To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Mob Rule Wins in France
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics

Archer
21st April 2006 - 08:43 PM
France has subjugated itself to mob rule by withdrawing proposed legislation that would have granted French employers slightly more freedom to hire and fire employees--a right that in a truly free society employers would possess without the blessing of special legislation.

Governments of free nations are supposed to protect the individual rights of their citizens--no matter whether ten people or a million threaten to trample them. By caving in to the protestors' cries and screams, the French government has completely abandoned its key function and declared that, if you can be loud and demanding enough, you can decide what the laws of France should be, no matter whose rights are violated. France continues to abandon individual rights, and as result, it can expect more riots, protests and violence as the mob learns that it rules.blink.gif
- Dr. Yaron Brook

Just be glad the French didnt ask America to bail them out AGAIN on this problem like it has so many times in the past, but on the upside, while not totally sure, I do think this is the first time France surrendered to itself! ph34r.gif
Steveo
22nd April 2006 - 10:25 PM
QUOTE
France has subjugated itself to mob rule by withdrawing proposed legislation that would have granted French employers slightly more freedom to hire and fire employees--a right that in a truly free society employers would possess without the blessing of special legislation.

Governments of free nations are supposed to protect the individual rights of their citizens--no matter whether ten people or a million threaten to trample them. By caving in to the protestors' cries and screams, the French government has completely abandoned its key function and declared that, if you can be loud and demanding enough, you can decide what the laws of France should be, no matter whose rights are violated. France continues to abandon individual rights, and as result, it can expect more riots, protests and violence as the mob learns that it rules.blink.gif
- Dr. Yaron Brook

Just be glad the French didnt ask America to bail them out AGAIN on this problem like it has so many times in the past, but on the upside, while not totally sure, I do think this is the first time France surrendered to itself!


What about the rights of the young french people who now have no job security? Do you think that people only get fired if they do bad work? Some times employers fire people and hire new graduates just because they are cheaper....after all, business is about making money, and if you have to pay your staff less you will. If everyone did what was right, there would not be any need for any legislation......however people like to exploit others to make themselves more money......and this law would allow just that in the long run. Its more complicated than "france is letting the mob win". How can people stand back as they get exploited, and then screwed over by their own government. Think in the beginning of capitalism.......when there were no laws........were peoples rights getting violated? Sometimes there needs to be checks and balances in place. Many people would argue that employees are not free in a capitalistic society. So its a more complicated issue when you eximine the rights of the workers as well.

Archer
23rd April 2006 - 04:10 AM
QUOTE
What about the rights of the young french people who now have no job security?


Having a job is a RIGHT? since when? what country claims having a job is a RIGHT? why is it people think they need their govt. to take care of them? cant do it by yourself? why can't the young French? maybe you have not been paying attention to why the COMPANIES in France wanted this law revoked, they had young employees WHO WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, yet under French law the employers could not fire the kids who were NOT WORKING but still having to be PAID.. it is the idiocy of things like this that causes the high unemployment numbers that plague W. Europe.. tell ya what.. lets try this out if it works so well.. you pay me to write you a book.. you will pay me daily no matter what I do, you cant fire me, and I wont write anything.. if you think French business's dont know what they are doing lets try it here.. I am better you WONT! lol.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What about the rights of the young french people who now have no job security?


Having a job is a RIGHT? since when? what country claims having a job is a RIGHT? why is it people think they need their govt. to take care of them? cant do it by yourself? why can't the young French? maybe you have not been paying attention to why the COMPANIES in France wanted this law revoked, they had young employees WHO WERE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, yet under French law the employers could not fire the kids who were NOT WORKING but still having to be PAID.. it is the idiocy of things like this that causes the high unemployment numbers that plague W. Europe.. tell ya what.. lets try this out if it works so well.. you pay me to write you a book.. you will pay me daily no matter what I do, you cant fire me, and I wont write anything.. if you think French business's dont know what they are doing lets try it here.. I am better you WONT! lol.

Some times employers fire people and hire new graduates just because they are cheaper.


May I suggest a few business classes, the cost of training new people is an area in which most business's understand is very costly to their bottom line.. your ideal is not a logical or sound business practice, unless someones job pool is no skill level required..

QUOTE
If everyone did what was right, there would not be any need for any legislation......however people like to exploit others to make themselves more money


On this matter you are correct, the younger French workers were screwing the business's half to death, the govt. told business's they could not fire young employee's unless they met some very ridiculous criteria (example, selling drugs while at work, punching out employee's and so on). 2 years after the govt. required employers to abide by this law, the business failure rate was 17% higher, France couldn't afford it.. their economy is already in the toilet.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If everyone did what was right, there would not be any need for any legislation......however people like to exploit others to make themselves more money


On this matter you are correct, the younger French workers were screwing the business's half to death, the govt. told business's they could not fire young employee's unless they met some very ridiculous criteria (example, selling drugs while at work, punching out employee's and so on). 2 years after the govt. required employers to abide by this law, the business failure rate was 17% higher, France couldn't afford it.. their economy is already in the toilet.

Think in the beginning of capitalism.......when there were no laws........were peoples rights getting violated?


The first protitute was a capitalist, its been around a long time, this is not a beginning for anyone, France has deadlocked a great many of it's business's with over taxation, to many laws and regulations, France is 2nd Russia in the area of being a arms EXPORTERS to third world thug nations.. its tech is only moderate grade at best, as well its quality in the products it produces, there is a direct correlation to Frances movement to Socialism and loss of business's and quality.

Thinking a country can make it equal for everyone is counter-productive for EVERYONE, One of the very best things about life is that it is unfair.. who wants fair? not me.. maybe you have not noticed, but Europe's economies are very poor at best, and it's unemployment numbers are high.. this down fall in labor, production, employment, technology advancement can ALL be traced to a movement to socialism, like it or not, the numbers don't lie. If you want job security you should work for yourself, start your own business and show us how to do it.. anything other and guess what.. you are like most everyone else, doing the best you can.
Drude
23rd April 2006 - 06:15 AM
I think French are years ahead of America in matters of social relevance. The primary reason why you wont see such demonstrations in America is become the public is not liberated and open minded enough to comply with the standards set forth in France. Had France gone to war with say Iraq, you probably would have witnessed another revolution, but instead what do you see in America? Nothing really. Americans didnt, arent , and wont ever do anything remotely revolutionary. Even the first war of independence was really the work of the French otherwise we would now read of Washington the Traitor and Benedict the loyalist. If anything these acts show the health of the social movement in France. I do however agree that they are managing it horribly, on that I agree.
Archer
23rd April 2006 - 07:41 AM
QUOTE
Had France gone to war with say Iraq, you probably would have witnessed another revolution,


Had France gone to war in Iraq, America would still be there now as proven by the last 100 years of French history.. what France starts, American needs to finish for the French.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Had France gone to war with say Iraq, you probably would have witnessed another revolution,


Had France gone to war in Iraq, America would still be there now as proven by the last 100 years of French history.. what France starts, American needs to finish for the French.

Nothing really. Americans didnt, arent , and wont ever do anything remotely revolutionary.


What would you call freeing most of Europe TWICE in 60 years, and still turning it back over to the Europeans? yeah thats really common all though out history isn't it.. name JUST ONE OTHER NATION that has freed as many people as America has in the last 150 years.. just one who has given more of its OWN MONEY to help other nations.. how long do you want this to be? let me know I will gladly add to it.

QUOTE
Even the first war of independence was really the work of the French otherwise we would now read of Washington the Traitor and Benedict the loyalist.


France didn't do ANYTHING until that it knew for a fact the war was in the bag for America, NOT A THING.. and Benedict Arnold was one of the reasons we won that war, he was key in winning many battles.. he did not become a traitor until near the wars end, and the information he did provide the King was worthless.. B. Arnold shot himself in the arse, he was a great commander, and would had been one of the hero's of the revolution had he stayed.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Even the first war of independence was really the work of the French otherwise we would now read of Washington the Traitor and Benedict the loyalist.


France didn't do ANYTHING until that it knew for a fact the war was in the bag for America, NOT A THING.. and Benedict Arnold was one of the reasons we won that war, he was key in winning many battles.. he did not become a traitor until near the wars end, and the information he did provide the King was worthless.. B. Arnold shot himself in the arse, he was a great commander, and would had been one of the hero's of the revolution had he stayed.

If anything these acts show the health of the social movement in France.


Burning neighborhoods, cars and business's is healthy? maybe you think so, but then you are not the one having to pay for the repair and replacement.. what kind of moron burns his neighborhood? I also think you need to look into what you are speaking about a little bit.. you know why France is DEPORTING so many Muslims? because they were KEY participants in these RIOTS.. people lost their lives, and livelihoods.. and you define this as healthy.. maybe you should become more aware of why nations fail, cause you're not getting it!
Madkite
23rd April 2006 - 09:44 AM
Why don't businesses have the right to employ and fire who they want. It reminds me of the equal opportunity's laws in England. They force them to employ minority's even if they don't do the work and sack white people. What about their job security. There in no reason to sack them except to meet the stupid directive. Then they wonder why people are b becoming more drawn toward the BNP.

Oh well the more government pisses off white people the more will vote BNP. biggrin.gif They seem too stupid to see the results of their anti white communist social policies. (Please note they run capitalist financial policies)

And if you are good at your job then you wont loose it unless the company folds or you are sacked by stupid directives like the one I described. I bet most of those protesters were wasts of space who would get the sack if the law had been kept.
Steveo
24th April 2006 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE
Having a job is a RIGHT? since when? what country claims having a job is a RIGHT? why is it people think they need their govt. to take care of them? cant do it by yourself?


Ok, so maybe not specifically having a job is a right.....but then what is a right? A basic human right? Would eating be a right? Please explain to me in a capitalist society how a person can live without having a job? (assuming they can't depend on someone else and do not have their own property to have a garden or something like that). Isn't it a government's responsibility to make sure that its citizens live? At least in the civilized world it is! And usually when the phrase "do it yourself" comes in it means GO GET A JOB....but if you can't get a job how can you do it yourself? The people weren't protesting and rioting to get welfare....they want jobs, and job security.
I don't truthfully know about the business situation in france, but please provide links to where these laws are about firing people. If you are going to claim the laws are that outlandish, I want to see it from a reliable source. Also, introductory economics says that an economy in full employment does not have everyone employed. There is still unemployment, which is neccessary for times of economic expansion....so do yuo think the goverment should take care of the people that are unemployed, but needed for the economy to grow?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Having a job is a RIGHT? since when? what country claims having a job is a RIGHT? why is it people think they need their govt. to take care of them? cant do it by yourself?


Ok, so maybe not specifically having a job is a right.....but then what is a right? A basic human right? Would eating be a right? Please explain to me in a capitalist society how a person can live without having a job? (assuming they can't depend on someone else and do not have their own property to have a garden or something like that). Isn't it a government's responsibility to make sure that its citizens live? At least in the civilized world it is! And usually when the phrase "do it yourself" comes in it means GO GET A JOB....but if you can't get a job how can you do it yourself? The people weren't protesting and rioting to get welfare....they want jobs, and job security.
I don't truthfully know about the business situation in france, but please provide links to where these laws are about firing people. If you are going to claim the laws are that outlandish, I want to see it from a reliable source. Also, introductory economics says that an economy in full employment does not have everyone employed. There is still unemployment, which is neccessary for times of economic expansion....so do yuo think the goverment should take care of the people that are unemployed, but needed for the economy to grow?

May I suggest a few business classes, the cost of training new people is an area in which most business's understand is very costly to their bottom line.. your ideal is not a logical or sound business practice, unless someones job pool is no skill level required..


Your right, in a lot of fields, training is very expensive, however the field I have known this to happen in has basically no training involved, and it is a field that requires skill. Namely dental hygiene. I doubt this is common practice, but there are dental offices that will fire dental assistants within days of having to give them any type of job security. This is a skilled job that doesn't require much specific on the job training. However, you can bet that lots of businesses will get rid of people if they can get away with it. If it is going to make them money they will do it.

QUOTE
Thinking a country can make it equal for everyone is counter-productive for EVERYONE, One of the very best things about life is that it is unfair.. who wants fair? not me.. maybe you have not noticed, but Europe's economies are very poor at best, and it's unemployment numbers are high.. this down fall in labor, production, employment, technology advancement can ALL be traced to a movement to socialism, like it or not, the numbers don't lie. If you want job security you should work for yourself, start your own business and show us how to do it.. anything other and guess what.. you are like most everyone else, doing the best you can.


