Yes, because I'm not a nationalist right-wing capitalist who views the poor as 'lazy and stupid', and claims that military spending is more important than healthcare.
And I don't just blame the republicans. They're at the heart of it, sure, but they wouldn't be so successful if it wasn't for all the greedy middle-class people ou there, who somehow think that privatizing healthcare will save them money (the average American pays 250% as much as much as the average person in Britain). Not to mention all the nationalists and fundamentalists...

[Flying Mullet]

How did EotW stupidity make its way into GC?

It's like a cancer that spreads to other parts of the body.

[Rye]

How did EotW stupidity make its way into GC?

[Traitorfish]

How did EotW stupidity make its way into GC?

Good point, but how is politics stupider than pirates and spoons?

[The Jamie Star Scenario]

How did EotW stupidity make its way into GC?

Magic!

[Traitorfish]

How did EotW stupidity make its way into GC?

Quit quoting this!

[Raistlin]

Yes, because I'm not a nationalist right-wing capitalist who views the poor as 'lazy and stupid', and claims that military spending is more important than healthcare.

1. So only "right-wing capitalists" aren't fair, but, say, left-wing anti-freedom nutjobs aren't excluded?

And I don't just blame the republicans. They're at the heart of it, sure, but they wouldn't be so successful if it wasn't for all the greedy middle-class people ou there, who somehow think that privatizing healthcare will save them money (the average American pays 250% as much as much as the average person in Britain).

I don't care if I have to pay more to provide myself with healthcare, I will not accept being forced to pay for somebody else's.

Tomorrow my EoEO ban expires. So I get to look forward to more of this kind of tripe. *overjoyed*

[Rye]

I dislike the "trend" of hating America and its President. It's wearing thin. :yuck: It seems like no one even has a reason anymore, it's just to look cool.

[Sasquatch]

OK, after that huge fountain of hate, I really don't know where to start...

Hate? Who?

Yes, fraud occured under Clinton, but he was a capitalist tool. Just because he was a democrat does not make him a socialist idol.

Clinton, a Capitalist "tool"? You must be kidding. A man who's redistributed more income than anybody in American history, and you're calling him a Capitalist tool?

And other examples include 'Dead Peasants Insurance', a delightful scheme concuted by several major US corporations. Look it up. Not to mention the huge amounts of tax evasion. Not all of these were 'illegal', but the corrupt American legal system is not exactly a shining beacon of justice. Ask Mumia.

Right. And this is all tied to just Republicans. List some examples of Bush's "corporate fraud".

The US media are zealous supporters of Bush's capitalist regime. I get my info from independant journalists, not from the propaganda factories of right-wing America.

Supporters of Bush? What a crock. Do you have any source that say the US media has a right-wing bias? And don't try the "everybody knows it" or "it's obvious" line, because it just isn't true. Try to find some sources that say the mainstream media in America are "zealous supporters" of Bush. Go ahead.

No, welfare. Nationalists say a lot of stuff about protection, but what's the good of protecting people if you just let them rot. 'Hurray! We save the people from the bad guys! Now they will clean my toilets for 47c and hour!' Social darwinism makes no sense- if someone is brought up with little education, how are they supposed to compete with someone who went to an ivy leauge school?

How? They try. You don't have to have a higher education to be a better employee. Like I said, there's no excuse for being poor in America.

Especially since all the jobs have been taken to Mexico, where there's a whole load of people who the corporations can exploit even more.

If the Democrats hadn't passed enormous bills taxing nearly half their income, they would have stayed in America. And American corporations are the best thing that's ever happened to thousands of Mexican workers (or wherever they might have moved to).

And capitalism doesn't work. It makes no sense at all. The rich haven't worked for their cash. They inherited it.

Believe it or not, but many people have actually earned their money. Thousands of companies have been built from nothing. Millions of people have worked their asses off to get the education/training/experience required for certain well-paying jobs. Only a few of the "rich" have only inherited their money from their parents -- but even so, how did their parents get rich? There's got to be a point somewhere where somebody made more money and left it to his children.

Americans deny it, but there is an incredibly rigid class system in the country, and the rich bourgeoise won't let anyone grab a penny of there hard inherited-cash.

Right. Those eeeeevil Rich just stuff all of their money into big mattresses, and nobody ever sees it again, right? How about no? The rich, naturally, want to stay rich, so they invest their money. Could be in something small, or it could be something that will get them a hellovalot more money. Like developing a company. Something like, for example, building another assembly plant, or another store. Something that will provide more jobs, and better the economy on all levels.

