Do you hate Americans?

Watch
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2221
Report 16 years ago
#2221
(Original post by spikdboy)
It wouldn't cause a nuclear meltdown, but it would hurt. And to say that the reason terrorists haven't terrorized is because there is no opportunities is pretty wrong. The most likely reason that they haven't done anything is because whatever they would do wouldn't be as important as 9/11 and could hurt the effect of 9/11.
The actual nuclear reactor is enclosed by several levels of walls and other material. I find it highly improbably that a grenade thrown from the outside would do more than damage a few windows.

And I don't see how blowing up a nuclear reactor, which could harm millions of Americans would be any less devastating than 9/11.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2222
Report 16 years ago
#2222
(Original post by spikdboy)
Prove me wrong by saying your a New York Atheist.

Or prove that my pattern continues by saying that your a Pittsburgh Christian.
You are incorrect, though I am not divulging the details to you.
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2223
Report 16 years ago
#2223
(Original post by Bismarck)
Do you know a single person who actually pays attention to those warnings? New York City was affected by terrorism more than any other place in the US, and yet over 80% of New Yorkers voted against Bush. If Bush was engaged in fearmongering, it didn't have any noticeable effects.
I know that there are millions of people who are effected by these warnings. Our very own Douglas went on and on about these 'what-if' scenarios. "What if you were kidnapped by terrorists? Do you think Kerry would save you? Because I KNOW Bush would". They had a very subtle yet overwhelming effect on the american public. It is called PROPOGANDA. It works because it is subtle, yet effective.
What makes you an expert in determining market prices? I think the markets can determine their own prices much better than you, me, or any economist. If the market couldn't bare the prices charged by the healthcare industry, the prices would be lowered. Might I also ask how the situation under Bush is any worse than it was under Clinton and if it did become worse why is Bush responsible for it? Our healthcare system is private last time I checked.
Take an ecconimcs class, talk to ANY ecconomist. The prices are beyond inflated. Companies jack up the prices because the government allows them to do so. The very same medicine in America sells for about a tenth of the price anywhere else in the world, including countries like Canada, Britian, and Australlia. So many people go without doctors and medicine simply because it is so expensive these days. A recent trip to the doctor for a cold (2 minutes with the doctor, basic bloodwork, etc..) cost me over 1,000 bucks.

Are you actually suggesting that everything is ship shape with our health care?
Why is Social Security "pretty much dead"? Do you honestly think that any of Bush's proposals will be passed?
It is pretty much dead because our government will not have the money or income to pay out senior citizens in about 20 years time. He denided it and denied it, well guess what? It was all true.
Our debt as percentage of GDP is still significantly lower than that of many Western European countries. Fiscal irresponsibility - definitely. Imminent bankruptcy - definitely not.
Not imminent as long as we get a responsible spender in the White House.
The person making the original remarks wasn't American.
Does that make it any less untrue?
Not true. America is the only country where private individuals contribute such a large portion of their income to foreign causes. Most other people rely on their governments to provide the aid. And while America is behind many Western European countries in giving foreign aid, it is far from the least generous country in the West. I should add that American military aid is not included in the foreign aid figure, even though without the aid of the American military, providing aid to Indonesia would be almost impossible after the tsunami.
We are getting on a tanget now, I doubt either of us have the time or resources to back these numbers up. Looking at straight GDP the US lags behind. You are right however that Military Aid, which is very costly and significant, is NOT included in our foreign aid numbers. This fact could nearly double what we give out each year.

Lets look at the aid we are talking about though. For example the 15 billion dollars in the war on aids.

The Bush administration is NOT listening to the doctors, researchers, and sociologist on the ground working in these areas. They are not employing the best methods. they are ignoring them. They preach from their own agenda- they are not even making an attempt at doing the best they can regarding this situation. The 15 billion has so many red strings tied to it that its a joke.

