| StoneColdClassicQueen 18.12.2011 22:11 |
He was 69 They said he died of heart failure.. Rejoice....! Or whatever you feel like Doubt we'll see North Korea anytime soon |
| john bodega 19.12.2011 01:00 |
Good riddance to the old cocksucker. |
| pittrek 19.12.2011 05:10 |
Vaclav Havel died too |
| inu-liger 19.12.2011 06:20 |
Awesome! Shame he never got to meet his end Ghaddafi style though :( |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.12.2011 08:13 |
It's blatantly obvious that none of you know the first thing about North Korea or its history. Kim Jong-Il wasn't a nice guy by a long run, but anyone who thinks that he was actually running the show is a complete idiot. The council of generals is really in charge. His father, Kim Il-Sung was the only one who was actually a one-man dictatoriship, and to be quite honest, in the 1950s, he was a significantly better choice than Syngman Rhee, the US-backed dictator of South Korea, who still ranks as one of the most brutal dictators in the history of the 20th century. Anything you can say about the repressive North Korean regime also applied to the repressive South Korean regime, but they don't teach you that in school, because the U.S. backed Rhee. Today, South Korea is no longer a real dictatorship, but they use the menacing presence of North Korea (which appears to be far less potent than it is painted to be) to maintain a degree of military repression comparable to the way Likud runs Israel. |
| Micrówave 19.12.2011 09:45 |
Actually, "they" said Kim died of "overwork" while "dedicating his life to the people." And the official news agency KCNA said Kim suffered "great mental and physical strain" while on a train. Now ALL OF YOU!!!! Stop posting on Queenzone immediately and learn the History of North Korea and It's Leader so that we can have a much more intense conversation. Sorry TQ, we should all be ready by about 4:00pm today. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.12.2011 10:24 |
Micrówave wrote: Actually, "they" said Kim died of "overwork" while "dedicating his life to the people." And the official news agency KCNA said Kim suffered "great mental and physical strain" while on a train. Now ALL OF YOU!!!! Stop posting on Queenzone immediately and learn the History of North Korea and It's Leader so that we can have a much more intense conversation. Sorry TQ, we should all be ready by about 4:00pm today. You would have known this if you had just read about the Second World War in the Pacific and the Korean War, or watched the news in or prior to 1994. |
| GratefulFan 19.12.2011 11:05 |
Kind of an interesting confluence of Personal topics: Christopher Hitchens on North Korea. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 19.12.2011 12:21 |
inu-liger wrote: Awesome! Shame he never got to meet his end Ghaddafi style though :( ...How is that a shame!? I despair. |
| Micrówave 19.12.2011 14:25 |
Micrówave wrote: Actually, "they" said Kim died of "overwork" while "dedicating his life to the people." And the official news agency KCNA said Kim suffered "great mental and physical strain" while on a train. Now ALL OF YOU!!!! Stop posting on Queenzone immediately and learn the History of North Korea and It's Leader so that we can have a much more intense conversation. Sorry TQ, we should all be ready by about 4:00pm today. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You would have known this if you had just read about the Second World War in the Pacific and the Korean War, or watched the news in or prior to 1994. Well, I've watched every M*A*S*H episode at least twice, so my knowledge is slightly BIASED. |
| vic_rattlehead 19.12.2011 19:03 |
It's kinda sad to admit but i heard the news from 9gag... |
| vic_rattlehead 19.12.2011 19:09 |
|
| The Real Wizard 20.12.2011 11:30 |
pittrek wrote: "Vaclav Havel died too" ===================== How sad it is that a war-mongering bully gets so much more press than a truly good man of peace. But it's the human condition - we are more attracted to war than peace. Weapons and destruction are more exciting to most than taking care of one another. Havel's death made the news here, and judging by the comments, many Canadians greatly respect him. link I just can't believe he didn't receive a Nobel Peace prize. Obama has done many great things, but was not deserving of this prestigious honour, especially when people like Havel were on the shortlist. |
| john bodega 20.12.2011 13:58 |
"Shame he never got to meet his end Ghaddafi style though" With a knife up his arse? Seriously? |
| brENsKi 20.12.2011 16:21 |
this shouldn't come as a surprise...Kim Jong had been il(l) for a long time ;-) |
| Micrówave 21.12.2011 15:55 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Obama has done many great things,Yes, things are much better in America now. He fixed it all. |
| The Real Wizard 21.12.2011 17:07 |
Micrówave wrote: Yes, things are much better in America now. He fixed it all. ================= Obviously I see your sarcasm, but did I even imply he fixed everything? He repealed DADT, he pushed for universal health care (and it was recently reported that 1.5 million additional young people now have health insurance), and ... for all you war-mongers.. bin Laden was killed on his watch. Considering what he's been up against, I'd say he's done pretty well. |
| tcc 21.12.2011 19:36 |
I would not claim it as a credit to him - it was pure luck for him that it happened in his watch. Any of the previous presidents would have killed bin Laden if he was caught in their time in office. |
| john bodega 21.12.2011 23:11 |
"Any of the previous presidents would have killed bin Laden if he was caught in their time in office" Sure - if they had put a bit more effort in. It was very fortuitous that he was tracked down the way that he was, but it only turned out that way because they'd decided to make him a priority again. I guess blowing up opium farmers can only be fun for so long. (Although I'd like to test that theory). |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.12.2011 06:04 |
Bob: Havel may have been a "man of peace", but he was never too big a man to crudely abuse his friends and acquaintances in his plays. He actually seemed to enjoy shaming them in front of the world, and apparently regarded that as fitting protest to communism. |
| pma 26.12.2011 13:05 |
So, what really killed him? I'm guessing, an orgy gone wrong, a bizarre sex act, or perhaps the cause of his death is somehow related to his "movie" collection. |
| pma 26.12.2011 13:05 |
So, what really killed him? I'm guessing, an orgy gone wrong, a bizarre sex act, or perhaps the cause of his death is somehow related to his "movie" collection. |
