American Politics

[Rosedamai]

Umm... My question... You guys are the ones that should be answering it, right?

If it isn't a big deal and your oil isn't mostly coming from the middle east, then you should get the hell outta there, that's my opinion. Stop this "making democracy" bs. Which was, by the way, the point of the majority of my posts made before you came in.

Edited August 30, 2012 by ylangylang

[Alpha1]

I'm kind of amused at what you're assuming people in SK think because...Uh...I'm from SK? Lived there for about 20 years? Born there? Lol.

 

I already knew that.

 

How can you represent all of South Korea? There can be many perspectives. South Korea is no different.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/world/as...?pagewanted=all

 

Here's a great example of the two extremes in the country.

 

Anti-American

 

"Last Sunday, 4,000 young South Koreans crowded before the statue, calling MacArthur a "symbol of foreign occupation" and demanding that his statue be toppled. During the rally, which followed similar protests in recent weeks, they hurled eggs and wielded bamboo sticks at police officers guarding the statue. Dozens were hurt."

 

Pro-American

 

"On the other side of the hill, hundreds of aging Korean War veterans, many wearing uniforms with insignia of their old units and carrying South Korean and U.S. flags, marched uphill to "take out the Reds" and defend a "symbol of our alliance with the Americans and a hero who saved our nation from communism." When the police stopped them, they threw dirt and shook their walking sticks."

 

 

Sorry, but on Korean modern history I've got more knowledge in this department than you. Basically what happened was yeah, we won the Korean war with the U.S's help but the U.S also made it possible for pro-Japanese colonialists to gain power because, as I said, they were the only bureaucrats, made it possible for two military dictatorships to continue, and so on. So....from an objective historical point of view, no, SK wasn't made into a fairytale dreamland with the help of the U.S.

 

Would you rather have had Kim sung? I realize that they had military dictatorships. I don't really know anything about the alternatives, so if you would like, can you explain how it might have been better?

 

And if you know anything about recent events, we've got pretty strong anti-U.S people here too.  

 

"A few meters off from Yoo, Lee Yong Taek, 76, bowed to the statue. "The youngsters are victims of a North Korean plot to divide our society and make it communist," Lee said. "It's sad that they don't realize that we have built our economy on the sacrifices of 43,000 American soldiers and all the other UN soldiers who died during the war."

 

 

which means basically the government can com

 

 

And that makes it OK to exploit them and bomb them when they decide they might slow down production and exports to make it last longer (as Norway has done, and that is how they fund their OWN social programmes) ?

 

How would they be "exploited"?

 

No, I'm sure Norway's oil has peaked, and the decline is simply because the new fields can't replace the past production. Do you have a source saying otherwise?

 

To make money. Plain and simple. Same with the UK. And don't forget that for the same reason they armed Iraq when they LIKED Saddam Hussein....Then they changed their minds and decided to bomb him instead.

 

They liked Saddam because they thought he was better than alternatives.

 

As for Taiwan, that's just flat-out false.

 

"The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area. Accordingly I have ordered the 7th Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The 7th Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.' -- Truman

 

They (and the UK and others) also armed both sides in Afghanistan at one time or another.

 

Because it made sense to make the Soviet Union spend more money and commit more troops.

 

They also know that the US (and UK probably) will help them bomb or use sanctions (which affect the innocent population) to get their own way any old time they like. They BULLY, with the help of their governments.

 

If it becomes a failed state, their investments will be toast.

 

PARTLY became it has excellent social programmes. Education, social development, training, research - it all helps. And hey - they determine how the oil money is spent, and make sure a lot of it is spent - on those programmes !

 

No, the country is small. Companies have invested tens of billions to develop their natural gas and oil reserves.

 

The states with no income tax or property tax in the U.S., for example, have oil revenue. In Alaska, there's also a fund.

 

Governments that spend a lot can get into a lot of debt. Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product, 120 percent in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal.

 

Which they would have. The law they proposed was one which would benefit them, not the Iraqis.

 

How?

 

And you think the US (and UK - I don't want to be totally one sided here; the two are almost as bad as each other here) can ? The ONLY reason Kennedy didn't fire off nukes in the Cuban crisis was because Russia had the sense to back down - not because it was in the wrong (it was right ! JUST because a country is communist is NOT a reason to blitz it - whatever you think of communism) but because they had the smarts to see that NO nuclear bomb would be a good idea.

 

No, his advisers were advocating an airstrike or invasion of Cuba.