Of course everything can not be perfectly equal, and not be fair, however its nice to give everyone an equal opportunity. I don't have a problem with the best people succeeding and the below average people not....but I think that everyone should get an opportunity to compete at least.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Thinking a country can make it equal for everyone is counter-productive for EVERYONE, One of the very best things about life is that it is unfair.. who wants fair? not me.. maybe you have not noticed, but Europe's economies are very poor at best, and it's unemployment numbers are high.. this down fall in labor, production, employment, technology advancement can ALL be traced to a movement to socialism, like it or not, the numbers don't lie. If you want job security you should work for yourself, start your own business and show us how to do it.. anything other and guess what.. you are like most everyone else, doing the best you can.


Of course everything can not be perfectly equal, and not be fair, however its nice to give everyone an equal opportunity. I don't have a problem with the best people succeeding and the below average people not....but I think that everyone should get an opportunity to compete at least.

What would you call freeing most of Europe TWICE in 60 years, and still turning it back over to the Europeans? yeah thats really common all though out history isn't it.. name JUST ONE OTHER NATION that has freed as many people as America has in the last 150 years.. just one who has given more of its OWN MONEY to help other nations.. how long do you want this to be? let me know I will gladly add to it


Freed or exploited all depends on your point of view. You might say that America has freed all of these people (and many of them they have) but they have exploited a lot of people so they could profit from it. Why do you think terrorists target America? I hope you don't honestly believe its because they hate the freedom of America, or some BS like that. Its because they are sick of being exploited by the Americans. America's economy is not as strong as it used to be, it has a HUGE debt. The way things are going it won't be long until China is a much more powerful nation.

QUOTE
Why don't businesses have the right to employ and fire who they want. It reminds me of the equal opportunity's laws in England. They force them to employ minority's even if they don't do the work and sack white people. What about their job security. There in no reason to sack them except to meet the stupid directive. Then they wonder why people are b becoming more drawn toward the BNP.

Oh well the more government pisses off white people the more will vote BNP. biggrin.gif They seem too stupid to see the results of their anti white communist social policies. (Please note they run capitalist financial policies)

And if you are good at your job then you wont loose it unless the company folds or you are sacked by stupid directives like the one I described. I bet most of those protesters were wasts of space who would get the sack if the law had been kept.


Your assuming that white people work harder than other people. The laziest people I know, and the ones who work the least hard are all white people. Equal opportunity laws are in place to combat against racism. Maybe some white people get discriminated against in some situations, however, at least in Canada, it isn't bad. As a white male I have never felt discriminated against because I was white. How many minorities can make the same claim? It might not be 'fair', however sometimes the pendulum has to overshoot for a while for things to end up being fair in the end. Maybe a few generations, when racism isn't the problem that it is now, there will not need to be equal opportunity laws because people won't use race as a reason for not hiring people. Anyway you put it Madkite, you are still a racist, and dispite what you think, that is NOT a good thing!
sinned34
25th April 2006 - 04:13 AM
QUOTE
What would you call freeing most of Europe TWICE in 60 years, and still turning it back over to the Europeans?


You need to re-check your history books. The United States didn't even ENTER WWII until it was half over. No doubt, the USA did a wonderful thing by helping to dismantle the Nazi war machine, and the American soldiers deserve to be remembered for the sacrifices they made, but they sure as hell didn't do it alone. Great Britain, Canada, and the USA wouldn't even have broken into France if the Germans hadn't had most of their resources diverting to battle Russia on the daily massacre that was the Eastern Front. Add to that the fact that if the United States HADN'T entered the war, they wouldn't have had the factories in place that helped to turn it into the financial dynamo that it became through the rest of the 1940's and 1950's. Then we still have to wonder that you seem to think that "freeing" people means that you shouldn't have to return their land and government back to them? That is essentially what Russia did with Eastern Europe, and I thought that was one of the main reasons that Communism was bad?

The rest of your arguments show a very basic, "Fox News/CNN two-minute info-tainment spot" understanding of what happened with the riots in France. There is a long history of showdowns between corporate and union interests in France and the rest of Europe. Plus, you don't seem to be noticing how the economy of your own country seems to be stalling, and how your people are beginning to drown in a sea of red ink, despite having what should be a fiscally conservative government in power.

Thank you America for the good that you do, because you DO good things. Piss off, America, for the bad that you do, because you also do bad things.
Madkite
25th April 2006 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE
Your assuming that white people work harder than other people. The laziest people I know, and the ones who work the least hard are all white people.


It is not hard to find lazy people anywhere but I am sure you are very selective in who you look at. To find capable people is a different mater. That is what I have found is the difference. I know you will disagree but I say it as I see it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your assuming that white people work harder than other people. The laziest people I know, and the ones who work the least hard are all white people.


It is not hard to find lazy people anywhere but I am sure you are very selective in who you look at. To find capable people is a different mater. That is what I have found is the difference. I know you will disagree but I say it as I see it.

Equal opportunity laws are in place to combat against racism.


Equal opportunity laws are very racist. It is still racist to discriminate against white people by any logic.

QUOTE
Maybe some white people get discriminated against in some situations, however, at least in Canada, it isn't bad. As a white male I have never felt discriminated against because I was white.


Ever tried to apply for a council flat because you are poor. Or join the police force who put white male recruits at the bottom of the list only because they are white. Hmm the police do not seem interested in employing who is most capable to do the job. But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Maybe some white people get discriminated against in some situations, however, at least in Canada, it isn't bad. As a white male I have never felt discriminated against because I was white.


Ever tried to apply for a council flat because you are poor. Or join the police force who put white male recruits at the bottom of the list only because they are white. Hmm the police do not seem interested in employing who is most capable to do the job. But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose. rolleyes.gif

How many minorities can make the same claim? It might not be 'fair', however sometimes the pendulum has to overshoot for a while for things to end up being fair in the end.


And you think that it will ever swing back. I tell you now it wont under the current system EVER. When the minority's are majority's they will not grant us the same courtesy.

QUOTE
Maybe a few generations, when racism isn't the problem that it is now, there will not need to be equal opportunity laws because people won't use race as a reason for not hiring people.


Race is real. It will aways be a problem no mater what you delude yourself to think. Real problems don't just go away.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Maybe a few generations, when racism isn't the problem that it is now, there will not need to be equal opportunity laws because people won't use race as a reason for not hiring people.


Race is real. It will aways be a problem no mater what you delude yourself to think. Real problems don't just go away.

Anyway you put it Madkite, you are still a racist, and dispite what you think, that is NOT a good thing!


As long as you mean I understand and accept the reality's of race. I am happy to be called a racist. But if you think I want to kill all non whites and all that rubbish the no I am not. So it depends what you think a racist is. Or what you think a racist person wants.

France like the rest of Europe and America are all following the same general pattern of events.
1. Mass immigration of non whites.
2. Destruction and penalisation of industry.
3. Increasingly totalitarian communist social policies.
4. Government using tax and law to discriminate against the native white population and discourage them from having children causing a failing birth rate.
5. Increasing globalisation and centralisation.
6. Mass media encouraging all of the above while using it's influence to keep the public docile and voting for who continues to follow the same course of action.

Now how and why dose the whole western white world except Russia all follow the same general direction at the same time in history. Am I the only one who notices this and thinks it is a bit wired that all these countries are doing the same thing and causing the same problems for themselves. blink.gif
Steveo
25th April 2006 - 05:12 PM
QUOTE
It is not hard to find lazy people anywhere but I am sure you are very selective in who you look at. To find capable people is a different mater. That is what I have found is the difference. I know you will disagree but I say it as I see it.


And I call it as I see it. Its funny, here in Canada there is a STEREOTYPE that native americans are the laziest no good bums around. Its very common, and very stupid. I know I have a small sample, but the least lazy people I have ever worked with were natives. So 'calling at is you see it' can mean a lot of things, and not always the truth. I am sure there are some lazy native people too, but almost all people are capable, given an opportunity.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It is not hard to find lazy people anywhere but I am sure you are very selective in who you look at. To find capable people is a different mater. That is what I have found is the difference. I know you will disagree but I say it as I see it.


And I call it as I see it. Its funny, here in Canada there is a STEREOTYPE that native americans are the laziest no good bums around. Its very common, and very stupid. I know I have a small sample, but the least lazy people I have ever worked with were natives. So 'calling at is you see it' can mean a lot of things, and not always the truth. I am sure there are some lazy native people too, but almost all people are capable, given an opportunity.

Equal opportunity laws are very racist. It is still racist to discriminate against white people by any logic.


I agree with that, and it sucks, however the alternative of no laws to protect minorities is much worse. Minorities have been suffering the effects of not being protected all over the world for years. I think the african american situation in the states would illustrate that.

QUOTE
Ever tried to apply for a council flat because you are poor. Or join the police force who put white male recruits at the bottom of the list only because they are white. Hmm the police do not seem interested in employing who is most capable to do the job. But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose.


No, as a white male from a lower middle clas family I have had it very easy in my life. I have not experienced any discrimination because of race, or social status. I have seen many people who are not white experience discrimination though. You also ASSUME, based on nothing that white people are more capable to begin with. You would probably cry racism if a black person was hired even if they were more capable than any white person. Also, I can't speak for england, but in Canada, in a place like the police force, they do not pay minorities less, everyone gets the same starting wage as far as I know.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Ever tried to apply for a council flat because you are poor. Or join the police force who put white male recruits at the bottom of the list only because they are white. Hmm the police do not seem interested in employing who is most capable to do the job. But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose.


No, as a white male from a lower middle clas family I have had it very easy in my life. I have not experienced any discrimination because of race, or social status. I have seen many people who are not white experience discrimination though. You also ASSUME, based on nothing that white people are more capable to begin with. You would probably cry racism if a black person was hired even if they were more capable than any white person. Also, I can't speak for england, but in Canada, in a place like the police force, they do not pay minorities less, everyone gets the same starting wage as far as I know.


Race is real. It will aways be a problem no mater what you delude yourself to think. Real problems don't just go away.


You mean skin colour is real. Race is a pretty arbitrary concept, and dispite any material you present, as you have tried before, race is not supported by science. There have been problems pointed out with every study I have ever seen that determines that race is 'real' and makes differences on things like intelligence.

QUOTE
As long as you mean I understand and accept the reality's of race. I am happy to be called a racist. But if you think I want to kill all non whites and all that rubbish the no I am not. So it depends what you think a racist is. Or what you think a racist person wants.


A racist is someone who looks and determines that they are better than someone else based entirely on something as arbitrary as skin colour or place of birth. This makes you a racist, and an attitude like yours will only make you angry in life. Anything you do with those racist feelings will not make you better, because none of the problems you think are caused by race will ever go away by continuing to discriminate against race.
Madkite
25th April 2006 - 06:06 PM
QUOTE
Also, I can't speak for england, but in Canada, in a place like the police force, they do not pay minorities less, everyone gets the same starting wage as far as I know.


Sorry I should have been more clearer. The police do not pay them less they employ nonwhites even if a better white candidate comes up so they can say "We are not racist". Which is a bit hypocritical thinking about it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Also, I can't speak for england, but in Canada, in a place like the police force, they do not pay minorities less, everyone gets the same starting wage as far as I know.


Sorry I should have been more clearer. The police do not pay them less they employ nonwhites even if a better white candidate comes up so they can say "We are not racist". Which is a bit hypocritical thinking about it.


You also ASSUME, based on nothing that white people are more capable to begin with.


The problem is not just capability. It is that they are found accommodation and given benefit that the native English person is denied. They then are not only taking a job off someone who was born here but because they are positively discriminated against the wages they can afford to work for are fare less driving ours down even though we get no help. Under this globalist logic we will all have to work for the same pay as you would in China but with everything still at it's normal price to compete.

QUOTE
You would probably cry racism if a black person was hired even if they were more capable than any white person. 


No I would not. We have many fine ethnic doctors and surgeons. But doesn't there country need them more than us. Especially as there countries are often badly in need of doctors and medical help. And how come our home grown white doctors just out of training say that they cant get a job. But the NHS keeps saying we need to import more doctors because we do not have enough. Odd that. Ahhh it must be that positive racism again which does the world of good in society. They mean not enough ethnic doctors stolen from other countrys. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You would probably cry racism if a black person was hired even if they were more capable than any white person. 


No I would not. We have many fine ethnic doctors and surgeons. But doesn't there country need them more than us. Especially as there countries are often badly in need of doctors and medical help. And how come our home grown white doctors just out of training say that they cant get a job. But the NHS keeps saying we need to import more doctors because we do not have enough. Odd that. Ahhh it must be that positive racism again which does the world of good in society. They mean not enough ethnic doctors stolen from other countrys. rolleyes.gif

A racist is someone who looks and determines that they are better than someone else based entirely on something as arbitrary as skin colour or place of birth.