A U.N.launched Global Fund allows and uses generic drugs which cost as little as $150 per person per year, these drugs are approved by the World Health Organization and by the UN. However the US refuses to allow US money to purchase these drugs (they must buy US patented drugs) even though the cost are much much higher. Because of the severity of the situation, every other country in the world allows their contributions to be used on the generic drugs over their own products- EXCEPT for the US. The cost discrepancies go like this: generic drugs cost about $150 per person per year, US FDA approved drugs go for $1000 per person per year. And now for the best part- a country can ONLY get these great benefits IF they adhere to a strict ‘abstinence first policy’. This is a faith based initiative implemented by the Bush team and involves a lack of education regarding basic sexual protection including condom use. One village that a friend visited found that the villagers had taken the condoms and put them on sticks around the village so as to ward off evil spirits. They were never educated about how to use them.

You are probably wondering who decided all this?? Well Randy Tobias, the head of the Bush AIDS program, is the recently retired CEO of the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, a corporation with close ties to the Republican party and the Bush Administration Lilly contributed more than $1.5 million to Republican campaigns during the 2002 election cycle, and spent $234,000 in mailings to shareholders on behalf of Bush's campaign in 2000. Lilly recently collaborated with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and other key Republicans to insert a rider in the eleventh hour to the Homeland Security Bill that would give the Eli Lilly immunity from families suing Lilly with charges its vaccines causes autism. What the hell does this have to do with Homeland Security???

Every doctor I have heard form regarding this situation, working for these aid groups is very much in favour of the generic drugs- there have been no cases of UN/WHO approved drugs being inefficient or detrimental to those who take the medicince. The US is very much in the way here and should allow the money they contribute (like everyone else) to go to generic drugs. And as for the abstinece first agenda- it is considered a joke by the entire world. Can you imagine using the same logic in the Sudan or Isreal- "Its easy... just dont kill people " You have to address the issues themselves, consult with the doctors and sociologists and learn the most effective way to help deal with the problem. Bush thinks he is above this and refuses to cooperate in any way with international releif agencies. That is one of the reasons why Tobias was booed of the stage at the last AIDS summit. I would boo him too.

Bush's trade agenda has focused on increasing patent rights for drug companies, even in poor countries, where patent monopolies result in higher cost and decreased access. The emerging free trade agreement between the U.S. and the Southern African Customs Union, for example, would inhibit access to low cost generic versions of important patented medicines. In Nigeria and Uganda the U.S. has pressured local officials to enact national patent policies that exceed the strict rules of the WTO and would restrict countries' rights to break patent monopolies to reduce medicines cost. Aids victims in Africa are dying at the rate of 6,000 a day and the Bush administration’s sole concern is the quarterly profits of its pharmaceutical companies. And you wonder why I hate the *******….
0
reply
spikdboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2224
Report 16 years ago
#2224
(Original post by Bismarck)
The actual nuclear reactor is enclosed by several levels of walls and other material. I find it highly improbably that a grenade thrown from the outside would do more than damage a few windows.

And I don't see how blowing up a nuclear reactor, which could harm millions of Americans would be any less devastating than 9/11.
What I'm talking about is not nuclear plants. It's the chemical plants, which are much less tightly guarded.
0
reply
spikdboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2225
Report 16 years ago
#2225
(Original post by psychic_satori)
You are incorrect, though I am not divulging the details to you.
Regardless, I don't like you. Whatever side you are on will lower when I find out which one it is.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2226
Report 16 years ago
#2226
(Original post by spikdboy)
Regardless, I don't like you. Whatever side you are on will lower when I find out which one it is.
How very mature. :rolleyes:
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2227
Report 16 years ago
#2227
(Original post by Kondar)
I know that there are millions of people who are effected by these warnings. Our very own Douglas went on and on about these 'what-if' scenarios. "What if you were kidnapped by terrorists? Do you think Kerry would save you? Because I KNOW Bush would". They had a very subtle yet overwhelming effect on the american public. It is called PROPOGANDA.
You make it sound like he wouldn't vote for Bush anyway. Do you know any person who decided to vote for Bush due to the supposed fearmongering?