 

"They, no more than we, can let these things go by without doing something. They can't, after all their statements, permit us to take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and then do nothing. If they don't take action in Cuba, they certainly will in Berlin. -- Kennedy

 

Kennedy concluded that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume "a clear line" to conquer Berlin. Kennedy also believed that United States' allies would think of the US as "trigger-happy cowboys" who lost Berlin because they could not peacefully resolve the Cuban situation."

 

It was an embarrassment to the USSR. Good thing he didn't act like the peanut farmer.

 

If I remember correctly, Khrushchev gave permission to the Soviet commanders on Cuba to use tactical nukes. How's that for judgment?

 

Does this ring a bell? In your guts, you know he's nuts.

 

I'm surprised you didn't mention MacArthur and Barry Goldwater.

 

Here's some other examples.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101401068.html

 

"Three years later, Eisenhower made a veiled threat, saying he would "remove all restraints in our use of weapons" if the North Korean government did not negotiate in good faith an ending to that bloody war."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5130524.stm

 

"The UK wanted China to know the nuclear strength of the US could be unleashed if the Chinese attacked Hong Kong, previously secret papers show."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...na-in-1969.html

 

The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.

 

I don't know how credible the above is, but it's still interesting.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/world/as...5iht-india.html

 

"The Kennedy administration in 1963 pondered the feasibility of a nuclear strike against China if it attacked India for a second time, according to newly declassified audio recordings of White House deliberations."

 

And lastly the threats made during the first crisis over Taiwan.

 

No WW after nukes were around, and the following needs to be acknowledged:

 

"Sorry - but no. No deterrent is worth it unless you are prepared to use it - and if you are prepared to nuke - you are already in the wrong, no matter what."

 

You would have countries with breakout capability or rumors of breakout capability for intimidation. Perhaps even a small stockpile.

 

1. not necessarily - and there are very varied forms of Sharia law anyway; only the most extreme are that noxious. In Afghanistan some areas practice those extreme forms of it - and the US is right in there effectively defending their right to do so.

2. What on EARTH makes you think ANY Arab country would want to invade the US ? They would like to be allowed to get on with their own way of life without being attacked, manipulated and exploited. Goodness knows the west has been at it long enough. You may not like it - but it is not your business unless you want to live there.

 

It just was a hypothetical example when you mentioned about other countries invading the U.S. The U.S. already has a representative democracy that many nations are allied to for good reasons. This is like claiming if one nation should have nukes, then all should be able to. I'll just leave it at that.

 

And your point is ?

 

Unions aren't necessary.

 

"Union workers average 10-30% higher pay than non-union in America after controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics."

 

And it's a great way to make us even less competitive if everyone fairly got a similar increase.

 

It should pay its workers their salaries. Just as any private company does - and when a company goes bankrupt, it ceases trading. Since a city can't - it needs to learn to manage its finances better by - hey - having its citizens pay higher taxes instead of trying to win votes by lowering them.

 

It's the other way around (at least before the recession).

 

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dibb-35...nts-orange.html

 

1,600 apply for 5 firefighter jobs in Orange

 

I don't think you realize that giving people excessive pay reduces other peoples' incomes and job opportunities, since you obviously can't retain as much job openings if you pay them more.

 

I seem to recall some truly frightful near misses while he was using untrained people who were exhausted after long shifts. I don;t know what they earned, but as I recall it wasn't excessive. Some jobs you HAVE to be awake for. Pilots have short working weeks too, as I recall. And when I am up there in the ether I would rather be sure they had had a good rest, myself... also the controllers who will help my plane down.

 

We had a string of articles come up in 2010-2011 on how they were sleeping on the job. From what I recall, they just got suspended, which calls into question how much of a safety risk the job really entails. Yes, I don't think it was at that point. However, now it's around the top 10%, and I would think the new equipment would have made it easier. A good comparison is older nuclear plants vs. newer designs.

[Rosedamai]

Oh great, a person who's never read Korean newspapers, who's never watched Korean news, who hasn't ever went on Korean online politics forums telling a Korean what Korea's like. Can you even speak or read or recognize Korean? If you can do any ounce of what I've mentioned above, I'd take you seriously, but if not, kudos to you. You wouldn't debate with someone who has no knowledge of English whatsoever to talk about American politics, now would you?

 

Sorry, but NYtimes-not a good news source on Korea. NYTimes get facts on the U.S wrong, why would you trust them to get facts on Korea right? Unless you've got direct-to-translated Korean newspapers, even which are sometimes biased because they pander to the "english-reader" i.e foreign sources, I'm not going to even bother looking at it, because they usually get their facts wrong, they usually cherry-pick sources and interviews, and because they usually don't have a ****ing clue what's going on. Not to mention, most Koreans don't give a about the McArthur statue.