Wrong. If it was just skin colour than their would be no problem. But you wont accept that their is any other difference other than skin colour despite the logical flaws in any arguments as to how we could developer different skin colour and not adapt our brains to match our surroundings too. Even though humans totally rely on their brains to survive. And their is clear evidence that their are psychological differences between races just like their is between men and woman. But you will not look at any of it. How can I consider your judgement sound if you will not look at evidence to determine your conclusion.
sinned34
25th April 2006 - 07:19 PM
If I may interject here MadKite, but I find a disconnect between two statements you wrote:

QUOTE
But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But having your job took because an immigrant will do it cheaper is fine by your standards I bet. The fact they they get given accommodation so they can work for wages that nobody white and born here is able to is irrelevant I suppose.


Why don't businesses have the right to employ and fire who they want.


So businesses should be able to hire & fire according to what they think is best for their bottom line, right? Then you should have no problem with businesses firing "native" white people (sorry, here in North America, the Caucasian population is an immigrant group), who refuse to lower their standards of living in order, to hire immigrant peoples, who are willing to work for lower wages because even at those garbage wages they enjoy a much higher standard of living than they had in their country of origin.

But wait, you don't want immigrants taking YOUR job, right? So where is the balance? Perhaps the answer is what we're seeing large companies already doing: forget hiring immigrants, export the JOB ITSELF to countries with low wages and almost no environmental regulations, and eventually the only jobs left in countries like Canada, the USA, and England are service industry and government jobs.

Open your eyes and use some logic, MadKite: pure Capitalism does not work. Pure Communism does not work. A mix of both is not perfect, but works better for both business and labour.
Madkite
25th April 2006 - 07:49 PM
QUOTE
But wait, you don't want immigrants taking YOUR job, right? So where is the balance? Perhaps the answer is what we're seeing large companies already doing: forget hiring immigrants, export the JOB ITSELF to countries with low wages and almost no environmental regulations, and eventually the only jobs left in countries like Canada, the USA, and England are service industry and government jobs.


Pure capitalism is a disaster. So is communism. I believe in nationalist economics. Businesses should have the right to hire and fire who they want but it becomes a problem with what is happening in my country. If their was no discrimination then all the workers would need the same wages to survive so it would make no difference as to which people you employed from a financial point of view. But it is not like that. It is short term profit at a huge social cost. One which no government could sanely allow greedy capitalists to commit.

If you have not noticed India and China will soon have there own service industry and will have no need of us except to buy what they make. Government jobs do not create any national wealth as they are payed for by tax. We already have a huge trade deficit. How will we make money if we do not have anything to offer. We need to produce things. And if necessary internalise our economy. Or create high-tech products that nobody else can supply. If we do not our economy's are totally screwed. And as China and all the others make their money selling to us when we go they go. The world will be in a most volatile state at that point. Don't kid yourself we are running on debt now. Borrowing is all that is keeping us most of the west afloat.

What is your solution to the glaring economic problem.
Steveo
25th April 2006 - 08:17 PM
QUOTE
Sorry I should have been more clearer. The police do not pay them less they employ nonwhites even if a better white candidate comes up so they can say "We are not racist". Which is a bit hypocritical thinking about it.


And you know the white candidates were better how? Were you a part of the hiring board?? Its pretty stupid to assume that the white candidate is better only because they are white.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Sorry I should have been more clearer. The police do not pay them less they employ nonwhites even if a better white candidate comes up so they can say "We are not racist". Which is a bit hypocritical thinking about it.


And you know the white candidates were better how? Were you a part of the hiring board?? Its pretty stupid to assume that the white candidate is better only because they are white.

The problem is not just capability. It is that they are found accommodation and given benefit that the native English person is denied. They then are not only taking a job off someone who was born here but because they are positively discriminated against the wages they can afford to work for are fare less driving ours down even though we get no help. Under this globalist logic we will all have to work for the same pay as you would in China but with everything still at it's normal price to compete.


You make reference to this. What exactly are you talking about? What benefits are given to immigrants that are not given to whites in England? Please be specific, and it would help to show us the government policies which do this.

QUOTE
No I would not. We have many fine ethnic doctors and surgeons. But doesn't there country need them more than us. Especially as there countries are often badly in need of doctors and medical help. And how come our home grown white doctors just out of training say that they cant get a job. But the NHS keeps saying we need to import more doctors because we do not have enough. Odd that. Ahhh it must be that positive racism again which does the world of good in society. They mean not enough ethnic doctors stolen from other countrys.


Maybe these ethnic doctors aren't patriotic like you are. Maybe they would rather take care of their family than stay in 'their country', or maybe there is human rights issues or some political issues which make them not want to return to their country. Just because you are nationalist doesn't mean everyone is, or has to be.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
No I would not. We have many fine ethnic doctors and surgeons. But doesn't there country need them more than us. Especially as there countries are often badly in need of doctors and medical help. And how come our home grown white doctors just out of training say that they cant get a job. But the NHS keeps saying we need to import more doctors because we do not have enough. Odd that. Ahhh it must be that positive racism again which does the world of good in society. They mean not enough ethnic doctors stolen from other countrys.


Maybe these ethnic doctors aren't patriotic like you are. Maybe they would rather take care of their family than stay in 'their country', or maybe there is human rights issues or some political issues which make them not want to return to their country. Just because you are nationalist doesn't mean everyone is, or has to be.

Wrong. If it was just skin colour than their would be no problem. But you wont accept that their is any other difference other than skin colour despite the logical flaws in any arguments as to how we could developer different skin colour and not adapt our brains to match our surroundings too. Even though humans totally rely on their brains to survive. And their is clear evidence that their are psychological differences between races just like their is between men and woman. But you will not look at any of it. How can I consider your judgement sound if you will not look at evidence to determine your conclusion.


Please show me the biological evidence that major evolutionary differences in the brain could take place in the amount of time that the 'races' have been separated. If I remember right there has been signs of one, maybe 2 instances in known human history where intelligence has been seen to change. I think these were around 50 000 years ago, and 10 000 years ago approximately. I also think these were fairly common to all 'races'. Lets also look at the history of science. When was 'white europe' the most advanced? It wasn't until the renaisance. During the times of the crusades the arabs were much more advanced than was europe. The arabs used knowledge from the Indians. If we are talking about math, the most significant discovery in mathematics was the invention of zero by the indians. So if the races are different intellectually, then the 'white europeans' are much stupider than everyone else, and should be discriminated against by your logic. But in reality, as far as something as complex as intelligence, there was not enough time to evolve any major differences.
Madkite
25th April 2006 - 09:54 PM
QUOTE
And you know the white candidates were better how? Were you a part of the hiring board?? Its pretty stupid to assume that the white candidate is better only because they are white.


You assume I am talking about an individual cases. I am talking about policy.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And you know the white candidates were better how? Were you a part of the hiring board?? Its pretty stupid to assume that the white candidate is better only because they are white.


You assume I am talking about an individual cases. I am talking about policy.


AC Hogan-Howe stated that police regulations need to be changed to ensure that increasingly proportionate recruitment of women and ethnic minority staff was complimented by greater representation at higher ranks. He said, "We are currently restricted to a single point of entry into the police service at constable level. A method of multi-point entry would assist in increasing the proportion of female and minority ethnic officers at higher levels more quickly. I would like to see direct entry for police officers at all levels." He also pointed to the efforts being made to improve Met promotion procedures generally, tailoring them for each particular post and in doing so making them more accessible to under-represented groups.


Taken from http://www.met.police.uk/information/morri...es/29_03_04.htm

So you see the police is not interested in employing the best candidate for the job but the most politically correct one.

QUOTE
You make reference to this. What exactly are you talking about? What benefits are given to immigrants that are not given to whites in England? Please be specific, and it would help to show us the government policies which do this.


It is a little complex and I am only just starting to discover all the workings myself. You are talking about corruption as well as policy here. One of the more relevant things to do with this has been the huge influx of Polish workers. They have appeared in noticeable numbers everywhere in the past year or so. The one thing I could not figure is where they were putting them. It turns out that the companies themselves have been finding accommodation.

This is if companies are even employing legal worker and not illegal workers that the government does nothing about. I know the Galaxy chocolate company employs nearly all illegal workers and pays them slave wages while housing them. It then screws them over for all the money they payed the worker with English lessons. The worker gets nothing in the end and it amounts to no more than slave labour. The workers can't report them of course because they are illegal and a few quick back handers to officials don't go amiss too. It is hard to know whether workers are legal or illegal and the government does not care.

Then if you are the correct colour you will have all your benefit application papers filled out for you by social services. Papers that are often so long and complex for additional benefits they can go on for something like 20 to 30 pages which no lay person can fill out. My grandfathers application papers for benefit for house refurbishment was unbelievable. Having spoke to the social workers they have told me that people are entitled to lots of benefit that they simply do not claim because they cannot fill out the forms. They also say they are deliberately made that way! Unless you are prepared to go in to what actually happens and not just look at the nondiscrimination policy's than you might find out. What is more most people know all this goes on all the time. The liberals go about trying to convince people that it does not happen when it is no secrete. The whole situation is a joke.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You make reference to this. What exactly are you talking about? What benefits are given to immigrants that are not given to whites in England? Please be specific, and it would help to show us the government policies which do this.


It is a little complex and I am only just starting to discover all the workings myself. You are talking about corruption as well as policy here. One of the more relevant things to do with this has been the huge influx of Polish workers. They have appeared in noticeable numbers everywhere in the past year or so. The one thing I could not figure is where they were putting them. It turns out that the companies themselves have been finding accommodation.

This is if companies are even employing legal worker and not illegal workers that the government does nothing about. I know the Galaxy chocolate company employs nearly all illegal workers and pays them slave wages while housing them. It then screws them over for all the money they payed the worker with English lessons. The worker gets nothing in the end and it amounts to no more than slave labour. The workers can't report them of course because they are illegal and a few quick back handers to officials don't go amiss too. It is hard to know whether workers are legal or illegal and the government does not care.

Then if you are the correct colour you will have all your benefit application papers filled out for you by social services. Papers that are often so long and complex for additional benefits they can go on for something like 20 to 30 pages which no lay person can fill out. My grandfathers application papers for benefit for house refurbishment was unbelievable. Having spoke to the social workers they have told me that people are entitled to lots of benefit that they simply do not claim because they cannot fill out the forms. They also say they are deliberately made that way! Unless you are prepared to go in to what actually happens and not just look at the nondiscrimination policy's than you might find out. What is more most people know all this goes on all the time. The liberals go about trying to convince people that it does not happen when it is no secrete. The whole situation is a joke.

Maybe these ethnic doctors aren't patriotic like you are. Maybe they would rather take care of their family than stay in 'their country', or maybe there is human rights issues or some political issues which make them not want to return to their country. Just because you are nationalist doesn't mean everyone is, or has to be.


That does not change my point. Which was that the NHS will not employ English doctors because they are English. You neglected to notice that I see.

QUOTE
Please show me the biological evidence that major evolutionary differences in the brain could take place in the amount of time that the 'races' have been separated. If I remember right there has been signs of one, maybe 2 instances in known human history where intelligence has been seen to change. I think these were around 50 000 years ago, and 10 000 years ago approximately. I also think these were fairly common to all 'races'. Lets also look at the history of science. When was 'white europe' the most advanced? It wasn't until the renaisance. During the times of the crusades the arabs were much more advanced than was europe. The arabs used knowledge from the Indians. If we are talking about math, the most significant discovery in mathematics was the invention of zero by the indians. So if the races are different intellectually, then the 'white europeans' are much stupider than everyone else, and should be discriminated against by your logic. But in reality, as far as something as complex as intelligence, there was not enough time to evolve any major differences.


You show an utter ignorance of ancient history. Zero a huge discovery. Give me a brake. They might have claim to the symbol but it seems far too stupid that people did not understand 0 before then. Hmm the Romans were so backward weren't they. The Greeks must have been stupid to make the first geared movement clocks. You should learn about ancient European technology before you start saying that it was backward. It is quite arguable that Christianity set Europe back 1000+ years.

And as we can alter the personality of animals as well as their physical characteristics by selective breading in a reasonably short time then how does this not apply to man. You talk like we are not subject to the same rules as the rest of the animal kingdom. Prove that in the time it took to evolve different skin colour and bone structures that our personality and intelligence could not alter. It defies all reason. And I did post evidence and you refused to read it so whats the point. The link is in my sig so go look and say where it is wrong. You still have not to this day.



Steveo
25th April 2006 - 10:34 PM
QUOTE
Zero a huge discovery. Give me a brake.


Are you insane? As far as abstract mathematics goes that IS the most important discovery. Of course the concept of zero was known. But the concept of representing zero in an abstract sense with a symbol is very significant. It makes things much simplier. And to top it all off......modern computing would be impossible without the concept of zero. I would argue that computers are one of the most important advancement so far in human history.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Zero a huge discovery. Give me a brake.


Are you insane? As far as abstract mathematics goes that IS the most important discovery. Of course the concept of zero was known. But the concept of representing zero in an abstract sense with a symbol is very significant. It makes things much simplier. And to top it all off......modern computing would be impossible without the concept of zero. I would argue that computers are one of the most important advancement so far in human history.

