R.I.P

[TNRighty]

Privatization is a good thing. I don't know that much about British law, but there's nothing in the constitution of the United States that say's its the government's responsibility to provide its citizens with retirement benefits, health care, transportation, or education. In the USA we have it, but I staunchly oppose it. Social security is the single biggest fraud ever imposed on the American people. Social Insecurity is not an "investment", it is a complete and total redistribution of wealth, period. An ivestment earns money over time depending on economic growth and the success of the private market. Money we are forced to put into social security is NOT ours, as government would have you believe. As soon as the government collects it, it is immediately redistributed to people on retirement. Anyone who knows anything about economics understands the time-value of money. To make money "work" it has to be invested and nurtured, not redistributed. Our nation and its citizens are losing unspoken amounts of wealth and prosperity through the fraud of social insecurity.
What's next, health care. More government-provided insecurity. Is the government responsible for your health? When the government takes away your ability to chose for yourself your own form of health care, you have no freedom. Who would you rather have making decisions about your health care? Some poorly educated government beaurocrat, or yourself and your doctor. I live in Tennessee, and I've seen first-hand the absolute horrors of government health-care. We have this wonderful system known as Tenn-Care. Aside from the fact that its bankrupting the state, the legislators are continously redefining what sort of illness does or does not warrant a doctor's attention. After they decide whether or not you can see a doctor, lawmakers, not doctors, decide what sort of treatment is apporpriate. UNFATHOMABLE!!!! Luckily, I made use of my power of choice and chose to educate myself and develop a set of useful job skills that would distance me from dependance on government programs. Yes, I pay a certain percentage of my earnings to pay for government programs like social security and health care, but I will never for one second depend on the government to take care of me.

[BOLO]

Yes, I too get irritated when Americans claim that they won WWII single handed or otherwise "Saved our asses".

First off. Who is "Americans"? All? Some? A few? Many?
I know many who claim the war would not have been won if not for our presence. Do you deny that?

Would Britain have won the war all by itself? Would Britain, without American presence, have mounted an Offensive the size of Normandy on the 6th of June? Did Britain have the situation under control before the Americans came over there?
If the answer is yes, please bring back all those dead American Soldiers buried overseas. It seems they didn't need to go. Thus they didn't need to die. Perhaps we should have remained Isolationist, it seems you did not need us.

You better believe I get irritated when someone dismisses, or attempts to make light of our contribution, which was significant, not only in material but in manpower. President Reagen went to Normandy to honor those who died defending America, and the free world. By your lights all they did was defend America.
I think not.

[MO]

TNRighty-

Yes, I pay a certain percentage of my earnings to pay for government programs like social security and health care, but I will never for one second depend on the government to take care of me.

I think we all have a responsibility to try and make sure we are not dependent on government. That is living your principles.

[rush22]

TNRighty maybe you should change your name to TNLibertarian or something.

Also, Tennesee is apparently an example of what not to do when it comes to public healthcare. In most countries that have it it doesn't work that way at all.

[frankiegoestostoke]

In the USA we have it, but I staunchly oppose it. Social security is the single biggest fraud ever imposed on the American people. Social Insecurity is not an "investment", it is a complete and total redistribution of wealth, period. An ivestment earns money over time depending on economic growth and the success of the private market. Money we are forced to put into social security is NOT ours

Whether or not you like it, for all your moaning it improves peoples lives. Period. Try to take it away and I imagine you would (quite rightly) have a revolution on your hands.

I would be very happy to pay higher taxes if it would improve the lives of people who need it.

When the government takes away your ability to chose for yourself your own form of health care, you have no freedom.

And yet being too poor to afford medical care doesn't constitue a lack of "freedom"? I would say government health care enhances rather than reduces freedom no?

Who would you rather have making decisions about your health care? Some poorly educated government beaurocrat, or yourself and your doctor.

Thats right, every single person who works in government is "poorly educated" - what a great way to needless bias your statement there.

Would Britain have won the war all by itself? Would Britain, without American presence, have mounted an Offensive the size of Normandy on the 6th of June? Did Britain have the situation under control before the Americans came over there?
If the answer is yes, please bring back all those dead American Soldiers buried overseas. It seems they didn't need to go. Thus they didn't need to die. Perhaps we should have remained Isolationist, it seems you did not need us.

