AirwaySim

If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

I can´t believe that the political system coughs up types like this, and that half of the US people really consider voting for them.
Maybe they think: "Hey, he´s even more stupid as I am, and he managed to get rich ! He must be right !" (The other half, as we know now, is  on social welfare and voting for that communist black guy).

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 25, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

Bill Clinton left the football in the bathroom (the guy was taking a dump and the president left the event) and went back to the white house.... the poor naval officer was seen running up pennsylvania avenue with briefcase attached to his wrist.  The guards let him in immediately realizing who he was...

TRUE STORY.  

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 25, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

V.S. a president that thinks the U.S. has 57 states? It's a gaffe, they happen. I can bash both sides with equal ferocity when it comes to gaffes and just stupid comments made without thought, gaffes happen on both sides and they don't determine my vote, policy and record does that.  

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 25, 2012, 08:48:51 PM
If anyone still had any doubts about that, here goes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9j0brl9ZSA

How despicable and very worrying that such an incredibly stupid and uneducated person could get access to the nuclear football.
Incredible.

I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

His running mate (for VP) is also a very bright guy.  Obama is a bright guy too.  The only one I worry about is our current VP Biden.  So except for Biden, I would not worry about the smarts of the people running.  Their policies may be something else, something to debate.

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 26, 2012, 01:04:28 AM
I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

His running mate (for VP) is also a very bright guy.  Obama is a bright guy too.  The only one I worry about is our current VP Biden.  So except for Biden, I would not worry about the smarts of the people running.  Their policies may be something else, something to debate.

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

Yeah, I think they kept Biden around for the entertainment value he brings.

LOL

I think he is missing his Brain-to-Mouth filter.  Between the F-bombs, chains, and whatever babble escapes keeps me in stitches :laugh:

On a more serious note- As of right now, Romney is the best chance we have of salvaging this country, 4 more years of Obama/Biden, and we'll end up with China owning this fine country.

Quote from: lunchbox on September 26, 2012, 03:45:44 AM

On a more serious note- As of right now, Romney is the best chance we have of salvaging this country, 4 more years of Obama/Biden, and we'll end up with China owning this fine country.

What a load of crap, sorry. With Romney come the Tea Party idiots, who are just a severe threat to democracy. A group that blows any bipartisanship into the wind just in order to get the president out of office and thus loses the US economy a good share of 4 years is just not what a thinking person should ever consider voting for. They are just dangerous.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 26, 2012, 01:04:28 AM

BTW, I smell a rat with this video.  It was obviously a joke, and the video was cut off just as the audience started to chuckle.

They chuckled because of his incredible stupidity. I mean, come on, who makes such a joke about his wife being in a dangerous situation when he has been known for making stupid and very ill thought out remarks before.
It it really was a joke it's just as horrible as if it was not. I do PR, his PR guy(s) must have facepalmed badly backstage. He's a publicists worst nightmare. He's giving the competition one open goal after another. Sure, Obama occasionally says things that are not very smart, every president does. And I just can't tell what Biden says as the VP is usually not very present in European media.
But the concentration of insanely dumb remarks from Romney is just worrying, this guy is supposed to do foreign policy for the most powerful nation on this planet, he can't just go around insulting allies and stuff.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 26, 2012, 01:04:28 AM
I can assure you that Romney is one of the smartest guys ever to run for president.  You don't make it in the world of Private Equity unless you are extremely bright, and among those guys, Romney was one of the best.

Maybe he is smart in a way. We have a good word for that in German which is 'Fachidiot'. I guess the best possible translation is 'nerd', which loses quite a bit of meaning on the way. It means excelling in a certain occupation but utterly failing at basically anything else.
This guy is just that.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
What a load of crap, sorry. With Romney come the Tea Party idiots, who are just a severe threat to democracy. A group that blows any bipartisanship into the wind just in order to get the president out of office and thus loses the US economy a good share of 4 years is just not what a thinking person should ever consider voting for. They are just dangerous.

Tea Party are people who want to restore constitutional republic.  Their polar oppositr are the "progressives" who want to dismantle the constitution, replace the US form of government with something along the lines of European Commission, that you may be familiar with.  Basically, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats holding all the power - with the side effect of elections and "democracy" really becoming meaningless.  Think European Parliament - impotent and irrelevant group of people...

Unless you go out of your way to find things for yourself, let's just say you will very mislead, if you are a passive consumer of the media is serving you.

As far as Romney and the Tea Party, Romney did not get much support from the Tea Party.  The Tea Party spent most of the primary elections trying to figure out how to defeat Romney, and nominate one one of several Tea Party fovored candidates.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
They chuckled because of his incredible stupidity. I mean, come on, who makes such a joke about his wife being in a dangerous situation when he has been known for making stupid and very ill thought out remarks before.
It it really was a joke it's just as horrible as if it was not. I do PR, his PR guy(s) must have facepalmed badly backstage. He's a publicists worst nightmare. He's giving the competition one open goal after another. Sure, Obama occasionally says things that are not very smart, every president does.

The difference is what gets reported and what does not.  If you are a passive consumer of the news, what will be served to you is some ad-libbed, impromtu remarks of Romney, selecting the absolute worst quote of the day vs. the best line from Obama teleprompter performance.

The goal of the US media is not to report the news or inform the electorate, but to elect Obama.  European press (mostly) just parrots what they see in the US media.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
And I just can't tell what Biden says as the VP is usually not very present in European media.

Proves my point above.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
But the concentration of insanely dumb remarks from Romney is just worrying, this guy is supposed to do foreign policy for the most powerful nation on this planet, he can't just go around insulting allies and stuff.

What used to be most powerful nation on this planet is broke, and under Obama, increasingly irrelevant.  Fast forward 4 more years of Obama, and the US foreign policy will be as relevant to the world as the Russia's foreign policy: no one will care.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
Maybe he is smart in a way. We have a good word for that in German which is 'Fachidiot'. I guess the best possible translation is 'nerd', which loses quite a bit of meaning on the way. It means excelling in a certain occupation but utterly failing at basically anything else.
This guy is just that.

I think you pretty much nailed Obama.  He is a good performer, can show empathy, can be persuasive, skilled communicator (especially with a teleprompter) but utterly fails as everything else.  Obama is great at running for president, but horrible at the actual job of being president.

Romney is more of a brainiac with management skills, who can deliver tangible results, but he is not that great at connecting with people,  especially those who operate at the lowest common denominator of human intelligence.  And below, if there is such a thing as being below the lowest common denomitator.  Here are some examples:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/24/howard_stern_interviews_obama_supporters_2012.html

It is rare that you get an individual who can excel at both end of the spectrum.

I am not going to argue, this discussion leads to nothing as both of us seem to be ardent supporters of opposite ends of the spectrum.

However...

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 26, 2012, 07:32:38 AM
Tea Party are people who want to restore constitutional republic.  Their polar oppositr are the "progressives" who want to dismantle the constitution, replace the US form of government with something along the lines of European Commission, that you may be familiar with.  Basically, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats holding all the power - with the side effect of elections and "democracy" really becoming meaningless.  Think European Parliament - impotent and irrelevant group of people...

...I would like to see some proof for your view on the Democrats aims here. You are perfectly right about the EUssr (unfortunately so), but what you just wrote about the Democrats is unheard of - at least across the pond.

Being a European, I must admit that I´m hooked to what our media report. I can just state that guys like Bush and Romney simply would have no chance at all being elected in many European countries.
The European commission is not ruling Europe, it can´t decide anything against at least the most powerful members of EU. I believe that thinking is caused by limited and likewise tendencial reporting in America. The influence of European Parliament is small. But that is because most Europeans want to keep their own parliaments strong. It´s purpose is to control the EU commission and it is doing that as intended.
EU consists of 27 sovereign states and can´t in any way be compared with the US.
The US was in debt way before Obama.Besides, the whole world except China and The Emirates is.
Political influence is not only characterized by the number of countries I invade with armed forces.
Watching your video about Obama voters I must say that this is a disgusting example of tendencial political journalism. You could have asked any republican idiot to get comparable results. It´s even less intelligent to use it as an argument for either of the candidates.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 26, 2012, 11:38:12 AM
The European commission is not ruling Europe, it can´t decide anything against at least the most powerful members of EU. I believe that thinking is caused by limited and likewise tendencial reporting in America. The influence of European Parliament is small. But that is because most Europeans want to keep their own parliaments strong. It´s purpose is to control the EU commission and it is doing that as intended.

How I wish you were right. However, fact is that Europe is governed by European Central Bank. The current crisis has almost exclusively been caused by a faulty monetary policy and the ECB is continuing to make one faulty decision after another, as is the Federal Reserve.
Even Alan Greenspan has realized by now that his policies have been wrong. It's sad to see them not being rectified by Ben Bernanke, because it would cost the American economy jobs in the short term.
Trouble is, I don't believe Romney has enough backbone to change the FEDs policy, because he too is reliant on a good record, and causing job losses in the first term does not a good record make.

It would be very interesting to see Ron Paul in the White House - and I wouldn't oppose to that (yes, I'm saying that despite my opposition to the Tea Party). I just don't think he could do anything with Congress as it is. That's why Obama failed and that's why every other president will not live up to his potential.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 26, 2012, 08:25:46 AM
I am not going to argue, this discussion leads to nothing as both of us seem to be ardent supporters of opposite ends of the spectrum.

However...

...I would like to see some proof for your view on the Democrats aims here. You are perfectly right about the EUssr (unfortunately so), but what you just wrote about the Democrats is unheard of - at least across the pond.

It is generic to "progressives".  There used to be Democrat and Republican "progressives".  But Republicans soured on progressivism, and Democrats embraced it.

Who are the progressives?  People who want to do good things.  They know what good things are.  They know what good things are for themselves, and they know what is good for other people.  They know better what is good for other people than the other people know by themsleves.  Progressives realized there is only so far you can get with persuasion.  They certainly don't want to lead by example, because leading by example puts the burden only on yourself.  So progressives realized that they have to force people to do things that progressives deem to be "good".

How do you force people to do things they don't want to do voluntarily?  Take power from them, accumulate power in your own hands.  So quest for power was just the means to achieve an end (to do "good" things).  But history is full of examples of quest for power degenerating to be not just a tool, but the goal itself.

So that is the theory.  How does it work in practice?  Both in the US and EU?  In the US, the constitution leaves most of the power with the people (and their representatives in House of Representatives), some power with the states (and its representative, the Senate), and the least power with the federal government (president and the executive branch).  For progressives, states are flaky.  You can't chain people to the states.  People can (and do) move from state to state.  Therefore federal govenment is the ideal tool they want to wield their power.  In EU, it is the European Commission.

So basically, if you are a progressive (in 2012 a Democrat), you have to completely subvert the constitution to achieve your goal.  In the US, it involves a 2 step process:
1. take power from the states
2. take power from the people

Step 1: Done
17th amendment to the us constitution (championed by a "progressive" - Woodrow Wilson) took power from the states by changing how Senators from being appointed by states as their representatives to a direct elections for Senate.  The result?  In Washington, states are powerless.

In EU, you start with very strong nation states, each vielding tremendous about of power, and each member having veto power.  I don't follow European politics that closely, but look for the European progressives to try to take as much power away from the member nation states, possibly to remove the veto power, or to reduce areas where single EU member can exercise veto.  That's just a canary in a mine.  When this canary is dead, things will only go downhill.

Incidently the first true progressive, Woodrow Wilson, in addition to taking power from the states, was the first president to oversee implementation of federal taxation and creation of the Federal Reserve.  Meaning taking money from the people by force, and even getting a monopoly over what money is.

Step 2: Taking power from the people
Power is a zero sum game.  When someone gains power there is someome else who loses power.  In 100 years from the first true progressive (Woodrow Wilson) to last (Obama) federal government has amassed a tremendous amount of power.  How do you take it all?  Achieve a total dependency of people on the government.  Obama has done more than any other president to cause dependency and to seduce people into dependency.  Every benchmark of dependency of people on the government has skyrocketed under Obama.

People are being turned into toddlers, totally dependent on their parent (government) for their every need.  What power do toddlers wield?  Other than occasional tamper tantrum - none.

In EU, the dependency on the governments of member countries has always been greater than in the US, but now a new dependency is being created, dependency on the EU government.  And Europeans are a very cheap date, they are easily impressed, and easily seduced.  Europe is now littered by EU projects, big and small.  Bridge here, observation tower there, some refurbishment in another place.  All in very visible places, heavily labeled and advertized as being there only thanks to the EU Commission.  And my impression of a typical European when they see it?  It is that of a toddler who just got a new toy truck or a doll house...

So we go full circle.  
- The US was ruled by a tyrant - King George and an unrepresentative British parlament
- to the point where under the US constiturion, power went to the people
- and back to a tyranical rule of progressive elite, the US constitutoon being nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, the same way the constitution of the Soviet union was.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 27, 2012, 04:11:18 AMAnd my impression of a typical European when they see it?  It is that of a toddler who just got a new toy truck or a doll house...

Funny, in Germany people are mocking the influence of the EU, because everyone knows that EU funds equal wasted tax payer money. It's just difficult to change anything about that because every single party in the political spectrum is pro EU.

The same applies to the US on a federal level. The Republicans had plenty of chance to change the system back according to their philosophy, yet they didn't.
So who do you vote for? People who actually stand for what they say or spineless opportunists?

Also, it's funny you speak of how taxing the people is stealing from them. How do you explain, then, that the phases in which the US economy grew most where times of high taxes, and that the republican tax cuts led to bubbles and crashes?
You don't need to lock back to the 50s and their 9x% top tax bracket, just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan, then look how Bush I raised taxes and the economy prospered under Clinton (for which he did his part, but it was mainly Bushs merit), and now look how the Bush II tax cuts created a bubble economy and left the entire world in trouble.
If only Bush II had had the wisdom of his father.

Those arguments are very entertaining to read, but have nothing to do with reality.I no way the US constitution is at danger. If so, take it to your Supreme Court . I think you also have a strong parliament and strong states, you argue as if the president can change things like a dictator.That´s nonsense and refers to the belief of the poorest in mind. Please don´t argue with us like that. Don´t always compare EU and US , they have nothing in common. You don´t need EU examples for wasted funds, that happens everywhere tax money is spent, even in your country.About veto rights: it was created when EU consisted of 6 states, but keeping that up with 27 is blocking everything.
It´s like the people of Rhode Island would have the right denying everything the rest of the US is planning to do.You would call that democratic?
All that arguing is somehow related to "Freedom". American politic debates always circle around that topic. Republicans always see it at danger.
But what they really mean is mostly freedom of economy, the freedom to get RICH. But don´t forget where this money comes from: from everybody else. They argue: don´t give your money to the state, give it to us, we rich guys know better, every tax dollar is wasted money.
If you believe that, what do you need a  government for? Get away with it and let LEHMAN BROTHERS handle it.
You always fear "socialism." Being a West-Berliner,I happened to observe this kind of economy behind a wall across the street for 28 years and I fear you don´t really know what you are talking about. It´s just a drop-dead argument against people believing in social rights.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 07:27:14 AM
Funny, in Germany people are mocking the influence of the EU, because everyone knows that EU funds equal wasted tax payer money. It's just difficult to change anything about that because every single party in the political spectrum is pro EU.

Maybe Germans are one step ahead of their other European counterparts.  Maybe they realize they are the ones paying the most of the EU waste, and any funds Germany receives from EU is only a fraction of what is sent to Brussels.

As far as all the major parties being pro-EU, well, EU as a common market is a good idea.  European Commission as a "government" of EU is a bad idea.  Maybe it is not easy to distinguesh between the two, and at this point, the EU government has reached escape velocity, and there is no way to stop it, or to reform it for the better.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 07:27:14 AM
The same applies to the US on a federal level. The Republicans had plenty of chance to change the system back according to their philosophy, yet they didn't.
So who do you vote for? People who actually stand for what they say or spineless opportunists?

I don't thik a lot of Republican voters were unhappy when Republicans lost Congress in 2006.  That bunch became worthless, only caring about holding power, instead of doing anything constructive.  Republicans certainly needed some time in the wilderness to find themselves, and they did.  Paul Ryan (Romney's pick for VP) has emerged as an intellectual leader of Republicans, Republicans won the House of Representatives in 2010, and they are actually not spineless opprtunists.  

