Politics & Stuff

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

14 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Sorry to but in as I'm enjoying your chat.

But so you are OK about your taxes going towards the copt,military,roads - that you consume. But don't you get sick? What happens if you cant afford your or a loved ones treatment in hospital?

How about if you cant afford to send your child to school or college?

Its not just everyone else you are paying these taxes to help. Its to your benefit too.

We in the UK might moan about our Social security system and how newcommers to the country get their benifits too easily (yes in some cases peeps come here and do take the piss to get free housing,meds etc) but the option would be that many would go sick and homeless other wise.

A. I want healthcare to become a free market. Not regulated. Affordable healthcare for those who can afford it. 

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

 

I'm not familiar with UK laws, but in the states, The original US constitution protects your individual rights. No one can seize your money and give it to someone else. It's an argument of morality. 

 

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

21 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

Extreme hypothetical there 

A. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. 

B. You shouldn't have a mortgage if you can't afford it. (Thank god banks are more strict after the 2008 crises.) 

C. You shouldn't be working for a company that doesn't have workers comp. Which shouldn't be any as every business is required to have it in the States. 

 

So if I was working 2 jobs, had a mortgage, had 4 kids, got ill and worked for an employer that couldn't insure me if I got ill or injured, which all led to my house being foreclosed. I would say tough shit. No one's fault by my own. I shouldn't have planned my expenditures so naively and not plan ahead in case something like this would happen. Especially the situation I'm in. 

 

What led to that, is a mixture of very bad decisions. So we as Americans, should be forced against our will, to pay for those people's bad decisions? Do you not see the moral objection with that? 

 

[Vesper 28,773]

52 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

President Obama and the Democratic party creating laws that go against the original US constitution, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

I don't think you are getting it. AOC is meaning to create laws that go against the Constitution, just as Obama did in 2010. The fact you think that by merely changing the original US constitution, is OK, is worrying. Not only that, but it shows the dangers of Socialism. 

72% of Americans say the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional. https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

54% of Americans who think the healthcare mandate is a good thing, say its unconstitutional.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

 

And what did this mandate do? A mandate more than 70% of the country viewed as unconstitutional? Add 940 Billion in debt. The most debt out of any presidential policy. 

 

That is the issue with Socialism. It leads to economic decay. 

 

I await your response. 

 

 

Number one, I not on your time zone, I am in Sweden, and I just got off a wicked hard week of work. I promise I will fully respond to all sometime this weekend. I want to talk footie atm.

That said, you STILL do not grasp how American laws and federal fiduciary expenditures work. There is NO constitutional definition of what Congress cannot spend money on. There are things they are mandated to spend funds on, but their are no general prohibitions as to fiscal outays (other than it cannot establish a state religion). So you argument that somehow things you do not like are unconstitutional is ludicrous. It is absolute BOLLOCKS, as proven by 200 plus years of historical SCOTUS cumulative case law and the actual outlays BY YOUR CONGRESS ITSELF.

Also, you REALLY need to study up on the massive difference between social democracy (what I personally advocate), socialism, and communism, in all their different flavours (and there are MANY MANY types). All 3 are different things. You are conflating them horridly, mis-labelling, and in general making a hash of your definitions and attempted smears.

Your government has thousands (tens of thousands perhaps) of different programmes.You can rant on about it is not my problem if people want to get healthcare or go get a tertiary education, BUT you already have CONSTITUTIONALLY adjudged historical programmes for these things. The GI Bill post WWII for instance, that helped millions of soldiers coming home to obtain college degrees. The same for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security etc etc etc

You apparently have little to no knowledge of how utterly interlocked a nation-state's collective population is. YOU, yourself, have benefited tremendously from the contributions of other people who prospered and benefited at multiple levels because of government programmes (think trillions spent on science grants and programmes like NASA, etc), wealth redistribution and general empowerment of the populace.

Wealth inequality will destroy ANY and all nations (in terms of being a viable first world state) once it hits a critical mass. I will address this all in a detailed reply sometime this weekend.

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Extreme hypothetical there 

A. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. 

B. You shouldn't have a mortgage if you can't afford it. (Thank god banks are more strict after the 2008 crises.) 

C. You shouldn't be working for a company that doesn't have workers comp. Which shouldn't be any as every business is required to have it in the States. 

 

So if I was working 2 jobs, had a mortgage, had 4 kids, got ill and worked for an employer that couldn't insure me if I got ill or injured, which all led to my house being foreclosed. I would say tough shit. No one's fault by my own. I shouldn't have planned my expenditures so naively and not plan ahead in case something like this would happen. 

 

What led to that, is a mixture of very bad decisions. So we as Americans, should be forced against our will, to pay for those people's bad decisions? Do you not see the moral objection with that? 

 

No. sorry.

I like the idea of helping those in need cause one day it might just be me.

How about if I didn't want my tax $$ spent on the military? i dont have the right to tell them I'm not paying my taxes cause i dont want us being involved in other countries problems.

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

That said, you STILL do not grasp how American laws work. There is NO constitutional definition of what Congress cannot spend money on. 

When any mandate goes against the original US constitution, it's unconstitutional. The left want to change it whilst the right want to preserve it. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

There are things they are mandated to spend  funds on, but their are no general prohibitions as to fiscal outays (other than it cannot establish a state religion). So you argument that somehow things you do not like are unconstitutional is ludicrous. It is absolute BOLLOCKS, as proven by 200 plus years of historical SCOTUS cumulative case law and the actual outlays BY YOUR CONGRESS ITSELF.