 

First, it's Kim Il Sung, so you got your facts wrong there. Second, we did have a democratically appointed government which the military dictatorship overthrew, so yeah, I guess I'd rather have a democratically appointed government. Oh and thanks for treating it like "would you rather have the commies" without even knowing what it was like at that time period.

 

"The youngsters are victims of a North Korean plot to divide our society and make it communist," Lee said. "It's sad that they don't realize that we have built our economy on the sacrifices of 43,000 American soldiers and all the other UN soldiers who died during the war."

You trust these people? Who believe in conspiracy theories? You know, that's like me telling you that what you believe is wrong because BIRTHERS SAY OBAMA AIN'T AMURRICAN!

 

Oh yeah and my post was cut off there sorry about that, typhoon's coming.

Edited August 30, 2012 by ylangylang

[Alpha1]

Sorry, but NYtimes-not a good news source on Korea. Unless you've got direct-to-translated Korean newspapers, I'm not going to even bother looking at it, because they usually get their facts wrong, they usually cherry-pick sources and interviews, and because they usually don't have a ****ing clue what's going on. Not to mention, most Koreans don't give a about the McArthur statue.

 

That's true and the NYtimes article points that out.

 

First, it's Kim Il Sung, so you got your facts wrong there. Second, we did have a democratically appointed government which the military dictatorship overthrew, so yeah, I guess I'd rather have a democratically appointed government.

 

I just shortened it. Hitler was democratically elected, so that's not necessarily better.

 

You trust these people? Who believe in conspiracy theories? You know, that's like me telling you that what you believe is wrong because BIRTHERS SAY OBAMA AIN'T AMURRICAN!

 

Oh yeah and my post was cut off there sorry about that, typhoon's coming.

 

Right back at you. Why should I trust SKs who think the US was the cause of intervention. And those older folks who are more likely to be favorable were born during that time so....

 

Edit: Also, like I said before, SK has one of the most favorable views of the U.S. according to polls.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Alpha1

[Rosedamai]

That's true and the NYtimes article points that out.

 

 

 

I just shortened it. Hitler was democratically elected, so that's not necessarily better.

 

 

 

Right back at you. Why should I trust SKs who think the US was the cause of intervention. And those older folks who are more likely to be favorable were born during that time so....

Uh...except shorting a person's name is rude in Korean culture? Oh yes, but this wasn't the same case was Hitler, duh.

 

No, I don't think the US was the cause of the intervention, but what I've said was that although we didn't get overridden by the communist forces, the U.S forces being in Korea, and having a large part in handling Korean politics oversaw the military coup, picked bureaucrats that were pro-Japanese during the colonization and made sure that the military dictatorships continued. That's all I've said. I didn't say that the U.S was the cause of the intervention or whatever.

 

I've just said that even when the ends were good (not a communist society) during the process there can be many harm done that's long lasting and frankly, very bad for the common citizens(military dictatorship being supported by the U.S, pro-colonial past never quite gotten cleaned up, etc) so you'd better have a good, concrete plan rather than "we gonna kill some bad guyz!!11!!!!1!!" or you can leave them alone.

 

I don't get what's so radical about that.

 

Oh yes and do you know that a lot of those folks are irrationally anti-communist to a degree that they believe that left-wing politics are supported by communists everywhere? It's not that surprising really, if you look at their point of view, it's just that simply it isn't true.

Edited August 30, 2012 by ylangylang

[hazeh]

I'm glad to pay taxes. So are my moms, and both of them are hard working nurses- they save lives and improve the health of *many* people. One of my moms works night shift, which alongside the health risks posed with taking that shift, works on top of that a day-shift job so that we can afford all the necessary things in life for my little sister and our daily routines. I believe she said she paid around 33% of her income. So how come, when she puts in more manual and life-risking work than a good damn portion of the 200k+ earners, she has to pay a larger percentage of her income than them? Why is it that the people who earn LESS money have to put up a significantly bigger portion of that money than the people who make a LOT more?

 

That's what amazes me about people who yell and scream about taxes until they're blue in the face. The majority of the time, they have no right to talk.

[LascielsShadow]

^WORD. I just don't get it either. I think the usual excuse is that the higher earners pay more in dollars, but so what? People who earn less pay a higher percentage, and 33% of 30 or 40k makes a much larger impact on the person paying it than 33% of 500k would.