They are willing to address issues facing the US (and just about every country in the West) which is the imminent bankruptcy, as the bills for promises made by the political opportunist of the past come due.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 07:27:14 AM
Also, it's funny you speak of how taxing the people is stealing from them. How do you explain, then, that the phases in which the US economy grew most where times of high taxes, and that the republican tax cuts led to bubbles and crashes?

I did not say stealing, I said taking by force.  Not exactly the same thing, but I don't want to get into semantics.

As far as taxing, I really like the way Ron Paul says it.  Spending is the tax.  If the money is spent, it will have to be taxed.  Either immediately, or later, with interest.  So, he tells Republicans, don't talk about cutting taxes, talk about cutting spending.

As far as booms and busts, bubbles and bursting of bubbles, they may or may not have to do anything with taxes.  Unless you are talking a huge change.
- Reagan boom might be partially attributed to change in taxes, but it was a change from a ridiculus 70% marginal tax rate (that most people avoided) to a sane rate in around 30.
- Clinton years boom and bust in the last year of his presidency was in my opinion not caused by his increase of personal taxes or cut of capital gains taxes.  It was technology driven
- Bush II era tax cuts did not exactly start a boom.  They were just a reaction to revive a moribound economy after 2 back to back shocks (Dot.com crash and 9/11).
- The real estate bubble and subsequent crash had nothing to do with Clinton tax increase or Bush reversal of that tax increase in personal taxes

What cuased the real estate bubble has happened during Clinto era, and Republicans (who controlled Congress) and Clinton share the blame almost equally, IMO.  Two things happened:
1. Clinton administration took some banks to court wit a charge: "The deadbeats you are NOT lending money are predominantly racial minorities, and the fact that you are not lending to them is racial discrimination.  Clinton "won".  Banks were forced to make home mortgate loans to deadbeats (as part of the settlement).  The banks then found out that it was not really such a bad thing, because there were idiot investors out there who kept buying these sub-prime mortgages from them...
2. Clinton + Republicans passed a general capital gains tax cut plus a special tax cut on real estate transactions on top of that.  For all practical purposes, real estate gains became tax free.  Unlike any other investment that was taxable.  So a lot of money (including a lot of Greenspan easy money) went into real estate.

Here is how it worked:
Real estate prices were going up for the reasons mentioned.  So you buy a house you can barely afford with no intention of eventually paying it off.  The intention is to hold it for a few years, while the prices went up.  Then you sell it with a gain.  This gain is tax free, up to $500,000 for a couple.  You take your gain, spend some of it, and invest the rest into even a bigger house, that you can afford even less than the first one.  Again, the intention is to just hold it for a while, pay the minimum in payments, and sell it again.

I know people who flipped 2-3 houses.  It is all based on the "greater fool" theory.  You are a fool for buying a house that you can't afford, that is not worth the price you are paying, but you "know" that there will be a greater fool down the road who will buy it from you at even more foolish price.

So the crash was inevitable, regardless of what the personal tax rates were (irrelevant to this cycle) or who the president was at the time...

But you can fool a lot of people by confusing the coincidence, correlation and causation.  Not just the in popular media.  The scientific journals are full of this confusion...

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 07:27:14 AM
You don't need to lock back to the 50s and their 9x% top tax bracket, just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan, then look how Bush I raised taxes and the economy prospered under Clinton (for which he did his part, but it was mainly Bushs merit), and now look how the Bush II tax cuts created a bubble economy and left the entire world in trouble.
If only Bush II had had the wisdom of his father.

A lot of coincidences, but one factual error:  Economy under Reagan had long, sustained boom, very high economic growth rates, year after year, with no bust following it, just a minor recession during Bush I.  The double dip recession as he entered office was largely due to the intention of the Fed to slay the inflation dragon that has plagued the world for a decade of 70s.  Bundesbank, Bank of England did their part in inflation fighting, causing recession in 81, 82.

You can look up the stats here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

What I find amaszng is not that you said "just look back to the 80s and how the economy suffered under reagan".  I am sure there was no ill intent on your part.  I am sure you heard from some source you may have thoght was credible.  The part that I find amazing is that how the leftie media re-writes history and the fact that it works.

So what we end up is that the ever shrinking minority of people who still have interest in the real world end up being served altered reality by the media.
The reason I say shrinking minority is because a growing majority of people have absolutely no interest in real the world.  They live in alternate universe of celbrity (sub) culture, gossip, sport fanaticism ...

Although not consenting on everything you said, I have to say that this reply of yours is very well argumented. Thank you for lifting the overall level.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Those arguments are very entertaining to read, but have nothing to do with reality.I no way the US constitution is at danger. If so, take it to your Supreme Court . I think you also have a strong parliament and strong states, you argue as if the president can change things like a dictator.That´s nonsense and refers to the belief of the poorest in mind. Please don´t argue with us like that. Don´t always compare EU and US , they have nothing in common. You don´t need EU examples for wasted funds, that happens everywhere tax money is spent, even in your country.About veto rights: it was created when EU consisted of 6 states, but keeping that up with 27 is blocking everything.
It´s like the people of Rhode Island would have the right denying everything the rest of the US is planning to do.You would call that democratic?

I am not saying that the structure of the EU is ideal.  All I am sying is that the EU bureaucrats have intention of striping member countries of their power, and to concentrate that power in their own hands.  It will not happen overnight, it will happen in small steps, every one of those steps will be very well reasoned.  But in the end, Germans will be electing German parlaments that will be weaker and weaker.  The real power will be in Brussels, and there will be nothing you will be able to do about it.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
All that arguing is somehow related to "Freedom". American politic debates always circle around that topic. Republicans always see it at danger.
But what they really mean is mostly freedom of economy, the freedom to get RICH.

The human history is history of tyrany and misery.  I bet you have not experienced either.  The brief period of freedom and prosperity that we we are experiencing is something unique, unusual,  definitely not a norm.  Maybe you should visit a third world country (and I don't mean a resort hotel in one of those countries).

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
But don´t forget where this money comes from: from everybody else. They argue: don´t give your money to the state, give it to us, we rich guys know better, every tax dollar is wasted money.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say..

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
If you believe that, what do you need a  government for? Get away with it and let LEHMAN BROTHERS handle it.

Funny that you picked Lehman Brothers - the least dysfunctional episode of the whole saga.  People who invested their money with Lehman did so voluntarily.  They had a choice, nobody forced them to invest with Lehman.  It turns out these people invested poorly.  A lot of them lost money.  People who did not invest with or in Lehman (majority of taxpayers) were not asked to bail out those who did.

Let's see what happened when government did get involved:  People who invested poorly, those who made bad decisions were bailed out by taxpayers.

It seems that you are inadvertently making my point.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
You always fear "socialism." Being a West-Berliner,I happened to observe this kind of economy behind a wall across the street for 28 years and I fear you don´t really know what you are talking about.

I have first hand experience from the other side of the wall, the side that you could only see from your window.  I can tell you it was no picnic.  I can tell you that most people living under socialism would much prefer to only observe it from their windows.

What do you mean by first-hand experience?
Besides I was not just sitting behind that wall, many times I crossed it and my grandparents lived there.
The history of EU is very complex and depends on the political situation in central Europe after two devastating wars.People were looking for chances to end the constant threat of a new one. I don´t fear that EU soon will overpower our national governments, what really makes it weak is the global economy and debt crisis.

Sorry, but comparing anything that's happening in the US or even the EU to socialism is just sickening. Moderating and regualting the economy in a fair manner is social, but it's not socialism.
The alternative is a rampage of leeches like Romney, who pay minimum taxes and live on bankrupting companies. That's not what I want.
I actually have a personal experience with Bain Capital, one of the largest companies in my hometown in Germany was one of their targets once. A perfectly healthy company, market leader in Europe, with a lot of patents. What Bain wanted to do was to buy the company, close it down and sell the patents for a profit.
I'm very glad that they failed at gaining a majority stake in the company and had to retreat.

It's beyond me how anyone can trust their country to a person that earned his fortune in such a despicable manner.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
What do you mean by first-hand experience?

I lived first 18 years of my life behind the Iron Curtain.

Quote from: exchlbg on September 27, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
Besides I was not just sitting behind that wall, many times I crossed it and my grandparents lived there.
The history of EU is very complex and depends on the political situation in central Europe after two devastating wars.People were looking for chances to end the constant threat of a new one. I don´t fear that EU soon will overpower our national governments, what really makes it weak is the global economy and debt crisis.

There is now a famous quote of one of the Obama advisors: "Never let a crises go to waste".  Meaning, the bureaucrats will use the current crises to grab more power.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 11:50:52 AM
Sorry, but comparing anything that's happening in the US or even the EU to socialism is just sickening. Moderating and regualting the economy in a fair manner is social, but it's not socialism.
The alternative is a rampage of leeches like Romney, who pay minimum taxes and live on bankrupting companies. That's not what I want.
I actually have a personal experience with Bain Capital, one of the largest companies in my hometown in Germany was one of their targets once. A perfectly healthy company, market leader in Europe, with a lot of patents. What Bain wanted to do was to buy the company, close it down and sell the patents for a profit.
I'm very glad that they failed at gaining a majority stake in the company and had to retreat.

It's beyond me how anyone can trust their country to a person that earned his fortune in such a despicable manner.

I have experience in Private Equity myself, not from reading about it in newspaper, but working for one as a consultant, in fact one of the biggest ones.  I had some interactions with some of the partners, and that's why I could give you the assurance these guys are the brightest of the bright.  And I am not easily impressed.

I am taking the example of Bain Capital in your town with a grain of salt.  Patents are rarely worth more than the company making products with them, unless the company is in trouble.

PE firms only extremely rarely do hostile takeovers, and even under a hostile takeover, shareholders voluntarily part with shares in the company for the price offered.

Leveraged boyout (LBO) is not as rare, but still not a norm.  It is done with consent of board of directors, who may have approached the PE firm.  Shareholders still have an option to sell or not to sell.  I personally am not crazy about leveraged buyouts, ending up with overlevereged companies just as much as I am not in favor of overleveraged governments, overleveraged individuals.

Far more common is PE deal is a company is in trouble, the company goes to PE firms for help.  Or, a company may be stalled due to lack of access to capital, which PE company has.    You don't go in as a PE firm to bankrupt a company.  That's what happens when you fail.  You go in to increase the value of the company, that is when you make the big bucks.

The PE company, at least the funds I was primarily dealing with commercial real estate, hotels etc.  They would buy one that was not performing, or unfinished, undervalued, in financial trouple.  The partners managing the deal would put up some of their money, some borrowed money for refurbishment, completion, they may bring in new management.  And later, when value is increased, profitability is increased, they would sell it for profit.  If neither is achieved (greater value, greater profitability), or if the property went into bankruptcy, PE company makes nothing or even loses money.

Saying Romney in particular, or PE companies in general "live on bankrupting companies" is as close to pure BS as one can get.  And again, I strongly doubt you came up with it on your own, it was probably fed to you by the media.

Anyway, with PE companies, everything is voluntary, if you want to deal with a PE company, fine, if you don't want to deal with a PE company, fine as well...

Some people have trouble with the concept of ownership.  You own something, it is yours, you do with it what you want.  You may have a unique classic car, you may break it up, sell it for parts, or make some modifications to it and ruin it as a result.   Or you may have a body and face of Claudia Schiffer, and you ruin with some tatoos or body piercing.  Someone may find it appalling and despicable.  But it is your car, your body, you do what you want with it.

If you own a company, you own it the same way.  You want to sell it to public through an IPO, like Microsoft, Apple etc did?  Fine.  You want to sell it privately?  Fine.  You want to sell it to a PE firm?  Fine.  You want to shut it down?  Fine.

If you own shares of a company, the same concept applies.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 27, 2012, 02:10:09 PM

If you own a company, you own it the same way.  You want to sell it to public through an IPO, like Microsoft, Apple etc did?  Fine.  You want to sell it privately?  Fine.  You want to sell it to a PE firm?  Fine.  You want to shut it down?  Fine.

No, it's not. This attitude towards it is just sad. I have a company, I employ 37 people, most of them have a college degree or even a Phd (that's saying a higher formal education then I have myself, I never went to college) and I pay 6-figure salaries to a good share of them, so I'm not exactly talking peanuts here.
Sure, I own the company on the paper, I can do with it what I want, but I don't because I have a responsibility for my employees. If I would have to sell my company to a bunch of leeches like Bain, I'd be so ashamed it's not possible to put into words. I could not look a single employee into the eye. This attitude is the ultimate manifestation of entrepreneurial failure.
Running a company is NOT solely a monetary thing, it has a social component, and PE firms are completely devoid of this factor.

Also, I cannot quite accept your attitude towards media in general. My business is PR, so I know quite well what it takes to influence media and I also know which channels are easily manipulated and which are not. Some of them are very easy to haul in, and they exist on both sides of the spectrum. But there still are publications that are not easily manipulated, that publish a variety of views on certain developments and do not serve a fixed political spectrum. Many of them are very well reputed such as Der Spiegel in Germany. I can assure you that this magazine is NOT influenced by any political party or a single persons political views. And I am also quite certain that such channels exist in the US, I would be very surprised if the New York Times was not along those publications.
You just have to know where to look for uninhibited information, and if you do know where to look you can still find it. Of course you will  not find that at Fox or Current TV.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 02:31:14 PM
No, it's not. This attitude towards it is just sad. I have a company, I employ 37 people, most of them have a college degree or even a Phd (that's saying a higher formal education then I have myself, I never went to college) and I pay 6-figure salaries to a good share of them, so I'm not exactly talking peanuts here.
Sure, I own the company on the paper, I can do with it what I want, but I don't because I have a responsibility for my employees. If I would have to sell my company to a bunch of leeches like Bain, I'd be so ashamed it's not possible to put into words. I could not look a single employee into the eye. This attitude is the ultimate manifestation of entrepreneurial failure.
Running a company is NOT solely a monetary thing, it has a social component, and PE firms are completely devoid of this factor.

It is your company, I am not going to tell you what to do with it.  You may be too young to think this way, but one day, you may become too old, possibly ill, just unable to run it.  Your company may have value indpendent of you running it.  It will be only logical to contemplate all your options: merger, sale, etc.

I have been on the other side on several occasions.  Buying companies.  3 in total.  2 were basically bakrupt, 1 had the owner retiring.  If we did not buy these companies, they would be out of business in matter weeks or months, with all their employees out of work.  As a result of our acquisitions,  many of those employees are still with us.

I strongly doubt a PE company would be interesting in buying a PR firm, but just for the sake of argument, suppose they were interested.  Suppose they bought it from you, paying you money.  What would be in it for them to bankrupt the company and shut it down?  This just does not compute.  They would look to sell it in the end for more money, perhaps closing a deal with another larger PR firm that you were unable to close.

PE firms provide a service.  You are free to use it or not use it.  

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 02:31:14 PM
Also, I cannot quite accept your attitude towards media in general. My business is PR, so I know quite well what it takes to influence media and I also know which channels are easily manipulated and which are not. Some of them are very easy to haul in, and they exist on both sides of the spectrum. But there still are publications that are not easily manipulated, that publish a variety of views on certain developments and do not serve a fixed political spectrum. Many of them are very well reputed such as Der Spiegel in Germany. I can assure you that this magazine is NOT influenced by any political party or a single persons political views. And I am also quite certain that such channels exist in the US, I would be very surprised if the New York Times was not along those publications.
You just have to know where to look for uninhibited information, and if you do know where to look you can still find it. Of course you will  not find that at Fox or Current TV.

The whole species of impartial journalist is extinct.  Everybody has an agenda now, you need to know that.  Once you know that, you may still get some useful information from these biased sources, but you need to be clever enough to know from which angle you are being conned.

New York Times is perhaps the best, or should I say, the worst example.  The job of every New York Times employee is to elect Obama.  So every story in that paper is carefully crafted to reflect positively on Obama, negatively on Romney.  The way every article is written, where it is placed in the paper, it is all calculated.  For example, after decades of existance of PE funds, generally archane topic relegated to the business section, now NY Times runs multiple front page stories.  And now suddenly, PE funds becomes the devil incarnate.  Coincidence?