I am speaking of the original US Constitution. When you create laws that go against it, like what Obama did, is unconstitutional. 

Just because it was passed by congress, doesn't mean it's constitutional. The founding fathers didn't believe in a country that distributed wealth equally to others. So when you create a law that takes people's money and distributes it to others, it's unconstitutional. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Also, you REALLY need to study up on the massive difference between social democracy (what I personally advocate), socialism, and communism, in all their different flavours (and there are MANY MANY types). All 3 are different things. You are conflating them horridly, mis-labelling, and in general making a hash of your definitions and attempted smears.

I don't like socialism. What ever form. Because it deprives from the same basis. Distributing wealth. 

When 72% of Americans found Obama Care unconstitutional, yet it was still passed, shows the danger of government control. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Your government has thousands (tens of thousands perhaps) of different programmes.You can rant on about it is not my problem if people want to get healthcare or go get a tertiary education, BUT you already have CONSTITUTIONALLY adjudged historical programmes for these things. The GI Bill post WWII for instance, that helped millions of soldiers coming home to obtain college degrees. The same for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security etc etc etc

Just because we currently have socialist policies in place, doesn't mean we should go ahead and add more. 

That isn't an argument. 

44 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Wealth inequality will destroy ANY and all nations (in terms of being a viable first world state) once it hits a critical mass. I will address this all in a detailed reply sometime this weekend.

You're right. In order for the USA to be prosperous, they need to follow suit like Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Conveniently forgetting the massive culture difference and the fact each country has less population than the state of Texas. 

41 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

No. sorry.

I like the idea of helping those in need cause one day it might just be me.

How about if I didn't want my tax $$ spent on the military? i dont have the right to tell them I'm not paying my taxes cause i dont want us being involved in other countries problems.

I do to. Hence why I donate my money to charities I see fit. 

If you don't want your tax $$ to go to the military, than you should be fine with the logic of having your home invaded and no one there to protect you. 

 

[cosmicway 1,323]

Brexit = Alles kaufen kommandant

[Vesper 28,773]

What happens next for Brexit: five scenarios

There is now no plan and no one knows when – or even if – Britain will leave the EU. What are the possible escape routes from chaos?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/31/what-is-future-for-brexit

 

As ever with Brexit, every effort to move forward leads the government and country deeper into crisis, and further into the unknown. Last Friday at 11pm the UK was meant to have left the European Union. But Brexit day passed – amid protests by Leavers – with us still in the EU, because nothing had been agreed. Now no one in government or parliament knows when we will leave, if we ever do.

The official position at the start of last week, as stated by the EU, was that our membership could be extended until 22 May – but only if the prime minister got her deal through parliament by this weekend. She failed to do that.

Anticipating this outcome (May losing again), the EU said the UK would then leave with no deal on 12 April, unless it could come up with a convincing reason for further delay, which would mean taking part in European elections on 23 May. This weekend, however, there is still no agreed plan.

On Wednesday Theresa May said she would stand down to let a new Tory leader take over the next phase of negotiations if Conservatives backed her deal. When the withdrawal agreement was voted on again last Friday, however, 34 Tories defied her and she lost by 58 votes. Even her extraordinary “back me to sack me” gamble had failed. May responded by saying parliament should now try to find an alternative way forward. She did not, though, rule out putting her deal back to parliament yet again this week.

To add to the confusion, a Tory leadership contest to replace May is almost certain to take place this summer. More chaos looms. Even if a Brexit plan is agreed by parliament and an extension is granted based upon it, the next Tory leader could just tear it up when in power. “We have run off the road into the ditch,” said a government minister yesterday. “We try to move forward but we just get more stuck.”

So what could the government try now to shunt things forward? What could happen next? ..........

snip

[Laylabelle 9,351]

Such a mess!!! To reach this stage and still no clearer to what is actually going on... 

[Vesper 28,773]

1 hour ago, Laylabelle said:

Such a mess!!! To reach this stage and still no clearer to what is actually going on... 

clown car time at Parliament

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

Of course  - you are America’s bitch and 
you need a diversion from your idiotic Brexit bullshit.

Lol she's right 

[Fernando 6,453]

@Vesper

Regarding your post about Omar, you are equating antisemitism as truth?

That sounds absurd, it's the same logic that people used that because your Muslim, your a terrorist.....

 

[Vesper 28,773]

37 minutes ago, Fernando said:

@Vesper

Regarding your post about Omar, you are equating antisemitism as truth?

That sounds absurd, it's the same logic that people used that because your Muslim, your a terrorist.....

 

No. I am saying it is NOT antisemitism. It is a false charge that they always use to deflect any sort of speaking truth to power.

If you wish to talk on this more, please post in here, I am going out for the evening, will reply tomorrow, have a nice night.

cheers

[Fernando 6,453]

38 minutes ago, Vesper said:

No. I am saying it is NOT antisemitism. It is a false charge that they always use to deflect any sort of speaking truth to power.

If you wish to talk on this more, please post in here, I am going out for the evening, will reply tomorrow, have a nice night.

cheers

It's not because the same can be said of country like Saudia Arabia that buy so much votes and what not with all their money. 

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

d

[MoroccanBlue 5,296]

18 hours ago, Fernando said:

It's not because the same can be said of country like Saudia Arabia that buy so much votes and what not with all their money. 

 

It is anti-Semitic.

She's made comments referencing an old anti-Semitic canard that Jews have magical powers ("Hypnotising America" ) and that Jewish money lay the foundation of America's support for Israel. All made in a professional setting.