Wow... way to misunderstand the original statement bolo.... I think he was merely implying that America didn't win the war "single handedly".

Would you guys have been able to do it without the Russians for example?

[BOLO]

Wow... way to misunderstand the original statement bolo.... I think he was merely implying that America didn't win the war "single handedly".

Wow! way to jump in there and speak for some one else.
Wow! way to jump in there and jump to a conclusion.

I did not misunderstand nor take incorrectly what was meant. Irritate is a strong word with strong connotations. I understood.

Would you guys have been able to do it without the Russians for example?

Yes.

OLT. Produce proof that ' AMERICANS' "in toto" believe as you indicate, that we won it single handedly.

[BOLO]

Whether or not you like it, for all your moaning it improves peoples lives. Period. Try to take it away and I imagine you would (quite rightly) have a revolution on your hands.

I would be very happy to pay higher taxes if it would improve the lives of people who need it.

Whether you like it OR not, we don't think much of the Social Security Administration or the plan.
There would be no revolution. You have confused us for another country.
I don't mind if you pay higher taxes. Just get your hands out of my pockets.
SSN does not work. It is the worlds largest pyramid scheme, and the only way it continues to survive is because Congress keeps raising the bar by changing the retirement age. They do so knowing fewer people will live to see it. This decreases demand.
BTW. Why is criticism, moaning? Your definition?
Complaints not allowed? Accept what is. Big Brother speaks.

And yet being too poor to afford medical care doesn't constitue a lack of "freedom"? I would say government health care enhances rather than reduces freedom no?

Who? Who are these poor people?
Freedom? What lack of freedom? You are fuzzy here.
It is obvious you are a locked in Liberal.
You're definitions are out of the norm and can only come from the socialist handbook.
Check our constitution, and show me where Medical Care is an inherent, God given right?
We don't re write the Constitution to suit the needs of the left.

Thats right, every single person who works in government is "poorly educated" - what a great way to needless bias your statement there.

Way to exaggerate. You do that a lot. I read some of your other post, and even responded to one where you did that.
He said SOME poorly educated bureaucrat. And for the most part they are, when it comes to individual needs.

[lordjulius7]

"You are putting words into my mouth here. I meant legally. "

No, legally we did. Under the way the British common law operates, there is a presumption that all speech is legal unless directly prohibited.

"Do you seriously not think the European Convention on Human rights has been less influential than the existance of America when it comes to Human rights legislation? (post the second world war I mean)."

No, I would agree with you there.

"But at what price? Massive unemployment and misery thats what! "

Harsh as it sounds, the high unemployment of the early eighties was a neccessary evil. It made our transition from a post-war industrial economy to a modern economy possible. The same high unemployment is now crippling much of europe. It was unavoidable and we are better off for having swallowed the pill early.

"Much of this, of course, is thanks to Gordon"

That's like praising the waiter for the quality of your steak, because he didn't drop it on the way to the table.

"Au contraire. The civil service was downsized into Next Step agencies under Thatcher, many of these were later privatised. "

Outsourcing certain civil service functions is a mile away from privatising the civil service.

"Who are you going to vote for tommorrow out of curiosity? (Please don't say UKIP)."

Um, sorry. UKIP.

"And do you know of any British political webboards, they all seem to be American? "

All the ones I post on ( Five, including this one ) are American. I believe that the Guardian has a board attatched to it's website, if that's any help. I've never visited it personally.

[lordjulius7]

Bolo - I did not say that ALL Americans believe they won the war single-handedly. I said it is irritating to hear it said. And I believe that I pointed out how the final outcome would have been far worse for the world if America had not been involved. My point was that Britain would not have been defeated, with or without the Americans.
I don't believe anything I said was dismissive or belittling of the contribution US forces made. I was merely arguing against a similar belittling of the British side.
If you review the thread, you'll see that I was actually being pro-American, apart from that one aside which you took off on a tangent.