Let's take today's NY Times.  Front Page above the the fold - a damage control article about the Libya fiasco titled.  "Clinton Suggests Link to Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack".

This is 2 weeks after the fact, something that was clear even to a child that a RPG and mortar attack on US diplomats on 9/11 was a terrorist act.  After 2 weeks of Obama administration lying about it.

So it does not say "After 2 weeks of lying, Obama administration finally admits Libya attack was a terrorist act".

No.  It is a damage control article on behalf of Obama administration, when denials by Obama, and NY Times trying to bury the story became laughable....

And as far as placement (surprised!) the story disappeared from the home page of NY Times web site, and now is buried somewhere deep on the site...

That's just not true. The New York Times is full of criticism towards the Obama administration, and not very shy with it. I read the NYT. You can't tell me it's praising every single bit of Obamas work, it just doesn't. A good publication does a very important thing, which is covering controversial topics from both ends. The NYT does just that, as does Der Spiegel and I'm sure plenty of other high quality publications in other countries. Maybe not China.
If the NYT was just there to praise the Obama administration, then what would have been it's motivation to be one of the channels through which the Wikileaks stuff was published? That does not make any sense. This paper is as free a piece of free journalism as possible.
Obviously, every writer still has his own views, but that's where having different voices on the same topic comes in handy. That's the publishers job, and they do a good job.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 27, 2012, 04:22:25 PM
This is 2 weeks after the fact, something that was clear even to a child that a RPG and mortar attack on US diplomats on 9/11 was a terrorist act.  After 2 weeks of Obama administration lying about it.

Where did they lie about it? It's not a governments job to speculate about possible sources of the attack, it's their job to ascertain it and THEN comment, or better act, on it.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 04:48:56 PM
Where did they lie about it? It's not a governments job to speculate about possible sources of the attack, it's their job to ascertain it and THEN comment, or better act, on it.

Then the CIA, FBI, NSA are no better than the husband in the following joke:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man is talking to his best friend about married life. "You know," he
says, "I really trust my wife, and I think she has always been
faithful to me. But there's always that doubt."

His friend says, "Yeah, I know what you mean."

A couple of weeks later the man has to go out of town on business.
Before he goes, he gets together with his friend. "While I'm away,
could you do me a favor? Could you watch my house and see if there is
anything fishy going on? I mean, I trust my wife but there's always
that doubt." The friend agrees to help out, and the man leaves town.
Two weeks later he comes back and meets his friend. "So did anything
happen?"

"I have some bad news for you," says the friend. "The day after you
left I saw a strange car pull up in front of your house. The horn
honked and your wife ran out and got into the car and they drove away.
Later, after dark, the car came back. I saw your wife and a strange
man get out. They went into the house and I saw a light go on, so I
ran over and looked in the window. Your wife was kissing the man. Then
he took off his shirt. Then she took off her blouse. Then they turned
off the light."

"Then what happened?" says the man.

"I don't know. It was too dark to see."

"Damn, you see what I mean? There's always that doubt."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Obama reaction to Fort Hood army base shooting where a Muslim shot 13 people, shouting "allahu akbar"

"This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women," he said. "We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.

Very similar to a pre-planned, organized attack on 9/11/2012, involving RPG and accurate mortar fire:
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated "

Do you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

Just one more thing to add (a clincher) on the Libya story:

In addition to well known location of the US consulate, there was a secret "safe house" which came under accurate mortar attack.  So this was a well executed military operation.

The fact that it was a pre-planned operation was first mentioned by commander of Libyan forces in the city of Benghazi and later the president of Libya.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 27, 2012, 05:48:50 PM
Do you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

Really? You may think it was. However, there are several things to consider:
1) People in this kind of countries are very uneducated and easily influenced. There is a reason why most of these riots happen on fridays, it's because they are told to riot in their friday prayer by the Imam.
That's why it happens. The triggers are almost always as trivial as this video.
2) Libya has been in a state of civil war (still is if you ask me) and a lot of heavy weapons have been looted from the army's arsenal. Anyone could have a mortar or stuff like that. Heck, nobody can account for RPGs, what's a mortar compared to that?
3) The safe house being hit could easily have been coincidence. After all, who knows how good they were at operating the mortar? It's a very inprecise weapon.

Quote from: saftfrucht on September 27, 2012, 06:25:26 PM
Really? You may think it was. However, there are several things to consider:
1) People in this kind of countries are very uneducated and easily influenced. There is a reason why most of these riots happen on fridays, it's because they are told to riot in their friday prayer by the Imam.
That's why it happens. The triggers are almost always as trivial as this video.
2) Libya has been in a state of civil war (still is if you ask me) and a lot of heavy weapons have been looted from the army's arsenal. Anyone could have a mortar or stuff like that. Heck, nobody can account for RPGs, what's a mortar compared to that?
3) The safe house being hit could easily have been coincidence. After all, who knows how good they were at operating the mortar? It's a very inprecise weapon.

"Damn, you see what I mean? There's always that doubt."  :)


Libya rescue squad ran into fierce, accurate ambush


...Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, whose special operations unit was ordered by Libya's authorities to meet an eight-man force at Benghazi airport, said that after his men and the U.S. squad had found the American survivors who had evacuated the blazing consulate, the ostensibly secret location in an isolated villa came under an intense and highly accurate mortar barrage.

"I really believe that this attack was planned," he said, adding to suggestions by other Libyan officials that at least some of the hostility towards the Americans was the work of experienced combatants. "The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any regular revolutionaries."   ...


..."It began to rain down on us," Obeidi told Reuters, describing the moment the attack began - just as the Libyan security force was starting up the 10 pickup trucks and sedans they had brought to ferry the Americans to the airport.

"About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa," he said. "During this firing, one of the marines whom I had brought with me was wounded and fell to the ground"

As I was dragging the wounded marine to safety, some marines who were located on the roof of the villa as snipers shouted and the rest of the marines all hit the ground.

"A mortar hit the side of the house. One of the marines from the roof went flying and fell on top of us."
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8KCMYB20120912?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

I suppose we shouldn't assume that any of these militants has had any form of military training ; not in Libya : none would have any military skills at all : of course being 'rag-heads', none of them would ever spot a 'safe-house', cos none of them live near it or would wonder why some nice house lies empty but maintained, or be smart enough to be watching a US base, or notice any 'rescue squad' despatched from it, or be able to use a mobile phone to report that, or its direction of travel, route, location, etc. : nope, all that requires the sinister skills of...something sinister... yeah...

Worse of all, these militants have some serious weaponry, almost as much as some need for 'home defence' back in the States : very sinister. They had mortars! Where would these guys have got them if not from a sinister source! No mention of what size mortars, but lets not assume they were the plain old infantry-portable size carried by infantry the world over since WW2 : Libya wouldnt have any of those ; not unless they found some on a WW2 battlefield, maybe... Accurate fire too, by the gods, cant have been Libyans then, they only know how to loose off whole clips into the sky : must have been some sinister foreign-backed elements..

Still, there is room for doubt : might well have been a spetnaz-trained elite squad of Mad mullahs controlled by Putin from his lair beneath a volcano in the outskirts of Moscow... you never know... does he like cats, them crazy muthas usually do...

Quote from: JumboShrimp on September 27, 2012, 05:48:50 PMDo you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

Assuming your right in your opinion Swrimpy, care to speculate on why the administration did this?



Talentz

I can´t see your point either.I could also speculate about why this and that stupid video happened in the right moment for Romney campaign.

I took 3 minutes to copy and paste the headlines from each of suspected liberal news outlets. No modification.

NBC Politics: "Nine states, nine leads for the president" (In an unofficial NBC-viewer/reader poll)

CBS News: "Could seniors abandon Romney?"

The New York Times: "Obama Fills in Blanks of Romney's Plans, and G.O.P. Sees Falsehoods"

CNN: "Analysis: Polling criticism unfounded" (In regard to conservative criticism of polls. Essentially an entire article saying that conservatives should shut up and accept that Romney is losing")


Dang, I didn't even have to dig or make any arguments. The news outlets made the argument for me.  :laugh:

Quote from: Talentz on September 28, 2012, 05:02:24 AM
Assuming your right in your opinion Swrimpy, care to speculate on why the administration did this?

I can answer this. In my AP Government class, our teacher asked us our opinions of what should be the reaction for this situation. About 10 people answered with 10 completely different answers. I know this isn't a valid sample size for our country, but use the trend that was shown for sake of this discussion. The president and his team has figured that there is no way they can please everybody in the country, which is completely true. So instead of deciding on a reaction to the situation, they lied and said they never knew about it (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/) and put it aside in order to conserve their rising poll trend. It was a great strategy in all honesty, however it leaves SEALs and an ambassador dead, our country now looks weak to counter terrorist attacks, and allies are skeptical. But hey, he's doing good in the polls.

Just updated NYT. Here's the first paragraphs of the new headline.

This was a very serious incident. I would encourage every regime to think twice and really investigate what was going on, before babbling like you and pizzaman: "clear thing,terrorists, Al-Qaida, send armed forces."
What was clear from the beginning ,was that "Arab Spring" is nothing the western world should be too enthusiastic about. Even my pizzaman could predict that throwing those tyrans over would cause a vacuum of power. And that vacuum was not soon to be filled by some kind of "modern western democracies", but chaos,anarchy and mullahs taking over.
The only thing I blame the actual government for is, that the ambassador and intelligence obviously were kind of blue-eyed, that they were unable to protect themselves.

Quote from: Frogiton on September 29, 2012, 02:40:09 AM
Just updated NYT. Here's the first paragraphs of the new headline.

So? This is a bare fact, what else should they report?

Hey guess what...

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant... It's the will of god... :'(
Good lock USA with such an idiot.

Nothing against religious people... But If you think the same way, then imagine your 16 year old daughter to be that woman.

It's up the the electorate... Polls start closing in about 51 hours. 

Quote from: Maarten Otto on November 04, 2012, 10:44:13 PM
Hey guess what...

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant... It's the will of god... :'(
Good lock USA with such an idiot.

Nothing against religious people... But If you think the same way, then imagine your 16 year old daughter to be that woman.

And if liberals/Democrats had their way, no one would be allowed have guns to defend themselves from rapists.  Nothing against pacifists, but if you think people don't have the right to defend themselves, then imagine your wife being defenseless and overpowered by an unarmed rapist.

I'm a committed third party guy because the politics of my country disgust me but I will add that the Romney campaign actually called my sister in New Jersey to ask for donations last week. She told the guy where she was and he just went silent. She got his supervisor and told them they really need to keep track of what numbers they call and where they are located. They are going to be voting in tents over there.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 04, 2012, 11:04:00 PM
And if liberals/Democrats had their way, no one would be allowed have guns to defend themselves from rapists.  Nothing against pacifists, but if you think people don't have the right to defend themselves, then imagine your wife being defenseless and overpowered by an unarmed rapist.

Who would be the first not to be armed in that example? The rapist? And if so, you think an attacked woman has any chance opening her purse to search for her purse gun to start shooting and rapist is waiting for her to do so? Who of those two would own that weapon after the act? Sorry, but try to start thinking. I don´t believe national rape numbers have changed or will change or are different from any other civilized country with our without weapons. Same as rest of crime didn´t vanish because you own weapons, on the contrary. Where do you live? In Arkansas 1860? In a brazilian favela?

I live in a concealed carry state...  Loved it when 3 kids tried to rob someone at gunpoint (using a BB gun) and the guy getting robbed blew one of the thieves away...  The two remaining thieves are serving lengthy jail terms for manslaughter.   

You mean the two remaining kids, being guilty of not finished mocked armed robbery were blamed for their buddy being shot by someone else???

Yes, sort of.  It is state law.  All parties part of the illegal act are guilty of it he results of that act.  It's their fault collectively that someone is dead.

Robbing a bank with your hand in your pocket claiming its a gun is still armed robbery.  Using a BB gun at night is also armed robbery.   It isn't easy to tell when you're looking down the barrel of a weapon... The victim pulled his gun and fired.  

http://www.cleveland.com/hsfootball/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/108323613487251.xml

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 05, 2012, 06:36:16 PM
I live in a concealed carry state...  Loved it when 3 kids tried to rob someone at gunpoint (using a BB gun) and the guy getting robbed blew one of the thieves away...  The two remaining thieves are serving lengthy jail terms for manslaughter.   

Manslaughter with a BB gun, by shoking the guy shooting balls into his mouth?
Nothing against letting the kids serve time for robbery but being convicted for manslaughter for pointing a BB-gun must be another crime.

Quote from: lilius on November 05, 2012, 07:39:15 PM
Manslaughter with a BB gun, by shoking the guy shooting balls into his mouth?
Nothing against letting the kids serve time for robbery but being convicted for manslaughter for pointing a BB-gun must be another crime.

No.... In the act of committing a felony in Ohio, the other criminals a charged.  This was armed robbery that lead to someone dying.   It doesn't matter if it was a BB gun. 

Swiftus,

I will put you on the spot here:  What is your prediction as far as who will win Ohio?

That´s tough. In Germany case would have turned this way: Young criminals would have come away completely free or serving a few social hours, excused because their parents got divorced. Defender would have faced accuse of manslaughter, being in charge to prove that and why he had a gun license and that his life was endangered. Possibly found guilty, having to pay a lot of money for social purposes.

Although I think in both cases there would be not one robbery less happening.

Quote from: exchlbg on November 05, 2012, 08:51:04 PM
That´s tough. In Germany case would have turned this way: Young criminals would have come away completely free or serving a few social hours, excused because their parents got divorced. Defender would have faced accuse of manslaughter, being in charge to prove that and why he had a gun license and that his life was endangered. Possibly found guilty, having to pay a lot of money for social purposes.

This makes my blood boil.  Liberalism going too far.  Look up trayvon Martin in Florida.  Very close to what you see above. Also started off as a race murder until they found out the shooter was as Hispanic as Obama is black.  Now it's race profiling.

Lots of America's laws are based on English common law.  A man's castle and all.  You have a right to defend yourself if/when threatened.  If your home is invaded, you should punt face charges for unlawfully discharging a firearm, assault or murder.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on November 05, 2012, 08:40:29 PM
Swiftus,

I will put you on the spot here:  What is your prediction as far as who will win Ohio?

Ohio, the 17th state, home to 7 presidents, member of the union for 209 years, will send 15 people to DC in January to all cast their votes for the incumbent.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 05, 2012, 08:57:12 PM
Ohio, the 17th state, home to 7 presidents, member of the union for 209 years, will send 15 people to DC in January to all cast their votes for the incumbent.

Appreciate the honest opinion.  I hope you are wrong.  :)

Quote from: JumboShrimp on November 05, 2012, 09:22:57 PM
Appreciate the honest opinion.  I hope you are wrong.  :)

As do I... as do I.  Too many in ohio permanently suckled up to the easy living nipple

"Lots of America's laws are based on English common law.  A man's castle and all.  You have a right to defend yourself if/when threatened.  If your home is invaded, you should punt face charges for unlawfully discharging a firearm, assault or murder."

Germany has lived through "written law doesn´t really exist, but brutally enforced"- times before.So there´s a reason for Liberalism.

Quote from: exchlbg on November 05, 2012, 09:44:57 PM
"Lots of America's laws are based on English common law.  A man's castle and all.  You have a right to defend yourself if/when threatened.  If your home is invaded, you should punt face charges for unlawfully discharging a firearm, assault or murder."

Germany has lived through "written law doesn´t really exist, but brutally enforced"- times before.So there´s a reason for Liberalism.

Germany's Basic Law and Japan's Constitution were written during periods of post war.   Both nations lived under autocrats/dictators.  

America's Democratic Left is more Right than Europe's Conservatives.   Socialism only works as long as you have someone else's money to spend.  Plato himself wrote that a democracy can only exist until a majority of people can vote themselves largess out of the treasury.  Americans just caught on late to what has been going on in many European nations for years already.   Greece and Spain are great examples.    'Normal' for a person in Spain to live with parents into their 30s with ridiculous unemployment.   How much longer is Germany going to be able to support Europe?   Probably as long as China will be willing to support the US!?!?!?!?!

Probably.

Made up crisis. Spain or Greece are still healthier than 160 other countries on this planet. They just suck to Northern European standards.