It works because it is subtle, yet effective.Take an ecconimcs class, talk to ANY ecconomist. The prices are beyond inflated. Companies jack up the prices because the government allows them to do so. The very same medicine in America sells for about a tenth of the price anywhere else in the world, including countries like Canada, Britian, and Australlia. So many people go without doctors and medicine simply because it is so expensive these days. A recent trip to the doctor for a cold (2 minutes with the doctor, basic bloodwork, etc..) cost me over 1,000 bucks.

Are you actually suggesting that everything is ship shape with our health care?
As someone who just got their degree in economics and political science last week, I think I have taken more than one economics class and talked to more than one economist. By definition, prices can't be inflated unless there is external (i.e. government) intervention. The government "allows" the pharmaceuticals to charge as much as they want because...*drum roll*...we have a private healthcare industry. It's not the government's role to set prices.

The reason drugs cost most in the US than in other countries is because we don't have price controls in the US. On the other hand, that's also the reason why we have the largest and most efficient pharmaceutical industry in the world. If Americans didn't pay the prices they did for the drugs, the pharmaceutical companies would have much less incentive to invest in research in development, which both provides high-paying jobs to Americans and allows us to remain at the forefront of medical breakthroughs.

There are many problems with the current medical industry, but they have not appeared under Bush. Neither is Bush responsible for the costs charged by private firms. We need a more market-based approach to healthcare, and Bush's proposed healthcare savings accounts are a step in that direction. Wasting a $100 billion a year to subsidize drugs for the elderly is not going to help our healthcare much, but it certainly won't make it worse (though the money can be better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all for that matter).

It is pretty much dead because our government will not have the money or income to pay out senior citizens in about 20 years time. He denided it and denied it, well guess what? It was all true.
Actually, it's the Democrats who are claiming that there is no problem (I'm inclined to agree). Bush is the one claiming that there is a problem, though his approach is unlikely to solve it. But as I already mentioned, Bush's plans won't get passed. And Bush neither caused this supposed problem nor did he make it worse.

The Bush administration is NOT listening to the doctors, researchers, and sociologist on the ground working in these areas. They are not employing the best methods. they are ignoring them. They preach from their own agenda- they are not even making an attempt at doing the best they can regarding this situation. The 15 billion has so many red strings tied to it that its a joke.
That's certainly true, and I do blame Bush for allowing his private views to influence our foreign policy.

A U.N.launched Global Fund allows and uses generic drugs which cost as little as $150 per person per year, these drugs are approved by the World Health Organization and by the UN. However the US refuses to allow US money to purchase these drugs (they must buy US patented drugs) even though the cost are much much higher. Because of the severity of the situation, every other country in the world allows their contributions to be used on the generic drugs over their own products- EXCEPT for the US. The cost discrepancies go like this: generic drugs cost about $150 per person per year, US FDA approved drugs go for $1000 per person per year. And now for the best part- a country can ONLY get these great benefits IF they adhere to a strict ‘abstinence first policy’. This is a faith based initiative implemented by the Bush team and involves a lack of education regarding basic sexual protection including condom use. One village that a friend visited found that the villagers had taken the condoms and put them on sticks around the village so as to ward off evil spirits. They were never educated about how to use them.
That's rather hypocritical of you. You don't want Americans to pay high costs for drugs, but neither do you want other countries to pay for them. If neither Americans nor foreigners pay the full price of the drugs, why would pharmaceutical companies want to develop them? Do you think they do it for charity?

