unless these policies were incredibly flawed, those with legitimate concerns would be the ones earning the most from the social programs. that's the irony: they are the ones ensuring they will never get benefits. The rich are the ones who will selfishly reject social programs because, well, they are the ones paying for most of the welfare for othres, and have enough as it is, so they would recieve very little...

 

To be fair, you can't really blanket every family with this statement. For example, my family is your typical middle class family, but we are having fiscal problems due to the economic downturn. There's a legitimate concern about over-taxation. There are thousands of other families across America with the same problems. I wouldn't call us greedy because we're not low class and we're complaining about the new healthcare bill because it will increase our taxes.

 

Of course, corporations WILL always argue against social bills and spread their propaganda, but you can't blanket everyone by saying only the corporations or rich snobs do it.

 

-----------

 

Concerning the above argument, it would be responsible to require everyone above the age of 17 (with no medical problems that can contaminate the blood) to donate their blood to the local Red Cross center. Would it be fair to expect everyone to donate their blood? It would certainly save thousands of lives, but how would a person feel when they are required by law to donate their blood?

 

It's just a little argument that I thought should be thrown out there.

Then it's really just insulting all of the truly compassionate and generous. Another question would you feel better if someone gave you 10 dollars or if someone gave you 10 dollars with a gun pointed at their head?

 

I have to go to bed for the night so I can't argue further for the time being.

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

 

As for the BNP comment, I do not support them nor do I believe that they should be voted for due to their shady past. Although I do think that English Nationalism is the only thing that will save England at this point in time. The UK needs to immediately withdraw from the EUSSR (as it is jokingly called) and focus on taking care of its problems. Otherwise, England is doomed (which would make the entire UK doomed since England is the most influential nation). I was trying to grasp just how crowded England is, so I compared it to the size of my home state and got a pretty close match. England has about 40-50 million people, and my home state (Arkansas) only has about 3 million people. It's hard for me to imagine 50 million people living here!

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

unless these policies were incredibly flawed, those with legitimate concerns would be the ones earning the most from the social programs. that's the irony: they are the ones ensuring they will never get benefits. The rich are the ones who will selfishly reject social programs because, well, they are the ones paying for most of the welfare for othres, and have enough as it is, so they would recieve very little...

 

To be fair, you can't really blanket every family with this statement. There's a legitimate concern about over-taxation. There are thousands of other families across America with the financial problems. I wouldn't call them all greedy.

 

Of course, corporations WILL always argue against social bills and spread their propaganda, but you can't blanket everyone by saying only the corporations or rich snobs do it.

 

-----------

 

Concerning the above argument, it would be responsible to require everyone above the age of 17 (with no medical problems that can contaminate the blood) to donate their blood to the local Red Cross center. Would it be fair to expect everyone to donate their blood? It would certainly save thousands of lives, but how would a person feel when they are required by law to donate their blood?

 

ah, sorry for the misunderstanding, what i meant was that those with legitimate concerns have the most to gain from social reform: i.e. those who "would have financial issues with taxation". they won't, as they'll be recieiving more than they're paying, unless the system is flawed. the irony of the situation is that many of these campain against their own interests, as they are financially at risk. They are campaining against their own interests because they percieve their interests to be the opposite of what they are, because of a distrust of their own government. the rich are the ones who propagate these views to society, for their own greed, because they have the most to loose, paying more than they will recieve.

 

blood argument: athletes loose out, and become incompetitive internationally. young athletes can never test their potential. further, you don't have blood at the expense of others. you do hold property, and wealth at the expense of others. those values wouldn't disappear if they were shared more morally.

 

this discussion isn't really off-topic either: these are the questions that are increasingly splitting the special relationship appart, as america becomes increasingly politically polarized, and europe moves to the left: the right to inflict indirect harm onto others for the sake of freedom, or the right to freedom and autonomy from society.

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

From what I've read, the population is actually declining in some European countries.

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

From what I've read, the population is actually declining in some European countries.

True. But uncontrolled immigration is not the answer for a declining population, as a few countries do. What the government in European countries should do, first and foremost, on that bit is to encourage people having kids. As it's now, in many western countries, people are choosing their career first and having kids are on the bottom on the "to do list", generally speaking.

Altho i'm drifting a bit away from the topic here.

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

From what I've read, the population is actually declining in some European countries.

True. But uncontrolled immigration is not the answer for a declining population, as a few countries do. What the government in European countries should do, first and foremost, on that bit is to encourage people having kids. As it's now, in many western countries, people are choosing their career first and having kids are on the bottom on the "to do list", generally speaking.

Altho i'm drifting a bit away from the topic here.

 

Surprisingly, a recent survey with Belgian youths (I think it was 18-20 or something like that) are putting kids before their career. I'm not sure how trustworthy such a result is, but we might actually be seeing an improvement when it comes to that.

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

From what I've read, the population is actually declining in some European countries.

True. But uncontrolled immigration is not the answer for a declining population, as a few countries do. What the government in European countries should do, first and foremost, on that bit is to encourage people having kids. As it's now, in many western countries, people are choosing their career first and having kids are on the bottom on the "to do list", generally speaking.