| Micrówave 27.12.2011 10:50 |
He repealed DADT, he pushed for universal health care (and it was recently reported that 1.5 million additional young people now have health insurance), and ... for all you war-mongers.. bin Laden was killed on his watch.Wow!!!! Let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Oops. (The committee is not too happy with that execution in Pakistan) DADT - a policy that really ended up having no effect on the armed forces? This was groundbreaking?!?!? Anyone in the service will tell you that this issue really never bothered anyone except the media He pushed for universal health care? So did Clinton... both of em. But you forget, we're not Socialists. I don't want to pay for Juan Javier's health care, regardless of his immigration status... I'd rather pay for my own and choosemy own doctors. Bin Laden? This guy was reduced to living in a hovel, surrounded by Pakistanish Porn. I really don't think that Obama stopped a major threat. Besides, I though Obama actually pulled the trigger. I was being sarcastic, but since you brought it up, I thought I'd just let you know how worthless those issues you brought up really were. Unemployment has gone up "during his watch". Banks are more profitable now than 4 years ago. New Home construction is virtually non-existant, while pre existing home values continue to plummet. Foreclosures are up, stocks are down... and the price of gas keeps swaying out of control. But he's still got the next 4 years locked up... so give him time. |
| Holly2003 27.12.2011 12:12 |
Very amusing. Are you suggesting that the US government should subsidise the price of petrol to make it cheaper? So why is that fine for "gas" but not fine for health care? lol |
| Micrówave 27.12.2011 13:05 |
That would never happen. Oil & Gas run this country. My suggestion is let Herman Cain back in and get him the win. Right now this country needs 'devious'. Send a few of Cain's "aides" down to those oil-rich countries. Remember, Ghaddafi wanted to annoint Condoleca Rice Queen of Libya, probably would have gotten our gas down to $2/ gallon. |
| The Real Wizard 27.12.2011 14:43 |
>>DADT - a policy that really ended up having no effect on the armed forces? This was groundbreaking?!?!? Anyone in the service will tell you that this issue really never bothered anyone except the media<< It is a major victory for anyone who values equality, as it is a substantial step towards gays and lesbians being treated as equal citizens. So either you are suggesting the military doesn't value equality, or you are attempting to make a blanket statement on behalf of others to legitimize your own viewpoint. >>But you forget, we're not Socialists.<< Most people who use the word "socialist" don't even know what it means. Ensuring you have a country where people don't have to choose between feeding their kids and seeing the doctor does not mean you are subscribing to socialism. Every other developed nation in the world has a nationalized health care system. Is Germany socialist then? Canada? The UK? Australia? Show me the data that says these countries have ever had governments with socialist tendencies. >>I don't want to pay for Juan Javier's health care, regardless of his immigration status<< Do you honestly think it's only immigrants who can't afford to pay for health care? I know you're a far right ideologue, but even you should be immune to ignorance of this degree. Katrina left a quarter of New Orleans below the poverty line. Should we just tell them to get a job? >>I'd rather pay for my own<< And what about those who can't afford it? Do you simply leave one fifth of the country behind while your tax dollars pay for the military complex? Billions of dollars a day are spent on defense, but leaving people to die because they can't afford an operation is ok with a christian nation, whose beliefs supposedly consist of loving thy neighbour? These same people are fine with sending their children off to die in war but are against abortion? The hypocrisy is just mind-boggling to most people outside of your borders. >>and choose my own doctors.<< More FOX propaganda? Show me one nation with universal health care where the state does not give you the right to choose your own doctor. A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members, not its most affluent. >>Unemployment has gone up "during his watch".<< Believe it or not, the worldwide recession is not Obama's fault. Unemployment has increased in most of the developed world over the last few years, regardless of what political leanings the ruling parties have. Only a few countries have managed to escape it, like Norway, Austria, The Netherlands and Brazil. >>Banks are more profitable now than 4 years ago.<< This also has nothing to do with Obama. It's the same thing here in Canada. The banks continue to post record profits while 40% of the country lives near or below the poverty line. They created the financial crisis and we bailed them out. It's not just in your country where the bankers run the show. >>New Home construction is virtually non-existant<< This is the private sector, so you can't blame politicians for that. And if it was government, then that would be called subsidized housing, or in your language, "socialism." >>while pre existing home values continue to plummet<< Bush lowered interest rates, telling everyone in post-9/11 America to consume. It's biting everyone in the ass now. This is not Obama's fault. >>and the price of gas keeps swaying out of control<< If you don't like high gas prices, do your part and buy a hybrid or electric car. The US demands and consumes more oil than any other nation in the world. If people's habits gradually changed over time (i.e. alternative energy sources), the demand for oil wouldn't be so great. Everyone would win, except of course the oil companies. So they will continue to lobby against such changes, because you can't tax wind, water, ethanol or geothermal energy. If and when the US comes close to making these alternatives a reality on a wide scale some day, cue the right wing propagandists calling the government a nanny state, the same way they did when the US food guide was updated earlier this year to battle growing obesity. Anything to appease corporations and maximize profits. But you're already decades behind Europe. They've been doing this stuff since the 70s. Sweden and Germany's environmental regulations are an example for the rest of the world. Never let facts get in the way of your ideology, or your arguments may be exposed for what they are - flimsy at best, completely baseless at worst. |
| Micrówave 27.12.2011 17:32 |
Dude, I hope you’re not taking this personally…
