Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords is shot

[Catzsy]

The hysteria was that things were going to change.. they didn't.

Both the GOP & Democrats create mass hysteria over climate change, terrorism, Iraq and WMD.. the list goes on.



America has been in decline since the 1940s that is correct. Whenever government/the state starts inteferring and extending social security programmes, them nations go bankrupt. The United Kingdom started in the 1890s which lead to other nations catching up (mainly the U.S.) and then a war finally finished us off after which we still adopted bad economic policies and it took until 1979 for us to (partly) correct those problems by cutting back the state.

The British Empire faced internal decline from around 1890s onwards both economically and via foreign policy (dropping our isolationist outlook) when which a war finally bankrupted us in the 1940s. The United States the way it is playing out has faced internal economic decline from the 1940s along with foreign policy from the 1940s (when you dropped your isolationist outlook and started policing the world).. all it takes now is for a medium sized war and you are quite simply toast.

As for healthcare itself, i'm not all that familiar on the bill itself but I would question the idea it it intended to save money. As it all government programmes it only expands and government is incompetent anyway so you are going to make a huge loss for the money you are putting in. The NHS over here in the UK was similar, funded by U.S. loans and was intended to improve the health service greatly when in reality all it did was create a gigantic inefficent monster which consumed and still consumes huge amounts of money.



The USSR was never a real threat to overtaking the United States as you had the superior capitalist system, they had the failed socialist system. It is partly true about Japan, but with China I think we are seeing something quite different - the western world has never been in so much trouble and it is perfect timing for China to take the reigns (see above again for the similarity with Britains situation around WW2). You also go on to isolationism - isolationism is key to success provided you trade with the world and boy are China trading with the world but are not policing the world.

Socialism.. I don't need to give a history lesson in it; look at Vietnam since it moved away from socialism to a more capitalist tone they have seen amazing growth rates. The same goes for China when Deng moved it from socialism after Mao's death to free marketism and open economics. Socialism brings equality yes, so that everybody is poor and less advantaged. If it takes yet another socialist nightmare for the world to wake upto what socialism really is, we might aswell burn all of our history books.



"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." - Barack Obama

Fear fear and more fear - from both sides, all the time.



Well most people don't expect nutjobs to take everything they say as damned serious.. so how is she to blame? the consquences from that shooting are down to the man who pulled the shotgun, not from his deluded sense that somebody told him to.

If I told you to jump off a cliff and you do it, who is to blame? you are.

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

[Nationalism]

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

That is why mentally ill people should be at least assessed and should have to pass a certain criteria for them to be able to mix with civilian life.
If they fail, help and help and help them.

[RedStratocas]

The hysteria was that things were going to change.. they didn't.

hysteria = change? thats an interesting theory, seems like loaded words to me.

Both the GOP & Democrats create mass hysteria over climate change, terrorism, Iraq and WMD.. the list goes on.

again, i'd hardly say there's "mass hysteria" over climate change, talk to anyone and its likely even if they believe in global warming that they aren't doing anything about it. you're far to liberal with the use of the word hysteria. not everything that causes a ripple in people's day is "hysteria." as for terrorism, after a terrorist attack it would be reasonable to expect some type of "hysteria" eh?

America has been in decline since the 1940s that is correct. Whenever government/the state starts inteferring and extending social security programmes, them nations go bankrupt. The United Kingdom started in the 1890s which lead to other nations catching up (mainly the U.S.) and then a war finally finished us off after which we still adopted bad economic policies and it took until 1979 for us to (partly) correct those problems by cutting back the state.

what's your definition of "decline"? cause what you're implying is that the great depression and being involved in world war II was better than having to deal with social security, which is pretty absurd. not sure if you've seen the united states since the FDR, but we've been alright.