 

 

 

Hey, ladies and gents, you may want to start pinching yourselves, because something totally unprecedented just happened. Fox News called out Paul Ryan for the enormous pack of lies that came out of his mouth at the RNC.

 

On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was  Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

 

The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.

The whole thing is here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/.../#ixzz250ZY9gDL

 

It's a very nice breakdown/takedown of all the lies. Go see it while you still can. I've made sure to save a copy just in case something happens to it.

 

THIS is how bad things have gotten this year. FOX, of all news outlets, is posting a "Yeah, they're full of it" piece. (Yes, she's their token liberal, but still. FOX!)

Edited August 30, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Wantdew]

If it isn't a big deal and your oil isn't mostly coming from the middle east, then you should get the hell outta there, that's my opinion. Stop this "making democracy" bs. Which was, by the way, the point of the majority of my posts made before you came in.

Hmm... What are you talking about? I was asking why it's a big deal when it shouldn't.

 

And the Obama Care plan is a great idea it just won't WORK. If your proud to pay taxes are you proud to be throwing money away? About 3 billion dollars was "misplaced" by the Department of Transportation alone.

 

I do relies that our taxes don't all go to them.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2012 by Wantdew

[Rosedamai]

Hmm... What are you talking about? I was asking why it's a big deal when it shouldn't.

Because...people are getting killed and it's really a quagmire of a war?

[LascielsShadow]

And the Obama Care plan is a great idea it just won't WORK.  If your proud to pay taxes are you proud to be throwing money away?  About 3 billion dollars was "misplaced" by the Department of Transportation alone. 

 

I do relies that our taxes don't all go to them.

It already IS working. People's lives have already been saved by it. There are a lot of people who didn't have insurance who now do or at least can get it, which means they can actually get the care they need. People are getting rebates from their insurance companies. Women are getting copay-free birth control, and people are now getting free preventative care. Insurance companies can't drop people when they get sick, refuse to insure children with "pre-existing condtions", discriminate against people, or set lifetime coverage caps. What part of that seems to not be working? The rest of the ACA hasn't kicked in yet, but I can't see any catastrophic problems happening there. The plan seems to be working well enough in the state it originated in.

Edited August 30, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Fuzzbucket]

It already IS working. People's lives have already been saved by it. There are a lot of people who didn't have insurance who now do or at least can get it, which means they can actually get the care they need. People are getting rebates from their insurance companies. Women are getting copay-free birth control, and people are now getting free preventative care. Insurance companies can't drop people when they get sick, refuse to insure children with "pre-existing condtions", discriminate against people, or set lifetime coverage caps. What part of that seems to not be working? The rest of the ACA hasn't kicked in yet, but I can't see any catastrophic problems happening there. The plan seems to be working well enough in the state it originated in.

I like you (again !) ! Thanks for posting !

[Wantdew]

We already had medicare.

[prairiecrow]

We already had medicare.

And people were dying.

 

Let me repeat that: It was a badly broken system that left people TO DIE, or to go bankrupt getting life-saving medical care.

 

Every other first world country has some kind of socialized medicine, IIRC. It's about time America stepped up to the plate and did right by its citizens. In my opinion, the kind of people who would leave other people TO DIE because those other people don't have enough money are just plain heartless.

Edited August 31, 2012 by prairiecrow

[Wantdew]

Free health care is not a RIGHT it is a privilege. One thing I've noticed is that the Democrats are too liberal and the Republicans are too conservative.

 

Why do people always have to take everything to extremes.

[Rosedamai]

Free health care is not a RIGHT it is a privilege. One thing I've noticed is that the Democrats are too liberal and the Republicans are too conservative.

 

Why do people always have to take everything to extremes.

What? As a person living in another country, sorry, but free health care is a right. I pay taxes to my government, the government should give me basic rights to my health, which in my opinion, covers health care.

 

Or do you want to privatize the army, the police, and the firefighters as well?

[LascielsShadow]

We already had medicare.

And Medicare wasn't enough. Medicare is for people over 65 or who have a disability. Medicaid has specific requirements to qualify. Both have shortcomings that have allowed people to die or/and go bankrupt, as prairiecrow said. The existence of Medicare does absolutely nothing for the millions of people it doesn't cover (and in plenty of cases in the past, not much for those it does).