It is a major victory for anyone who values equality, as it is a substantial step towards gays and lesbians being treated as equal citizens. So either you are suggesting the military doesn't value equality, or you are attempting to make a blanket statement on behalf of others to legitimize your own viewpoint.No, the military doesn’t value equality. They never have. That’s why they have ranks. Most people who use the word "socialist" don't even know what it means.No, but me paying for everybody’s healthcare and then having no say in who I get to see is a form of Socialism. Katrina left a quarter of New Orleans below the poverty line. Should we just tell them to get a job?Not all of them, but the few I met who came to Dallas to get tattoos with their government stipend, yes. They should be looking for jobs, not tattoos. And what about those who can't afford it?Not my concern. I work hard. (“I work out” – LMFAO) Why should I have to pay taxes on my income for someone who collects a check for having kids? Show me one nation with universal health care where the state does not give you the right to choose your own doctor.Ok. Rowanda Believe it or not, the worldwide recession is not Obama's fault.It wasn’t Bush’s either. >>Banks are more profitable now than 4 years ago.<< This also has nothing to do with Obama.Oh, this most certainly does!!!! Here’s a new loophole. I work for a bank, by the way. If my employer decided to give me a bonus this year… they have to pay taxes on that bonus. If my employer decides to throw a big party for our staff, every expense is a write-off. Guess who didn’t get a bonus but had a nice time at the company party this year? Thanks Barack! Bush lowered interest rates, telling everyone in post-9/11 America to consume. It's biting everyone in the ass now. This is not Obama's fault.Interest rates are lower now than they ever were under the Bush regime. The 30 year fixed is at an all-time low. I didn’t blame Obama or Bush for this, though. Whoever lets Bernake stay in charge is responsible for this now. Oh year, that’s Obama. Never let facts get in the way of your ideology, or your arguments may be exposed for what they are - flimsy at best, completely baseless at worst.I didn’t… you did. |
| inu-liger 27.12.2011 20:07 |
Bob, we're talking about a nation that also ideologically likes to participate in ridiculous conspiracy theories as if they were the bible. ie. 9/11 being an "inside job" Tell me, has Wikileaks revealed ANYTHING of revelation value in regards to 9/11? |
| inu-liger 27.12.2011 20:10 |
And Microwave, Bush Jr. CERTAINLY had a role in the housing market collapse that helped cause the worldwide recession. He had EIGHT years in office wherein he could have kept a close eye and regulate the banks that were responsible for being greedy giving out mortgages to people they KNEW couldn't afford them in the first place, but Bush did FUCK all with keeping the banks on a leash |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 02:02 |
>>Dude, I hope you’re not taking this personally…<< I'm not. Just a good ol' fashioned political debate. >>No, the military doesn’t value equality. They never have. That’s why they have ranks.<< Fair play. But the assertion that nobody outside of the media cares about DADT has absolutely no connection to reality. The 10% of the US population that's gay cares, as do a hell of a lot of heterosexual people interested in equal rights for everyone. And there are plenty of people beyond your borders who are always happy to hear about any step towards inclusiveness and understanding. >>but me paying for everybody’s healthcare and then having no say in who I get to see is a form of Socialism.<< Who said you'd have no say in which doctor you'd get to see under universal health care? It is a baseless statement, with nothing remotely factual to back it up. If you're going to engage in an exchange of ideas, stick to facts instead of talking points that make you sound like a blogger paid for by some Republican think tank. Everyone's tax dollars will eventually go towards something they don't approve of. But if I'm reading you correctly, you're more unhappy about paying for the health care of the poor than paying to bail out the bankers, or paying to invade middle eastern countries on the quest for oil and dominance? Is ensuring every American is healthy (or "socialism," if you insist) really that much worse? >>the few I met who came to Dallas to get tattoos with their government stipend, yes. They should be looking for jobs, not tattoos.<< Absolutely, agreed. As for the rest of the people in New Orleans left in poverty, what do you suggest we do to help them get back on their feet (especially those who have been denied medicaid) ? >>Why should I have to pay taxes on my income for someone who collects a check for having kids?<< Another blanket statement. But at least you're not insisting they're all immigrants now. Could we at least have some consistency? In your eyes, who precisely should and should not have the right to have an emergency appendectomy? >>If my employer decided to give me a bonus this year… they have to pay taxes on that bonus. If my employer decides to throw a big party for our staff, every expense is a write-off. Guess who didn’t get a bonus but had a nice time at the company party this year? Thanks Barack!<< Ha ha! Interesting perspective to lighten the mood. Never heard it put that way before. I certainly hear your frustration. But try this angle - imagine, if you didn't have to pay for health insurance, that could've been the bonus money. And tens of millions more people could have health care, not just you ! |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 10:22 |
But then you replace that anger we all have towards banks with the fat cats running the HMOs. Sure, I could pay higher taxes and insure people in poverty, but then Woody Harrelson will tell you we could accomplish the same by legalizing pot. What about regulating the cost of procedures? Obamacare does nothing to address, for example, the price of open heart surgery. The surgeon still makes $25k a month, but my paycheck becomes smaller... and I may never need open heart surgery!!! I don't see that as a logical solution. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 10:43 |