[TNRighty]

Back to this "poor" thing. Let's look at our nation's current definition of "poor" or "living in poverty." First of all, the majority (I don't know recall the exact percentages, maybe someone can help me out) of people in this country defined as "poor" have color TV, a VCR, cable or satellite, and own their own car. The average "poor" person in the USA has a quality of life better than the average European. The only statistical data our country uses to define "poor" is annual income. A retired couple with hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets (paid-for home, property, 401-K, etc) can be defined by our government as poor. Its nothing but an attempt to spread social programs as far as possible and create dependence on government. Typically it is the Democratic Party that perpetuates this sort of stuff. The Democratic Party hasn't always been this way, but in recent years they've abandoned the concept of the American Dream in favor of political power. When the people control their own money, they have the power. When government controls the money, government has the power. Americans dependent on government vote Democrat. I don't remember the philosopher who said this, but he was right on. He said basically that a Democracy will cease to exist when the people realize they can make money by voting for politicians who promise to give them money, be it in the form of health care or anything else. Its at that point that we become dependent on government as the provider of our well-being and lose the ability to make of ourselves what we want to.

[MO]

First of all, the majority (I don't know recall the exact percentages, maybe someone can help me out) of people in this country defined as "poor" have color TV, a VCR, cable or satellite, and own their own car.

"Poverty, American Style"
www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2060

He said basically that a Democracy will cease to exist when the people realize they can make money by voting for politicians who promise to give them money

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the voters always vote for the candidates promising the most from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses due to loose fiscal policy always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations have lasted 200 years. They go through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to selfishness
From selfishness to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to dependency
And from dependency back again into bondage.

__Alexander Tytler, writing about the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier.

[BOLO]

Yes, I too get irritated when Americans claim that they won WWII single handed or otherwise "Saved our asses".

I did not say that ALL Americans believe they won the war single-handedly. I said it is irritating to hear it said.

I believe I can read. " Americans" stands by itself, not coupled with any disclaimer.

And I believe that I pointed out how the final outcome would have been far worse for the world if America had not been involved. My point was that Britain would not have been defeated, with or without the Americans.

The term that goes here is, "we will never know will we"?
The Germans lost a great deal in the "Battle for Britain"
They did not lose it all, and they did not lose the will to try again. In fact even after D-Day the Germans were still formulating plans for another attack on Britain. perhaps you would have held. There is no doubt the spirit was there.
That same spirit dominated the Alamo, Napoleon at Waterloo, It pushed the five hundred onward, it kept the Scotch going in their war with England, and was there even after William died.
Better that you never found out. The outcome would have been too costly. You did not respond to my other, questions, their answer is obvious.

If you review the thread, you'll see that I was actually being pro-American, apart from that one aside which you took off on a tangent.

You wrote something I dis-agree with. That does not make it a tangent. It is part and parcel of your thread.

I don't believe anything I said was dismissive or belittling of the contribution US forces made.

I know nothing I said was. Yours was insinuating.

When it comes to Allies, Britain would be my top choice. I have served with SBS (RM) and worked with others from the British Military. Military men are for the most part practical. You would be surprised at some of the comments made in regards to WW II, and the American presence.
We are a self confident (swaggeringly so) nation. So be it. That is who we are.
Perhaps it is all those Crosses, and Stars of David, that dot the European countryside with Americans beneath them that make us so. Perhaps it is knowing we did it once in WW I, and we had to do it again, in WW II that contributes. Many Americans felt we did the right thing in WW II. There were those that opposed it. They were a minority. Being as the majority wanted to go, there was an inevitable rise in the swaggering as America put on it's War Face. Propaganda was used to instill pride. The end result was inevitable, there were those who felt we, indeed, were saving the English ass. They were never a Majority. War doesn't allow immaturity to linger.
You cast an aspersion, deliberately or otherwise. I responded, so did someone else. It was no tangent, it was a response to your words.

[TNRighty]

Thank you MO!!!

[rush22]

MO that quote is a fake.

[lordjulius7]

"I believe I can read. " Americans" stands by itself, not coupled with any disclaimer."

If I say, "It irritates me when people drop litter" that doesn't mean I think all people drop litter, it means that I am irritated by those people who do.

"Better that you never found out. The outcome would have been too costly"

I entirely agree with that.

"You did not respond to my other, questions, their answer is obvious."

I did respond. I said that "I believe that I pointed out how the final outcome would have been far worse for the world if America had not been involved", by which I meant that either the nazis would have remained in power on the continent or the USSR would have been able to cross far further than Berlin.

"I know nothing I said was. Yours was insinuating."

I insinuated nothing of the sort. You may have inferred it, but if so you mistook my meaning. Nobody who is familiar with my posting record would imagine for a moment that I have anything other than the highest respect for the US military.