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 05, 2012, 10:27:13 PM
Made up crisis. Spain or Greece are still healthier than 160 other countries on this planet. They just suck to Northern European standards.

From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/spain-s-unemployment-reaches-record-as-bailout-looms.html

"Unemployment, the second highest in the European Union after Greece, rose to 25.02 percent from 24.6 percent in the previous quarter, the National Statistics Institute said in Madrid today."    

Explain to me how 1/4 unemployment is a made up issue?

Keep in mind that Americans are freaking out over 7.9% unemployment.

Or are you being sarcastic?

all depends how you define 'employment' and define 'unemployment' ; and you can define either many ways : living at home and working 14hrs a day in the family farm/shop/business 'unpaid' and therefore avoiding taxes, etc counts as unemployment : but a wife who stays at home, but is listed as her self-employed husbands tax-deductable company secretary counts as employed. In the UK, current policy is to list any unemployed under 18yo as 'not in education' and so take them out of the 'unemployed' figures. Likewise, unemployed people who may have been self-employed before, are not listed as unemployed but as 'low-paid in receipt of benefit', and so dont count anymore. During the Thatcher era, they changed how the unemployment figures were calculated over 20 times, every time, it moved them down.

Both Greece and Spain, and Italy too, still have large family-run small-scale agricultural sectors within which family members are not paid wages, they effectively get all their bills paid and pocket money to spend. Its a system that works well, cheap flexible labour, avoids taxes and maintains family bonds, in fact, all the things the more conservative political elements find laudable. It is pretty standard in less-industrialised nations or regions. It just makes comparing 'employment' figures a bit skewed.

Looking at the number of 'working age' people, then deducting the number listed as employed does produce a figure for 'unemployed', but it dont mean none of them are working...

Quote from: exchlbg on November 05, 2012, 06:14:20 PM
Who would be the first not to be armed in that example? The rapist? And if so, you think an attacked woman has any chance opening her purse to search for her purse gun to start shooting and rapist is waiting for her to do so? Who of those two would own that weapon after the act? Sorry, but try to start thinking. I don´t believe national rape numbers have changed or will change or are different from any other civilized country with our without weapons. Same as rest of crime didn´t vanish because you own weapons, on the contrary. Where do you live? In Arkansas 1860? In a brazilian favela?

There are plenty of women who carry concealed weapons.  60% of homes in Alaska have a firearm.  How about YOU start thinking.  Why is it that you never hear about shootings at gun stores or place where people are knowingly armed?  The point isn't whether or not someone actually has a weapon--it's whether or not someone has the opportunity to protect themselves.  Liberals/Democrats want to take away individual rights to do so and trust government agencies (i.e. police) to protect you.  Sure, a woman may not carry a weapon to defend herself.  But which is more effective?  A woman with a weapon or a woman with a cell phone that she can use to call the cops.  The thing about rape is even if she does call the cops, there is a response time and there is nothing that can be done to unrape a woman.

Also, crime does vanish with an armed society.  Guns are illegal in Chicago and guess what city is having a record number of homocides this year?  Only the criminals have guns and innocent people are left defenseless.  I live in North Carolina in the year 2012 BTW and I have a concealed carry permit, but do not carry regularly.  Tell me--are the people in the northeast recovering from the aftermath of Sandy better with or without weapons?  Do you think there is more or less looting of personal property in an unarmed community?

In fact, one of the few banks in the US that allows weapons to be carried into the bank just got robbed and guess what happened?  The bad guys didn't even make it out of the parking lot: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/president-of-troy-mo-bank-pulls-gun-nabs-masked-robber/article_570b4e0b-d461-5e17-8a72-cd4baebc1539.html

I own a Glock 19--the same weapon used in the Aurora movie theater massacre and the Gabrielle Giffords incident.  Tell me, would there have been more or less deaths if there was someone with a concealed weapon at those events?  Would the shooter at the Giffords incident been able to empty his 31 round magazine into the crowd if a law abiding citizen was packing that day and able to respond?

So no, I don't live in 1860 Arkansas or a Brazilian favela--I'm just not naive.  Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

Also re: Trayvon Martin, here in North Carolina it used to be a crime to defend your own home!  If an intruder was breaking into your home, you're allowed to shoot him.  If an intruder was leaving with your stuff, you're allowed to shoot him.  If he is in your house already and not posing a threat to your life and you shot him, you would be guilty of murder.  Thank God they changed that law.  As cops would say, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I was certain to be answered this way. America seems to be a nation much more brutal than ours over the Atlantic. Over here it´s pretty normal not to own a weapon and guess what? I don´t feel unsafe at all.
Of course there is crime too, but something like a shoot-out is still a sensation, even if police is shooting, seldom enough.And I live in our biggest city!
Not a great picture you paint about your country.

Actually, if any-one in that movie theatre had opened up, what would have happened? think about it : stranger walks in and starts shooting : audience member shoots back . you are sitting in the middle : so, tell me, in the dark and panic, which shooter is the threat? Can you tell? bang, another carry-concealed audience member opens up from a third position ; do you know they are self-defending victim, or are they another attacker? its dark, screams, shots, you, sensibly, are on the floor, what do you see? But first self-defending victim also has to decide : is the third shooter  an attacker too? bang, forth carry-concealed, shaking through adrenaline and fear, opens up and, even with a perfect view, nobody can tell who the heck they are shooting at ; now, which are they? but you dont have a perfect view ; you are on the floor, in cover, thinking rationally, trained and aware : 3, 4 people are shooting in different directions at different targets ; so, who do you shoot at? Who is the threat? The first shooter, obviously, but where are they now in the dark theatre? by the door they entered by? Cool, up you pop, ah... is that person sneaking out the door the shooter? or is it some poor victim escaping? its dark, screams, panic, smoke from the discharges, movie soundtrack still blaring loudly. So, in all that, can you seriously know that aiming and discharging your weapon at anyone there is actually going to stop the attack?

edit : and now the police show up : in they come to find what? bunch of folk shooting at each other and so, they now have to decide, in the dark, panic, etc : who is the threat? Who is attacking, who is defending? Who do they shoot? oh look at that guy, waving his Glock : bang.

And, when all the horror is ended and the body-bags are being carried out ; out of 100 witnesses, you'll get 10, 15 different stories, descriptions, timelines. One may well implicate you as an attacker, another guy waving a gun in all the chaos.

The one constant in all these massacres will probably be that the weapons the attacker used are all legitimately purchased, and owned and freely available to the maniac who used them. They get to carry concealed too. They could be stopped on the way to the massacre and the cops would have to let them go on their way. Why not, everyone always says how nobody ever expected them to do such a thing...

Okay, the above screams liberal anti-gun idiot who doesnt understand. Well, wrong, I dont object to guns, I dont object to gun ownership, or their use in sport, hunting or plain old blasting away at the range for the heck of it. But the idea of terrified, panicked semi-trained civilians thinking they can react correctly in such an event and correctly identify the threat immediately before shooting back.. well.. thats kinda scary because we all know that highly trained police and military dont always manage that.

@brique -- If you have an unloaded gun and point it at someone, it is deadly force and you can go to jail, even if you don't pull the trigger.  The process of getting a concealed carry permit is very tedious.  In North Carolina, I had to attend an 8 hour concealed carry course and pass a written examination.  Then I had to pass a background check and have my fingerprints taken--I actually have a record down at the courthouse now so if my fingerprints show up at a crime scene or on a weapon, guess what?  Civilians with concealed carry permits are not, in large, semi-trained civilians.  If you think someone would carry a gun on them without knowing how to use it properly to ensure that at a minimum there isn't an accidental discharge (Plaxico Burress is an outlier here), then you're crazy.  Would you carry a gun if you had no idea how to use it and weren't properly trained knowing it could discharge and kill a loved one?

While your scenario of shooting in a dark movie theater sounds realistic, it is really extreme.  You are not allowed to use deadly force on behalf of another person unless their life is being threatened.  Knives, brass knuckles, and an assortment of other weapons are also classified as deadly weapons that require a concealed carry permit in NC.  Instead of a movie theater, why not go down the road to Columbine--what do you think would have happened in a bright, well illuminated school if there was a teacher packing that day?

@exchlbg -- I find it ironic you live in Germany.  If every citizen in Germany--including Jews--had a firearm, do you think Hilter would have ever been able to do what he did?  That is the difference between the US and Europe.  In the US, we believe the government should be scared of its citizens--not the other way around.

I don't want to turn this into a gun control thread, but for the record I am a Libertarian and believe in large amounts of both personal and economic liberty.  I voted for a Democrat for my local representative last election cycle, but he was a blue dog and was sensible versus the far left Democratic party we're left with today.  I'm struggling with whether I vote for my candidate (Gary Johnson) or against Obama (Romney).  I'm a firm believe in voting for your hopes instead of your fears, but the stakes are really high this year.

Pleeeeze, don´t even start mentioning Hitler, you are really not knowing what you are talking about. You think history would have been different if German civilians would have been armed? Not even the most absurd radicalists over here would have such an idea, it´s, sorry...no ,I don´t say it. Funny that Germany is getting along unarmed having hosted two of the most brutal and repressive regimes of the 20th century.
Nobody started a discussion about giving every idiot a weapon enabling him to shoot the next dictator that strolls along, not even after two world wars and living in ruins for many years. Not even then people felt the need to shoot their way through Berlin.
I don´t know what´s wrong with Americans that they think they have to fight their own government.And I don´t know what´s wrong with system and society, that you enforce flooded homeowners to shoot looters. In the big flood of 1962, when half of Hamburg was flooded, police and army patrolled, maybe they arrested a few guys, but didn´t shoot anybody.Maybe Germans are all sissies not being able to loot when they should and not willing to defend themselves and just shoot those goddam bastards. Maybe. I´m glad being a sissy !

I was making a scenario as to what would or could have happened at that theatre if gun-carrying was less regulated : do untrained, poorly trained or just semi-trained idiots have guns, most certainly they do. The sorry tales of self-inflicted accidental injuries and deaths that occur every year tell us that. State to state the laws do vary, as does supervision and regulation before and after purchase.

I'm trained in the use of fire-arms, I'm comfortable using them, on a range or in a properly set-up field sport. But that's a world away from a scenario where, in a life-threatening situation, coming out of the blue, as in that theatre, or Columbine, or, as here in the UK, Dunblane, or, waking from deep sleep to find an intruder in my home, I would have to react, and react correctly, in using a firearm. The human body reacts to a physical threat in a way which is quite inimical to correct use of firearms. That's a plain old fact which has bugged the military for decades ; do the research if you wish, but in a combat situation, the majority of (well-trained, remember) soldiers do not aim, they just loose off in the general direction of the threat. A significant number dont even fire. They cant decide where to fire. Its a minority that assess, aim and fire accurately at the actual threat. Thats why snipers manage such high kill rates per round expended ; very highly trained and, noticably, removed from direct bodily threat in the actual fire-zone.

Going back to Dunblane, where a guy went into a school and shot children and teachers ; he was a respected civic figure, his weapons were licensed, he had been checked and approved to own them under the UK's much stricter gun-laws. I do doubt that even if every teacher had been trained, approved and carrying, they could have prevented it. He had the advantage because he knew what he was going to do, they wouldnt know until the bullets were flying and its far too late. Stuff like that happens too fast, its too surreal and its generally over before any of it makes any kind of sense to those caught up in it. Afterwards, we all know what we might have done, but then, we will also know what actually happened as in, going through door A = good, going through door B.. bad move. Then, with 20/20 hindsight, we can say we would have chosen door A and been a hero...

Quote from: exchlbg on November 06, 2012, 12:38:53 AM
Pleeeeze, don´t even start mentioning Hitler, you are really not knowing what you are talking about. You think history would have been different if German civilians would have been armed? Not even the most absurd radicalists over here would have such an idea, it´s, sorry...no ,I don´t say it. Funny that Germany is getting along unarmed having hosted two of the most brutal and repressive regimes of the 20th century.
Nobody started a discussion about giving every idiot a weapon enabling him to shoot the next dictator that strolls along, not even after two world wars and living in ruins for many years. Not even then people felt the need to shoot their way through Berlin.
I don´t know what´s wrong with Americans that they think they have to fight their own government.And I don´t know what´s wrong with system and society, that you enforce flooded homeowners to shoot looters. In the big flood of 1962, when half of Hamburg was flooded, police and army patrolled, maybe they arrested a few guys, but didn´t shoot anybody.Maybe Germans are all sissies not being able to loot when they should and not willing to defend themselves and just shoot those goddam bastards. Maybe. I´m glad being a sissy !

The point I was making was that if the German population was armed, history would have been a lot different.  You have repressive dictators all over the world with unarmed subjects unable to defend themselves.  America became independent because of armed citizens revolting against the British crown.  Americans think they have to fight their own government because of coercion.  With Obamacare, citizens are required are being fined for being alive and not participating in a health insurance program.  There are several landmark Supreme Court cases where government has taken away the rights of individuals using force.  People want to ban abortion in this country and tell women they can or can't do with their own body--even in the case of rape (as you outlined).  New York City wants to ban sugary drinks larger than 32 ounces from being sold--tell me that isn't an example of government overreach.  It is okay to go to an abortion clinic in New York City and get a fetus scrambled, but it is illegal to smoke in a restaurant, serve transfats, or order sugary drinks over 32 ounces--this is why government is so screwed up and most Americans just want to be left alone to determine their own destiny.

The exact reason the US hasn't had oppressive regimes like Germany, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. is because we believe government should be scared of its citizens.  A government scared of its citizens acts in the citizens' best interests.  When people are scared of their government, the government runs amok and you have power hungry egomaniacs enriching themselves to the citizens' detriment.  When military coups happen in countries like Pakistan, decisions are made based on what is in the ruling party's best interest--not the citizens.  There is a reason Leon Trotsky was ice picked in a Mexico City hotel room and it wasn't because it was in the best interest of Russian middle class.

@brique -- I'm not saying legitimate citizens with concealed carry permits don't do crazy things from time to time.  The whole reason you go to the range is to practice for those life threatening situations, right?  I've never had to use my weapon to defend myself, but I can imagine it is nerve racking.  If a criminal is unarmed though, often times the mere presence of a weapon scares them away.  I've heard stories of burglars in a house clearing out once they heard the homeowner cock his shotgun.  In my concealed carry class, we practiced drawing from a holster and shooting twice at a target 15 feet away.  A bad guy with a knife can cover 15 feet in two seconds, which means if someone is coming at you there needs to be a quick draw/aim/fire response.  I'm not sure what kind of shooting you do, but that is what I've been trained for.  I also have night sights on my Glock, which is kind of a novelty but if I need to aim in the dark I can.

"Look, honey, I shot that goddam burglar !"  "Oh, no honey, didn´t you see my message on the fridge, that my cousin is coming late to town and I will give him the keys so he wouldn´t wake you?"

Concerning Hitler... in last month of WWII war was actually taking place in the German streets, so statistically everybody had a hold of guns,bombs, you name it. Funny Mr.H. had to shoot himself because everybody refused doing that for him. And until maybe 1942 nobody would have done it either, because he was so "successful", you are looking at things from abroad out of our time, the whole story is to compex to roll it up here in a short reply, although you think you can.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 06, 2012, 02:07:47 AM


@brique -- I'm not saying legitimate citizens with concealed carry permits don't do crazy things from time to time.  The whole reason you go to the range is to practice for those life threatening situations, right?  I've never had to use my weapon to defend myself, but I can imagine it is nerve racking.  If a criminal is unarmed though, often times the mere presence of a weapon scares them away.  I've heard stories of burglars in a house clearing out once they heard the homeowner cock his shotgun.  In my concealed carry class, we practiced drawing from a holster and shooting twice at a target 15 feet away.  A bad guy with a knife can cover 15 feet in two seconds, which means if someone is coming at you there needs to be a quick draw/aim/fire response.  I'm not sure what kind of shooting you do, but that is what I've been trained for.  I also have night sights on my Glock, which is kind of a novelty but if I need to aim in the dark I can.