inu-liger wrote: And Microwave, BushJr. CERTAINLY had a role in the housing market collapse that helped cause the worldwide recession. He had EIGHT years in office wherein he could have kept a close eye and regulate the banks that were responsible for being greedy giving out mortgages to people they KNEW couldn't afford them in the first place, but Bush did FUCK all with keeping the banks on a leashWhoa, slow down there partner!! I was closing sub-prime, no income mortgage loans back in 1995, about 6 years before Bush took office. We were giving money away in the 90s!!!! Alan Greenspan was in charge of the fed at the time.... so I guess you could blame Clinton and Reagan if you want to point a finger? Maybe? I don't think there's really one person toblame, just as I don't think there's one person to praise. |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:15 |
Micrówave wrote: >>Sure, I could pay higher taxes and insure people in poverty, but then Woody Harrelson will tell you we could accomplish the same by legalizing pot.<< Who says your taxes will go up? And Woody's right, by the way. But that will never happen, because politicians and police need to appear to be tough on crime, and the politicians are bought and paid for by corporations that benefit greatly from pot being illegal, like big pharma and alcohol companies. Here's the solution - reduce defense spending and raise the corporate tax rate. More money in your pocket, and everyone is healthier. And for good measure, jail the bankers like they did in Iceland. We didn't hear about that one, did we? Can't imagine why... >>Obamacare<< The term "Obamacare" in itself is a pejorative term. It aims to vilify him for trying to implement something that is used in every other developed country. Only in the USA does such childish bully terminology actually have some kind of weight.. >> does nothing to address, for example, the price of open heart surgery. The surgeon still makes $25k a month, but my paycheck becomes smaller<< How? You don't pay for the surgery, and you don't pay for health insurance. You really need to stop watching Fox news and read up on the way health care works in every other civilized country in this world. |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:16 |
Micrówave wrote: >>I was closing sub-prime, no income mortgage loans back in 1995, about 6 years before Bush took office<< Of course, nobody's saying it didn't exist before 2000. It just became commonplace under Bush. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:17 |
Actually, yes, our taxes will go up... and our payroll taxes will also go up. SOMEBODY has to pay for healthcare, it sure isn't going to be Uncle Sam. Remember, we've already increased our tax rate to pay for the $700 Billion TARP package. Now this... if it passes. (But it won't) |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:20 |
>>Actually, yes, our taxes will go up... and our payroll taxes will also go up. SOMEBODY has to pay for healthcare, it sure isn't going to be Uncle Sam<< Show me the data, or the bill from congress. Where does it categorically state that taxes on income under $100,000 will go up to pay for health care? |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:23 |
Of course, nobody's saying it didn't exist before 2000. It just became commonplace under Bush.No, it was commonplace under CLINTON. I was there doing it. Now's where I get to say YOU need to stop reading the news about Sub Prime mortgages. I was there doing it. In 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. More of those years were under Clinton's regime. And before you try, the number of mortgages did not increase tenfold after Bush was elected. It was Clinton who allowed the No-income verification loans. THAT was the problem. Banks stopped loaning money, Contractors and builders cannot get funding for new construction homes, existing values plummetted... hence the crash. It had little to do with "Bush Jr." as one put it. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:24 |
Show me the data, or the bill from congress. Where does it categorically state that taxes on income under $100,000 will go up to pay for health care?You show me the data that says taxes on income under $100,000 will not be affected to pay for health care. In fact, show me the bill. It keeps changing, so I want to make sure I've got the right one. |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:25 |
Very interesting. Do you have any documentation with numbers to back that up? |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:27 |
Micrówave wrote: >>You show me the data that says taxes on income under $100,000 will not be affected to pay for health care.<< You can't ask ask someone to provide proof that something does not exist. That is a fallacy of logic, and obviously impossible. If you are making an assertion, then you need to back it up with evidence. A refutation due to lack of evidence supporting the initial claim does not require any proof. That's like religious people asking atheists and agnostics to prove there isn't a higher being, and since they can't, therefore their invisible man in the sky exists. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:29 |
Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning in July in one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama. Are you saying that only people who make $100,000 a year or more go to tanning salons? If not, then the tanning salon is passing the 10% directly to the customer. Loopholes, Wizard, you gotta read the loopholes. |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 14:31 |
That's the best you can do? No wonder the world laughs at the American right. It's your choice to go to a tanning salon. Nobody's got a gun to your head. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Very interesting. Do you have any documentation with numbers to back that up?What kind of documentation would that be? The number of mortgages granted in America each year? Plus that number can be very skewed. For example, interest rates are at an all time low for 30 year fixed, yet the number of loan applications taken is down. Go figure. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:38 |
The Real Wizard wrote: That's the best youcan do? No wonder the world laughs at the American right. It's your choice to go to a tanning salon. Nobody's got a gun to your head.You asked me for an example. I gave you one that clearly backs up my argument and you reply with American insults? I guess you were expecting me to provide a complete outline of the bill? Really? I'm waiting for you to disprove the tanning salon figure. If you cannot, then you were wrong and I gave you proof... no matter how ridiculous it may sound. |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 14:43 |