Bush's trade agenda has focused on increasing patent rights for drug companies, even in poor countries, where patent monopolies result in higher cost and decreased access. The emerging free trade agreement between the U.S. and the Southern African Customs Union, for example, would inhibit access to low cost generic versions of important patented medicines. In Nigeria and Uganda the U.S. has pressured local officials to enact national patent policies that exceed the strict rules of the WTO and would restrict countries' rights to break patent monopolies to reduce medicines cost. Aids victims in Africa are dying at the rate of 6,000 a day and the Bush administration’s sole concern is the quarterly profits of its pharmaceutical companies. And you wonder why I hate the *******….
See above.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2228
Report 16 years ago
#2228
(Original post by spikdboy)
After talking to a typical *******, non-New Yorker, non-Californian, Christian prick, my opinion on the matter is reinforced. Thank you.
The Burg' *****?? You can disagree with someone without attacking them personally. I didn't like Clinton's policies, but don't hate anyone for voting for him.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2229
Report 16 years ago
#2229
(Original post by Made in the USA)
I didn't like Clinton's policies, but don't hate anyone for voting for him.
You better not. His wife is probably going to be the next president of the US. :p:
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2230
Report 16 years ago
#2230
(Original post by Bismarck)
He got more electoral votes. Regardless, Bush got over 50% of the vote this time election, something that Clinton wasn't able to do in '92 and Bush Sr. wasn't able to do in '88.
Bush Sr. got 53.4% of the popular vote in 1988. Clinton wasn't able to get the majority of the popular vote in '92 or '96.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2231
Report 16 years ago
#2231
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Bush Sr. got 53.4% of the popular vote in 1988. Clinton wasn't able to get the majority of the popular vote in '92 or '96.
My bad. I forgot the loser that Bush Sr. ran against. To be fair, even I would have gotten 53% against Dukakis.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2232
Report 16 years ago
#2232
(Original post by Bismarck)
You better not. His wife is probably going to be the next president of the US. :p:
You're probably right about her standing a good chance of becoming our 44th president. She's a very shrewed politician and one of the few that has discussed adressing our porous border problem. That's an issue that both parties have inexplicably ignored.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2233
Report 16 years ago
#2233
(Original post by Made in the USA)
You're probably right about her standing a good chance of becoming our 44th president. She's a very shrewed politician and one of the few that has discussed adressing our porous border problem. That's an issue that both parties have inexplicably ignored.
She seems to have abandoned her left-wing rhetoric and adopted a more pragmatic position on most issues, which is what got her husband elected.
0
reply
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2234
Report 16 years ago
#2234
(Original post by Bismarck)
She seems to have abandoned her left-wing rhetoric and adopted a more pragmatic position on most issues, which is what got her husband elected.
Or she's adopted more pragmatic rhetoric so that she can be elected... And then the REAL Hilary shall emerge again... Cue the thunder and lightning bolts.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2235
Report 16 years ago
#2235
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Or she's adopted more pragmatic rhetoric so that she can be elected... And then the REAL Hilary shall emerge again... Cue the thunder and lightning bolts.
I doubt it, especially if Republicans retain control of Congress (which is very likely). I'll be paying close attention to what she'll be doing in the next 3 years to look for signs of her leftiness (seeing that she's NY's senator). I'll keep you notified of any setbacks.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2236
Report 16 years ago
#2236
(Original post by Bismarck)
I doubt it, especially if Republicans retain control of Congress (which is very likely). I'll be paying close attention to what she'll be doing in the next 3 years to look for signs of her leftiness (seeing that she's NY's senator). I'll keep you notified of any setbacks.
She is acting like a centrist just to get herself elected in '08. If she is taking cues from her husband, she will move left as soon as she is elected. Remember the "middle class tax cut" Bill Clinton said he would institute?
0
reply
Douglas
Badges: 9
#2237
Report 16 years ago
#2237
Kondar, get off the social security rampage, you can't defend the democrats's position on SS. PRIVATE ACCOUNTS ARE OFF THE TABLE...........what hypocritical *******s.

Also, get off the "spending" kick, you're not looking good at all. The deficit as a % of the GDP is a respectible 4-4.5% and dropping.

G
0
reply
Tomorrow2Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2238
Report 16 years ago
#2238
(Original post by Bismarck)
No, I dislike Bush for his specific policies, while Tomorrow hates him merely because it's the popular thing to do. More importantly, it makes absolutely no sense to hate the leader of another country for his domestic policies (unless he oppresses his people). The things he blames on Bush can't even be attributed to Bush in many instances.
Actually I was just trying to write a long list fairly late at night. Still don't see why you have to be personally affected by something to judge someone by it. By that logic, none of us had a right to judge Saddam Hussein. The "unless he oppresses his people" get-out clause doesn't strike me as self-justifying - we can care about the oppression of others, why can't we care about other domestic policies? Two million jobs is a lot of jobs.