They might have claim to the symbol but it seems far too stupid that people did not understand 0 before then. Hmm the Romans were so backward weren't they. The Greeks must have been stupid to make the first geared movement clocks. You should learn about ancient European technology before you start saying that it was backward. It is quite arguable that Christianity set Europe back 1000+ years.


I specifically said science, not technology. The two are quite different. Rome was much more an engineering society rather than one that valued abstract science for the sake of learning. You do bring up something interesting though, in that technology and science for the most part progressed separately, and infact technology before the science until probably the 18th century. I also didn't say European technology was backwards, I said their science was not as advanced. Don't go putting words in my mouth, there is a huge difference between the two statements. One of the main reasons (as I have read) for Europe's victory's over the arabs is because of being able to fight on horse back. Where did they get this technology? They didn't invent it, they got it indirectly from the chinese. The chinese were the first to invent the stirrup, and this is neccessary to fight on horseback. You erroneously assume that all major discoveries trace back to white Europeans, and this is false.

QUOTE
And as we can alter the personality of animals as well as their physical characteristics by selective breading in a reasonably short time then how does this not apply to man. You talk like we are not subject to the same rules as the rest of the animal kingdom. Prove that in the time it took to evolve different skin colour and bone structures that our personality and intelligence could not alter. It defies all reason. And I did post evidence and you refused to read it so whats the point. The link is in my sig so go look and say where it is wrong. You still have not to this day.


That may be the case, but no society I know of had structured selective breeding like we have done in the domestication of animals. That speeds evolution up a lot. Do you really think the evolution of something as 'simple' as skin pigment compares at all to changes in something so complex as the human brain? Come on
Drude
25th April 2006 - 10:53 PM
QUOTE
The rest of your arguments show a very basic, "Fox News/CNN two-minute info-tainment spot" understanding


Holy *** I am not alone in this biggrin.gif cool.gif

I like to add also that his stupid is also showing.
StevenA
26th April 2006 - 12:10 PM
If youth in France feel they need government coercion to hold a job, France is further down the socialist tubes than I'd imagined. It's that mentality that will continue to tear the place apart. I've come to realize there's little need to debate a lot of this stuff as it seems many places in the world are simply going to learn the hard way how to keep an economy running.
Madkite
26th April 2006 - 12:13 PM
QUOTE
That may be the case, but no society I know of had structured selective breeding like we have done in the domestication of animals. That speeds evolution up a lot. Do you really think the evolution of something as 'simple' as skin pigment compares at all to changes in something so complex as the human brain? Come on


Yes but supposedly we appeared about 50000 years ago right. And civilisations are not supposed (As far as we know) to have got going until 10000 years ago. So you have 40000 years of hunting and basic farming while living in small community's at best. Are these not harsh times where survival of the best adapted person would come in to play. You seem to think this is all about skin pigment. There are fare more deferences between races that just there colour. But you ignore them and just keep going on about skin colour. And where is the evidence to suggest that one takes longer to change than the other. We are not talking about making apes as intelligent as us here. We are talking about the general personality's and the ratio of highly intelligent people out of a given number.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That may be the case, but no society I know of had structured selective breeding like we have done in the domestication of animals. That speeds evolution up a lot. Do you really think the evolution of something as 'simple' as skin pigment compares at all to changes in something so complex as the human brain? Come on


Yes but supposedly we appeared about 50000 years ago right. And civilisations are not supposed (As far as we know) to have got going until 10000 years ago. So you have 40000 years of hunting and basic farming while living in small community's at best. Are these not harsh times where survival of the best adapted person would come in to play. You seem to think this is all about skin pigment. There are fare more deferences between races that just there colour. But you ignore them and just keep going on about skin colour. And where is the evidence to suggest that one takes longer to change than the other. We are not talking about making apes as intelligent as us here. We are talking about the general personality's and the ratio of highly intelligent people out of a given number.

They didn't invent it, they got it indirectly from the chinese. The chinese were the first to invent the stirrup, and this is neccessary to fight on horseback. You erroneously assume that all major discoveries trace back to white Europeans, and this is false.


Actually it has been found that the Roman saddle which had no stirrups and was supposed to be ineffective is very good for fighting on. To think that stirrups are the only way to ride a horse effectively and their is no other is wrong. We later adopted the modern system but the Roman one was as good. It had to be and if it was not they would have changed it.

QUOTE
I specifically said science, not technology. The two are quite different. Rome was much more an engineering society rather than one that valued abstract science for the sake of learning. You do bring up something interesting though, in that technology and science for the most part progressed separately, and infact technology before the science until probably the 18th century. I also didn't say European technology was backwards, I said their science was not as advanced. Don't go putting words in my mouth, there is a huge difference between the two statements.


You did not make that clear at all.
Steveo
26th April 2006 - 03:34 PM
QUOTE
Actually it has been found that the Roman saddle which had no stirrups and was supposed to be ineffective is very good for fighting on. To think that stirrups are the only way to ride a horse effectively and their is no other is wrong. We later adopted the modern system but the Roman one was as good. It had to be and if it was not they would have changed it.


Maybe so, but from what I have read, during the time of the crusades the Europeans used stirrups, which was invented by the chinese. I don't know anything about the Roman saddle, so I can not really comment on it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Actually it has been found that the Roman saddle which had no stirrups and was supposed to be ineffective is very good for fighting on. To think that stirrups are the only way to ride a horse effectively and their is no other is wrong. We later adopted the modern system but the Roman one was as good. It had to be and if it was not they would have changed it.


Maybe so, but from what I have read, during the time of the crusades the Europeans used stirrups, which was invented by the chinese. I don't know anything about the Roman saddle, so I can not really comment on it.

QUOTE
I specifically said science, not technology. The two are quite different. Rome was much more an engineering society rather than one that valued abstract science for the sake of learning. You do bring up something interesting though, in that technology and science for the most part progressed separately, and infact technology before the science until probably the 18th century. I also didn't say European technology was backwards, I said their science was not as advanced. Don't go putting words in my mouth, there is a huge difference between the two statements.


You did not make that clear at all.


QUOTE

Please show me the biological evidence that major evolutionary differences in the brain could take place in the amount of time that the 'races' have been separated. If I remember right there has been signs of one, maybe 2 instances in known human history where intelligence has been seen to change. I think these were around 50 000 years ago, and 10 000 years ago approximately. I also think these were fairly common to all 'races'. Lets also look at the history of science. When was 'white europe' the most advanced? It wasn't until the renaisance. During the times of the crusades the arabs were much more advanced than was europe. The arabs used knowledge from the Indians. If we are talking about math, the most significant discovery in mathematics was the invention of zero by the indians. So if the races are different intellectually, then the 'white europeans' are much stupider than everyone else, and should be discriminated against by your logic. But in reality, as far as something as complex as intelligence, there was not enough time to evolve any major differences.


I said science, not technology....thought that might have been clear....guess not.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Please show me the biological evidence that major evolutionary differences in the brain could take place in the amount of time that the 'races' have been separated. If I remember right there has been signs of one, maybe 2 instances in known human history where intelligence has been seen to change. I think these were around 50 000 years ago, and 10 000 years ago approximately. I also think these were fairly common to all 'races'. Lets also look at the history of science. When was 'white europe' the most advanced? It wasn't until the renaisance. During the times of the crusades the arabs were much more advanced than was europe. The arabs used knowledge from the Indians. If we are talking about math, the most significant discovery in mathematics was the invention of zero by the indians. So if the races are different intellectually, then the 'white europeans' are much stupider than everyone else, and should be discriminated against by your logic. But in reality, as far as something as complex as intelligence, there was not enough time to evolve any major differences.


I said science, not technology....thought that might have been clear....guess not.

Yes but supposedly we appeared about 50000 years ago right. And civilisations are not supposed (As far as we know) to have got going until 10000 years ago. So you have 40000 years of hunting and basic farming while living in small community's at best. Are these not harsh times where survival of the best adapted person would come in to play. You seem to think this is all about skin pigment. There are fare more deferences between races that just there colour. But you ignore them and just keep going on about skin colour. And where is the evidence to suggest that one takes longer to change than the other. We are not talking about making apes as intelligent as us here. We are talking about the general personality's and the ratio of highly intelligent people out of a given number.


If you also look at the emergence of societies in different parts of the world they seemed to follow a similar trend. They were driven by environmental changes, and started with farming technology and the domestication of animals. This suggests that all of the races at different parts of the world had similar intelligence, and that no significant differences in intelligence exist.
sinned34
26th April 2006 - 07:57 PM
QUOTE
If their was no discrimination then all the workers would need the same wages to survive so it would make no difference as to which people you employed from a financial point of view.


That statement is completely false. Why are immigrants willing to work for so little, even "slave wages" as you called them? Because where they come from, they cannot even afford to put food on their table. Many of them are just happy to be able to feed their children, whereas your average born-in-country resident cannot imagine an existence without cable television, high speed internet, vehicle ownership, steak and potatoes 3-4 nights a week, eating at restaurants once or twice a week, alcoholic beverages, etc, etc.
There are illegal immigrants that make $1000 per month in the United States that can pay for all their necessities for themselves and STILL afford to send $500/month to family in their country of origin.

In a free market, wouldn't ALL businesses want to hire workers that are willing to work hard, long, and for very little?

Nationalist economics are not going to work very well, especially in a first world country like England. Where do you plan to get all your petrol from? I know little about the economy in Great Britain, but is there enough arable land to grow enough food to feed your population? If not, from where will you obtain the necessities to even RUN an economy? Many (if not most) of the products that you purchase have been produced in another country where labour is cheap )or cannot even be produced in England), otherwise those items would cost multiples more than what you already pay. Do you think a $12,000 (sorry, I don't know the conversion to British Pounds) car could be built in England? I doubt it.

Importing and exporting becomes very difficult if you have heavy protectionist policies. The answer? Honestly, I don't know. I have only basic training in economics and business. What is obvious in these modern times is that most countries require a delicate balance of capitalism, communism, protectionist, and globalistic policies with at least a smattering of progressive human conscience.
Drude
26th April 2006 - 10:02 PM
I like to see what America has to nag about France, in about 70 years when America under the strain of huge debts caused by its futile wars in middle east, would have to beg France and the European Union, and Japan for economic aid and educational support.
Archer
27th April 2006 - 12:28 AM
QUOTE (Drude+Apr 26 2006, 10:02 PM)
I like to see what America has to nag about France, in about 70 years when America under the strain of huge debts caused by its futile wars in middle east, would have to beg France and the European Union, and Japan for economic aid and educational support.

Still listening for that LOUD POP Drude..



what pop?




The one that will happen when you pull your HEAD OUT!

If America is so bad, and France is so great, why do you live in AMERICA? dont blame ya I wouldnt want to live in France either as I shower a lot more than once a week, and I like earning money.. it would seem you are the SAME! did I let your secret out?
StevenA
27th April 2006 - 11:17 AM
QUOTE (Drude+Apr 26 2006, 10:02 PM)
I like to see what America has to nag about France, in about 70 years when America under the strain of huge debts caused by its futile wars in middle east, would have to beg France and the European Union, and Japan for economic aid and educational support.

Likely true though I doubt by that time Europe will be in much of a position to offer assistance either. Europe, for the most part, is further along the path of socialism than the U.S. (though the U.S. is catching up quickly)
sinned34
27th April 2006 - 03:17 PM
QUOTE
Likely true though I doubt by that time Europe will be in much of a position to offer assistance either. Europe, for the most part, is further along the path of socialism than the U.S. (though the U.S. is catching up quickly)


So what happens if the United States "experiment" fails before some of those more socialist countries? You are wrong with your thinking that the less capitalist and more socialist a country is, the less likely that country is to be able to help others. As mentioned above by both myself and Madkite, pure capitalism is as bad as pure socialism. There are also many more factors in having a successful economy other than just how socialist or capitalist a country's government is.
Madkite
27th April 2006 - 04:44 PM
QUOTE
In a free market, wouldn't ALL businesses want to hire workers that are willing to work hard, long, and for very little?


Businesses has got so obsessed with short term profit that they do not take in to account the ultimate consequences of their actions. It is extremely self destructive. The illegal workers do not get hardly anything like what your talking about. Here they are payed next to nothing. The ones at the factory I mentioned actually ended up in debt to the factory because it screwed them over. You would be lucky to pay the rent on what they earn.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In a free market, wouldn't ALL businesses want to hire workers that are willing to work hard, long, and for very little?


Businesses has got so obsessed with short term profit that they do not take in to account the ultimate consequences of their actions. It is extremely self destructive. The illegal workers do not get hardly anything like what your talking about. Here they are payed next to nothing. The ones at the factory I mentioned actually ended up in debt to the factory because it screwed them over. You would be lucky to pay the rent on what they earn.