The world laughs at America? Until they need something... then we're the first they ask. That's why we're called the "leader of the free world". No, I did not coin the phrase. But back to topic.... they're not gonna put any verbiage in there where it directly says Taxes Will Go Up. If they did, the bill would never make it to the floor for a vote. This is called American Politics. If this bill were as perfect as you believe it to be, then all these states that are challenging the constitutionality of the bill would not have a problem. |
| inu-liger 28.12.2011 16:53 |
I swear the right-wing faithful are the Treasure Moments of the political ideology world. FACT. (Actually, TM can be more fun to argue with at times, which is the sad part) |
| Micrówave 28.12.2011 17:28 |
... while the Leftist elite are busy watching Glee and hoping for that perfect world. I don't know which is worse. Probably Glee. |
| inu-liger 28.12.2011 18:25 |
I don't even watch Glee |
| The Real Wizard 28.12.2011 22:31 |
Micrówave wrote: >>You asked me for an example. I gave you one that clearly backs up my argument and you reply with American insults?<< You are trying to argue that paying for health care is going to hurt the American taxpayer, and the best thing you could come up with was a tanning salon tax. What percentage of Americans goes to tanning salons regularly? Less than 10%? Regardless, they can simply stop going and save the money. It's not like the government is raising tax on food or some other essential need. But hey, if tanning salon users will be partially footing the bill and health care costs are going to cover cancer treatment, then it's kind of poetic justice since they're exposing their bodies to high levels of ultraviolet radiation, which lead to cancer. >>The world laughs at America? Until they need something... then we're the first they ask.<< When is the last time any nation went exclusively to America for anything substantial that no other nation could provide (besides weapons or materials to manufacture them)? The pending European bailouts don't count, because they're asking Asia and South America for help too. >>That's why we're called the "leader of the free world". No, I did not coin the phrase.<< And nobody outside of your country uses the phrase either. It's just a complex that you folks have. >>If this bill were as perfect as you believe it to be, then all these states that are challenging the constitutionality of the bill would not have a problem.<< I never said the bill was perfect. Obama's version was far from perfect (although it's a step in the right direction), and it's even worse now that the Republicans got their greedy hands on it. But for anyone with a sense of empathy (usually something discovered by age 7), "Obamacare" has insured an additional 1.5 million young Americans. Now they won't have to worry about choosing between seeing the doctor and paying rent. The only way all of the red states would have no problem with any bill involving money is if big pharma or some other corporation will make money off it. Funding from the aforementioned groups are the ones who keep politicians (primarily Republicans) in power. The fact that anyone wants to justify leaving its own citizens to die by pandering to the constitution is precisely what's wrong with America. And half of its population (many of whom are poor and could use some free health care) will go to such great lengths to justify this while concurrently having no issue at all with the billions spent daily on war. Of all civilized countries, America is statistically the worst with regards to health care, debt, life expectancy, environmental regulations, consumption, waste, the list goes on. The only people who don't seem to know these things nor notice the lack of international respect is Americans. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 02:31 |
Where's YV when you need a well-informed 2nd opinion? |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 02:31 |
-double post- |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 10:03 |
When is the last time any nation went exclusively to America for anything substantial that no other nation could provide (besides weapons or materials to manufacture them)? The pending European bailouts don't count, because they're asking Asia and South America for help too.South Korea... a few days ago. |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 10:05 |
As S.A. miller reports , the awful 10 percent tax on all UV-tanning bed services is back as part of President Obama’s new health care reform proposal and it has New York tanning salon operators burning mad. In New Jersey, tanning salon owners were already feeling the pinch of the recession and a previously imposed state sales tax on their service. This new federal tax on tanning may be the final straw for the industry. “The other things knocked me down,” tanning salon owner Barbara Benkovich explained, “but when customers start feeling the price increase, it’s going to kill me.” Originally, the tax was part of a deal between doctors and Congress when the Senate was still crafting Obamacare. It was a compromise. Instead of taxing cosmetic surgery, such as Botox, the senate bill would tax tanning salons . But let’s be clear, it was a political compromise and had nothing to do with anyone’s health. And even if you support this notion of taxing stuff that is supposed to be bad for you – cigarettes, soda, tanning – the math doesn’t actually add up because the tanning salon industry says the government is overestimating how much revenue the tax will produce. |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 12:20 |
America is statistically the worst with regards to: Health careReally? I can look at those ads on TV about poor African countries. If we’re so bad, how come they need $19 a month to feed 10 children? WHAT LIST ARE YOU GOING OFF OF??? DebtWell, you have this one correct, but we’re also the #7 by gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita. Of course one of the top producing countries will have the most debt!!! That’s Economy 101. Kind of an unfair accusation. Greece is by far the worst off in the world in debt to GDP comparison. WHAT LIST ARE YOU GOING OFF OF??? life expectancyUS currently ranks #36. Pakistan at 135, Russia at 136. Ethiopia at 168. 67.2 is the world average, US is 80.8 WHAT LIST ARE YOU GOING OFF OF??? environmental regulations, consumption, wasteOk, Al Gore. Now are you getting this from his website or do you have facts? Urban SO2 Concentration: Argentina #1, US #21, Russia #47 (not all data was available for all countries) Energy Consumption (Per Mil. $ GDP) {biggest wasters of the world} : Denmark #1, UK #10, US #28, Ukraine #71 Environmental Regulatory Regime Index: Finland #1, UK #13, US #14, Mexico #48, #71 Paraguay the list goes on.AGAIN, WHAT LIST ARE YOU GOING OFF OF? My source: Harvard. link |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 12:21 |