Well, I'd rather have you beside me in the theatre scenario such as I described ; but alas, I wont know that until it happens, nor will I know if you are you, or some-one who bought the gun last week and has had a few hours on the range. Same way, you wont know if I know what I'm doing when I pull my gun. Actually, neither of us will know if we are defending ourselves or an accomplice to the attacker, not until we see which way we point it. Get my drift? On the range, we know what is happening, we know the situation, we know the drill. We follow procedure and safety rules and, barring a serious malfunction, we know it is safe. We are prepared, we adopt correct stance, we wear safety-glasses, we wear ear protectors. In the movie theatre scenario, none of that applies : we dont even know the attacker is an attacker and not a publicity stunt : as was the case in the Batman screening, many thought it was a stunt.. 'Oh god, you shot the star of the movie! It was a gag, couldnt you see that?'.... unlikely? No, recent case a kid decided to scare his family by dressing up and 'breaking in'... he got shot dead. okay, not very clever of him but still, a somewhat extreme case of grounding.

the prime problem is lack of information ; we do not know whats happening, who is doing it, how many of them, where they are ; we are not prepared for it, we are relaxed and watching the movie, one hand in the popcorn, the other round our date (we hope) and it hits us in a micro-second. If everyone was trained, competent, then yep, let them carry, but reality is, they aint, never will be and in that situation, we'll be in as much danger from them as from the attacker, cos now we got fire coming from more than one direction, nobody knows who is the good guy and who the bad and rationally, the worst thing to do then is join in, no matter how well-trained and competent we may be. That also applies in a Columbine-type situation : is that Jack Good-guy stalking the bad guys in the corridor with his birthday present Glock, or Jack Nutzo, their pal, looking to payback the lunch-money stealing bullies who oppressed him? Does Daisy Dogood know as she points her pink-handled .38 Special at him?

A heck of a lot of special forces training is about not shooting, about making sure you only fire in your allocated arc where you know there are no friendlies, its about making sure you maintain seperation and do not move into anothers arc. its about who is covering who and therefore does not fire unless its absolutely necessary. its about communication, who is where, who is down, how much threat remains as a sector is cleared. They dont want to go in unless and until they know where the bad guys are, and how many. And still they mess up, the SAS ended up 'rescuing' a terrorist during the Iranian Embassy seige in London, it took the other hostages to point him out before he got arrested. He had just sat down amongst the other hostages and bowed his head when the assault went in. Actually, during that entire siege, one of the hostages, PC Locke, a trained fire-arms officer attached to the Diplomatic Protection Squad, was carrying a concealed fire-arm, but could do nothing without endangering himself or the others. General expert opinion was that he did exactly the right thing that way. And with all that training, and the SAS and SEALS are without a doubt the best trained, motivated, competent and expert around ; they still hit each other, they still hit hostages because, on the ground, nothing turns out the way it did in training and rehearsals. But they do come close to perfection and all respect to them for that.

And, as I mentioned before, these attackers (terrorists excepted) turn out so often to be the kind of person that nobody suspected could do such a thing, their weapons are usually legally acquired and held, if not always by them then by family members. Your right to bear arms is their right too, until they go nutzo by which time, its a little too late and thats something we cannot, on an individual basis, legislate against, nor adequately predict nor effectively prevent. Its a sad reflection that its easier to spot and pre-empt  the crazed terrorist than the lethally and more legally armed citizen with a grudge next door.

I voted for Romney/Ryan this morning in NC.  I don't vote for offices/people I'm not educated on so I ended up voting for 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat for federal/state offices.  Seeing the results roll in over the next week or so should make for an interesting election...

Quote from: LemonButt on November 06, 2012, 02:07:47 AM
With Obamacare, citizens are required are being fined for being alive and not participating in a health insurance program.

Please, for the love of god explain what the problem with state funded/assisted healthcare is? It goes on just fine over here in Europe, why is it such a threat to the US?

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 06, 2012, 05:57:28 PM
Please, for the love of god explain what the problem with state funded/assisted healthcare is? It goes on just fine over here in Europe, why is it such a threat to the US?

The same problem that exists in Europe. How do you pay for it?   We don't have get/pst/vat and many other consumer taxes.  The 'recipient class' want the govt to pay for it by taxing the upper 10% more.   In the USA, you have 48% of Americans who pay zero income tax to the federal government already and expect health care for free now.   At what point do you want to return to fiefdoms? 

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
The same problem that exists in Europe. How do you pay for it?   We don't have get/pst/vat and many other consumer taxes.  The 'recipient class' want the govt to pay for it by taxing the upper 10% more.   In the USA, you have 48% of Americans who pay zero income tax to the federal government already and expect health care for free now.   At what point do you want to return to fiefdoms? 

Pay for it with taxes, seems simple. At least it Britain National Insurance acts as a tax taken from earnings before you get paid which, among other things, funds the NHS. Public healthcare is not for the "recipient class", public healthcare is for pretty much anyone on normal money given how expensive medicine, surgery and treatment actually are in reality. When a full course of medicine in reality can cost £10s if not £100s paying £7.65 for a prescription is not bad.

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 06, 2012, 05:57:28 PM
Please, for the love of god explain what the problem with state funded/assisted healthcare is? It goes on just fine over here in Europe, why is it such a threat to the US?

The problem is price controls/rationing.  We have state funded/assisted healthcare with Medicaid/Medicare, but many private doctors don't accept it because it doesn't cover their costs.  It also eliminates the profit motive, which drives efficiency and innovation.  If you have a rare disease, do you trust the private sector to develop a cure in pursuit of profit or would you rather wait for public officials to properly allocate government funds to cure you?  Free market pricing ensures that care is available for those who need it and competition drives down prices.  We already have laws on the books that keeps the free market from working to consumers' benefit, such as being unable to buy insurance across state lines or calculating individual's premiums in group policies based on their individual risk versus group risk.  Why is Bayer/Aspirin so cheap?  It is because other companies thought they could do better and develop Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Aleve, etc.  Part of the reason it is so cheap is Bayer's patent ran out, but if it was illegal to compete with Aspirin, do you think prices and consumer choice would go up or down?

Europe also doesn't have the obesity epidemic that we have in the US.  Is it fair that a 400 pound smoker gets healthcare paid for by me paying a higher premium when I take care of myself?  The other issue is quality.  If you have 250 million people getting healthcare and add 50 million patients, does the quality go up or down?  Sure, everyone has a right to ACCESS to healthcare, but there has to be personal accountability when it comes to paying for services rendered.

A lot of the issues come down to what one country is willing to cover versus another.  Health care costs got nuts when we collectively care for things that others do not.   Governments can not and should not pay 250,000 to keep a terminally ill cancer patient alive for 6 more months... Or up to 50k annual support for autistic kids in California...  

No one has yet to show me how I will be able to receive the same level of care with the government plan.  It appears that I will need to pay more money to support others and get about 60% of the care I used to.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 06:29:46 PM
No one has yet to show me how I will be able to receive the same level of care with the government plan.

Lets say you have diabetes (as an example), a long term chronic disease that can let people lead a pretty normal life if properly medicated. A little googling says a year of insulin costs about $1,000, knowledge from personal experience says as well as insulin there is probably a cocktail of other drugs being taken, plus a blood testing kit, plus syringes and all the other stuff. Lets (as a guess) say annual medical costs alone could be $5,000 plus, then as diabetes often does it takes a limb, that might be anywhere between $5,000-$50,000 depending on the limb needed and the patient. Those are some big costs.

The US system you run out of money you're royally screwed. Under a public system, doesn't matter, that healthcare keeps on coming regardless. And if you really have a problem with the public system you are free to go private if you want.

Do I need another reason?

Or stem the tide of diabetes?  Many types are onset by poor diet and exercise.  So you're telling me that I'm just better off giving the fat @$$ free insulin to take care of his type 2 so he can keep scarfing down Big Macs instead of having to pay for his amputation later. 

I hate logic like that. 

If we want a payor/recipient class, the recipients don't deserve the same exact care.   We can't afford to keep a 75 year old alive to see 76 on a whim.   

Socialism only works as long as you have someone else's money to spend

My mother has diabetes and she´s 80. I never saw her having a big mac in her life.Next time I go see her I take my licensed gun.

This is the worst kind of social darwinism I ever heard in my life. I just keep wishing you and your family never be struck by cancer or some rare desease that needs expensive operations. Or some bad injuries (maybe caused by an unintentional gun use) or bad burnings, or a bunch of otherwise beloved relatives turnig over 70. Or you living up to that age.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 07:09:55 PM
Or stem the tide of diabetes?  Many types are onset by poor diet and exercise.  So you're telling me that I'm just better off giving the fat @$$ free insulin to take care of his type 2 so he can keep scarfing down Big Macs instead of having to pay for his amputation later. 

I hate logic like that. 

If we want a payor/recipient class, the recipients don't deserve the same exact care.   We can't afford to keep a 75 year old alive to see 76 on a whim.   

Socialism only works as long as you have someone else's money to spend

Well here we go, like I said it was a random example. How about Type 1 diabetes, which can hit anyone of any lifestyle or age? Or Cancer? Or Parkinsons? Or MS? Or cerebal palsy? Or heart conditions? Any congenital disorder?

These will all cost money, a lot of money. A chronic disorder would seriously affect anyone on a normal wage. That's what social healthcare is for, to pay and help when life has kicked someone in the balls. That's why it should be part of the basics of any civilised nation.

And that frankly sick quote in the middle, "the recipients don't deserve the same exact care", that's just downright wrong. In every way, that makes me sick to my stomach. A little quote from the NHS constitution; "You have the right to access NHS services", that means anyone. Everyone is human and everyone deserves healthcare.

It's called charity folks.  The US is the most charitable nation in the world.  If your 80 year old neighbor can't pay his heating bill, it is not the federal government's job to make sure he doesn't freeze in the winter--it is the responsibility of his neighbors and local community to make sure he is taken care of.  Guess what happens if the federal government starts paying his heating bill for him?  Everyone else sees it and stops paying theirs, knowing that the feds will step in and take care of them.

We had a firefighter die locally about a year ago when a fire at the local hospital broke out and a roof collapsed on him.  He left behind a wife and 3 small children.  His wife is set for life and his 3 small children's college educations are paid for--not because of government, but because of the community's outpouring of charity.

The concept of the poor or underprivileged falling through the cracks and getting no help is a fallacy.  If I could defer all of my tax dollars that go to welfare to private charity, I would do it in a heartbeat, because private charity helps those who are actually in need versus enabling people to not take care of themselves.  Also, when the government gives you a handout, you can never return the favor.  With charity if you get a helping hand, you have the opportunity to give back.  If you ever volunteer at a charity, you'll see plenty of people that charity has helped that are actively returning the favor.

Quote from: exchlbg on November 06, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
My mother has diabetes and she´s 80. I never saw her having a big mac in her life.Next time I go see her I take my licensed gun.

This is the worst kind of social darwinism I ever heard in my life. I just keep wishing you and your family never be struck by cancer or some rare desease that needs expensive operations. Or some bad injuries (maybe caused by an unintentional gun use) or bad burnings, or a bunch of otherwise beloved relatives turnig over 70. Or you living up to that age.

The money will run out eventually.  What then?  I am just a realist here.  I have no problem with helping people or caring for them.  The $$$ in is much less than $$$$ out.  Who is going to foot the bill.

I always ask and NEVER get a good response to the following question:   How do you intend to pay for a national health care program in the USA?   Seriously, how is it going to be done?

I also have something that isn't covered by anything... cost me $15k last year.  I understand pain, trust me.  It sucks real hard. 

Of course getting money from the state isn´t as sexy as waiting for falling bread crumbs off a shining charity dinner table.
I didn´t know how much I have to thank the Almighty (you name it) not to live in such a country until now. On the other hand, maybe I´m only stupid and can´t see how poor and completely unfree I am living under social welfare rules. Besides, noone forbids charity here, and it´s happening.
But luckily you are not dependant on it when in need, and you won´t have to lick some charity lady asses to get into their radar.

How could a Health Program ever work ? Maybe you´re right, it wouldn´t work in America, although many countries of the world manage to have even multiple social securities (health, unemployment,pension) without having totally crumbled, except Greece but that´s another story.
It has to do with general attitude. In Europe there´s a general consent about social rights, human rights and limitation of personal financial freedom in an civilized society. In America you keep on disputing about it for ages.Freedom is fine, but you also feel free to let somebody die because he´s ill and can´t pay for treatment.Don´t care,his problem.Maybe I feel free to sign a cheque for charity to feel good.Maybe I don´t, need the money myself.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 09:57:15 PM
I always ask and NEVER get a good response to the following question:   How do you intend to pay for a national health care program in the USA?   Seriously, how is it going to be done?

The same way everyone else does, tax. My most recent payslip, largest deduction, National Insurance. :-\

I hate to say it but you must have a really low estimation of people in the US. Over in the UK we have the NHS, a massive benefits system, old age pensions, child tax allowances and a whole heap of other social schemes. Guess what, the vast majority of people still go to work in the morning even with all that!

At the end of the day if I get ill I can rock up to a GP surgery with no money, get seen to, issued with a prescription, pay a nominal fee for medicine and off I go. If I get seriously ill or injured then off I go to a hospital, have the surgery and or treatment I need no questions asked and free at point of service. Without presuming I would guess your thing (if its medical) would probably be covered by the NHS. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me however you spin it.

Not a good answer.  'Taxes' is not sufficient.    What type of taxes?  Jut under 1/2 of americans already pay no federal income tax.   

45634 post later...

Back to the post about robbery, because I must have completely misunderstood it.

The robbers got convicted for manslaughter because someone else fired a gun at them?

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 10:58:02 PM
Not a good answer.  'Taxes' is not sufficient.    What type of taxes?  Jut under 1/2 of americans already pay no federal income tax.   

Well the obvious way would be in a similar manner to NI in the UK, where it works just fine. A percentage of every earning individuals wages is taken from the weekly/monthly pay before its gets to the employee. Although I assume a system similar to PAYE would be needed for that, don't know if the US has such a system.

I can only say for Germany, it´s organized as insurances normally are,by fees. And you are are forced to be a member of those insurances, with a few exceptions. Taxes are sometimes used to supplement insurances in unbalanced situations, but mostly they aren´t.
Seems we also pay more taxes than Americans, but that gives the state the possibility to take care of desaster security, such as building dikes,for example. Sorry, I have to mention that, but leaving a city like New York totally unsecured of high tides (although predicted for years),
is something that´s an American speciality ,too. Hamburg was diked in, London has a barrier, the whole Netherlands are diked.
You just can´t just let everything to private initiative. It´s a task for the state. He has to be funded for that.

swiftus. Cant you see that the healthcare could even benefit performance of your economy?

If more people can use an insurance to an operation they will faster become a part of the proud productive earners like yourself. Imagine the frustration of wanting to work but not being able to work until you have had surgery, but you cant afford the surgery until you have a job.

you know what, i live and work in the uk i pay NI and tax and yes every week i look at how much i pay and grumble.

but when i had appendicitis or bumped my head or needed tests and went to A&E i had no grumbles or worries about how i was going to pay my medical bill.

we are very lucky in this country we are covered by the NHS, and if i feel i need extra care i can go private. But i am glad that no matter what the ailment i can pick up the phone knowing i'm not going to need insurance before i get treated or rack up a debt.

But on a less selfish side, i know that whatever a persons social status in our community they'll be looked after if they need it even if that means me paying a little extra every week.

Quote from: ban2 on November 06, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
you know what, i live and work in the uk i pay NI and tax and yes every week i look at how much i pay and grumble.

but when i had appendicitis or bumped my head or needed tests and went to A&E i had no grumbles or worries about how i was going to pay my medical bill.

we are very lucky in this country we are covered by the NHS, and if i feel i need extra care i can go private. But i am glad that no matter what the ailment i can pick up the phone knowing i'm not going to need insurance before i get treated or rack up a debt.

But on a less selfish side, i know that whatever a persons social status in our community they'll be looked after if they need it even if that means me paying a little extra every week.

Exactly. We sit and grumble about NI and tax and the NHS everyday. But that day when life does kick you square in the balls is the day that you realise how good the NHS is and how useful that NI payment was.

The idea that social healthcare will make people lazy and stop working is just stupid.

What about the people who don't have a job and therefore can't pay taxes via their paycheck?