You'd have to be a fool to say that a poor, badly-educated black guy from the ghettoe has half the chance that some upper-class, rich maggot has.

Well according to people like you, those "upper-class rich maggots" don't work anyway, so what chances do they need? A black guy probably has more chances, especially for education, than most everybody else, but I won't get into that because there are people here whose ignorance just won't let them see that. And from everything I've seen -- which is quite a bit, if I may say so -- yes, most people's chances are pretty equal, depending on their attitudes. Most employers would much rather hire a poor black guy from the getto than some rich snob, IF the poor black guy will work as hard or harder. There are more "qualifications" than just education.

Capitalism is greed as a political and economic system. And greed never has any benefits to anyone but the one's making the profit.

Actually, you're only partially wrong on this one. It has benefitted everyone who WANTS to make profit. As I said, if you want to get rich in America, and you're willing to work hard/long/smart enough, you will. (Unless, of course, you bring in slaves, then they're not benefitted much by it, but it wouldn't be any worse than any other system that used slaves.)

It may be a little better, but it's still a dumb thing to say. And you just called me a dumbass. That's against the ToS, you know.

Actually, no, I didn't call you a dumbass. I just said you weren't a genius. Try again.

EDIT:

Tomorrow my EoEO ban expires. So I get to look forward to more of this kind of tripe. *overjoyed*

Too bad I was perma-banned, I enjoy this stuff too.

[Traitorfish]

Yes, because I'm not a nationalist right-wing capitalist who views the poor as 'lazy and stupid', and claims that military spending is more important than healthcare.

1. So only "right-wing capitalists" aren't fair, but, say, left-wing anti-freedom nutjobs aren't excluded?

And I don't just blame the republicans. They're at the heart of it, sure, but they wouldn't be so successful if it wasn't for all the greedy middle-class people ou there, who somehow think that privatizing healthcare will save them money (the average American pays 250% as much as much as the average person in Britain).

I don't care if I have to pay more to provide myself with healthcare, I will not accept being forced to pay for somebody else's.

Tomorrow my EoEO ban expires. So I get to look forward to more of this kind of tripe. *overjoyed*

Left-wing anti freedom nut jobs? Who the hell are you, MacArthur? What I meant was that I have an ounce of compassion in my body, unlike you and Sasquatch. And you are particularly amazing. You don't mind paying more money, if it means you help no-one else? That's just spiteful. And incorrect- the money goes to 'national insurance', essentially, a giant insurance plan that covers all of Britain, and anyone who needs the money, gets it. That means you're allowed to be healthy if you're poor and disabled, as opposed to the US, were being poor and disabled is almost a crime.
And you have to be insane to say that Bush represents freedom. An anti-choice, anti-freedom of speech, anti-anything not apporved by Mein Kampf fascist like him? He feels the same way about freedom as Godzilla feels about architecture.

[Raistlin]

Capitalism is greed as a political and economic system. And greed never has any benefits to anyone but the one's making the profit.

Absolutely. But then you have to ask yourself - in a free, capitalist society (where the government is completely out of the economic sphere), why are the ones making profits...making profits? It can't be because they "buy politicians," because in such a society, the politicians couldn't help businessmen.
The reason people make profits, in an economically free society, is because they've earned it.

EDIT:

Left-wing anti freedom nut jobs? Who the hell are you, MacArthur? What I meant was that I have an ounce of compassion in my body, unlike you and Sasquatch.

So you're criminalizing self-interest?

And you are particularly amazing. You don't mind paying more money, if it means you help no-one else?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I said I don't mind paying money, as long as I'm not forced to help someone else. I don't fork over the cash at the point of a gun.

the money goes to 'national insurance', essentially, a giant insurance plan that covers all of Britain, and anyone who needs the money, gets it. That means you're allowed to be healthy if you're poor and disabled, as opposed to the US, where being poor or disabled means you're not entitled to other peoples' money

Fixed.

And you have to be insane to say that Bush represents freedom.

Did I ever say Bush represents freedom? Bush is about as anti-freedom as Kerry.

[udsuna]

yankee doodle went to town
riding on a poney
he stucka feather in his cap
and called it macaroni

*Deliberately ignores the last dozen or so comments*

You brits made that one up, you know.

[Traitorfish]

OK, after that huge fountain of hate, I really don't know where to start...

Hate? Who?

You, hating the left, and any other form of common sense.

Yes, fraud occured under Clinton, but he was a capitalist tool. Just because he was a democrat does not make him a socialist idol.