By the way, you have YET to reference ONE source for your information. This would certainly beef up this debate we're having... and a good one at that. |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 12:21 |
inu-liger wrote: Where's YV when you need a well-informed 2nd opinion?Probably reading the FACTS, researching maybe? Not just jumping on the Leftist bus... as most left-wingers tend to do. It's sad that you don't have the stones to do any kind of followup to support your opinions. Most people form opinions because of life experiences, schooling, etc... Not from "YV". |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 13:16 |
The pending European bailouts don't count, because they're asking Asia and South America for help too.No wonder the European Union is a joke. They're asking Asia and South America for help. That's like asking Africa for extra food. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 14:29 |
Do you two suppose you two could take it over here @ link , you're really clogging this topic up with tangents upon tangents now! |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 14:45 |
Great answer. Exactly what I suspected. Let's quickly change the subject to cover up ignorance. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 15:01 |
You're an idiot, Microwave |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 15:11 |
Great answer. Exactly what I suspected. Let's quickly SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE. Yes, I'm the idiot... but at least I'm an educated idiot. Read a book sometime. Mix it up a bit. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 15:21 |
You know what? It's only so easy to attack me online from some oh-so anonymous computer monitor, but if you were to met and actually talked to me in person (and trust me, there have been a number of QZ'ers that have met me in person, incidentally The Real Wizard among them!) you'd have a harder time attacking me in person ;-) |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 15:21 |
Anyways, back to your regular topical programming folks... |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 15:22 |
So you're saying that I started attacking you? I'd try Prozac. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 15:24 |
Likewise |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 15:25 |
I shoot it with Bourbon. |
| inu-liger 29.12.2011 15:26 |
Nah, I heard in your case a good shot of Everclear would do just fine |
| Micrówave 29.12.2011 15:29 |
Everclear? Well, let me get the boys and some rifles loaded up in the Chevy and head right on over. I didn't think anybody drank that stuff besides good ol' boys. |
| YourValentine 30.12.2011 09:05 |
This thread has taken wild turns from the death of Kim to a tanning tax in the USA :-) I am interested in the view that a mandatory health insurance or universal health care is regarded as "socialist" by so many American people - not just Republicans. There has been already a lot of socialising in the USA - for example the bailout of banks in the 2008 crisis. Profits were private but the losses stayed with the tax payer - they were "socialised". I never understood why the idea of paying for health care incites so much more resistance in people than the idea of paying for the losses of banks or for wars somewhere else in the world. The costs for the Iraq war alone would perhaps be enough money to pay for the healthcare of all American children for some years. I understand the ultra-liberal position that everybody is only responsible for themselves but somehow I think the world cannot work this way in the 21st century. We are all in the same boat and a civilized nation cannot allow people to have no good medical care because they cannot pay for it but at the same time offer no jobs and pay trillions for debt and wars - after all the debt and wars are also paid with tax money. I read a lot of strange ideolical ideas about "small government". For example Ron Paul - surely an extreme ultra-liberal - thinks the state cannot tell citizens if they take drugs or not and the state should not interfere in healthcare etc but at the same time he lets his own personal ethics come into the discussion when it comes to abortion, for example. Strange ideas about what can be regulated and what cannot be regulated by the government. In a society some sort of sharing cannot be helped or else it would not be a society. You always have people who are young and able to work and provide for the food and clothing and you have children and old people who need to be supported because they are too small or too weak to provide for themselves. Therefore we have schools we pay for, we have pensions, nursing homes etc. At some point in our lives we are all at the giving and at the receiving end. We pay taxes but get unemploment money when we lose the job, our children go to state-funded schools and maybe we get a job in an industry that is subsidized by the government (tax money). Only in the stone age the old and the sick tribe members were left behind to die. |
| YourValentine 30.12.2011 09:20 |
Another interesting point is in which way Clinton was responsible for the housing bubble. Surely, he promoted loans for low-income families but then people had more often jobs than they had after Clinton. Clinton was not responsible for the shadow credit market where loans were sold away as assets and he was not responsible for all the other shady money "products" in a deregulated bank system running wild. Also, Clinton balanced the budget which was amazing and won him unrestricted respect all over the world except the USA where he was impeached over a little sex affair - just incredible. Funnily, Clinton is also a role model for neoliberals in my own country because he balanced the budget mostly at the expense of social security. I think he was even accused of racism when he came up with his ideas to cut down costs for social security. It did work, though and with the economy growing people at least had the chance to get a job and to get back on their feet. As long as unemployment is such a problem social security is a must. |
| Micrówave 30.12.2011 09:54 |
Excellent post. Again, apologies to Inu-liger if he took this personally. There's ALWAYS two sides to every coin.... Happy New Year... to everyone, including Kim Jong Who. |
| inu-liger 30.12.2011 15:07 |
YourValentine wrote: This thread has taken wild turns from the death of Kim to a tanning tax in the USA :-)Hence my attempt to divert it to that topic I created especially for those two over there! ;-) |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2012 13:04 |
