jackattack

I had a pretty good laugh at that. Never been left of center? :lol:

Let's try to be big boys here and not call names. I'm a callous mother****er because I don't think that 99% of America is poor and everyone who is poor not only doesn't have health insurance but has $500,000 medical bills that they have to pay?

Look, the UK isn't perfect. Ginger isn't saying that it is. If you think that Ginger thinks the UK is perfect, then you obviously haven't read his posts. You're making a terrible mistake with that analogy. Why do you assume that it is the fault of the poor person that they are poor? For some, this is the case. But the vast majority of poor people are born poor, and the thing about poverty is that it is like a cycle. You've obviously never been poor (don't pretend like you have, because you clearly haven't. If you think that poverty is always the fault of the person, you're full of crap.) so I wouldn't expect you to understand. It's just - with wage slavery, having to pay for ridiculous healthcare bills you can't afford, it really is impossible for people in countries like the USA to escape it. Some will manage it, yes. They're the lucky ones. I'm just thankful I live in a country with a population sensible enough to have the NHS. That's ridiculous. You make it sound like no poor people have health insurance and everyone needs $300,000 heart bypasses. Pretty much if you have a full time job job you have health insurance. Only like 15% of people or something don't have some type of health insurance.

I never said we had a good plan. Until Petreaus and McCain came along we were in hell. Now we have a plan though. And even if the U.N. didn't sanction it, we didn't act unilaterally like most people say. There were like what, close to fifty nations supporting us?

Why? With interventionist foreign policy, things like Iraq can easily happen. Because interventionism is a liberal view point, technically. I agree with interventionism, but I do not agree with America acting alone. THAT is where I disagree. Also, the War in Iraq could have been successful with a real plan, and a mix of military/diplomacy/policing, rather than just "let's invade and take over...but now what?" There was no plan. It could have been a success. I still probably wouldn't have supported it, but I could have been a lot less cynical about our involvement. If the world acts as one about certain issues, we can certainly take care of more of the world's problems. I think it's immoral for the world's leading powers with all of their wealth to sit around doing nothing, while ruthless dictators mistreat millions of uneducated, starving people. We didn't act alone on Iraq. There was a pretty large coalition of nations right there with us. Just because most of them have bailed doesn't mean they weren't there when it started. Even before the war he did what Tony blair asked and got another U.N. resolution. France was the country that didn't support a second one if I remember correctly. That is probably the biggest lie about the Bush administration. This whole "cowboy diplomacy" garbage is unfounded. We have talked with Iran and we got Korea to back down on the nuclear program with like 6 of countries. And how many Pro-American leaders are there in Europe now? [hide=] If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet? Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing. British government. In terms of the population, I think the majority were anti-invasion of Iraq, not sure. If not, it was close. And wtf @ "jew" I never said anything about jewish people.. So when the British government supports something that doesn't reflect on the people, but when the US government supports something that must mean the American people support it. Not at all. For the issues I'm talking about, the American people did support it. Plus, I said earlier I only dislike those certain fundamentalists. I dislike your government more. I'm not trying to say all American people are like this - but you DO have far more of them than any other western country. [/hide] Pretty much at least 80-90% of people labeled as neocons are jews. Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith. All jews. David Duke uses the word neocon pretty much interchangeably with jew. edit: didn't finish a sentence.

If I read an article on the internet by some neocon idiot who thinks Iraq was justified, I should just discard it because it's on the internet? Yes. Anyone who thinks Iraq was justified is an idiot and a neocon jew. I mean it's not like the British thought the same thing.

Well let's see: the cars are pieces of [cabbage] compared to foreign cars, in that they die in half of the time; they get crap mileage; they're huge [wagon] cars that people don't need. I like how you perceive "20 mpg" as good mileage. Although, in their defense, they're just feeding the demand of the public with their huge over sized, over polluting, crap mileage cars. Well compared to the tundra which gets like 18 or 19 that's pretty good. And Toyota makes just as big cars as any American company. Sequoias, 4runners, FJ Cruisers and Sienna's are pretty big. But, Tacoma's are pretty sick though. GM, Ford and Chrysler are coming out with a whole lineup of fuel efficient cars like the Chevy Volt or the GMC Sierra Hybrid. Even cars that aren't hybrid have gone up in gas mileage. The new Malibu, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura all have better gas mileage than the Camry or Accord.

What are you talking about? GM has a huge lineup of hybrids/electric cars coming up within the next year or so. Even the Sierra gets 20mpg. It's kind of silly that people are talking about bailing them out though. The unions have strangled them to death. The big 3 pay their employees 50% more than any other car companies. That is a good thing but why would you need government money when you can do that? Why doesn't the government stop making them retool their factories because of all these silly restrictions? That would surely save them some money.

No one is rockin' the spiderman or ninja turtles backpack? [hide=][/hide] It's funny to see kids wearing these. They are always empty of books for some reason.

^^ We'll see if he can stand up to Pelosi and Reid.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. I think even if it is an initiative it can change the constitution. I think it was a revision, not an amendment. And I think that the supreme court can't overturn it based on a previous ruling of theirs.

[hide=] Not true. Federal law supersedes state law, so if the state law has a lower minimum wage the federal law takes precedent. The national minimum wage in the US is 5.75$ an hour. In no state can it be lower then that. Straight from the website of the Kansas Department of Labor: http://www.dol.ks.gov/ES/HTML/laws_RES.html Federal law doesn't surpass it, and there have been many attempts to raise the pathetic minimum wage of $2.65: http://www.unionvoice.org/kansas_workbe ... id=1551213 As the article says, if you were to work full time in Kansas at minimum wage, you'd earn $5,000 per year. You can't live on that. Minimum wage employees that would be eligible for the FLSA are schools, government agencies and large companies; For which few poor people have qualifications to work for (should include the Burger Kings and fast food restaurants though) [/hide] You can't go lower than the federal minimum wage unless it is a job that makes tips or is on commission. I'm fairly sure that he's right.

It's not helpful. So few people actually earn the minimum wage for an extended period of time. I think it's like less than 2% of people in the country earn it. And of those probably half are teens, and 49% are first time workers or part time workers and more than half get a raise in the first year. Something like only 1 in 5 people who make minimum wage live below the poverty level. And it's funny how last year Republicans in the Senate brought up a bill to raise the minimum wage and the Democrats killed it. [hide=]-The minimum wage reduces employment -The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males -The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks -The minimum wage hurts blacks generally -The minimum wage hurts the unskilled -The minimum wage hurts low wage workers -The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns -The minimum wage increases job turnover -The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors -The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing -The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally -The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training -The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings -The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits -The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas -The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare -The minimum wage hurts the poor generally -The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty -The minimum wage helps upper income families -The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens -Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage[/hide] http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/ ... 0years.htm

Won't happen. I wouldn't be so sure. That kind of thing is right up Obama's alley. If he actually governs of the ticket he ran on then he won't do it so we'll see though. Even if he doesn't try to do it would he veto it once it comes up?

^^ That's right. I just read that the CSU's over here are turning away people with B averages. Obviously San Diego and Chico would but now it's like Sac, Fresno, San Jose, and others. Anyway, expanding community service definitely isn't a bad thing. President Bush doubled the size of the Americorps a few years back. Obama should increase it further.