Clinton, a Capitalist "tool"? You must be kidding. A man who's redistributed more income than anybody in American history, and you're calling him a Capitalist tool?

Well, I come from Britain. We're the country that produced Kier Hardie. We have a slightly different view of 'redistribution of income'. We think it should actually take place. CLinton only seems left wing because he was between two Bush administrations.

And other examples include 'Dead Peasants Insurance', a delightful scheme concuted by several major US corporations. Look it up. Not to mention the huge amounts of tax evasion. Not all of these were 'illegal', but the corrupt American legal system is not exactly a shining beacon of justice. Ask Mumia.

Right. And this is all tied to just Republicans. List some examples of Bush's "corporate fraud".

BUsh didn't commit the fraud. The corporations did. Hence the term 'corporate fraud' rather than 'presedntial fraud'. And, apart from 'Dead Peasants' (evidently you don't know what that is), there are huge amounts of tax evasion. I'm not going to name individual cases, because I don't go around memorizing all of them. But I think I have slightly different ideas of corporate crime than you.

The US media are zealous supporters of Bush's capitalist regime. I get my info from independant journalists, not from the propaganda factories of right-wing America.

Supporters of Bush? What a crock. Do you have any source that say the US media has a right-wing bias? And don't try the "everybody knows it" or "it's obvious" line, because it just isn't true. Try to find some sources that say the mainstream media in America are "zealous supporters" of Bush. Go ahead.

Michael Moore. George Galloway. The Scottish Socialist Party. The Liberal Democrat party. The fact that the US media refuses to tell the truth on the War in Iraq, Bush's election, Bush's connection with the Taliban, the Saudis or al Queda.

No, welfare. Nationalists say a lot of stuff about protection, but what's the good of protecting people if you just let them rot. 'Hurray! We save the people from the bad guys! Now they will clean my toilets for 47c and hour!' Social darwinism makes no sense- if someone is brought up with little education, how are they supposed to compete with someone who went to an ivy leauge school?

How? They try. You don't have to have a higher education to be a better employee. Like I said, there's no excuse for being poor in America.

BS. America is a cess-pit of inequality. The 'American Dream' isn't real. The poor stay poor, unless they work together to change things. Leaving your friends and family in the dirt while you strive for money and power isn't going to change anything.

Especially since all the jobs have been taken to Mexico, where there's a whole load of people who the corporations can exploit even more.

If the Democrats hadn't passed enormous bills taxing nearly half their income, they would have stayed in America. And American corporations are the best thing that's ever happened to thousands of Mexican workers (or wherever they might have moved to).

Oh that's OK! The corporations were greedy, that's why they left! Of course... Except most of the major companies began moving jobs in the 80s, under Raegan. Not under Clinton. Get your facts right.

And capitalism doesn't work. It makes no sense at all. The rich haven't worked for their cash. They inherited it.

Believe it or not, but many people have actually earned their money. Thousands of companies have been built from nothing. Millions of people have worked their asses off to get the education/training/experience required for certain well-paying jobs. Only a few of the "rich" have only inherited their money from their parents -- but even so, how did their parents get rich? There's got to be a point somewhere where somebody made more money and left it to his children.

That was just a stream of nonsense, showing complete ignoranc eof reality. Look at Bush- his family have been wealthy for centuries! Very few of the rich started off less than upper-middle class. The idea of the poor man working hard to become rich is a lie. It also makes no sese. If millions of Americans work hard their entire lives, why are only a handful rich?

Americans deny it, but there is an incredibly rigid class system in the country, and the rich bourgeoise won't let anyone grab a penny of there hard inherited-cash.

Right. Those eeeeevil Rich just stuff all of their money into big mattresses, and nobody ever sees it again, right? How about no? The rich, naturally, want to stay rich, so they invest their money. Could be in something small, or it could be something that will get them a hellovalot more money. Like developing a company. Something like, for example, building another assembly plant, or another store. Something that will provide more jobs, and better the economy on all levels.

The 'trickle down' theory of economics is a proven failure. Just look around you. Anyway, do we need another company? How about some health insurance for the poor? May that will provide a little more benefit to societey, hmm?

You'd have to be a fool to say that a poor, badly-educated black guy from the ghettoe has half the chance that some upper-class, rich maggot has.