 

And seriously? Free health care is a privilege? So people should, what, be left to suffer and die if they can't afford to pay for treatment? Healthcare is a basic human right, not something one should have to pay a premium for. It's ridiculous that the notion that people shouldn't be left to die in the street (literally OR metaphorically) just because they couldn't afford lifesaving treatments or medicine is "extreme". Somehow, I'd have thought that a country that's so big on Christianity would have taken that whole "heal the sick" thing to heart. I don't recall there being an addendum of "If he can afford your rates".

Edited August 31, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[prairiecrow]

Free health care is not a RIGHT it is a privilege.  One thing I've noticed is that the Democrats are too liberal and the Republicans are too conservative.

 

Why do people always have to take everything to extremes.

So, you're saying that you're perfectly fine with people dying for no reason other than that they're poor? That you're fine with people losing their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands, and daughters and sons because they don't have enough money to save their lives?

 

I just want to be clear on that point.

Edited August 31, 2012 by prairiecrow

[Wantdew]

The Obama plan is even more expensive too.

[prairiecrow]

The Obama plan is even more expensive too.

Which doesn't even address my question.

[KageSora]

Free health care is not a RIGHT it is a privilege.

I usually try to refrain from making assumptions, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and make one, please tell me if I'm wrong.

 

 

I'm assuming, then, that you fall into one or more of the following categories:

 

 

1. Have health insurance of some kind

2. Could get health insurance fairly easily if you had the money because you're not a super at-risk person/don't have a "pre-existing condition"/etc.

3. Currently have no medical conditions with prohibitively expensive treatments that you are unable to pay thus causing you to fail to receive proper medical care for your condition(s).

 

 

 

AKA--you're one of those that has that "privilege".

Edited August 31, 2012 by KageSora

[LascielsShadow]

The Obama plan is even more expensive too.

For whom? The end result of the initial cost (and of COURSE there is one-there's no magic wand to wave and prevent that) is a reduction in waste spending and a 210 BILLION dollar reduction in the yearly deficit.

Edited August 31, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[demonicvampiregirl]

The Obama plan is even more expensive too.

Normally I'd stay away from this topic but I have to say something.

 

You'd rather have no insurance, no way to help cover the costs and be stuck with an outrageous bill than to have something to help cover you when you get seriously injured or hurt?

 

My own father has a leg that was hurt over 20 years ago. His knee does not bend anymore, it has a infection in it that does not go away, and a hole in the side of it that barely ever stays closed and drains a lot. No one wants to remove his leg because they believe he'll still have phantom pain that is as bad as it is now and he has psoriasis which they think will just carry the infection into the upper part of his leg. His back is bad because of this and no one wants to help him.

 

Do you think I like sitting here seeing my dad like this all the time? He gets cranky, moody and everything else when he runs out of his pain killers and it's worse when a cold front comes through.

 

He has something that helps him with his medicine but as far as I know he has nothing to cover to get his leg removed. Nothing at all.

 

People without any medical insurance get absolutely screwed over all the time. No one wants to do anything that will benefit the people in this type of situation at all. They see no profit in it for them and so they turn things down. They won't put higher taxes on the rich to make them pay just like workers do to help this economy so things can get fixed. They want to constantly cut SSI or Medicare. People need that but they don't really care. They only see no profit being gained for them. People have to deal with disabilities and pain and god knows what else and no one wants to help anymore.

 

It's sick. It's disgusting. It's just completely wrong.

[Obscure_Trash]

Free health care is not a RIGHT it is a privilege.

We have a "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." As far as I'm concerned, a right to life means that free health care is a right.

 

Also, if our healthcare/insurance companies were capped in some way similar to other countries, it wouldn't be more expensive. I agree that is something we need to address.

[LascielsShadow]

We have a "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." As far as I'm concerned, a right to life means that free health care is a right.

 

Also, if our healthcare/insurance companies were capped in some way similar to other countries, it wouldn't be more expensive. I agree that is something we need to address.

YES. Health care is a key component of both the life and the happiness parts. There's no good reason it shouldn't be free.

 

We really do need to address that. I think that the new limits that have been placed on insurance companies will help, but I don't think they're enough.

[TikindiDragon]

The Obama plan is even more expensive too.

Incidently we ran a comparison (several years back now, I admit) on what the NHS (via National Insurance) was costing those of us in the UK vs what private medical insurance was costing some of the people in the US.... we worked out that our National Insurance actually costs us *less*, and still manages to cover everyone.

 

I'm not saying the NHS is perfect, it isn't, but it's a damned sight better than the system you guys seem to have. And it doesn't cost as much as a lot of you seem to think it would.