The British Empire faced internal decline from around 1890s onwards both economically and via foreign policy (dropping our isolationist outlook) when which a war finally bankrupted us in the 1940s. The United States the way it is playing out has faced internal economic decline from the 1940s along with foreign policy from the 1940s (when you dropped your isolationist outlook and started policing the world).. all it takes now is for a medium sized war and you are quite simply toast.

isolationism is hardly a flawless policy to be uninvolved in wars. world war I was basically unavoidable, and the u.s. attempted to stay out of world war II until we were attacked. and our internal economics have been varied, not only in decline, clinton in fact gave us a surplus.

As for healthcare itself, i'm not all that familiar on the bill itself

oh okay so you're just assuming things to fit your narrative, gotcha.

The USSR was never a real threat to overtaking the United States

hindsight is always 20/20, but the USSR was certainly threatening at the time, it was certainly conceivable. for all we know, in 20 years we'll be laughing about how we worried about china taking over.

Socialism.. I don't need to give a history lesson in it; look at Vietnam since it moved away from socialism to a more capitalist tone they have seen amazing growth rates. The same goes for China when Deng moved it from socialism after Mao's death to free marketism and open economics. Socialism brings equality yes, so that everybody is poor and less advantaged. If it takes yet another socialist nightmare for the world to wake upto what socialism really is, we might aswell burn all of our history books.

denmark is time and time again rated the happiest nation on earth, and their citizens give nearly all of their money to the government. mexico and haiti, meanwhile, have been democratic for ages but have never been anything more than desperately poor. if there were a form of government that worked for all countries, it would be applied to nations all over the world without hesitation. but the fact remains that different forms of government work better for different countries.

"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." - Barack Obama

Fear fear and more fear - from both sides, all the time.

you missed the point, again. forget whether or not global warming is real; obama (and lots of politicians) believe it is, and if it IS then they are right: it WOULD cause a global catastrophe. that isn't absurd hyperbole. however, saying that universal health care is going to kill us all, as many in the g.o.p. are implying, is indeed absurd hyperbole. obama might be fear-mongering but at least he's not just making stuff up.

Well most people don't expect nutjobs to take everything they say as damned serious.. so how is she to blame? the consquences from that shooting are down to the man who pulled the shotgun, not from his deluded sense that somebody told him to.

If I told you to jump off a cliff and you do it, who is to blame? you are.

if you dont expect people to take your words "seriously," whats the point in saying them at all? if i put a giant billboard saying "go jump off a cliff," and someone did it, yeah sure i could argue that it's their fault for going through with it. but really, what was the point of me putting up the billboard?

again, not blaming sarah palin for the congresswoman's death, but she's a prime example of why both political sides need to tone it down with their words. when you have someone like glenn beck, who has a huge dedicated following, saying that he wishes he could kill michael moore and that someone should go out in do it, or politicians saying at rallies (where they invite everyone to bring their guns) that they should make their opponent "afraid to leave their home," you're just creating violent tension that has no place in politics.

[-:Undertaker:-]

so what you are actually saying is..

You can read the killers mind and tell us all that sarah palin did not give him a small push to go kill someone?

Yano what? I never believed in telepathy before now. But now. NOWWWWWW

No I think you will find that i'm saying that if I tell you to go and jump off a cliff, and you go and do it - it is your own fault and not my fault. Now what I want to ask it, do you dispute that?

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

Influenced by her speech/rhetoric? he may be influenced, but at the end of the day he himself made that decision and not Sarah Palin.

hysteria = change? thats an interesting theory, seems like loaded words to me.

Yeah, you know the hysteria surrounding the election of Obama from both the public and the politicians.

again, i'd hardly say there's "mass hysteria" over climate change, talk to anyone and its likely even if they believe in global warming that they aren't doing anything about it. you're far to liberal with the use of the word hysteria. not everything that causes a ripple in people's day is "hysteria." as for terrorism, after a terrorist attack it would be reasonable to expect some type of "hysteria" eh?

There is hysteria over climate change, maybe not so much from the public now - but the media and the governments of the world both whipped people into believing the end of the world was neigh and the same counts for terrorism. You were beaten into submission by your government basically implying that there was an islamic terrorist berhind every tree waiting to blow you (and us) all up - totally and utterly false. The same applies for the WMD in Iraq, the apparent threat that Saddam Hussein posed where he could destroy London in 45-minutes.. turned out to be a lie.

