quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well, no government is perfect or ever will be. The fact is, is that they are now treated as equals.

yeah but for example the homosexuals aren't....

quote:

Sounds like you've just had bad experiences and also miss your old country, why are you living in the United States again?

I am not the only one who experienced these problems from the people that I know. No, I don't miss my country. It is plagued with other problems.

quote:

I have studied about how socialized medicine works, which is quite similar to an American HMO (Kaiser in my case) and I can tell you that PPO blows away HMO healthcare by a long shot.

Dude, ok I am going to say this again. HMO is nothing like socialized medicine. I have the first hand experience. I get served in timely manner with the same quality for free and without waiting for four hours. Try experiencing, instead of studying about it.

quote:

Oh and another thing, if you go to a emergency room with an infected toenail you will have to wait for the more urgent problems to go first.

Then it is not the best system in the world if you have long queues. Not getting my money worth, for the supposed best healthcare in the world. Proves again the fact about the waiting time I experienced with socialized medicine.

P.S. Also, I was in doctors office, not in emergency room. Toenail infection is not an immediate emergency, lol.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

Last edited by 3xx3r7 on Apr-09-2004 at 20:07

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen That's just it, they are allowed to roam around freely as long as they aren't hurting anyone. As for Janet's tit, well, I'm personally am against broad censorship, but the FCC only censors what can be shown on PUBLIC airwaves, you can show whatever the hell you want on private airwaves.

Well, KKK is issuing PUBLIC statements, and those statements may well induce a large amount of animosity and hate crimes towards people of other race. The harm from those statements is much greater than that of people seeing Janet's tit (considering that there is any harm at all, which is quite questionable). What you personally believe is totally irrelevant, what is relevant is the position of the government. If I came to you and started threatening you that I will hang you or burn you to death, you'd feel scared, right? You'd feel like you need protection and that the person who's threatening you should be constrained. Well, KKK is doing just that, they are openly threatening people of other races and the government turns a blind eye to it. But it's not just that the organization just spoke out and did nothing. They have themselves organzied and carried out a rather large amount of lynches and public executions. They tortured and killed innocent people and are still allowed to exist. There is a reason why hate speech is not allowed in Europe, because it is provoking violence and social unrest.

quote:

That doesn't really mean anything. I know many people that have lived here few years and don't know shit about the American system of government.

Well, I for one do know enough about the system. Like that great 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol. Now how could that happen in the land of the brave and the free? And then the 21st amendment that amended the first one. Oh, and when did you abolish slavery? In 1865, eh? Several hundred years after most of Europe. And who was the first country to give women the right to vote? Well, it wasn't the US, you did that only in 1920.

quote:

In America, one has a choice what he wants to make of himself and what education and social status they want to obtain.

First of all, that applies only to the rich. A poor black kid from NY ghetto has exactly 0% chance of getting decent education, because decent education in the US costs large sums of money. In Europe, the university system is much cheaper, if not free, and poor people recieve enough wellfare and benefits to be able to get decent education if they want to. On the other hand, your pre-university education is horrible. People, and especially children, have been given too much right in deciding what they want to learn. That's the reason why children have to be taught creationism in some public schools, and that's the reason why there are too many people who are either narrowly educated or completely uneducated about important issues when they finish high school. Those people are practically forced to be taking shit courses at universities because they followed easier line of resistance when they were kids, and that's why so few are taking courses in r&d.

quote:

Wow, you really think that? The US was a superpower long before WW1 and it's because of the industrial revolution that brought the United States to become the superpower it has become. The industrial revolution only happened because America was the first country with a free society that allowed for the advancement of personal human acheivements. Have you ever even studied the industrial revolution? I can tell you that it didn't start in Europe, that's for sure.

Eh, superpower long before WW1??? And you're taking history at Berkeley? I largely doubt that. I agree with Occrider that I made a bit hasty assumption, the US was a rather strong power prior to WW2, but prior to WW1 it was nowhere near UK, except in railroad and automotive industries, both of which were invented in Europe. as a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, industrial revolution was started with the invention of the steam engine. And who invented the steam engine? Why, James Watt, an englishman! Prior to WW1, about 30% of americans were employed in the agricultural sector, in comparison to the british 12%. The amount of people in the US with post elementary education was 1/3 of that in Germany. Most scientific breakthroughs came from europe at the time. Regarding the free society, I can't seem to recall slaves being held in France/Germany/UK in early 1800's.

___________________
1+1=10

Also, FuzzyGreen you seem to respond only to the points that are convenient for you. You either don't want to admit strong points or don't have anything to say about them from the way I see it.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 Also, FuzzyGreen you seem to respond only to the points that are convenient for you. You either don't want to admit strong points or don't have anything to say about them from the way I see it.

Well I am at work right now and don't have time to research and answer everything, so I pick the easy ones. Maybe if someone else could come on here and help me out it wouldn't be so much work.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic What the? (part two!) I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are numerous things going on today in the US that are in direct violation of the constitution, specifically the establishment clause and the first amendment (I believe the two are different - correct me if I'm wrong).