Say, Microwave. You so happily throw the word "socialist" around. Have you ever read Karl Marx? Because those very, very few right-wingers who have all come to the surprising conclusion that much of Marx's economic views are exactly the same as theirs. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 17:53 |
Micrówave wrote:
When is the last time any nation went exclusively to America for anything substantial that no other nation could provide (besides weapons or materials to manufacture them)?>>South Korea... a few days ago.<< I said "exclusively" America. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 17:55 |
Micrówave wrote: And even if you support this notion of taxing stuff that is supposed to be bad for you – cigarettes, soda, tanning – the math doesn’t actually add up because the tanning salon industry says the government is overestimating how much revenue the tax will produce. ================= Yup, definitely agree with that. Once again, the solution is to cut defence spending, not to squeeze little bits out here and there. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 18:10 |
Micrówave wrote:
America is statistically the worst with regards to: Health care>>Really? I can look at those ads on TV about poor African countries. If we’re so bad, how come they need $19 a month to feed 10 children?<< I said "civilized countries." Most of Africa (if not all) does not qualify. So by implying that the US health care system is doing fine only when compared to Africa (and not any other civilized country), I think the flimsiness of the argument speaks for itself. life expectancy>>US currently ranks #36. Pakistan at 135, Russia at 136. Ethiopia at 168. 67.2 is the world average, US is 80.8 WHAT LIST ARE YOUGOING OFF OF???<< This one - link The US is ranked 50th, and nearly every other civilized nation is above them. >>Ok, Al Gore. Now are you getting this from his website or do you have facts?<< Al Gore may not be perfect, but his stances on climate change are in line with 98% of scientists. An overwhelming majority. Most people can't understand the science, but they can relate to bullying, hence why guys like Gore are bullied. Here's your science lesson: Carbon dioxide, which humans emit into the atmosphere in great amounts, is a heat-trapping gas. Storms have become more frequent and more violent (notice the disproportionate number of natural disasters lately?), and temperatures go up (average temperatures worldwide have greatly increased over the last couple decades). Conservative estimates say Florida will be under water in 100 years, as the Arctic ice caps are melting. This is the science. The people spreading most of the anti-global warming propaganda are the same people who spread propaganda in the 60s saying cigarettes didn't cause cancer. The only people who stand much to lose are the oil companies, because renewable energy cannot be taxed. >>Urban SO2 Concentration: Argentina #1, US #21, Russia #47 (not all data was available for all countries) Energy Consumption (Per Mil. $ GDP) {biggest wasters of the world} : Denmark #1, UK #10, US #28, Ukraine #71 Environmental Regulatory Regime Index: Finland #1, UK #13, US #14, Mexico #48, #71 Paraguay<< Fair play. But try this: link The US is #6 in CO2 emissions. China is obviously #1, but they aren't on the list because their government doesn't measure it. CO2 emission is by far the most important environmental measurement. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 18:24 |
YourValentine wrote: For example Ron Paul - surely an extreme ultra-liberal ===================== Definitely not. He's a real republican. He's fiscally conservative, and he doesn't believe in evolution or abortion. He rejects the military complex, and wants to pay off the debt by greatly reducing defense spending. He doesn't speak with scripted talking points, and is therefore the only republican at debates who appears intelligent and passionate. And above all, he's the only one who isn't bought out by corporate America. He doesn't buy the idea that one must be pro-war to be a republican. But for this simple reason he will never be elected, because war is big business. |
| inu-liger 03.01.2012 23:20 |
"He doesn't buy the idea that one must be pro-war to be a republican. But for this simple reason he will never be elected, because war is big business"THEN AGAIN, one COULD hope after the Vietnam-like embarrassment that was the Iraq war (as well as the difficulties going on with Afghanistan), the American people will wake up and see that electing people to spend 1+ trillion $ on military ventures might not be such a good idea after all...fucking Bush-propping morons... |
| YourValentine 04.01.2012 02:51 |
Bob - I do not know what "republican" means to describe a political view. Does it mean someone prefers a repbulic to a monarchy? I think that "ultra-liberal" is the correct way to describe Ron Paul's political views and I mean "describing", not "judging". Liberal meaning "small government" . For me it is extreme when someone puts small government above the welfare of the poorer part of the society but I do respect Ron Paul for sticking to his views over the decades notwithstanding who is in power in Washington. I totally agree with his views on the wars of the Bush regime and I agree very much with him in his views about the constitution and how it has been violated by the Iraq war . Ron Paul's speech about Julian Assange in the congress was a highlight for me last year. On the other hand I very much believe that a complex and civilized society needs mandatory health care - it may be liberal to let people die for lack of money but it is not human imo. Still - someone like Ron Paul who is honest and sticks to his views and does not compromise them is a welcome contrast to all the corrupt politicians with no values and no honour whose true agenda keeps being hidden from the public . We can always disagree and have a different view on the world but it must be discussed openly and then a society can make majority choices. And I am not referring to the USA - I am referring to my own country just as much. |
| Micrówave 04.01.2012 10:25 |
Yes, but then he goes off the deep end too often with jewels like:
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." –1992 newsletter on the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict "AIDS sufferers enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick." ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." -1992 newsletter |
| The Real Wizard 04.01.2012 22:48 |