Also, all of this is a moot point until we can secure our borders.  We have tens of millions of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and various other countries who are getting a free ride because they don't have social security numbers and therefore don't pay into the system via payroll taxes.

And the argument that social welfare makes people lazy is a valid one.  We have had war on poverty for decades and have spent trillions to lift the poor out of poverty.  The goal of welfare is to destroy itself by lifting people out of poverty so they no longer need welfare--so why does it still exist?  It exists because while there are people who have picked themselves up and gone from rags to riches, there is a huge segment of society that keeps their income down etc. to qualify for the free government assistance.  It is easier to sit at home and watch TV than go get a job.  We had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in the US and when it was taken away it was quite incredible--unemployment went down as people started taking jobs.  I am a recruiter and make a living in the job market.  There are plenty of stories of people rejecting job offers because their unemployment benefits pay out more than a potential job.  It may sound unreal being in Europe, but these stories are all too common in the US.

The people who don't have a job are protected by the social security system. I must stress NI is not the only way the NHS is funded.

Well I will have to ignore the irony of pulling the open borders arguement against Europe, a region reknowned for its issues with illegal immigration. We have it too and we all manage free healthcare. Anyway I believe with the NHS technically if you are not from the UK, EU, Switzerland or a country with a recipricol healthcare agreement you are liable to be charged for NHS services. 

Yes, there are people who abuse the system, its true for any system but the majority don't. That's why there are limits in the UK system. Yes, people do turn jobs because they get more money from handouts. IMO that's because the handouts are too generous and NMW is too low to live off.

I dont have time right now to go google the exact figures : but there is an astonishing correlation between the total annual amount defrauded by benefit recipients ...and the amount of unpaid back taxes owed by Goldman Sachs that were 'excused' by a kindly tax administration last year. A quick study of recent news stories will show that Amazon seem unable to make any kind of profit in the UK, even with sales of 100's of millions every year.. thus, laughably little taxes paid. Its catching, Starbucks have the same problem, as do Google, Apple and a host of others. Starbucks find the UK so unprofitable, they are forced to open new branches to try and stem the awful flow of losses. and its all legal, off-shored payments for sales in the UK mean,..oh dear..no profits and taxes for the brits...

So, we have the benefit fraudsters, with their paltry few millions : and the corporate welfare queens, avoiding billions. obvious then who needs investigating and punishing ... yep... the benefit fraudsters cos its immoral!

Quote from: LemonButt on November 05, 2012, 11:32:50 PM
There are plenty of women who carry concealed weapons.  60% of homes in Alaska have a firearm.  How about YOU start thinking.  Why is it that you never hear about shootings at gun stores or place where people are knowingly armed?  The point isn't whether or not someone actually has a weapon--it's whether or not someone has the opportunity to protect themselves.  Liberals/Democrats want to take away individual rights to do so and trust government agencies (i.e. police) to protect you.  Sure, a woman may not carry a weapon to defend herself.  But which is more effective?  A woman with a weapon or a woman with a cell phone that she can use to call the cops.  The thing about rape is even if she does call the cops, there is a response time and there is nothing that can be done to unrape a woman.

Also, crime does vanish with an armed society.  Guns are illegal in Chicago and guess what city is having a record number of homocides this year?  Only the criminals have guns and innocent people are left defenseless.  I live in North Carolina in the year 2012 BTW and I have a concealed carry permit, but do not carry regularly.  Tell me--are the people in the northeast recovering from the aftermath of Sandy better with or without weapons?  Do you think there is more or less looting of personal property in an unarmed community?

In fact, one of the few banks in the US that allows weapons to be carried into the bank just got robbed and guess what happened?  The bad guys didn't even make it out of the parking lot: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/president-of-troy-mo-bank-pulls-gun-nabs-masked-robber/article_570b4e0b-d461-5e17-8a72-cd4baebc1539.html

I own a Glock 19--the same weapon used in the Aurora movie theater massacre and the Gabrielle Giffords incident.  Tell me, would there have been more or less deaths if there was someone with a concealed weapon at those events?  Would the shooter at the Giffords incident been able to empty his 31 round magazine into the crowd if a law abiding citizen was packing that day and able to respond?

So no, I don't live in 1860 Arkansas or a Brazilian favela--I'm just not naive.  Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.

Wow, this so doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL. It's just sad. Yeah, let's return to the middle ages. Someboy shooting? Just shoot back. Survival of the fittest!
Something to think about for your little brain: Of all so called civilzed nations, guess which one's the one with the BY FAR highest homicide rate? Oh, right, the US.
Just as a comparison: In Germany, the homicide rate is a solid 20% (that's a fifth for the not-so-smarts) of that in the US.

And you still want to tell me everyone carrying a gun makes it safer for all?
Do you really want to say that a woman that is being assaulted still has time or physical capacity to search her purse for her gun?
This is so far from reality it's just sickening to read.

And what's even more sickening is that you actually believe all the bulls*** you are writing.
There is absolutely NO evidence that carrying guns makes the country safer, actually, evidence points 180° into the other direction.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 06, 2012, 02:07:47 AM
The point I was making was that if the German population was armed, history would have been a lot different.  

I'm just baffled by this. Just plainly baffled. Hey, if that guy you are annoying right now (me) was armed, maybe your personal history would end here. Ever thought about this? You're talking so much bulls***. Wow.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 06, 2012, 11:29:21 PM
And the argument that social welfare makes people lazy is a valid one.

Thank you for just insulting all of Germany. We are lazy bitches. I always knew it :<

QuoteWe have tens of millions of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and various other countries who are getting a free ride because they don't have social security numbers and therefore don't pay into the system via payroll taxes.

1>  For over 15 years, the only 'free ride" that illegal aliens are eligible for in the US are primary education and emergency health-care.   Admittedly, they're very big things to get for free, but they cannot sit at home collecting welfare checks as illegals..

2>  Only the ones being paid in cash (which is more than a few of them, for sure) don't pay payroll taxes.  Millions of these people are undocumented workers paying into Social Security, Medicaid, etc, with fake or fraudulent numbers but are not able to ever actually collect from those services.  In fact, the IRS estimates that fully 75% of all illegal aliens working in this country are actually paying taxes for services they can never collect on.  The Social Security Administration claims to collect over $50 BILLION a year in payroll taxes from illegal aliens using fraudulent numbers that the system will never have to pay out.  Plus, all aliens contribute the same in Local/State Sales taxes as any other citizen since they still have to go buy their stuff at a store.  Which brings us to #3...

3>  I daresay that 100% of illegal aliens are working in jobs making so little money that they wouldn't pay federal payroll taxes anyways.  They fit into that same bucket as fully half the rest of the country -- they simply don't make enough to pay taxes.  The only tax liability that ANYONE in this country has that makes as little as they do, is Local/State taxes, and an illegal pays the SAME as anyone else does in that regard.  So any "free ride" they're getting is at least as much as the one that HALF the country is getting.   And one could argue that since 3/4 of them are paying Social Security or Medicaid taxes for services that they simply cannot collect, they're actually getting LESS of a free ride than that half the country.

QuoteThere are plenty of stories of people rejecting job offers because their unemployment benefits pay out more than a potential job.  It may sound unreal being in Europe, but these stories are all too common in the US.

Perhaps instead of asking why unemployment pays better than taking a job, we should be asking why SO MANY jobs pay less than unemployment.  And I'll tell you -- it ain't because unemployment is a massive check, because it's not.  In Texas, if you lost a $30k/yr job, you'd get $300/wk and cannot collect more than $10,000.  Not exactly good living.  Anyone who's purposefully choosing to live on $10K/year rather than taking a job was NEVER going to be a productive member of society anyways.

And maybe it seems to "unreal" for those in Europe is because it actually pays to take a job there than not.  When fully HALF the country makes so little that they don't even have to pay a dime in taxes, that should be a clue that perhaps we have an issue with income in this country.  And one can't claim that it's because they're too lazy to take better paying jobs and move into that tax-paying bracket because if that were the case, then there'd be about 100 million $50,000+/yr jobs going unfilled in this country.  And, well, I don't think I have to tell you that's not the case.

QuoteThe concept of the poor or underprivileged falling through the cracks and getting no help is a fallacy.  If I could defer all of my tax dollars that go to welfare to private charity, I would do it in a heartbeat, because private charity helps those who are actually in need versus enabling people to not take care of themselves.  Also, when the government gives you a handout, you can never return the favor.  With charity if you get a helping hand, you have the opportunity to give back.  If you ever volunteer at a charity, you'll see plenty of people that charity has helped that are actively returning the favor.

As a libertarian, I'd much rather give all (or let's say, 'most', to address the point I'm going to make) my money to a private charity too.  But to say that it's a fallacy that people 'fall through the cracks' is totally false.  I've lived all over the country -- owned homes in 20 states -- and give VERY heavily of my time and money in all of them (I'm one of those you mention who was once helped by charity and now give back with the great success I've had in life), and I've seen a MASSIVE disparity in the quality and quantity of BOTH private and public charities available to help people.  
There are areas where the number of poor simply overwhelms the infrastructure, places where the density of those in need simply doesn't support any private charities (Meals in Wheels in the rural US is getting harder and harder to function despite an aging populace particularly in these areas), and perhaps most disheartening of all -- places where the charity actually overwhelms the need.  I'll be in West Virginia where kids wear the same thing to school everyday, while there's entire buildings full of clothes in Texas.  I've volunteered at schools in Texas where kids can't get basic supplies for their education and literally the next day not 5 miles away, be standing in a warehouse FULL of brand-new school supplies donated over years that grows every year because the particular charity consistently got in more than they had a need to disperse.   And let me tell you, that's a far more common problem than you'd think.  And it is so disheartening every time I see it.

I can tell you now, from decades of personal experience, that charities by and large do not get along well together.  For every great success story of cooperation I can describe 10 situations where there was outright animosity between groups that should have been getting along.  But the fact is that they saw themselves as competitors -- competing for the same donations, the same grants, the same press.

You are absolutely right -- we do not have a charity problem in the US.  We give far more than any one else in the world.  What we have is a disparity problem -- a logistics problem.  We need a group that somehow promotes cooperation between these entities to share resources and get a better balance.  My gut feeling is that only a government agency could really fit the bill -- on the other hand, my gut feeling is that the government would totally screw it up.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 12:24:16 AM
Wow, this so doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL. It's just sad. Yeah, let's return to the middle ages. Someboy shooting? Just shoot back. Survival of the fittest!
Something to think about for your little brain: Of all so called civilzed nations, guess which one's the one with the BY FAR highest homicide rate? Oh, right, the US.
Just as a comparison: In Germany, the homicide rate is a solid 20% (that's a fifth for the not-so-smarts) of that in the US.

And what happened in the middle ages?  Better yet, what is happening today in many 2nd/3rd world countries?  Tell me--why did it take several millenia for "civilized" nations to exist?  Historically, you had societies where you had the people in power who controlled those who weren't by force.  What kind of force?  Deadly force.  Civilized society wasn't created by people coming together, holding hands, and singing kumbaya while they came to accord to not take advantage of each other.  Civilized society was created by armed people who overthrew tyrants and oppressive dictators.  There is a latin saying: Si vis pacem, para bellum.  If you want peace, prepare for war.  It's peace through strength.  If Europe is civilized, why do they have armies?  Even the landlocked countries like Switzerland has an army--why?  If things are so civilized, they shouldn't need to defend themselves from their neighbors.  Switzerland even has mandatory service for their citizens--why?  Yes, countries are different than individuals, but if Switzerland had no military and was defenseless, all it would take is one power hungry dictator to come to power and invade.  The same goes with people.  If citizens are unarmed, all it takes is one crazy person to come at them and do them harm--it doesn't even have to be a gun as most kitchen knives would do.

Quote
And you still want to tell me everyone carrying a gun makes it safer for all?
Do you really want to say that a woman that is being assaulted still has time or physical capacity to search her purse for her gun?
This is so far from reality it's just sickening to read.

I do not think a woman being raped would necessarily have the time to take a gun out of her purse, but it doesn't change the fact that she has the right to defend herself with a deadly weapon.  There are plenty of examples of people's lives being saved by concealed weapons.  Even the inventor of the Glock pistol (an Austrian) was saved by having a concealed weapon.

Quote
And what's even more sickening is that you actually believe all the bulls*** you are writing.
There is absolutely NO evidence that carrying guns makes the country safer, actually, evidence points 180° into the other direction.

There is plenty of evidence. It is well documented that the more armed a society is, the less crime that happens.  Just a simple Google search will pull up a wealth of academic studies, but here are two of them, one of which is from an anti-gun liberal: http://www.largo.org/effects.html

Quote
I'm just baffled by this. Just plainly baffled. Hey, if that guy you are annoying right now (me) was armed, maybe your personal history would end here. Ever thought about this? You're talking so much bulls***. Wow.

There is a difference between self defense and murder.  Personal attacks don't get you anywhere.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 07, 2012, 01:17:24 AM
There is plenty of evidence. It is well documented that the more armed a society is, the less crime that happens.  Just a simple Google search will pull up a wealth of academic studies, but here are two of them, one of which is from an anti-gun liberal: http://www.largo.org/effects.html

Haven't I just pointed out that the homicide rate in a non-armed society (Germany and basically all of Europe) is lower than that of an armed society (US)?

Quote from: LemonButt on November 07, 2012, 01:17:24 AM
There is a difference between self defense and murder.  Personal attacks don't get you anywhere.

So killing a politician is self defense? That is a very interesting opinion. Just for your information: By the time the n***s were starting to evict the jews in a large scale and  had them put up in concentration camps, Hitler did not make public appearances very often any more. He didn't even speak over the radio.
So by the time the jews would really have had a reason to kill Hitler in self defense, they would not have had the chance anymore.
It might also interest you that there were dozens of attempts on Hitlers life, none of which succeeded.

Also, you obviously lack any knowledge about the social situation in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Hitler did not gain power by accident, Germany was a ticking time bomb during the Weimar Republic due to the ridiculous demands made in the Versailles Treaty and communists trying to start a revolution.
Had there been a widespread arming of the people, the result would very likely have been a civil war, WWII would have been started by Stalin instead of Hitler. What would that have gained anyone?

It is just ridiculous to name lack of widespread arming as a reason for the course of history.
It is highly speculative and even more so if one is as uninformed as you are.

@Sigma -- I'm a Libertarian, too.  The fact half the country is getting a free ride is a problem in itself.  I earn $100k/year and have no kids and end up paying over $20k in taxes each year.  My sister earns $100k/year and has 2 kids and ends up paying a negative tax rate, thanks to earned income credits and various other write offs.  Those people on welfare can also collect a fat payday by having kids, which they often do.  I can walk down the street and get stopped by a beggar asking for $1.  The way our current system is setup, I'm supposed to tell the beggar that the government took my $1 and he should go down to the government building to get his assistance.

Also, on unemployment many people will take jobs under the table and collect benefits.  Texas probably has better laws than most states--you were able to collect $450/week for 99 weeks here in NC, which means if you wanted to stay home and play video games and earn $23k/year while earning $10/hour under the table, you could.  There are thousands of unfilled truck driving jobs--most anyone can get a CDL and drive a truck--that pay upwards of $40k/year.  I do a lot of work in North Dakota--unemployment is 2.9% and Walmart is paying $19/hour to stock shelves and still can't find anyone to hire.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 07, 2012, 01:33:42 AMI earn $100k/year and have no kids and end up paying over $20k in taxes each year.  

Which is too little. So why vote for tax-cut-Romney? In Germany you would pay 42k income taxes and a few thousand more for social security.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 01:24:03 AM
Haven't I just pointed out that the homicide rate in a non-armed society (Germany and basically all of Europe) is lower than that of an armed society (US)?

Which I don't dispute.  Many states (mostly liberal ones) don't allow concealed carry and for those that do, not everyone takes advantage of them.  Germany and most European countries are rather homogeneous compared to the US--we are the great melting pot.  As such, you have hundreds of different cultures etc. and they don't always play well together.  Gun crime is virtually non-existent in Japan where almost everyone is Japanese with the same cultural values and background.  Correlation does not imply causation because when you're talking about homicide rates, there is a whole slew of societal factors at play.  Germany probably doesn't have hate crimes like we do in the US, for example.

just a point on the Switzerland thing : it has a civilian militia so save on the cost of a standing army. it would probably not even need that, it wouldn't have done much if n*** Germany had decided to invade in WW2 ; but Switzerland has a more effective defence than armies : its a guy standing next to a shredder with the list of numbered bank accounts...