Which ones?
What church is the official church of the United states? If you are talking about the first amendment.

quote:

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that because the constitution says something, it actually happens. Sadly, that isn't the case. You need to look at freedom in practice rather than in theory.

Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776.

You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776. You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

Erm, hate to break it to you, but since you seem to base your assumptions on the situation that existed in Europe during early baroque period, I must let you know that the current situation in Europe is as different from the one back in 1776 as is that in the US. European countries are mostly constitutional republics, with a few exceptions like the UK, but even there the royal family has absolutely no relevance and weight aside from being a tourist attraction and a constant source of gossips. You might want to learn a bit more about what happened in world history besides the local american 1776-1865 interval that's being taught in schools. You'd then know, for example, that there was an earlier failed attempt in the UK to overthrow the monarchy and create a republic led by Oliver Cromwell. So you weren't the first "modern" people that tried, only the first that succeeded. With a great help from the french, may I add.

As a matter of fact, I'd even say that the government system in most european countries is more modern and democratic than that in the US, because there are no electorial votes, as the government leaders and presidents are chosen directly. It can't happen that a person who wins less than 50% of the votes becomes a president like it happened in the US.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well I am at work right now and don't have time to research and answer everything, so I pick the easy ones. Maybe if someone else could come on here and help me out it wouldn't be so much work.

I think you are all alone in this one, buddy. That should be no surprise.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Which ones? What church is the official church of the United states? If you are talking about the first amendment. Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776. You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

... are you talking?

It's the 21th century dude, I'm pretty sure every decade all the countries in the world have a different administration and purpose for their needs.

About freedoms, I really only believe there's two real kinds of freedoms people need to care about - Moral Freedoms and Practical Freedoms. Moral being freedoms that are acceptable to all, practical meaning our basic human rights. All countries do the same to try to balance these two types between a person's integrity and their cultural values. One of the main reasons that the US has a slight more restricted policy on these freedoms is because we have more people to tend to then most western countries, with more diverse ideals between people. People in america are more of a melting pot then a salad bowl, like europe. That causes alot of abstruct views on all our policies due to inter-racial prejustice, racism, 'crackers' or 'uncle toms', etc. Then add religious conflict, regional dissension, gender issues and a whole lot of bull-shit excuses(mostly scams and shit that creates loopholes in our system).. That's the american way. Trying to blend worlds all over in one country... Then caucasians suppressing the pending fairness of america's politics, social ideals, etc... It's just the way it is.

Honestly, the states just try to please the majority while trying to keep ourselves content with what we have. If we we're any more of a freer nation, we'd have way more national chaos then we already have. It's already shitty that 9/11 fucked our international ties and high economic rates, but as long as the united states has the majority of it's country living in practically middle of nowhere or people living in poverty in a nation of economic power, we'll continue to have those 'irratic individuals', who are angry at the world and everything in it, disrupting social freedom.

Thats the difference between europe and america, in my opinion.

The reason they have a bit more freedom, is because america's goals are power, economy and pride. If we took a big step back and 20-30 years ago stopped meddling with other country's problems, then we'd be a more freer nation today, a more content nation, a richer nation and the world would be different all together.

quote:

Originally posted by SpecialEd If we took a big step back and 20-30 years ago stopped meddling with other country's problems, then we'd be a more freer nation today, a more content nation, a richer nation and the world would be different all together.

What, like staying out of the cold war? That constitutes the majority of foreign policy decisions for the past 20-30 years.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 I can go on and on for days.... Yes Aids patients get free treatment (assuming there are drugs available) but they are basically forced into AIDS sanatariums.

"It has also evolved its policy. Patients at Los Cocos are now able to leave if they choose."

From your BBC source. So they are not forced now. Though they were which you could say leads to them having an advantage. But the real point I was trying to make in the post was that the best doctors the best technolgy do not make the best medical system, which I'll stand by.

Edit: And also here in the UK or anywhere else for that matter if you want private health care or private health care insurance you can get it. You are free to choose the National Heath Service or private. So the issue of you can't choose the doctor you see or whatever is null and void. Esspecially since in the NHS you can do that anyway because you choose which doctor you wish to register with and which treatments you do or do not recive.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on Apr-10-2004 at 08:35

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen I have no clue what you are talking about, but no "local millita" is allowed anything more then a normal "joe public". The right to bear arms and protect yourself is a freedom granted by the constitution.

quote:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Thats the line the gun lobbists use to say they are allowed to bear arms. Here is why, from a gun advocate.

quote:

Anti-gun propaganda falsely insists that the Second Amendment only guarantees the "right" of States to have a National Guard. An examination of the language used in the eighteenth century by the Framers of the Constitution clearly shows our Founding Fathers intended to protect a birthright that properly belongs to every individual citizen of the United States.

Now is it just me or does "Milita" not normally mean something like the national guard, rather than everyone? If it ment everyone it would say citizen. As it does say for rights and so on, why say milita when you mean citizen? The point I was trying to make is the constution isn't practiced as accuratly as it could be. Thats what I ment before.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.