For me, in all honesty, the War on Terror suffices as reason to hate George Bush. That said, in my rush to put a long list together, it's clear I mentioned a lot of stuff that I don't know the details of. Thanks for clearing quite a bit of that up.
0
reply
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2239
Report 16 years ago
#2239
(Original post by Bismarck)
You make it sound like he wouldn't vote for Bush anyway. Do you know any person who decided to vote for Bush due to the supposed fearmongering?
Of course Dougie was going to vote for him, but I can assure you these tactics had a huge effect on millions of undecided independent voters.
As someone who just got their degree in economics and political science last week
Congrats!! :top: I am actually about a semester away from a similar degree. You must not be much of an economist :p: if you can tolerate Bush, all of my friends who study the subject HATE him with a passion.
The reason drugs cost most in the US than in other countries is because we don't have price controls in the US. On the other hand, that's also the reason why we have the largest and most efficient pharmaceutical industry in the world. If Americans didn't pay the prices they did for the drugs, the pharmaceutical companies would have much less incentive to invest in research in development, which both provides high-paying jobs to Americans and allows us to remain at the forefront of medical breakthroughs.
The United States is the only developed nation without health insurance for all citizens; and 80 percent of those who lack such coverage live in families with one or more adult workers. The fact is, health care is getting TOO expensive. 800 dollars a month for my mother and younger brother- that is almost the amount of her mortgage. How on earth can lower class families afford this? The reason health insurance is so high is (partly) because doctor visits are so high, and this is high because of governmental enterprises such as HMO's. Bush inherited this problem 5 years ago and has yet to do anything about it.
Actually, it's the Democrats who are claiming that there is no problem (I'm inclined to agree). Bush is the one claiming that there is a problem, though his approach is unlikely to solve it. But as I already mentioned, Bush's plans won't get passed. And Bush neither caused this supposed problem nor did he make it worse.
I think he made it worse, the money has to come from somewhere and Bush spends like there is no tomorrow. What did you think of his tax cut proposals back in 2000? Everyone I know KNEW that they would not work, that they were incredibly irresponsible.
That's rather hypocritical of you. You don't want Americans to pay high costs for drugs, but neither do you want other countries to pay for them. If neither Americans nor foreigners pay the full price of the drugs, why would pharmaceutical companies want to develop them? Do you think they do it for charity?
No, medicine in America should not be hiked up. Secondly foreign aid, should be that- AID. Not a slush fund for campaign contributors, which is exactly what it is. Developing countries cannot even get this money unless they PROMISE to adhere to a celibacy first program (which doesn’t work) then the money can ONLY be used to buy the outrageously expensive American drugs, other than generic drugs. We are the only country in the world to have such a policy.
0
reply
Jamie
Badges: 18
#2240
Report 16 years ago
#2240
(Original post by psychic_satori)
The EU is setting itself up to become one of the weakest economies on the planet, with a weak military to boot. China continues to lack even remotely competitive military spending, compared to the US, and they also are pegging the yuan to the US dollar. China depends on America, and vice versa.
Hmmm, military actually doesn't come into it, because when push comes to shove, as son as americas economic dominance is challenged (which it is being) it will have to start bucking up its ideas. How many trillion deficit is there projected again..?
THere will be tax increases, there will be military cutbacks. Certainly pegging the Yaun is a bloody annoying tactic being employed by China, but they aren't going to stop it anytime soon. They are making billions out of it.


But simple fact is this - america has reached a crossroad where what it has been teaching the world for so many years (free trade etc) is now working AGAINST itself. Its no longer the biggest fish in the pond. And so its raising tariffs, making subsidies, and generally going against everything it has been harping on about for decades.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think mandatory Relationships and Sex Education in secondary schools is a good idea?

Yes (367)
84.17%
No (69)
15.83%

Watched Threads

View All