Quote from: LemonButt on November 07, 2012, 01:40:38 AMGermany probably doesn't have hate crimes like we do in the US, for example.

Sure we do.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 07, 2012, 01:33:42 AM
@Sigma -- I'm a Libertarian, too.  The fact half the country is getting a free ride is a problem in itself.  I earn $100k/year and have no kids and end up paying over $20k in taxes each year.  My sister earns $100k/year and has 2 kids and ends up paying a negative tax rate, thanks to earned income credits and various other write offs.  Those people on welfare can also collect a fat payday by having kids, which they often do.  I can walk down the street and get stopped by a beggar asking for $1.  The way our current system is setup, I'm supposed to tell the beggar that the government took my $1 and he should go down to the government building to get his assistance.

Also, on unemployment many people will take jobs under the table and collect benefits.  Texas probably has better laws than most states--you were able to collect $450/week for 99 weeks here in NC, which means if you wanted to stay home and play video games and earn $23k/year while earning $10/hour under the table, you could.  There are thousands of unfilled truck driving jobs--most anyone can get a CDL and drive a truck--that pay upwards of $40k/year.  I do a lot of work in North Dakota--unemployment is 2.9% and Walmart is paying $19/hour to stock shelves and still can't find anyone to hire.

1.) If your sister is making $100k/year she is not getting the EITC unless she's committing tax fraud.  The current limit for a couple with two kids to get any EITC is $46,044.  If your sister is in fact paying a negative tax rate she must be jumping through some truly spectacular tax loopholes.

2.) Claiming that half the people in this country pay no taxes is disingenuous.
That's only for Federal Income Tax, and does not include Social Security Taxes or Medicare Taxes.  Just because they have different names does not mean they aren't taxes.  Since the government doesn't actually segregate that revenue in any way the distinction is fairly meaningless, they are all federal taxes that fund the government.  If you include those the number that pay nothing is somewhere around 17% currently and was around 14% before the economy tanked.  If you are seriously arguing that the country is going bankrupt because we don't collect any taxes from the bottom 17% of income earners you obviously have no idea what the income distribution curve in this country looks like.  You could take all their money and no one would notice the difference in the federal budget.

Secondly even if you want to artificially limit it to the Federal Income Tax, the number has only been almost half during the last 2-3 years,  while we have had high unemployment, wages are depressed, and the government has implemented lots of temporary tax breaks.  It was around 40% before the economy tanked. 

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 06, 2012, 10:58:02 PM
Not a good answer.  'Taxes' is not sufficient.    What type of taxes?  Jut under 1/2 of americans already pay no federal income tax.   

We could start by eliminating all deductions of any type and eliminating the distinction between earned income and capital gains perhaps.  That would have the added advantage of making everyone's income tax return take about 15 minutes to complete accurately and correctly, and probably enabling the government to downsize the IRS a quite a bit.

Well now the discussion is over anyway. Despite excessive voter fraud from the republican side, the right man has won.

I like how some Germans know from 5000km distance who's right and who's wrong but haven't understand the unimportance of foreign affairs to people whose direct neighbour countries aren't France or Russia but Kansas, California or Virginia while they live in a country that's half the size of Texas.


We're lucky the rest of the world just see us as very accurate people and not as the annoying smart asses most of us are, even they have absolutely no idea what the particular topic is about.
I can only imagine how yesterday 81 million soccer coaches spread their knowledge how to win the Champions League twice a year.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 04:12:17 AM
Well now the discussion is over anyway. Despite excessive voter fraud from the republican side, the right man has won.

Explain the voter fraud, please.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/ohio

Great map.   Red are counties in Ohio that Romney won,  Blue for Obama.   It is basically the urban centers who vote one way and the rural areas another.  Cuyahoga County voted for Romney 68.8 to 30.2% (a vote difference of ~235,000 votes for Obama).    Columbus, the state capital, is Franklin County (in the center of the state) and voted Obama 115,000 more times.  Cincinnati is the southwest corner (Hamilton County) only 20k more votes for Obama.  The 4th largest city, Toledo in Lucas County leaned 60,000 more votes Obama and lastly the 5th largest city of Akron (Summit) Obama won by 39,000. 

The entire State of Ohio:
Obama 2,672,302 
Romney 2,571,539

A total of 100,763 split the two in the entire state but in the urban centers the difference was almost 5x as much at 469,000.       

I am not spinning this information. 

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 07, 2012, 07:11:22 AM

We're lucky the rest of the world just see us as very accurate people and not as the annoying smart asses most of us are, even they have absolutely no idea what the particular topic is about.

Let's just hope no one shoots Prince Ferdinand.... Those local relationships could suddenly spiral out of control.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 09:00:42 AM
Explain the voter fraud, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWMxFGhgVuA

Nuff said.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 11:44:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWMxFGhgVuA

Nuff said.

That one booth was immediately re-calibrated...

Meanwhile in the same city:  (Keep in mind the county Philly is in went 551,070 to 90,989 to Obama as of this AM)

You have Black Panthers patrolling AGAIN (they did this 4 yrs ago): 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/6/problems-black-panthers-surface-pa-polling-places/

Massive Obama Mural in between the voting booths (illegal)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/06/philadelphians-vote-under-big-obama-mural/

I will just say this:
A candidate (partly) owning the Election Machine firm (not directly but via his son and other affiliates) is just shocking.
America would be well advised to return to pen and paper voting. Those machines only make trouble and if a candidate can own them, it is undemocratic. It is absolutely beyond me how a thinking person, no matter what he or she thinks about Obama, can vote for somebody who is as brazen as to unconcealedly own the Voting Machine firm.
From a President, I expect the highest possible degree of integrity, and it is in my eyes a question of self respect and honor to not even think about buying that firm if I run for an office, or sell the shares if I owned them before I considered running. That goes for the immediate surroundings as well.

Also, I just can't understand how some here didn't vote for Obama on the grounds of his Health Care reform being too expensive, when Romney wanted to cut taxes extensively - which would have been as, if not more, expensive as the Health Care act.

I also can't understand how one could vote for a party that has spent the best part of 4 years blocking the House, not even considering bipartisanship no matter how far the President reached out to them, just for the sake of getting him out of office.

Apart from all differences in terms of content - that is just a thing that I would never tolerate in a political party.
But that's just my 2 cents.
I am quite confident that this will not convince any of the Republicans here. I just wanted to state that it is absolutely beyond me how one can muster as much hate as to ignore those hard facts that make the GOP of the day absolutely unworthy of discussion.

Facts not all correct.  House has been in repubs hands for 2 yrs.  Senate in dems hands for obamas whole term.  

The Kennedy fortune was off of illegal sales of booze during the American prohibition... Didn't disqualify the from being president and attorney general at the same time.

This shows the bicameral system actually works.  No way too much power is given to one person.

Also the entire opposite viewpoint to above is that many see that all you need to do is to appeal to various groups.   There's no way a person should get 95% of the black vote, 71% of hispanic vote...  that's a statistic abnormality.    Keep in mind the jewish and irish catholic vote is crazily disproportinate too.   These groups would never be seen in public together but always vote party line.  

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 12:47:09 PM


Also the entire opposite viewpoint to above is that many see that all you need to do is to appeal to various groups.   There's no way a person should get 95% of the black vote, 71% of hispanic vote...  that's a statistic abnormality.    Keep in mind the jewish and irish catholic vote is crazily disproportinate too.   These groups would never be seen in public together but always vote party line.  

That's all very well, but there is a reason for that. Not all of America is white men. If the Republicans had actually tried to incorporate Latins and Blacks and all the other minorities, maybe they would not have suffered such a devastating defeat. The same goes for women. This irritating attitude towards women some Republicans sport is one of the big reasons they didn't win.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 02:04:32 PM
That's all very well, but there is a reason for that. Not all of America is white men. If the Republicans had actually tried to incorporate Latins and Blacks and all the other minorities, maybe they would not have suffered such a devastating defeat. The same goes for women. This irritating attitude towards women some Republicans sport is one of the big reasons they didn't win.

You're talking out of your butt.  First off, it wasn't a 'devastating defeat' when youre within 2%.   Married women supported Romney by a larger percentage than did McCain.  Overall 11%, down from 13, of all women supported Obama. 

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 02:19:05 PM
  First off, it wasn't a 'devastating defeat' when youre within 2%.   

Depends on if you look at it as Popular Vote or the 97 more Electoral votes for Obama.

Well Obama won and everyone's retirement accounts are worth less today than they were yesterday and treasuries are spiking (QE4, 5, 6, and 7 are on the way).  A lot was said on here since I checked in last, but I like the comment on German's knowing what is right from 5000km away :)

For those who don't know, America hasn't passed a budget in years.  The last budget proposed by Obama increased spending by $1 trillion and was so unpopular that there was bipartisan unanimous opposition and Obama didn't even get a single vote from his own political party (change you can believe in!).

Also, my sister earns a substantial amount of money from cash tips, which of course there is no paper trail for unless she deposits the cash in the bank (she is a high end hair stylist).  On top of that, she has a 30 year mortgage and I have a 15 year mortgage--I am being punished for my fiscal responsibility as she gets to pay lower monthly payments than me AND write off a boatload of mortgage interest.  Sure, I come ahead in the long run with more equity, but its just another example of how flawed our tax system is when we're encouraged to make poor long term decisions for short term benefit.

I find it incredible that Obama got reelected and it was as decisive as it was.  He has the media in the bag in the US, which was surely a large part of his success.  The good news is now Obama has no one to blame but himself.  There have been excuses about the economy his entire term and why things are so much worse than he projected with his policies (such as the stimulus and the famous unemployment line chart: http://visiontoamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/employmentchart.jpg).  After being in office for 8 straight years, he'll have no excuses left if the economy is still in the tank.

As I mentioned, I am an executive recruiter and I speak to business people for a living and rely on hiring for my income.  The general consensus from the people I talk to is that the economy isn't recovering because of Obama, but in spite of him.  At the end of the day, I make a good living and if prices and taxes go up, my lifestyle isn't going to take much of a hit.  It is the lower classes who are priced out of the labor market by minimum wage, blackballed by unions, and forced to pay increased prices for food and gas ($9/gallon if Obama had his way) that are going to feel the pain.  Not to be bragadocious, but I have over $50k in liquid assets--which is substantially more than many older people have saved for retirement based on surveys, so I'm going to be more than okay no matter who is in power assuming tax rates remain less than 100%.  The unemployment data shows it as as well--those with 4-year college degrees had an unemployment rate of 3.8% last month while those with no college were around 10%.  It's hard to pick up job skills and have income mobility when you can't even find a job.  But that is what the people voted for.  I don't believe in large amount of economic and personal freedom for myself, but for the little guys who weren't as blessed as I was to have the opportunities I've had in life.

And on the gun front, here is a great post on what has been happening with Hurricane Sandy: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/just-in-case-you-need-another-argument-against-gun-control-contemplate-the-social-chaos-and-government-incompetence-following-hurricane-sandy/

Germany had a severe flooding in 2002. Not a single case of looting. Case closed.

Unbelievable a power that claims to rule the world by gun force is unable to secure flooded parts of a city as long as it lasts.
No wonder you wish to regulate business on own accounts. But if you think that really through, what do you have a police for?
Not needed, if we all use our own guns, police is for sissies.

Sorry, but after over 500 years of being the place where people go for hope and opportunity, you sometimes get the bad element with it.

Sorry if having guns is an issue to so many of you.   You can tell we misuse them as millions of blacks fled to the streets shooting ak 47s into the air celebrating Obama's victory. 

Europe has more civil unrest following a soccer match than the usa did following sandy.

Actually not everyone's retirement portfolio is down today--gun makers are rallying: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/smith-wesson-gunmakers-rally-after-obama-re-elected.html

For those outside the US, Obama is one of the best gun salesmen this country has ever seen.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 05:08:01 PM
Sorry if having guns is an issue to so many of you.   You can tell we misuse them as millions of blacks fled to the streets shooting ak 47s into the air celebrating Obama's victory. 

Europe has more civil unrest following a soccer match than the usa did following sandy.

Millions of blacks fled to the streets shooting ak47 into the air?

Im glad the hooligans are not legally armed to defend themselves against the other teams hooligans...

Sarcasm, sir.  We're not in a 3rd world country here where the discharge of a few clips is acceptable... People here didn't squeeze a few rounds into the sky.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 06:17:56 PM
Sarcasm, sir.  We're not in a 3rd world country here where the discharge of a few clips is acceptable... People here didn't squeeze a few rounds into the sky.

I actually believed it had happened but in some other part of the world though.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 03:58:43 PM
Germany had a severe flooding in 2002. Not a single case of looting. Case closed.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/hochwasser-statt-solidaritaet-sabotage-pluenderung-und-wucher-171201.html

http://www.thw-halver.de/02hochwasser.htm (STRG+F -> "Plünderer")


The police tried to fix that problem with a complete evacuation and, on other parts, with complete blockades.



Anyways, in my honest opinion it's simply stupid to compare a flooding in a very low populated part with a massive hurricane in a city that's bigger than the five biggest cities in Germany together.



To think "we" are "better" than Americans (or Indians or crab guys from Mars) is even more stupid. If that would be this whole forum would be in German and I would have a weekend datcha somewhere in the East.



However, I think you are just really bad informed and lack lots of knowledge like you thought there was "not a single case of looting". I'm sure you also think there's "not a single case of gun killing" or "not a single guy driving an useless Pickup/SUV" or "not a single fat man/woman" in Germany.

Thanks for the input, Curse... I can't read German so I can not read your links. 

And yes, massive flooding is definitely not a hurricane hitting the largest metropolitan area in the western world.   

It basically tells saftfruch was massively wrong.

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 07, 2012, 07:56:04 PM
To think "we" are "better" than Americans (or Indians or crab guys from Mars) is even more stupid.

Where did I ever say that? I only tried to prove my point (or much rather, fact) that the American gun laws don't make the country safer. I exaggerated on that one point, for the simple reason that it is easier than searching for numerical evidence (which points my way, I will Romney-bet 10.000 bucks).

Don't want to compare Sandy to the Elbe flooding? No problem, compare it to Catrina.

As the United Kingdom made new and very strict gun laws end of the 90s the crime rate increased massively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


Maybe weapons don't make a country more safe, but they also don't make it less safe. And you and me have no right to make up "facts" on other people's cultures and laws.



Katrina and Elbflooding is still useless to compare. Much more water, direct oceanic access and more people involved. Including the back country damaged and flooded, while the biggest German city that was affected for a small amount (Dresden) still had the functional and good infrastructure.



You are wrong in at least two huge points. Time to show balls and accept it.

I'm not wrong, I just don't have all day to search for links that prove my point, as you obviously do.

Again, I'm not convincing anyone here (nor would I if I did have links to all my statements) so I'm out of this. It just leads to nothing.

The only error I'm going to concede is my try to take a shortcut by exaggerating.

Forget that one:

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 09:34:59 PM
Where did I ever say that?

You say their weapon laws suck, you say one of their candidates suck, you say there's cheating at the election and you told in Germany were no lootings while it's everywhere in the US.

It's ok to make points and nobody will take your opinion. But at least arguments should be involved, no anti-americanism. Yes, the USA are different to Germany. And I'm sure California is different to Washington and Texas and New Hampshire as well as I'm different to somebody from Hamburg or Berlin.
Comparing things in the US with things in Germany doesn't work. It's simply not the same country and what might work here must not work there, too. While, honestly, some points really don't work here, too.
Our gun laws are extremely restricted what leads to police officers getting fired or fined even if they fullfilled every regulation and simply made their job but had to shoot. Capital crimes rise, while the clearance rate decreases.

Our laws aren't better than the US ones, it's just a different system. And absolutely most people in Germany don't even know our laws.




Edit:

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 10:28:05 PM
I'm not wrong, I just don't have all day to search for links that prove my point, as you obviously do.

Yeah, of course. FAZ as one of the best newspapers we have and THW as volunteer help organisations really are no trustful source and you would find lots of better sources that prove a totally contrary point.