Well according to people like you, those "upper-class rich maggots" don't work anyway, so what chances do they need? A black guy probably has more chances, especially for education, than most everybody else, but I won't get into that because there are people here whose ignorance just won't let them see that. And from everything I've seen -- which is quite a bit, if I may say so -- yes, most people's chances are pretty equal, depending on their attitudes. Most employers would much rather hire a poor black guy from the getto than some rich snob, IF the poor black guy will work as hard or harder. There are more "qualifications" than just education.

A black guy has more chances for education? You're either racist or ignorant. You also forget the huge amount of rascsim in America. It exists at all levels, particularly the top.

Capitalism is greed as a political and economic system. And greed never has any benefits to anyone but the one's making the profit.

Actually, you're only partially wrong on this one. It has benefitted everyone who WANTS to make profit. As I said, if you want to get rich in America, and you're willing to work hard/long/smart enough, you will. (Unless, of course, you bring in slaves, then they're not benefitted much by it, but it wouldn't be any worse than any other system that used slaves.)

That sounded a little like an endorsement of slavery... And besides, at the wages many poor Americans recieve, they are virtually slaves.

It may be a little better, but it's still a dumb thing to say. And you just called me a dumbass. That's against the ToS, you know.

Actually, no, I didn't call you a dumbass. I just said you weren't a genius. Try again.

Aah, you implied I was a dumbass. I'm smart enough to pick up on things like that, you know.

EDIT:

Tomorrow my EoEO ban expires. So I get to look forward to more of this kind of tripe. *overjoyed*

Too bad I was perma-banned, I enjoy this stuff too.

You mean you've been banned from a whole area of the board? Maybe you should be less aggressive, then.

Capitalism is greed as a political and economic system. And greed never has any benefits to anyone but the one's making the profit.

Absolutely. But then you have to ask yourself - in a free, capitalist society (where the government is completely out of the economic sphere), why are the ones making profits...making profits? It can't be because they "buy politicians," because in such a society, the politicians couldn't help businessmen.
The reason people make profits, in an economically free society, is because they've earned it.

Garbage. History shows that this never works. Otherwise, the world wouldn't be in it's current state.

Left-wing anti freedom nut jobs? Who the hell are you, MacArthur? What I meant was that I have an ounce of compassion in my body, unlike you and Sasquatch.

So you're criminalizing self-interest?

Yes, actually, I am. It is a crime to put your own needs above those of the less fortuanate.

the money goes to 'national insurance', essentially, a giant insurance plan that covers all of Britain, and anyone who needs the money, gets it. That means you're allowed to be healthy if you're poor and disabled, as opposed to the US, where being poor or disabled means you're not entitled to other peoples' money

Fixed.

Real mature. Editing my words, so they look different. How do you expect to prove anything? Anyway, the disabled are given an unfair start in life. No-one's fault, but we should all help them if we can.

And you have to be insane to say that Bush represents freedom.

Did I ever say Bush represents freedom? Bush is about as anti-freedom as Kerry.

Yeah, sure. The USAPATRIOT act was a veritable Bill of Rights. Yep, what better why to show how free you are than by allowing unwarranted searches of homes, or by allowing censorship of anti-government material. or by breaking UN human rights laws about treatment of prisoners! Yep, freedom for all!

<b>Edit by Kishi: Don't double-post.</b>

Edit: I didn't. Did I? I don't remember... Was the other post deleted?

[YukiKiro]

first of all, thank you chris for your, um, kind words. second, i see this problem all the time and it is really starting to give me a headache. it is always a country's government that makes the descisions to go to war, we simply elect those people, but we only have a limited selection, and when each candidate shares the same aggression we're out of luck anyways. i call for a cease flaming towards americans as it is not our fault for the entire mess. in fact have you ever heard of peace protests? there are more and more of them here all the time. we're not all war mongers so show a bit of decency and quit getting mad at us for what our government does out of blind money grubbing rage.

[Traitorfish]

first of all, thank you chris for your, um, kind words. second, i see this problem all the time and it is really starting to give me a headache. it is always a country's government that makes the descisions to go to war, we simply elect those people, but we only have a limited selection, and when each candidate shares the same aggression we're out of luck anyways. i call for a cease flaming towards americans as it is not our fault for the entire mess. in fact have you ever heard of peace protests? there are more and more of them here all the time. we're not all war mongers so show a bit of decency and quit getting mad at us for what our government does out of blind money grubbing rage.

I agree with some of what you said, but I did not flame americans. I critiscised the Bush administration, and capitalism as a whole. That's not flaming, it's excercising my freedom of speech, as guaranteed to me by the UN declaration of human rights, along with the right to education and healthcare. Listening, Sasquatch?