Nationalist economics are not going to work very well, especially in a first world country like England. Where do you plan to get all your petrol from? I know little about the economy in Great Britain, but is there enough arable land to grow enough food to feed your population? If not, from where will you obtain the necessities to even RUN an economy? Many (if not most) of the products that you purchase have been produced in another country where labour is cheap )or cannot even be produced in England), otherwise those items would cost multiples more than what you already pay. Do you think a $12,000 (sorry, I don't know the conversion to British Pounds) car could be built in England? I doubt it.


Nationalist economics does not mean you cannot import or export. But if something is being produced in your country then why force the factory to compete with China. It can't and will just fold. It has to be protected. It might mean we have to pay a bit more but that is better than economic collapse. Relying on service industry for all our wealth is going to get us nowhere. I do not see an easy way out of this situation and the current governments does not seem interested in solving the problem. We cannot compete with the east and they will soon take away the few things still left to sell them. Nobody can just buy. I fear this will end horribly for everybody. unsure.gif

Steveo
27th April 2006 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE
Likely true though I doubt by that time Europe will be in much of a position to offer assistance either. Europe, for the most part, is further along the path of socialism than the U.S. (though the U.S. is catching up quickly)


Correct me if I am wrong, but under the Bush administration hasn't the United States been moving more and more to the right? Isn't that the point of voting in a republican government over the democrats? Maybe I am way off, but the things Bush has been doing does not seem moving towards socialism to me.
MMC
27th April 2006 - 04:52 PM
QUOTE

In a free market, wouldn't ALL businesses want to hire workers that are willing to work hard, long, and for very little?


We call that exploitation...

In fact, if you sit and think about it, you have no choice but to work. The lack of choice makes it "slavery".

Combine that with the fact that those that claim to "own" any resource (oil, minerials, or even land) obtained their 'wealth' through theft by their ancestors, it makes them accessories after the fact.

No one "owns" anything, its has all been stolen over the centuries.

Definition of a business person - A Thief trying to make slaves out the human race...
GeneSplicer
27th April 2006 - 05:05 PM
QUOTE (Steveo+Apr 27 2006, 12:51 PM)
Maybe I am way off, but the things Bush has been doing does not seem moving towards socialism to me.

Steveo,

Yes, one could argue that you are off, not way off, but off. Bush has backed and signed into law large socialistic “services”. Using history as a reference, small socialistic services or programs only do one thing once implements; they grow. The particular service I am thinking of is the senior free-drug plan. Projected to cost X, actually costs XXX and will cots XX5 in the near future.

Never confuse a party with ideology. The ideologies of conservatism and liberalism are rarely served by either the Republicans or Democrats.

Take for example the recent and ongoing struggle Ted Kennedy has been waging against windmill generators in his homes state. We are told that this form of alternative energy production is a highly viable technology and should be implemented everywhere possible. Yet, Kennedy has stood in the way of its implementation in his state for years now. He has used many excuses, finally breaking down to say that the state should make the decision. This is laughable since Kennedy is the last person to back any form of state’s rights.
GeneSplicer
27th April 2006 - 05:10 PM
QUOTE
Definition of a business person - A Thief trying to make slaves out the human race...


Wow, considering that the majority of businesses in the U.S are small business, you just insulted a huge amount of people with one simplistic and uninformed castigation.
MMC
27th April 2006 - 05:12 PM
QUOTE

Yes, one could argue that you are off, not way off, but off. Bush has backed and signed into law large socialistic “services”. Using history as a reference, small socialistic services or programs only do one thing once implements; they grow. The particular service I am thinking of is the senior free-drug plan. Projected to cost X, actually costs XXX and will cots XX5 in the near future.


Is this a good or bad thing?

Living in the UK means that you have access to a 'National Health Service'. Every citizen is ENTITLED to FREE healthcare.

Any nation that places money before human life, really needs to take a long hard look at it social ethics and morality.
GeneSplicer
27th April 2006 - 05:26 PM
QUOTE (MMC+Apr 27 2006, 01:12 PM)
Is this a good or bad thing?

Living in the UK means that you have access to a 'National Health Service'.  Every citizen is ENTITLED to FREE healthcare.

Any nation that places money before human life, really needs to take a long hard look at it social ethics and morality.

Considering the inequities such government run institutions create, not to mention the waste, this would be a very bad thing.

Any nation that make a person’s desire to indulge in self-determination a crime creates forced servitude. I think you generically call it slavery.
MMC
27th April 2006 - 05:36 PM
QUOTE

Considering the inequities such government run institutions create, not to mention the waste, this would be a very bad thing.


Mis-management and government officials trying to undermine such services produce such problems.

What's the difference between Medical insurance and health care via taxation?

The elimination of profiteering and the protection of the most vunerable in society...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Considering the inequities such government run institutions create, not to mention the waste, this would be a very bad thing.


Mis-management and government officials trying to undermine such services produce such problems.

What's the difference between Medical insurance and health care via taxation?

The elimination of profiteering and the protection of the most vunerable in society...



Any nation that make a person’s desire to indulge in self-determination a crime creates forced servitude. I think you generically call it slavery.


Capitalism is not self-determination...it is long term theft.

Democracy and Capitalism are completely different concepts.
GeneSplicer
27th April 2006 - 05:45 PM
QUOTE
Mis-management and government officials trying to undermine such services produce such problems.

What's the difference between Medical insurance and health care via taxation?

The elimination of profiteering and the protection of the most vunerable in society...


Right. So every attempt at implementation of such socialistic structures has always met with failure due to this rather than inherent flaws in the ideology. Those who cry the most about the vulnerable are often the one just interested in power and control over the lives of the common man.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mis-management and government officials trying to undermine such services produce such problems.

What's the difference between Medical insurance and health care via taxation?

The elimination of profiteering and the protection of the most vunerable in society...


Right. So every attempt at implementation of such socialistic structures has always met with failure due to this rather than inherent flaws in the ideology. Those who cry the most about the vulnerable are often the one just interested in power and control over the lives of the common man.

Capitalism is not self-determination...it is long term theft.


Coming from a person who castigates all businessmen as thieves, this doesn’t surprise me. You’re sounding more and more like nothing more than a socialistic parrot.

QUOTE
Democracy and Capitalism are completely different concepts.


You are right. Democracy is anarchy and has nothing to do with self-determination or the concept of protecting personal freedoms.
MMC
27th April 2006 - 07:06 PM
QUOTE

Right. So every attempt at implementation of such socialistic structures has always met with failure due to this rather than inherent flaws in the ideology. Those who cry the most about the vulnerable are often the one just interested in power and control over the lives of the common man.


It hasn't met with failure here...we have FREE healthcare.

The 'virus-like' behaviour of capitalism uses people's selfishness to undermine such policies.




QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Right. So every attempt at implementation of such socialistic structures has always met with failure due to this rather than inherent flaws in the ideology. Those who cry the most about the vulnerable are often the one just interested in power and control over the lives of the common man.


It hasn't met with failure here...we have FREE healthcare.

The 'virus-like' behaviour of capitalism uses people's selfishness to undermine such policies.





Coming from a person who castigates all businessmen as thieves, this doesn’t surprise me. You’re sounding more and more like nothing more than a socialistic parrot.


Its the truth, like it or not. Nobody owns anything, it was stolen throughout centuries and passed from generation to generation...

Blood money...

If you have a problem with that description, then you simply have a problem with the truth.



QUOTE

You are right. Democracy is anarchy and has nothing to do with self-determination or the concept of protecting personal freedoms.


Apparently, your twisted notion of 'personal freedoms' includes the right to steal this planet and its resources.

They belong to no one.

Ownership is a concept...it exists only in the mind...a mental disease driven by basic genetic instincts.

That puts capitalism on par with acts such as rape, etc.
GeneSplicer
27th April 2006 - 07:23 PM
QUOTE
It hasn't met with failure here...we have FREE healthcare.


Yet, and besides, nothing is free. You pay for it via taxes and the state forcibly taking from you. I guess that type of rape you like.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It hasn't met with failure here...we have FREE healthcare.


Yet, and besides, nothing is free. You pay for it via taxes and the state forcibly taking from you. I guess that type of rape you like.

The 'virus-like' behaviour of capitalism uses people's selfishness to undermine such policies.


More like allows people to engage in activities of their choosing rather than forcing a single, cookie-cutter solution onto everyone.

QUOTE
Its the truth, like it or not. Nobody owns anything, it was stolen throughout centuries and passed from generation to generation...

Blood money... 

If you have a problem with that description, then you simply have a problem with the truth.


Not really. I have problems with simplistic and negative myrmidons who can only ridicule or castigate that witch they either disagree with or simple hate.

You don’t speak any “truth", just ideologue propaganda.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Its the truth, like it or not. Nobody owns anything, it was stolen throughout centuries and passed from generation to generation...

Blood money... 

If you have a problem with that description, then you simply have a problem with the truth.


Not really. I have problems with simplistic and negative myrmidons who can only ridicule or castigate that witch they either disagree with or simple hate.

You don’t speak any “truth", just ideologue propaganda.

Apparently, your twisted notion of 'personal freedoms' includes the right to steal this planet and its resources.


I never mentioned ownership of anything. I spoke specifically of self-determination. The subject of ownership is baggage you seem preoccupied with.

QUOTE
They belong to no one.


More simplistic and utopian rhetoric.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
They belong to no one.


More simplistic and utopian rhetoric.

Ownership is a concept...it exists only in the mind...a mental disease driven by basic genetic instincts.


Another concept is the freedom-robbing socialism which tries to impose the nonsensical notion that all men are equal to the point of lunacy and erosion of freedoms. As so aptly sated in a signature, free men are not equal, equal men are not free.

QUOTE
That puts capitalism on par with acts such as rape, etc.


Only in the mind of the simplistic and hate-filled reactionary.
StevenA
27th April 2006 - 07:34 PM
QUOTE (StevenA+Apr 27 2006, 11:17 AM)
QUOTE (Drude+Apr 26 2006, 10:02 PM)
I like to see what America has to nag about France, in about 70 years when America under the strain of huge debts caused by its futile wars in middle east, would have to beg France and the European Union, and Japan for economic aid and educational support.

Likely true though I doubt by that time Europe will be in much of a position to offer assistance either. Europe, for the most part, is further along the path of socialism than the U.S. (though the U.S. is catching up quickly)

America is only half capitalistic. How do things like emminent domain and property taxes correlate with capitalistic ideas of individual private property and free market exchanges? These seem a lot closer to communist ideals, IMO.

The war in Iraq doesn't represent capitalism either ... how does tromping around on someone elses land equate with respecting their property rights? The issue in America is the breakdown of capitalism in favor of a more mercantile system, with government involvement in economic issues. We've got corporate as well as social welfare and government granted monopolies in industries occur all the time.

Ideally, a government should simply be a peacekeeper and arbitrator, not social planner and ruler.
Madkite
27th April 2006 - 07:59 PM
People in my country do not realise that there property rights have been taken away already.

If I am fined for a crime and refuse to pay in the old system where property was a right I could be jailed. This would nullify the debt of the fine but at no point was the government (And note the distinction between this an having a debt to a private individual) allowed to take my property (Including money) for any financial reason. It could jail me for not paying but not make me pay.

Now quite recently they have given themselves the right to take the money directly from my bank account and send bailiffs round (Which they gave powers to brake in to locked houses which was illegal before) and take my property to repay the debt. This even now applies to council tax. So if I do not pay my tribute to the government to rent my property I can have it seized as state property. You can throw me in jail but not take what is mine even my money if you want to claim to have property rights in a country.

They did all this and everyone thought nothing of it. Just another set of laws like any other in the eyes of the media.

Communism 101 more like.

MMC What is mine is mine not because I have stolen it but because I will kill anybody who tries to steel it. Therefor it is mine as ling as I can fight. You kill me and it is yours.
StevenA
27th April 2006 - 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Madkite+Apr 27 2006, 07:59 PM)
People in my country do not realise that there property rights have been taken away already.

If I am fined for a crime and refuse to pay in the old system where property was a right I could be jailed. This would nullify the debt of the fine but at no point was the government (And note the distinction between this an having a debt to a private individual) allowed to take my property (Including money) for any financial reason. It could jail me for not paying but not make me pay.

Now quite recently they have given themselves the right to take the money directly from my bank account and send bailiffs round (Which they gave powers to brake in to locked houses which was illegal before) and take my property to repay the debt. This even now applies to council tax. So if I do not pay my tribute to the government to rent my property I can have it seized as state property. You can throw me in jail but not take what is mine even my money if you want to claim to have property rights in a country.

They did all this and everyone thought nothing of it. Just another set of laws like any other in the eyes of the media.