You have time to play AirwaySim and post lots of long and wrong posts, but no time to make a 2 minutes Google search.


I fully understand that. You are important and just because of this you must more right than I or all the other guys here. Stupid me.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 10:28:05 PMAgain, I'm not convincing anyone here (nor would I if I did have links to all my statements) so I'm out of this. It just leads to nothing.

Running away because your "points" were proven wrong? Please change your country flag to France.

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 07, 2012, 10:30:48 PM
Please change your country flag to France.

Is that the all white one? 

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 06, 2012, 08:38:13 PM
Well here we go, like I said it was a random example. How about Type 1 diabetes, which can hit anyone of any lifestyle or age? Or Cancer? Or Parkinsons? Or MS? Or cerebal palsy? Or heart conditions? Any congenital disorder?

These will all cost money, a lot of money. A chronic disorder would seriously affect anyone on a normal wage. That's what social healthcare is for, to pay and help when life has kicked someone in the balls. That's why it should be part of the basics of any civilised nation.

And that frankly sick quote in the middle, "the recipients don't deserve the same exact care", that's just downright wrong. In every way, that makes me sick to my stomach. A little quote from the NHS constitution; "You have the right to access NHS services", that means anyone. Everyone is human and everyone deserves healthcare.

Type 2 diabetes is entirely self inflicted desease, and it is not from the big mac, but more from the fries and big gulp coke that comes with it.

Basically excessive carbohydrate intake causes Type 2 diabetes.  Governt prescription for "healthy" diet?  A high carb diet that will lead to diabetes in the entire population.  It used to take life time to acquire Type 2 diabetes.  Now there are teenagers with Type 2 diabetes...  How much will they cost over their lifetime?  And who will pay?

Quote from: exchlbg on November 06, 2012, 11:13:42 PM
Seems we also pay more taxes than Americans, but that gives the state the possibility to take care of desaster security, such as building dikes,for example. Sorry, I have to mention that, but leaving a city like New York totally unsecured of high tides (although predicted for years),
is something that´s an American speciality ,too. Hamburg was diked in, London has a barrier, the whole Netherlands are diked.
You just can´t just let everything to private initiative. It´s a task for the state. He has to be funded for that.

Do you know what the biggest industry in NYC is?  It used to be financial industry.  Now it is government.  We have army of people taking money from people who work and giving it to people who don't work.  NYC is the most heavily taxed place in the US (with combination of federal, state, city taxes, plus sales taxes, fees etc).  And all this money is spent.  There is no money left for protection against storm surge.

Quote from: ucfknightryan on November 07, 2012, 02:56:41 AM
2.) Claiming that half the people in this country pay no taxes is disingenuous.
That's only for Federal Income Tax, and does not include Social Security Taxes or Medicare Taxes.  Just because they have different names does not mean they aren't taxes.  Since the government doesn't actually segregate that revenue in any way the distinction is fairly meaningless, they are all federal taxes that fund the government.  If you include those the number that pay nothing is somewhere around 17% currently and was around 14% before the economy tanked.  If you are seriously arguing that the country is going bankrupt because we don't collect any taxes from the bottom 17% of income earners you obviously have no idea what the income distribution curve in this country looks like.  You could take all their money and no one would notice the difference in the federal budget.

Secondly even if you want to artificially limit it to the Federal Income Tax, the number has only been almost half during the last 2-3 years,  while we have had high unemployment, wages are depressed, and the government has implemented lots of temporary tax breaks.  It was around 40% before the economy tanked. 

You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that you are paying into the Social Security system and Medicare, to pay for YOUR OWN future benefit, that the future pension benefit is earned, and at the same time claim that you are paying into the system for general cost of government.  Either you can claim that
1. you deserve pension and medical benefit because you paid for it yourself
2. or that you are paying for the government and pension is a hand out (welfare).

Disingenuous thing is to claim credit for both.

As far as collecting taxes from everyone, 100% of working population, it would definitely make a huge difference in federal budget.  If everyone saw and felt the true cost of running the government, there would be a constituency for keeping government small, lean and thrifty.

But since half the population can vote itself benefits it will never have to pay for, the size of the government is exploding, and the governments (not just the US, but around the world) are mosly broke.

Quote from: saftfrucht on November 07, 2012, 11:44:14 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWMxFGhgVuA

Nuff said.

That's your proof?

I have been a customer of Citibank for decades, and they were the pioneers of touch screen banking.  Maybe one out of 100 times I have come across a mis-aligned touch screen in the early days, before most other banks even had button based ATMs.  Is Citibank guilty of fraud?  Preventing me from logging into my account?

You either move to the next machine, or press slightly higher or lower on the touch screen to get your selection.  There is a visual feedback, just as it was on that particular touch screen, so that you know what is going on....

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 07, 2012, 10:30:48 PM

Running away because your "points" were proven wrong? Please change your country flag to France.

Pardon?

How did the French get involved in this : keep the national stereotyping between the US and Germany please, where it started.

Quote from: JumboShrimp on November 07, 2012, 11:47:22 PM
Type 2 diabetes is entirely self inflicted desease, and it is not from the big mac, but more from the fries and big gulp coke that comes with it.

Basically excessive carbohydrate intake causes Type 2 diabetes.  Governt prescription for "healthy" diet?  A high carb diet that will lead to diabetes in the entire population.  It used to take life time to acquire Type 2 diabetes.  Now there are teenagers with Type 2 diabetes...  How much will they cost over their lifetime?  And who will pay?

Well, it isn't totally. Type 2 can be caused by other things as well as general health. And if you kindly note above I referred to Type 1 diabetes. By the way, thanks for a brilliant example of what seems to be the US mentality, the government is trying to give everyone diabetes...  ???

Who will pay? Well in a civilised nation with social healthcare schemes, the state. Yes that does mean taking taxes but honestly, I'd rather have access to healthcare than a nicer car or bigger house.

Dr Curse. The evidence given by the gun lovers of UK investigation might not be the best argument. Its also very difficult to find reliable data to use for comparing the countries. However I do find it unlikely that you will shoot someone if you dont own a gun. Its less likely that it ends up in the wrong hands in the wrong time.

Gun crime is so incredibly rare in the UK it always gets in the news.

It is ridiculously hard to get hold of a gun. Shotguns are the easiest to get hold of but they still take a whole lot of paperwork, background checks, police interviews (I think) and all sorts. Rifles can be got, but they are even harder than shotguns and really restricted. For all rifles except .22 any sort of self loading mechanism is illegal, bolt action all the way and then they need to be stored in a very specific way which has to be inspected. Pistols are outright illegal except for muzzle loaded pistols and vets can carry them but then they can only hold 1 round I believe.

Even then starting pistols are illegal if they can be converted, air rifles are illegal if they are too powerful and BB guns are illegal if they are realistically painted.

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 08, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
Yes that does mean taking taxes but honestly, I'd rather have access to healthcare than a nicer car or bigger house.

Everyone in the US has healthcare access and there are laws on the books that keep hospitals from turning people away if they show up in the Emergency Room.  That is one of the big misconceptions about the entire healthcare debate in America--healthcare versus health insurance coverage.  Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

Quote from: LemonButt on November 08, 2012, 06:26:34 PM
Everyone in the US has healthcare access and there are laws on the books that keep hospitals from turning people away if they show up in the Emergency Room.  That is one of the big misconceptions about the entire healthcare debate in America--healthcare versus health insurance coverage.  Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

Lets be honest though, in the US people can and do not get treatments, medicine whatever because at the end of the day they either don't have money or couldn't afford health insurance.

Doesn't happen in the UK. And most of the developed world. And even a selection of developing countries. But not the self appointed "Best Country in the World"

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 08, 2012, 06:49:40 PM
Lets be honest though, in the US people can and do not get treatments, medicine whatever because at the end of the day they either don't have money or couldn't afford health insurance.

Doesn't happen in the UK. And most of the developed world. And even a selection of developing countries. But not the self appointed "Best Country in the World"

True.  I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  I was responsible and took care of myself.  When I left my job I got a catasrophic health insurance policy on the private market for $65/month.  Catastrophic meaning that it had high deductibles only paid 80% of my expenses over a certain threshold and I was required to pay 20%.  My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over $13,000 and I ended up paying about $4000 out of pocket thanks to having insurance.  I also paid the $4000 off over a period of several months--hospitals usually don't care when you pay as long as you are making monthly payments.  It is funny how people will spend $100/month for mobile phone service, but object to paying $100/month for a basic health insurance policy that anyone can get on the open market without pre-existing conditions.

See, you say that like its OK and an excuse. If you were in the UK the post would have gone as follows.

"I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  It got done on the NHS for free. My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over £8,000 and I ended up paying about £0 thanks to the NHS"

How is that not a better solution? Please, how? How is paying $4000 thanks to insurance better than paying $0 thanks to social healthcare? HOW?!?

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 08, 2012, 05:03:03 PM
Who will pay? Well in a civilised nation with social healthcare schemes, the state. Yes that does mean taking taxes but honestly, I'd rather have access to healthcare than a nicer car or bigger house.

The Obama health care scheme, majority of people who will get either free or subsidised health care basically pay nothing.  There is no new direct tax on beneficieries, but there is a promise of a benefit.

Very different from European countries or Canada, where there is a direct tax, and direct benefit.  If it sounds bananas, it is.  The same thing for the whole US as a country.  we a banana republic - with no bananas.

There´s no tax for health care, it´s run by semi-official and private insurance companies.
Basicly every employee up to a certain income must be insured, fees go part employee, part employer.
If you are unemployed, you keep being insured, employment agency is paying fee.
That´s how it works in Germany.

Quote from: exchlbg on November 08, 2012, 11:44:03 PM
There´s no tax for health care, it´s run by semi-official and private insurance companies.
Basicly every employee up to a certain income must be insured, fees go part employee, part employer.
If you are unemployed, you keep being insured, employment agency is paying fee.
That´s how it works in Germany.

I am familiar with how it works in many European countries.  It is a payroll tax, basically.  I think in Canada, it is sort of a sales tax / value added tax.  So in general, most of the people pay the tax, and then they get a benefit.

Under Obamacare, there are some some new taxes on people who will not be getting any benefits.  Then there is a series of penalties on individuals (for not buying insurance for themselves) and businesses (for not providing adequate insurance to their employees).

Basically, a totally moronic system.

Quote from: Admiral Flight Commander Major General Chad Studdington KBE on November 08, 2012, 08:35:18 PM
See, you say that like its OK and an excuse. If you were in the UK the post would have gone as follows.

"I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  It got done on the NHS for free. My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over £8,000 and I ended up paying about £0 thanks to the NHS"

How is that not a better solution? Please, how? How is paying $4000 thanks to insurance better than paying $0 thanks to social healthcare? HOW?!?

It's not a better solution because it's not free!  I'll give you my right kidney if you can name a single government program that is better run and more efficient than its private sector counterpart.  Even the US Postal Service, which has a legal monopoly, can't stay competitive with FedEx and UPS and is currently bleeding billions of dollars each year.  If government run healthcare that ensures everyone has "free" healthcare works so well, why don't we have government run grocery stores that ensures everyone has "free" food--we could solve world hunger overnight.

In regards to Obamacare, I actually spoke with our Controller today--my partner at work just had a hip replacement.  We are self insured and he said the lawyers have told them not to do anything with the insurance plan because they don't know how Obamacare will impact coverage and if they change anything they currently have, they could risk not being grandfathered in with exceptions.

The funny thing about Obamacare is if it is so good for the country, why did Obama approve over 1400 waivers exempting large groups of people from many of the provisions--over half of which are unions?  It truly is a monstrosity of a law.  But then again as I mentioned, I'm better off than most people so I'm not going to feel the pain nearly as bad as the "little guy" this law is supposed to help.

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 07, 2012, 11:14:40 PM
Is that the all white one? 

;D I can't believe there was no reaction to this!  Very amusing.

Quote from: Daveos on November 09, 2012, 12:58:31 AM
;D I can't believe there was no reaction to this!  Very amusing.

Me neither... Totally threw a bone there too.  More of a reference to the nastier comment above

Quote from: swiftus27 on November 09, 2012, 02:03:49 PM
Me neither... Totally threw a bone there too.  More of a reference to the nastier comment above

Even when you are serious you throw better bones in this thread.

Quote from: [SC] Gregory House, M.D. on November 07, 2012, 10:20:53 PM
As the United Kingdom made new and very strict gun laws end of the 90s the crime rate increased massively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


Maybe weapons don't make a country more safe, but they also don't make it less safe. And you and me have no right to make up "facts" on other people's cultures and laws.



Katrina and Elbflooding is still useless to compare. Much more water, direct oceanic access and more people involved. Including the back country damaged and flooded, while the biggest German city that was affected for a small amount (Dresden) still had the functional and good infrastructure.



You are wrong in at least two huge points. Time to show balls and accept it.

Thats Ridiculous, The crime rate involving guns went up because people just carried on as if the law did not change, but people were being caught still owning guns and using them to hunt without a licence.

Now this is being strictly enforced by authorities, gun crime has gone down. And is rare.

In The United Kingdom there are 0.22 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants;
and for Germany 0.2 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants;
And for the US: for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0.

GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL!! Simple as that! Humans should not be allowed to own such weapons unless their profession requires them such as hunters. (Sorry to the vegetarians).

Its an odd fact that if you make laws that create new offences : you get an increase in 'crime'. Its more sins of omission : when certain categories of firearm became illegal to own, many did nothing and then got caught in possession. so, a large part of the increase in offences was not 'criminal' per se, more a failure to conform to the new conditions. They did run amnesties and such but some folk just ignore stuff they dont like much or expect : When a series of roads in North London were changed to a new one-way system, people kept driving up and down them as they had always done for weeks afterwards, from sheer habit. Guess what? yes, a massive increase in traffic offences detected occurred!

Besides, the main thrust of the changes in gun laws in the UK was in response to a serious increase in criminal fire-arms use by street gangs, so the poster has the chronology back to front somewhat.

Where that increase in criminal fire-arm use was and still is occurring is amongst those youth street gangs, and its largely due to that culture which recognises gun ownership and display as a status issue, the use of firearms in 'revenge' attacks which prove 'manhood' and provide 'respect' which then provide ranking within the gang. Thus, its no surprise that the majority of their victims are gang members themselves. And yep, no prizes for guessing where the inspiration for these gangs and their philosophies originates.

Quote from: mean123 on November 10, 2012, 05:56:24 AM
GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL!! Simple as that! Humans should not be allowed to own such weapons unless their profession requires them such as hunters. (Sorry to the vegetarians).

I agree, guns are made to kill and maim.  But guns do not kill people--people kill people.  You cannot tell me that there weren't homocides before the invention of the gun.  People have been killing each since the beginning of humankind.  Removing guns doesn't remove motive, it only changes the means and most people have access to a kitchen knife.  The bottom line is there are people in society who are genetically disadvantaged when it comes to protecting themselves.  I am 6'3" and 220 pounds, for example.  I can deadlift 350 pounds and I am a pretty strong dude.  I could overpower 98% of the people I meet in the street and cause them harm if I wanted to.  I have no motive though, but let's assume I do whether it be a chemical imbalance etc.  How are people going to protect themselves from a strong man like me?  How are little old ladies, people in wheelchairs, and children with their parents going to be protected?  Give them all a cell phone and hope the cops have good response time that day?  As I mentioned previously, a person can't be un-raped.  Guns are the great equalizer.  There is a saying in gun circles that God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.  A little old lady in a wheelchair with a gun is as powerful as the strongest man on Earth.  This is the reason why we have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves in the US and it is a part of our Bill of Rights as the second amendment--right after the first amendment granting freedom of speech/religion/press/etc.

'the most dangerous component of a car is the nut behind the steering wheel'

So, why do we insist on driver training, licensing, etc, and surround the process of driving with regulations, rules and penalties for non-compliance up to and including withdrawal of licenses and prison. Why do we act to prevent drunks, drugged up wastrels and such from driving? why do we demand eye-sight tests, or insist certain health conditions debar the sufferer?

After all, the weakest wimp is as powerful as the strongest man when they are driving a 44-tonne rig, and trucks dont kill people, people kill people....