YourValentine wrote: >>Bob - I do not know what "republican" means to describe a political view. Does it mean someone prefers a repbulic to a monarchy?<< No, nothing remotely that deep. It's just the name of the more right-wing of the two parties in the US. >>I think that "ultra-liberal" is the correct way to describe Ron Paul's political views and I mean "describing", not "judging". Liberal meaning "small government".<< I can totally see that from a European perspective. But in the US and even in Canada, "smaller government" is something conservatives rally for. But it is just a talking point from their playbook... there's absolutely no truth to that claim in practice. Back to Ron Paul ... he is a conservative, in the sense that he wants to restore things to the way they once were, and stick to traditional values. One meaning of conservative in the US sense is to be patriotic, and he is a constitutional conservative. He is a fiscal conservative too. That's what conservative is supposed to mean. But over the past few decades, in practice it has greatly changed. It now means putting money into the pockets of the biggest corporations (oil, food, pharma, etc) in whatever way possible, regardless if it's at the expense of the people or the environment. I wish I was only describing the US, but Canada is pretty much the same thing now. As far as I understand, social conservatism in Europe isn't nearly as right wing as it is here. Does your ruling party in Germany (even though it is "liberal conservatism") rule like a Green party in the sense that environmental considerations are often made when passing legislation? I realize that in itself is a bit of a loaded question because you have a coalition government, and probably always will. I can only admire that. European governments continue to fascinate me and I want to learn. |
| GratefulFan 05.01.2012 00:07 |
Barb, I knew what you meant by 'ultra liberal' right away. :). The political term that would express that in the US is'libertarian'. Ron Paul is indeed a libertarian and conservative, though his ideas put him at odds with his own conservative party often. Any form of 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' here implies left leaning/progressive views and generally a larger and more domestically interventionist federal government. Ron Paul shares some positions with the left but few if any ideals. |
| The Real Wizard 05.01.2012 01:02 |
GratefulFan wrote: Any form of 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' here implies left leaning/progressive views and generally a larger and more domestically interventionist federal government. =================== And that's just so ridiculous, because conservative governments are also interventionist (top of the list - they go out of their way to ensure corporations thrive in impunity). They just purport not to be, and it keeps working on the apathetic and clueless public. Talking point, smile for the camera, rinse, lather, repeat. |
| YourValentine 05.01.2012 03:39 |
oops - looks like he supports racist views, as well? Interesting how such labels are used differently . I cannot think of a German equivalent of "libertarian". In Germany a liberal is someone who promotes free, unregulated markets and very small government intervention. The liberals believe that the government hurts the basic rights of rich people when money is transferred to the poorer part of the society. Liberals never had much support in the voting public but they have more influence than voters due to being needed as a coalition partner. Fiscal conservatism - I had to look that up and I think all our parties plead for debt control and spending control but when they are in power they increase the debt. The ruling Christian democrats are regarded as "conservatives" but that is only a label these days. They promote Christian values but the president is a divorced Catholic, the foreign minister a married gay man and pre-implantation diagnostics was recently allowed in a new law. On the other hand the social democrats, who uphold the principles os equal chances and social security was the party who made the deepest cut into our social security system since WW2. All parties believe in the protection of the environment - climate change is universally regarded as a big threat that needs drastic action and saving of resources is a goal that is supported by goverment funding. Patriots - a word that is hardly ever used in my country. Since the Nazis totally discredited such words there is no such value as "patriotism". I never owned flag in my whole life and the first time I saw German flags in the street was the football world cup in 2006. Loving your country just for the sake of it is a alien idea for many people. We can be (cautiously) proud of our achievements but try not to be too happy about it in order to not annoy our neighbours with whom we want to live in peace in a big European family. All in all I think that we are a moderate country with people not fighting in a way we can see in tbe USA. There is a much broader social consensus and a much broader middle ground although people are increasingly frustrated by politicians who create social decline as well as unthinkable dangers in favour of corporate industry and the banking system. For example people have the attitude that "if we have to bail out Greece, I guess we have to bail them out" but at the same time they are angry with "the politicians" who created that situation. I cannot imagine we would see an opposition fighting the elected government with tooth and nails disregarding the country's well being and calling themselves "patriots". That does not mean we have a perfect sytem - far from it. When I say (for example) we have universal healthcare and a broad consensus supporting it - it does not mean we have "perfect healthcare" - on the contrary. We spend much too much money on beaurocracy, medication is more expensive than in any other European country and the cost a are increasing each year. On the other hand when my husband recently had a very critical heart condition he received prompt treatment and surgery on the same day and we did not need to pay a cent . I think this is worth a lot of compromises and tax raises knowing that your health problems are taken care of immediately with no risk of losing your lifetime savings. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2012 04:13 |
Ron Paul reminds of nothing quite so much as of the Dixiecrats. A story that appeals to big business ("small government", "fiscal responsibility" and all kinds of empty words like that) is used to hide a very simple agenda: States' Rights. Ron Paul wants only one thing - to kill federal government, so that the uncivilized States (roughly 35 out of 50) can drag America down unhindered. |