Communism 101 more like.

MMC What is mine is mine not because I have stolen it but because I will kill anybody who tries to steel it. Therefor it is mine as ling as I can fight. You kill me and it is yours.

Thank you for posting this. I've had thoughts along these lines before. How can you starve a beast that simply eats what it wants? It may be that starving the beast isn't an option anymore ...

If I had an unjust ruling against me, I'd prefer to do to jail also than pay to support a corrupt system, but if the resources can simply be taken forcefully then there seems to be little difference between that and a system of slave labor. In the U.S. we supposedly abolished slavery, yet people work a good part of their time paying taxes and fines in a multitude of ways.

And returning a bit more along the lines of the thread (ok, still somewhat offthread but only for those who don't understand the correlation) ... I believe it was Norway that is often cited as an example of a success in socialism but that's not the case. Socialism there is limited to only a few aspects, while the large majority of the economy is still private and the socialized areas have led to a general apathy in the workplace (at least that's my view of the cause/effect relationship) and slowing economy. I apologize for not posting links but I've read multiple articles regarding this as well as movement there toward returning to a private system.

This caution I have is not "privatize" like George Bush uses the term - which means have government give ownership to one of your corporate buddies, but truly privatize, as in let people, earn what they can, keep what they have and spend it as they wish.
StevenA
27th April 2006 - 09:04 PM
Here's the perfect solution I'd love to see happen - let socialists have their utopia, including government jobs etc. but simply expect them to respect the rights of others to not support their dogma.

Good fences make good neighbors. In the U.S. you could simply allow some states to pursue socialism and others to pursue alternate paths (along the lines of stronger individual private property rights along the lines of "a man is king of his own castle") and see which works better. Hey, if one or the other proves to not be as good as envisioned, at least having the option of living under what system works best for you would remove a large amount of political conflict and resolve things in a more tangible way that simply political debates. It's the one-size-government-fits-all idea that seems to be the root of the problem.
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 03:10 PM
Finally this thread has gotten interesting. I don't have much time at the moment, so I will comment on a few things, but later, when I have time to do my research I will post more.
Genesplicer, with regards to private verses public healthcare, something that I heard that really surprised me is that apparently public health care, like we have here in Canada is actually more cost effective than privatized health care. Even if it was less cost effective, I think its a better idea though. In a private system, the best doctors are only going to help the rich people who can pay them the most, so you get a system where poor people are in worse health because they are just poor. I also think that when a person gets sick, or has an accident its a shame that they have to worry about being able to get treatment because of financial reasons. I personally can't understand how any civilized society can let their sick be left untaken care of. Anyways, I am going to do some research on this to see if what I have heard is infact accurate.

QUOTE
People in my country do not realise that there property rights have been taken away already.

If I am fined for a crime and refuse to pay in the old system where property was a right I could be jailed. This would nullify the debt of the fine but at no point was the government (And note the distinction between this an having a debt to a private individual) allowed to take my property (Including money) for any financial reason. It could jail me for not paying but not make me pay.

Now quite recently they have given themselves the right to take the money directly from my bank account and send bailiffs round (Which they gave powers to brake in to locked houses which was illegal before) and take my property to repay the debt. This even now applies to council tax. So if I do not pay my tribute to the government to rent my property I can have it seized as state property. You can throw me in jail but not take what is mine even my money if you want to claim to have property rights in a country.

They did all this and everyone thought nothing of it. Just another set of laws like any other in the eyes of the media.

Communism 101 more like.

MMC What is mine is mine not because I have stolen it but because I will kill anybody who tries to steel it. Therefor it is mine as ling as I can fight. You kill me and it is yours.


Madkite, I agree that what you describe is definately getting rid of property rights, however that is NOT communism. Not in the least. It may be similar to what the Soviet government might have done, but the Soviet Union was NOT communism, they just claimed to be.

Also, for all of the people here who are promoting capitalism, just be thankful the American government isn't more capitalistic. Wouldn't it suck to have to pave all of the roads infront of houses yourself, and pay everytime you left a road that you did not built? Some things its nice to have the government do.
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 03:21 PM
QUOTE
Compared to other countries with similar economies, Canada's spending is in the ballpark, according to a report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The latest figures on what countries spend on health care come from 2002, when Canada spent 9.6 per cent of GDP on health care:

    * France 9.7%.
    * Germany 10.9%.
    * Denmark 8.8%.
    * Sweden 9.2%.

At the high end of the scale is the United States, which spent 14.6 per cent of GDP on health care.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthca...riceofcare.html

Interestingly health care costs less for the economy in the 'socialist' countries....even if we are forced to give up money in our taxes, its probably worth it. Security.....and cheaper on the whole. Anyways, found this really fast....will look for more stuff later
GeneSplicer
28th April 2006 - 04:09 PM
QUOTE
Genesplicer, with regards to private verses public healthcare, something that I heard that really surprised me is that apparently public health care, like we have here in Canada is actually more cost effective than privatized health care. Even if it was less cost effective, I think its a better idea though.


Steveo,
With al dues respect, the Canadian health care system is far efficient and effective than private health care. Cost effective, perhaps, but I would not design or rely upon a health care system based upon cost.

In Canada, you have to wait for treatment and such waits have resulted in deaths, patients becoming addicted to pain killers while waiting for join treatment or replacement, ad the added pain, both physical and emotional, just having to wait for treatment of conditions.

In Canada, if your pet is injured, it can receive immediate treatment including any and all medical tests such as MRI needed. You can even purchase a health insurance policy for your pets. I might be wrong, but is that not illegal by law to purchase such health insurance for people in Canada?

Also take into account the Canadian Supreme Court ruling regarding the inadequacies regarding the Canadian health care system. LINK

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Genesplicer, with regards to private verses public healthcare, something that I heard that really surprised me is that apparently public health care, like we have here in Canada is actually more cost effective than privatized health care. Even if it was less cost effective, I think its a better idea though.


Steveo,
With al dues respect, the Canadian health care system is far efficient and effective than private health care. Cost effective, perhaps, but I would not design or rely upon a health care system based upon cost.

In Canada, you have to wait for treatment and such waits have resulted in deaths, patients becoming addicted to pain killers while waiting for join treatment or replacement, ad the added pain, both physical and emotional, just having to wait for treatment of conditions.

In Canada, if your pet is injured, it can receive immediate treatment including any and all medical tests such as MRI needed. You can even purchase a health insurance policy for your pets. I might be wrong, but is that not illegal by law to purchase such health insurance for people in Canada?

Also take into account the Canadian Supreme Court ruling regarding the inadequacies regarding the Canadian health care system. LINK

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn't have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn't have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin's use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.


QUOTE
In a private system, the best doctors are only going to help the rich people who can pay them the most, so you get a system where poor people are in worse health because they are just poor.


I’m surprised at this comment coming form you Steveo. This sounds more like a simple mantra rather than a rational comment. I would never argue that there are doctors who seek to and cater only to those with money, but you just dismiss a huge amount of doctors who diligently server the public at large.

The constant cries of the poor being left behind is not realistic. It is against the law for any hospital in the U.S. to refuse treatment to anyone in need. A rich person or a poor person in the emergency room receive the same level of treatment.

Access to preventative care should be a priority and the poor or even the very young do not always seek or can find such care. That is an issue I think need to be addressed.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In a private system, the best doctors are only going to help the rich people who can pay them the most, so you get a system where poor people are in worse health because they are just poor.


I’m surprised at this comment coming form you Steveo. This sounds more like a simple mantra rather than a rational comment. I would never argue that there are doctors who seek to and cater only to those with money, but you just dismiss a huge amount of doctors who diligently server the public at large.

The constant cries of the poor being left behind is not realistic. It is against the law for any hospital in the U.S. to refuse treatment to anyone in need. A rich person or a poor person in the emergency room receive the same level of treatment.

Access to preventative care should be a priority and the poor or even the very young do not always seek or can find such care. That is an issue I think need to be addressed.

I also think that when a person gets sick, or has an accident its a shame that they have to worry about being able to get treatment because of financial reasons. I personally can't understand how any civilized society can let their sick be left untaken care of. Anyways, I am going to do some research on this to see if what I have heard is infact accurate.


Again, in the U.S. the emergency rooms do not turn anyone away due to lack of insurance.

What about the Canadian citizen that seeks out U.S. medical aid and pays for it out of pocket? Was there not also a bit of controversy over politicians who use private health care while the Canadian citizens cannot?

QUOTE
Also, for all of the people here who are promoting capitalism, just be thankful the American government isn't more capitalistic. Wouldn't it suck to have to pave all of the roads infront of houses yourself, and pay everytime you left a road that you did not built? Some things its nice to have the government do.


That is not capitalism, but libertarian anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. These are very extreme ideologies of capitalism that is based on the utopian idea of a stateless society. That is not what more traditional capitalistic models would present.
GeneSplicer
28th April 2006 - 04:15 PM
QUOTE (Steveo+Apr 28 2006, 11:21 AM)
QUOTE
Compared to other countries with similar economies, Canada's spending is in the ballpark, according to a report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The latest figures on what countries spend on health care come from 2002, when Canada spent 9.6 per cent of GDP on health care:

    * France 9.7%.
    * Germany 10.9%.
    * Denmark 8.8%.
    * Sweden 9.2%.

At the high end of the scale is the United States, which spent 14.6 per cent of GDP on health care.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthca...riceofcare.html

Interestingly health care costs less for the economy in the 'socialist' countries....even if we are forced to give up money in our taxes, its probably worth it. Security.....and cheaper on the whole. Anyways, found this really fast....will look for more stuff later

I would need to verify that this report is not like others that play fast and loose with comparisons. Such as the item “similar economies”, which the US and Canada do not have in common, yet the comparison is made.

Also take into account that the U.S. has a huge illegal immigrant population that is uninsured yet covered by law at hospitals for medical aid. Do all these countries also provide free aid to illegal immigrants or just visitiors from other countries? I know that Canada and England for example will take care of a visitor form another country, but what about illegal aliens?
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 06:32 PM
QUOTE
Steveo,
With al dues respect, the Canadian health care system is far efficient and effective than private health care. Cost effective, perhaps, but I would not design or rely upon a health care system based upon cost.

In Canada, you have to wait for treatment and such waits have resulted in deaths, patients becoming addicted to pain killers while waiting for join treatment or replacement, ad the added pain, both physical and emotional, just having to wait for treatment of conditions.

In Canada, if your pet is injured, it can receive immediate treatment including any and all medical tests such as MRI needed. You can even purchase a health insurance policy for your pets. I might be wrong, but is that not illegal by law to purchase such health insurance for people in Canada?

Also take into account the Canadian Supreme Court ruling regarding the inadequacies regarding the Canadian health care system.


I never ment to imply that our healthcare system is great. Infact it blows! We are not totally public, as 'non essential' treatments are privatized. What Health care covers here is not actually very much, and even here, if you don't have a health plan through work, your still in trouble if you get sick most likely. You can also purchase health insurance through Blue Cross (there may be others....As I am 22 and a student I am covered by my mothers plan at her work still I have no need to find out at the moment).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Steveo,
With al dues respect, the Canadian health care system is far efficient and effective than private health care. Cost effective, perhaps, but I would not design or rely upon a health care system based upon cost.

In Canada, you have to wait for treatment and such waits have resulted in deaths, patients becoming addicted to pain killers while waiting for join treatment or replacement, ad the added pain, both physical and emotional, just having to wait for treatment of conditions.

In Canada, if your pet is injured, it can receive immediate treatment including any and all medical tests such as MRI needed. You can even purchase a health insurance policy for your pets. I might be wrong, but is that not illegal by law to purchase such health insurance for people in Canada?

Also take into account the Canadian Supreme Court ruling regarding the inadequacies regarding the Canadian health care system.


I never ment to imply that our healthcare system is great. Infact it blows! We are not totally public, as 'non essential' treatments are privatized. What Health care covers here is not actually very much, and even here, if you don't have a health plan through work, your still in trouble if you get sick most likely. You can also purchase health insurance through Blue Cross (there may be others....As I am 22 and a student I am covered by my mothers plan at her work still I have no need to find out at the moment).


QUOTE
In a private system, the best doctors are only going to help the rich people who can pay them the most, so you get a system where poor people are in worse health because they are just poor.


I’m surprised at this comment coming form you Steveo. This sounds more like a simple mantra rather than a rational comment. I would never argue that there are doctors who seek to and cater only to those with money, but you just dismiss a huge amount of doctors who diligently server the public at large.

The constant cries of the poor being left behind is not realistic. It is against the law for any hospital in the U.S. to refuse treatment to anyone in need. A rich person or a poor person in the emergency room receive the same level of treatment.

Access to preventative care should be a priority and the poor or even the very young do not always seek or can find such care. That is an issue I think need to be addressed.