Altho i'm drifting a bit away from the topic here.

 

Surprisingly, a recent survey with Belgian youths (I think it was 18-20 or something like that) are putting kids before their career. I'm not sure how trustworthy such a result is, but we might actually be seeing an improvement when it comes to that.

 

or an environmentally disastrous generation who lack education :S

"EUSSR"? Lmfao how is the EU communist at all. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for the UK. I'm assuming Arkansas has vast areas of unpopulated land? The UK is really not as "overcrowded" as "nationalists" (i.e. racist scaremongerers) would like to have you believe.

From what I've read, the population is actually declining in some European countries.

Yep, and without immigration to increase the size of the working population you're looking at massive tax rises to make up for the massive increase in spending on pensions and healthcare which will be neccasary due to the baby boomers retiring.

I would not have said this 8 years ago, but I would like to see the UK show more interest in Europe. The US-UK relationship is fine, but Europe has more to offer us in terms of potential influence in the world. Europe needs to make our collection of nations work so that we can project our liberal interests in a future world dominated by an increasingly selfish and aggressive US and China.

I'm Canadian, so no need to tell me that our politicians need to develop a spine when it comes to dealing with their counterparts. We need the next Trudeau, someone who will put his own country before the desires of foreign corporations and nationalized greed imported from a certain country adjacent to us...

 

Anyway, the U.K. did seem to fall into that trap a lot when Blair was playing follow-the-leader concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that most of the world ends up rolling over when it comes to the States; they're quite vindictive, very powerful, and often irrationally ignorant, or at least most high-level politicians are.

I'm Canadian, so no need to tell me that our politicians need to develop a spine when it comes to dealing with their counterparts. We need the next Trudeau, someone who will put his own country before the desires of foreign corporations and nationalized greed imported from a certain country adjacent to us...

 

Anyway, the U.K. did seem to fall into that trap a lot when Blair was playing follow-the-leader concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that most of the world ends up rolling over when it comes to the States; they're quite vindictive, very powerful, and often irrationally ignorant, or at least most high-level politicians are.

I was gonna start ripping you one about the ignorant thing but then you posted about politicians and I have to agree. I don't think ANYONE likes our politicians. We just can't figure out how/ don't have the inclination to fix it.

 

Also I would like to put in, many other countries dislike the US because we "throw our weight around". Consider, if your country was "on the top" do you think it wouldn't? Do you think it doesn't? Also I'd like to mention that some of us don't think that our leaders show enough spine or forcefulness(at least in matters of foreign policy, they're more than happy to ram new legislation down our throats).

I was gonna start ripping you one about the ignorant thing

 

Actually, a lot of our politicians are rather ignorant... They're either too full of themselves, or they like to twist things in order to serve their own agenda.

 

In this video, John McCain argues that American isolationism allowed Hitler to gain power, so it effectively sparked World War II.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTR_iq-eBB8

I was gonna start ripping you one about the ignorant thing

 

Actually, a lot of our politicians are rather ignorant... They're either too full of themselves, or they like to twist things in order to serve their own agenda.

 

In this video, John McCain argues that American isolationism allowed Hitler to gain power, so it effectively sparked World War II.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTR_iq-eBB8

I agreed that many of our politicians are ignorant. But as for the isolationism thing, he isn't entirely wrong, but there were many more factors. (Note I have yet to watch the video so this post may change depending on the "quality" of the argument he makes)

Edit: I have now watched the video and am changing my post. The way in which he argued it caused WWII was wrong. One COULD argue that isolationism lead to war because we (the US and Europe) allowed Hitler to do just about whatever we wanted. But the way that he argued, by allowing him to come to power, that would have happened anyway, he was Time's Man Of The Year for christ's sake. So valid argument gone about in the wrong way, and because of this you could probably use this to prove ignorance.

I'm Canadian, so no need to tell me that our politicians need to develop a spine when it comes to dealing with their counterparts. We need the next Trudeau, someone who will put his own country before the desires of foreign corporations and nationalized greed imported from a certain country adjacent to us...

 

Anyway, the U.K. did seem to fall into that trap a lot when Blair was playing follow-the-leader concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that most of the world ends up rolling over when it comes to the States; they're quite vindictive, very powerful, and often irrationally ignorant, or at least most high-level politicians are.

I was gonna start ripping you one about the ignorant thing but then you posted about politicians and I have to agree. I don't think ANYONE likes our politicians. We just can't figure out how/ don't have the inclination to fix it.

 

Also I would like to put in, many other countries dislike the US because we "throw our weight around". Consider, if your country was "on the top" do you think it wouldn't? Do you think it doesn't? Also I'd like to mention that some of us don't think that our leaders show enough spine or forcefulness(at least in matters of foreign policy, they're more than happy to ram new legislation down our throats).

 

I think that you're missing the difference between what the populace wants, and the choices that politicians make. I certainly would never say that my government speaks for me: I rarely agree with them on any issue, and generally oppose them on most points, minor or otherwise.