Fear works and with fear you can make people do almost anything you want, they continue to use it.

what's your definition of "decline"? cause what you're implying is that the great depression and being involved in world war II was better than having to deal with social security, which is pretty absurd. not sure if you've seen the united states since the FDR, but we've been alright.

My definition of decline is having a stagnating economy with cultural decline alongside it - Great Britain suffered with it and still is suffering from it and you are now beginnging to suffer from it.

You've been alright? you have had your currency devalued time and time again, you have had your freedoms and liberty taken away from you piece by peace and you've involved yourselves in policing the world which has killed untold millions of people including your own citizens, often based on a pack of lies (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq).

isolationism is hardly a flawless policy to be uninvolved in wars. world war I was basically unavoidable, and the u.s. attempted to stay out of world war II until we were attacked. and our internal economics have been varied, not only in decline, clinton in fact gave us a surplus.

World War I was not unavoidable - the United Kingdom did not need to become involved, it was only because we [Europe in general] started building up military pacts with one another and we got dragged into the conflict.

World War II was also unavoidable, why did Britain become involved? because of a pact with Poland despite the fact that Poland lay dead centre in the middle of the continent and we could simply not do anything to rescue them - more to and point and call this crude, I don't see why British soldiers should die for another country.

oh okay so you're just assuming things to fit your narrative, gotcha.

I'm using facts, like the £13tn hanging over your head along with a stagnating economy coupled with a world 'Empire' you can no longer afford and which is very very unpopular. I also gave the example with the NHS in the UK.

hindsight is always 20/20, but the USSR was certainly threatening at the time, it was certainly conceivable. for all we know, in 20 years we'll be laughing about how we worried about china taking over.

It was threatening militarily yes, not economically. The same with Japan, just the other way around.

China on the other hand is both threatenig militarily and economically.

denmark is time and time again rated the happiest nation on earth, and their citizens give nearly all of their money to the government. mexico and haiti, meanwhile, have been democratic for ages but have never been anything more than desperately poor. if there were a form of government that worked for all countries, it would be applied to nations all over the world without hesitation. but the fact remains that different forms of government work better for different countries.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

The myth about those northern countries continues.. I would suggest that happiness is linked with liberty.

you missed the point, again. forget whether or not global warming is real; obama (and lots of politicians) believe it is, and if it IS then they are right: it WOULD cause a global catastrophe. that isn't absurd hyperbole. however, saying that universal health care is going to kill us all, as many in the g.o.p. are implying, is indeed absurd hyperbole. obama might be fear-mongering but at least he's not just making stuff up.

Oh but maybe those in the GOP believe socialist healthcare will kill you all - its alright then yes? Obama and his fellow politicians knows this stuff is nonsense (the big factor being temperatures have been in decline for the past 15 years), as do the Republicans connecting socialist healthcare with death - however both are as bad as another.

if you dont expect people to take your words "seriously," whats the point in saying them at all? if i put a giant billboard saying "go jump off a cliff," and someone did it, yeah sure i could argue that it's their fault for going through with it. but really, what was the point of me putting up the billboard?

Because you want people to take them seriously. Palin obviously feels strongly about the healthcare (so she makes out as do the GOP) and thus will want to get a big reaction to it, politicians use cheap rhetoric all the time just like in Britain we had the last Labour government banging on about 'child poverty' when in reality whilst western style poverty does exist here - the child part was just to get a reaction and it worked.

[COLOR=RedStratocas]again, not blaming sarah palin for the congresswoman's death, but she's a prime example of why both political sides need to tone it down with their words. when you have someone like glenn beck, who has a huge dedicated following, saying that he wishes he could kill michael moore and that someone should go out in do it, or politicians saying at rallies (where they invite everyone to bring their guns) that they should make their opponent "afraid to leave their home," you're just creating violent tension that has no place in politics.[/QUOTE]

Then by all means vote against it and argue against it, but do not ban it.

[Stephen]

woooh calm down guys

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly thanks.