It definately was a simple mantra, but in a rushed post like that one, its hard to adequetely give descriptions. I know there are great doctors out there with a conscience who want to help people. But I think the cosmetic surgery industry would show that many doctors are just out to make a buck. Who knows if those are the top doctors or not. Also, in the past I think we have had a large problem with Canadian doctors going to the states to make more money. I can't really say I blame them all that much. I would want to make more money if I could.
I was also unaware that no one is turned away in an emergancy room in the states (although, I imagine like here many people leave on their own because they don't want to wait for hours)

QUOTE
What about the Canadian citizen that seeks out U.S. medical aid and pays for it out of pocket? Was there not also a bit of controversy over politicians who use private health care while the Canadian citizens cannot?


There was a big controversy, and I think the best solution to that problem would be to improve our public health care and reduce wait times. In my province we tried to introduce a more private kind of health care. It was going to be called "Third way" or something like that, but thankfully it got shot down because it was shown that it would decrease the quality of healthcare.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What about the Canadian citizen that seeks out U.S. medical aid and pays for it out of pocket? Was there not also a bit of controversy over politicians who use private health care while the Canadian citizens cannot?


There was a big controversy, and I think the best solution to that problem would be to improve our public health care and reduce wait times. In my province we tried to introduce a more private kind of health care. It was going to be called "Third way" or something like that, but thankfully it got shot down because it was shown that it would decrease the quality of healthcare.

I would need to verify that this report is not like others that play fast and loose with comparisons. Such as the item “similar economies”, which the US and Canada do not have in common, yet the comparison is made.


Please explain how they are not similar? As far as I know they are fairly similar, with Canada being more of a mixed economy. The differences seem to me to be of degree....which would make the statement 'similar' economies apply.

QUOTE
Also take into account that the U.S. has a huge illegal immigrant population that is uninsured yet covered by law at hospitals for medical aid. Do all these countries also provide free aid to illegal immigrants or just visitiors from other countries? I know that Canada and England for example will take care of a visitor form another country, but what about illegal aliens?


I truthfully don't know if we take care of illegal aliens or not.

But my main point for posting those states was a comment about bueacracies and corruption being a big factor in public health care. I think these stats would show its not. And, even if Canada does not take care of illegal aliens, I don't think the number of illegal aliens America looks after would account for the entirity of the 5% more of its GDP that goes towards healthcare. Maybe I am wrong, but the claim that capitalism is more efficient seems to come through, and in some cases its not the same.
Anyways, to finish this all off, I am thankful I live in a country with public healthcare, but our public healthcare still sucks, and needs improvement.
sinned34
28th April 2006 - 06:33 PM
QUOTE (Madkite+)
Businesses has got so obsessed with short term profit that they do not take in to account the ultimate consequences of their actions. It is extremely self destructive. The illegal workers do not get hardly anything like what your talking about. Here they are payed next to nothing. The ones at the factory I mentioned actually ended up in debt to the factory because it screwed them over. You would be lucky to pay the rent on what they earn.


Okay, MadKite, but what you seem to have a problem with is not the immigrants themselves, but the companies that take advantage of those people who are only trying to look for a better life for themselves (and their families). Perhaps the government should worry less about the illegal immigrants and focus on the businesses that are basically running slavery rings.

QUOTE (Madkite+)
Nationalist economics does not mean you cannot import or export. But if something is being produced in your country then why force the factory to compete with China. It can't and will just fold. It has to be protected. It might mean we have to pay a bit more but that is better than economic collapse.


Okay, but now you have a problem: you are putting tariffs upon items from other countries on products that you are able to produce. What happens to the items you CANNOT produce? You must still import them, and probably from countries that produce other items that you CAN compete with, but now those places are angry that you will not allow ALL their products into your country. Plus, what if your population refuses to pay those higher prices for domestically produced products? I know that I shop online in countries other than the one I live in, and it sure bugs me to see items that are a fraction of the price that I pay here. Wal-Mart has made an empire out of selling inexpensive goods that are made by what we would consider near-slave labour in other countries.

QUOTE (MMC+)
Democracy and Capitalism are completely different concepts.


Yeah, democracy is a method of selecting a governing body, where capitalism a method of managing an economy. But during the Cold War, these two terms got kind of "molded" into the same meaning by anti-Soviet propaganda.

QUOTE (MMC+)
That puts capitalism on par with acts such as rape, etc.


I'm sorry MMC, but that comment is just plain garbage. I agree that capitalism has it's weaknesses (especially since it depends highly on greed as a driving factor), but when tempered properly with socialism, environmentalism, and progressive forethought, it can become a fairly successful method of running an economy.

QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Yet, and besides, nothing is free. You pay for it via taxes and the state forcibly taking from you. I guess that type of rape you like.


Correct, GS, in Canada we don't have "free" healthcare, we have government-run, tax-driven healthcare. Generally (not in every case) in Canada you can receive health care without having to worry that the cost of that care will bankrupt your family for years if not decades. Here in Alberta, there has been talk of a "third way", which is the conservative provincial government attempting to allow doctors to both work privately (allowing people to personally pay for care if they can afford it) or publicly (where the government pays for care). Essentially it comes down to allowing rich people to pay for faster, higher-quality care. There is a lot of resistance to that, because most people I know think that EVERYONE deserves top-notch health care. I certainly wouldn't consider higher taxes for easily accessible health care "rape".
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 06:39 PM
Something screwed up.....this was the double post.........
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 06:45 PM
.....And this was the triple post.
GeneSplicer
28th April 2006 - 06:51 PM
QUOTE
I never ment to imply that our healthcare system is great. Infact it blows!

No problem. We are after all just discussing the topic right? Don’t take my post as the typical chest-beating debate tactic. Such debates result in nothing other than ego displays and, knowing that you are normally an earnest poster, I wish to discuss this issue in such an earnest manner.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I never ment to imply that our healthcare system is great. Infact it blows!

No problem. We are after all just discussing the topic right? Don’t take my post as the typical chest-beating debate tactic. Such debates result in nothing other than ego displays and, knowing that you are normally an earnest poster, I wish to discuss this issue in such an earnest manner.

It definately was a simple mantra, but in a rushed post like that one, its hard to adequetely give descriptions. I know there are great doctors out there with a conscience who want to help people. But I think the cosmetic surgery industry would show that many doctors are just out to make a buck. Who knows if those are the top doctors or not. Also, in the past I think we have had a large problem with Canadian doctors going to the states to make more money. I can't really say I blame them all that much. I would want to make more money if I could.

Absolutely no argument there. Practicing medicine is a highly skilled trade and as such there are those who seek to maximize their earnings or earnings are all they care about.

QUOTE
Please explain how they are not similar? As far as I know they are fairly similar, with Canada being more of a mixed economy. The differences seem to me to be of degree....which would make the statement 'similar' economies apply.
Are they speaking of similar economies as in mixed or similar as in total monetary volume? I would not compare the economies of say a third-world nation with and industrialized nation and try to make favorable comparison towards the third-world country. Am I explaining that right?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Please explain how they are not similar? As far as I know they are fairly similar, with Canada being more of a mixed economy. The differences seem to me to be of degree....which would make the statement 'similar' economies apply.
Are they speaking of similar economies as in mixed or similar as in total monetary volume? I would not compare the economies of say a third-world nation with and industrialized nation and try to make favorable comparison towards the third-world country. Am I explaining that right?

But my main point for posting those states was a comment about bueacracies and corruption being a big factor in public health care. I think these stats would show its not. And, even if Canada does not take care of illegal aliens, I don't think the number of illegal aliens America looks after would account for the entirity of the 5% more of its GDP that goes towards healthcare. Maybe I am wrong, but the claim that capitalism is more efficient seems to come through, and in some cases its not the same.

And see, that is a problem. The current medical system we have is not simply capitalistic as long as hospitals have to give medical aid to everyone. That is a huge factor in many cases and has been show to skew such reports. The illegal alien population is normally not factored in with only the census data used to calculate these figures.

QUOTE
Anyways, to finish this all off, I am thankful I live in a country with public healthcare, but our public healthcare still sucks, and needs improvement.


This would take me back full circle to the self-determination argument. There are benefits out of both systems and flaws in both, but striking an effective balance that does not cause more problems is the main problem as I see it.
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 09:44 PM
QUOTE
Are they speaking of similar economies as in mixed or similar as in total monetary volume? I would not compare the economies of say a third-world nation with and industrialized nation and try to make favorable comparison towards the third-world country. Am I explaining that right?


Ummm....depends......your not implying that Canada is a third world country are you? And monetary volume is eliminated for the most part as a problem by using GDP and percentage of GDP as a measuring stick. Of course your left with slight variations as you scale up and down, but generally, I think comparing percentages of GDP is going to be the best way to compare health care costs between countries, or you could do total costs divided by total people to get cost per person....however, using GDP will at least partially account for the illegal aliens. Because I am sure the illegal aliens contrubite to the economy both with working, and with spending, and then contrubite to the health care costs. I doubt that GDP would perfectly account for this, however, I think it would account for it better than cost per person, because that probably wouldn't include the illegal aliens.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Are they speaking of similar economies as in mixed or similar as in total monetary volume? I would not compare the economies of say a third-world nation with and industrialized nation and try to make favorable comparison towards the third-world country. Am I explaining that right?


Ummm....depends......your not implying that Canada is a third world country are you? And monetary volume is eliminated for the most part as a problem by using GDP and percentage of GDP as a measuring stick. Of course your left with slight variations as you scale up and down, but generally, I think comparing percentages of GDP is going to be the best way to compare health care costs between countries, or you could do total costs divided by total people to get cost per person....however, using GDP will at least partially account for the illegal aliens. Because I am sure the illegal aliens contrubite to the economy both with working, and with spending, and then contrubite to the health care costs. I doubt that GDP would perfectly account for this, however, I think it would account for it better than cost per person, because that probably wouldn't include the illegal aliens.

This would take me back full circle to the self-determination argument. There are benefits out of both systems and flaws in both, but striking an effective balance that does not cause more problems is the main problem as I see it.


And I agree entirely with this statement. I think that most people just think a different middle ground would be the best solution.
GeneSplicer
28th April 2006 - 09:55 PM
QUOTE
Ummm....depends......your not implying that Canada is a third world country are you?


Boy, do I need to work on my analogies or what? unsure.gif

No, contrary to what anyone might think, Canada is not a third-world country. I’ve been to Canada on business and what I saw of it, (when I could get away from seminars, class, sleep) I liked.
Steveo
28th April 2006 - 09:59 PM
QUOTE
No, contrary to what anyone might think, Canada is not a third-world country. I’ve been to Canada on business and what I saw of it, (when I could get away from seminars, class, sleep) I liked.


Canada is very very similar to the United States. Apparently the people are 'friendlier', but anytime I have been to the states everyone was really friendly! Our culture is pretty much American except for our (un)healthy obsession with hockey. One thing I have found however is that Canadian's (especially kids) are much more knowledgable about the rest of the world. The American Education system is very focused on itself....this can be viewed as both a good, or a bad thing.
Where in Canada did you go anyways?
GeneSplicer
28th April 2006 - 11:19 PM
The company I worked for years ago sent me to Toronto for several Motorola certifications and seminars. I had little time to do much more than but work, eat, study and sleep. The sleep was optional in their view.

I am also quite aware of our similarities. I have been lucky to work for some companies with a very diverse staff. The place I work now literally has international representation. Some of the conversations are, to be kind, interesting.

Is your preoccupation with hockey worse that our preoccupation with baseball, football, basketball, soccer and NASCAR?

As far as our education system goes, students don’t know much about our history either. I am a very big critic of our school system and their ongoing cluster fudge union-based approach to education. And before I catch flak over that comment, yes I have children and I am constantly appalled at both the moronic textbooks they use as well as what they do and don’t learn.

Madkite
30th April 2006 - 09:36 AM
QUOTE
Madkite, I agree that what you describe is definately getting rid of property rights, however that is NOT communism. Not in the least. It may be similar to what the Soviet government might have done, but the Soviet Union was NOT communism, they just claimed to be.


Well maybe but it is what we associate with communism because of the Soviet government. It is also little known that Stalin claimed that Russia was a democracy. Like so many things today what it is called is not how you can judge it. The Conservative party is not conservative and the UK is only just a democracy.

I always wonder if democracy is a bad thing because if it worked we would not be in this mess in the first place.
StevenA
30th April 2006 - 01:32 PM
What's done, is done. I don't expect things to change anytime soon in France.

The results of this, and other similar political/cultural views will be seen over time ... reality will be the final arbitrar, no matter individual political views or wishful thinking. Who learns what, and how long it takes to learn it, remains to be seen.
Steveo
1st May 2006 - 04:32 PM
QUOTE
The company I worked for years ago sent me to Toronto for several Motorola certifications and seminars. I had little time to do much more than but work, eat, study and sleep. The sleep was optional in their view.