 

On the topic of U.S. politicians, Obama is at least smart, although I think I've disliked just about every president the States has elected since FDR, so I may be biased.

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

They are doing quite well in the south, I can probably drive to 30 or 40 standalone KFC's in a 3 hour radius.

 

YUM owns Taco Bell and KFC and those often team up in markets where competition is fierce to provide a better variety and reduce costs

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

They are doing quite well in the south, I can probably drive to 30 or 40 standalone KFC's in a 3 hour radius.

 

YUM owns Taco Bell and KFC and those often team up in markets where competition is fierce to provide a better variety and reduce costs

 

I know they tend to be doing better in the South, but many branches in Arkansas seem to have shut down. I notice more joint franchises than independent KFCs, to be honest. When I lived in Kansas about 7 years ago, KFC was pretty much dead in that area; the restaurants just closed down.

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

They are doing quite well in the south, I can probably drive to 30 or 40 standalone KFC's in a 3 hour radius.

 

YUM owns Taco Bell and KFC and those often team up in markets where competition is fierce to provide a better variety and reduce costs

 

I know they tend to be doing better in the South, but many branches in Arkansas seem to have shut down. I notice more joint franchises than independent KFCs, to be honest. When I lived in Kansas about 7 years ago, KFC was pretty much dead in that area; the restaurants just closed down.

 

The problem is the south is still mostly rural and usually a KFC competes with nothing, as soon as Zaxbys, bojangles or another chicken place crops up, i'd say the traffic drops, however not enough to close them out.

 

I'm NOT a KFC fan so it wouldn't bother me if they did close

@ Serephurus; KFC is an American company if I recall correctly (so our Government can barely order them to sell pork/normal meat), and they made the decision to sell halal meat, thus not selling pork in the building. They are only doing it as a trial for a few months in a few stores, though I do think it is stupid/rediculous that they are doing it.

 

KFC is an American company, yes. Now that I think about it, they're also struggling to survive in the United States; many branches have closed down. I have only seen a KFC franchise operating inside another franchise such as Taco Bell in the past few years, although there are some independent branches still operating. They probably just assume that if they cater to Muslims in pockets around England, they can get more customers. It's still ridiculous, though.

They are doing quite well in the south, I can probably drive to 30 or 40 standalone KFC's in a 3 hour radius.

 

YUM owns Taco Bell and KFC and those often team up in markets where competition is fierce to provide a better variety and reduce costs

 

I know they tend to be doing better in the South, but many branches in Arkansas seem to have shut down. I notice more joint franchises than independent KFCs, to be honest. When I lived in Kansas about 7 years ago, KFC was pretty much dead in that area; the restaurants just closed down.

 

The problem is the south is still mostly rural and usually a KFC competes with nothing, as soon as Zaxbys, bojangles or another chicken place crops up, i'd say the traffic drops, however not enough to close them out.

 

I'm NOT a KFC fan so it wouldn't bother me if they did close

 

Off-topic: Zaxby's is good, but a lot of their food is greasy. :unsure:

do we at least get break-up sex for this? i mean, you can't end the special relationship without breakup sex.

do we at least get break-up sex for this? i mean, you can't end the special relationship without breakup sex.

 

It would be kinda weird though, I mean we're pretty far apart and arranging this hook up would be quite tedious.

US is kissing Canada's [wagon] pretty [bleep]ing hard right now for us to stay at Afghanistan

 

 

Hope our government gives the US the finger honestly. And why the [bleep] did you pick Clinton as your secretary of state. Do you want *MORE* people to hate your piece of [cabbage] country?

US is kissing Canada's [wagon] pretty [bleep]ing hard right now for us to stay at Afghanistan

 

 

Hope our government gives the US the finger honestly. And why the [bleep] did you pick Clinton as your secretary of state. Do you want *MORE* people to hate your piece of [cabbage] country?

 

 

Piece of [cabbage]? Rly? Wow. Ok. Canada's America's hat, and Mexico is our beard. You don't have the right to hate us.

 

 

But I agree that Clinton sucks.

US is kissing Canada's [wagon] pretty [bleep]ing hard right now for us to stay at Afghanistan

 

 

Hope our government gives the US the finger honestly. And why the [bleep] did you pick Clinton as your secretary of state. Do you want *MORE* people to hate your piece of [cabbage] country?

 

I read this post after reading evil_mumm_ra's post, and I interpreted this post in a totally different way. :oops:

US is kissing Canada's [wagon] pretty [bleep]ing hard right now for us to stay at Afghanistan

 

 

Hope our government gives the US the finger honestly. And why the [bleep] did you pick Clinton as your secretary of state. Do you want *MORE* people to hate your piece of [cabbage] country?

We didn't pick, the asshat we elected did.

 

Also why is our country crap? Is it because when people think USA they don't think maple syrup and mounties?

No it's because the US is too interventionist in affairs that don't really directly affect them, but intervene because mmmmmmmurika! [bleep] yeah!

 

I suppose someone with more time and patience on their hands could give a litany of reasons as to why the USA is a less than ideal country to live in, because I certainly can't be arsed to.