I have only been to Toronto once myself. Nice city though, and I doubt its all that different from many large Eastern American cities.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The company I worked for years ago sent me to Toronto for several Motorola certifications and seminars. I had little time to do much more than but work, eat, study and sleep. The sleep was optional in their view.


I have only been to Toronto once myself. Nice city though, and I doubt its all that different from many large Eastern American cities.

I am also quite aware of our similarities. I have been lucky to work for some companies with a very diverse staff. The place I work now literally has international representation. Some of the conversations are, to be kind, interesting.


Diversity is great. The student group I am involved in at my university is pretty diverse, mainly politically. We have people who range from far right, to ultra far left. Makes for some great arguements.

QUOTE
Is your preoccupation with hockey worse that our preoccupation with baseball, football, basketball, soccer and NASCAR?


I am not to sure actually. Sadly, the younger generation here is less into hockey. At the moment the fastest growing youth sport is Indoor soccer. I also didn't know that America had some huge preoccupation with Soccer. There are also people here with huge preoccupations for baseball, football and basketball. I fall under the football category. Its actually good being Canadian in that respect. The CFL (Canadian Football League) season starts in June, so I have football to watch running from June to the beginning of February. And hockey running from October til may....so I only have a few weeks without something to follow during the year.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Is your preoccupation with hockey worse that our preoccupation with baseball, football, basketball, soccer and NASCAR?


I am not to sure actually. Sadly, the younger generation here is less into hockey. At the moment the fastest growing youth sport is Indoor soccer. I also didn't know that America had some huge preoccupation with Soccer. There are also people here with huge preoccupations for baseball, football and basketball. I fall under the football category. Its actually good being Canadian in that respect. The CFL (Canadian Football League) season starts in June, so I have football to watch running from June to the beginning of February. And hockey running from October til may....so I only have a few weeks without something to follow during the year.

As far as our education system goes, students don’t know much about our history either. I am a very big critic of our school system and their ongoing cluster fudge union-based approach to education. And before I catch flak over that comment, yes I have children and I am constantly appalled at both the moronic textbooks they use as well as what they do and don’t learn.


Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that students don't know much about american history. It seems to me that the american school system's main goal is to teach patriotism. Hopefully I am wrong. It would be sad if America started to fall behind scientifically to the rest of the world....although it appears things might be moving that way. The province I live in is supposed to have one of the best public school systems in the world, and I still find everything a bit to dumbed down. My interest in math was repressed until university because I was so bored all through school, and didn't know math could be interesting. In university I discovered this, and that if I had been challenged younger that I could have learned all of this cool stuff earlier.

QUOTE
I always wonder if democracy is a bad thing because if it worked we would not be in this mess in the first place.


Democracy sucks, but its better than its alternatives. I don't know if its possible to have any type of government that is good for a large population, but I would rather be in a democracy than in some other type of government.
GeneSplicer
1st May 2006 - 06:45 PM
QUOTE
Democracy sucks, but its better than its alternatives.


Steveo

Are we talking about a regular democracy or a constitutional republic? If the war of northern aggression had played out differently, I dare say the C.S. would have remained a constitutional republic. The U.S. probably would have gone the way it did.

What would you prefer to democracy?
Steveo
1st May 2006 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE
Steveo

Are we talking about a regular democracy or a constitutional republic? If the war of northern aggression had played out differently, I dare say the C.S. would have remained a constitutional republic. The U.S. probably would have gone the way it did.

What would you prefer to democracy?


I wouldn't prefer anything over democracy, but really democracy is not all that good either. Good compared to any other form of government, but I am sure you have had conversations, or at least thought "If I was in charge...." Or "It would be so much better if they just did....."

I am mainly thinking about Canada's system with all of this. There really isn't a good way to go about it here. I don't even pretend to understand the American electorial system.....
StevenA
1st May 2006 - 09:20 PM
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 1 2006, 06:45 PM)
QUOTE
Democracy sucks, but its better than its alternatives.


Steveo

Are we talking about a regular democracy or a constitutional republic? If the war of northern aggression had played out differently, I dare say the C.S. would have remained a constitutional republic. The U.S. probably would have gone the way it did.

What would you prefer to democracy?

Democracy is inevitable to some extent. Recognition of individual rights, in spite of public pressure to ignore them, is the solution. Individuals are always a minority in a democracy and as such even something like constitutionally "protected" rights are at the mercy of current public sentiments. Hitler was democratically empowered, so was a long list of other tyrannts. Democracy inevitably exists. All you can do is try to limit the damage, and the U.S. Constitution is an example of an attempt at that but truly it's only a piece of paper and it's up to individuals to defend it (government's not going to defend it, because the Constitution was the agreement made to restrict it, so there's little incentive for government representatives to bother reading it ... it used to be the Constitution was amended to grant new powers to government, or to restrict it but now they simply take new powers and don't bother with getting the consent via. an amendment ... out of the 3 branches of government, where's the branch for the people subjected to this?).
StevenA
1st May 2006 - 09:40 PM
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson
sinned34
2nd May 2006 - 04:54 PM
QUOTE
Is your preoccupation with hockey worse that our preoccupation with baseball, football, basketball, soccer and NASCAR?


Let's put it this way, the CBC has just started advertising for an 10 hour documentary entitled "Hockey: A Peoples' History". This follows on the heels of a 32 hour documentary similarly named "Canada: A Peoples' History". As Steveo stated, because of the expense of putting kids through hockey, and the worldwide growth of soccer, enrollment in hockey is down in Canada, but many Canadians feel strongly about the sport here. For instance, for the 2002 Olympic Gold Medal game against the United States, statistics showed that 1/3 of all home television sets in Canada were tuned in to the game. This does not include televisions at bars and pubs, and the pub I watched the game at was packed with a crowd well above capacity. In a country of 30 million people, viewership peaked at 12.6 million during the final minutes of the game, and averaged 10.25 million over the rest of the game.

Hence, we sell tshirts like this:

User posted image

I can't remember seeing a tshirt saying Nascar, baseball, or football "Is America" (correct me if I'm wrong).

Steveo
2nd May 2006 - 05:24 PM
QUOTE
Let's put it this way, the CBC has just started advertising for an 10 hour documentary entitled "Hockey: A Peoples' History". This follows on the heels of a 32 hour documentary similarly named "Canada: A Peoples' History". As Steveo stated, because of the expense of putting kids through hockey, and the worldwide growth of soccer, enrollment in hockey is down in Canada, but many Canadians feel strongly about the sport here. For instance, for the 2002 Olympic Gold Medal game against the United States, statistics showed that 1/3 of all home television sets in Canada were tuned in to the game. This does not include televisions at bars and pubs, and the pub I watched the game at was packed with a crowd well above capacity. In a country of 30 million people, viewership peaked at 12.6 million during the final minutes of the game, and averaged 10.25 million over the rest of the game.


To add to that, Molson's Breweries had an entire add campaign for their "Canadien" beer based on the hockey lockout last year. Guys singing, and crying wanting their hockey back. Lastnight, after the round 1 win over detroit we had an 'incident' on our 'party avenue' where tear gas needed to be used. This was round 1 of 4 rounds....I sure hope we make it farther.....and Sinned, don't be to upset if Ottawa knocks New Jersey out....although that would be a very good series!
sinned34
3rd May 2006 - 02:39 PM
QUOTE
To add to that, Molson's Breweries had an entire add campaign for their "Canadien" beer based on the hockey lockout last year. Guys singing, and crying wanting their hockey back.


Ahh, yes, the men singing "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me", followed up by the "What A Feeling" commercial when the lockout ended.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
To add to that, Molson's Breweries had an entire add campaign for their "Canadien" beer based on the hockey lockout last year. Guys singing, and crying wanting their hockey back.


Ahh, yes, the men singing "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me", followed up by the "What A Feeling" commercial when the lockout ended.

This was round 1 of 4 rounds....I sure hope we make it farther.....


Depends what happens with Calgary. The Battle Of Alberta would make for some great hockey, feeding off that wonderful Edmonton-Calgary animosity! But I don't think Edmonton will fare well against Kiprusoff. They're better suited to playing an offensive-minded team like San Jose. Go Oil!

QUOTE
....and Sinned, don't be to upset if Ottawa knocks New Jersey out....although that would be a very good series!


Well, Joisey's facing Carolina this round, and the Hurricanes are only going as far as Sherwood Park's Cam Ward will take them. I'll give them one win in the series against the Devils. But yeah, an Ottawa/New Jersey series would be an exciting, fast-paced set of games.
Steveo
3rd May 2006 - 03:33 PM
QUOTE
Depends what happens with Calgary. The Battle Of Alberta would make for some great hockey, feeding off that wonderful Edmonton-Calgary animosity! But I don't think Edmonton will fare well against Kiprusoff. They're better suited to playing an offensive-minded team like San Jose. Go Oil!


I dunno....Joe Thorton and Cheechoo scare me....I would rather play Calgary...Iginla is their best player.....and I am sure someone can get him to scrap a few times.....leaving him in the box for large chunks of time. Kiprusoff is good, but I think Rollison has been playing just as well in the last few games of our series. Plus, gotta take the risk to lose to Calgary because if we win it would be so much sweeter! One of the guys from the Team 1260 thinks we have a better chance against Calgary than San Jose....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Depends what happens with Calgary. The Battle Of Alberta would make for some great hockey, feeding off that wonderful Edmonton-Calgary animosity! But I don't think Edmonton will fare well against Kiprusoff. They're better suited to playing an offensive-minded team like San Jose. Go Oil!


I dunno....Joe Thorton and Cheechoo scare me....I would rather play Calgary...Iginla is their best player.....and I am sure someone can get him to scrap a few times.....leaving him in the box for large chunks of time. Kiprusoff is good, but I think Rollison has been playing just as well in the last few games of our series. Plus, gotta take the risk to lose to Calgary because if we win it would be so much sweeter! One of the guys from the Team 1260 thinks we have a better chance against Calgary than San Jose....

Well, Joisey's facing Carolina this round, and the Hurricanes are only going as far as Sherwood Park's Cam Ward will take them. I'll give them one win in the series against the Devils. But yeah, an Ottawa/New Jersey series would be an exciting, fast-paced set of games.


Cam Ward played well lastnight....really well. I think it will be a lot longer of a series than you think. It should also be a fast paced series. I actually like watching Carolina play......wow, never thought I would say I enjoy watching them play......
GeneSplicer
3rd May 2006 - 03:51 PM
QUOTE
I can't remember seeing a tshirt saying Nascar, baseball, or football "Is America" (correct me if I'm wrong).


Wow. So I guess it is not just a preoccupation. And yes, you have the sports fans here beat then, face painters included.
Steveo
3rd May 2006 - 04:44 PM
QUOTE
Wow. So I guess it is not just a preoccupation. And yes, you have the sports fans here beat then, face painters included.


My favorite American fans would have to be Raider fans though....those guys are crazy!
Oh, and at the rink in Edmonton during game 4 of the Edmonton Detroit series the noise level reached 109 dB....they didn't mention anything in game 6, so I guess it didn't get as loud......although I would have figured after the game winning goal was scored it would have....

Another thing I forgot about.....after our 1998 Olympic performance (which was poor) and poor performances in a few other major hockey tournaments there was a panick, and a Hockey Summit of Canadian hockey experts to think of ways to get back to our winning ways....this from the country who boasts more than 50% of all NHL players being Canadian. Kind of funny.
Drude
3rd May 2006 - 06:20 PM
QUOTE
If America is so bad, and France is so great, why do you live in AMERICA? dont blame ya I wouldnt want to live in France either as I shower a lot more than once a week, and I like earning money


The French that I have seen are clean and smell beautiful. French women are very tidy and clean and the French men are classy and unique to say the least. If you are going to play on the French smelling then why not also play on Americans being obese? both offend the senses.


Just because I live in America and consider myself an American doesn't mean I cant objectively give my view on political issues. Being American is not about hanging a flag on your house and blindly following whoever idiot is put in power by his dad, but to treasure hundreds of years of heritage and freedom which it is posed to protect. Not only in America, I would have and do say the same about France, Germany, Nederlands, and Japan or any other nation. To me all nations are as unique as the people who inhabit them, and without an objective desire to bring into light issues, there would simply be a gradual but certain generational gap between nations, and trust me these gaps eventually collide along common interests, which is why we have U.N. Tell me that U.N. is not effective and I would applaud you for your astute observation but tell me that it has not managed to at leat unite the world along a common interest and I would vehemently disagree. For the bulk of the matter, my point is that America and France have no reason to have such disputation. Unfortuantely in America the media also takes on the task of brainwashing the people against target political social groups (such as the French) either because it is ordered so by the higher oligarchs or because it seeks to make profit from it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.