NY Thug Versus Arizona Trucker

Off Topic
321

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I also get my inhalers for free(I’m asthamatic). This is because Scotland gives FREE prescription charges to all its people.[/quote]

This is a large part of the problem we’re discussing.

First you say you’re a “cheapskate” and then go on to celebrate “free” things the government provides you. Two issues here:

  1. It isn’t free. You can call it free until you are blue in the face, and hey, you might not pay for it, however someone, some where is paying that cost on your behalf. What are you doing for that person in return? Anything?

There is no such thing as free. It costs money to run the store you get the script from, the package it comes in costs money to make and package, it costs money to produce the drug and ship it to market, and someone at some point paid quite a bit of money to develop the drug.

  1. A government powerful enough to provide you with everything, is certainly powerful enough to take it away. And a short trip through human history shows the government tends to end up taking it away.

Trust me, you’re view of the “tea party” is no more accurate than what you think his is of Europe. Unless you’re trying to be ironic here, you are looking mighty inconsistent.

322

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I also get my inhalers for free(I’m asthamatic). This is because Scotland gives FREE prescription charges to all its people.[/quote]

This is a large part of the problem we’re discussing.

First you say you’re a “cheapskate” and then go on to celebrate “free” things the government provides you. Two issues here:

  1. It isn’t free. You can call it free until you are blue in the face, and hey, you might not pay for it, however someone, some where is paying that cost on your behalf. What are you doing for that person in return? Anything?

There is no such thing as free. It costs money to run the store you get the script from, the package it comes in costs money to make and package, it costs money to produce the drug and ship it to market, and someone at some point paid quite a bit of money to develop the drug.

  1. A government powerful enough to provide you with everything, is certainly powerful enough to take it away. And a short trip through human history shows the government tends to end up taking it away.

Trust me, you’re view of the “tea party” is no more accurate than what you think his is of Europe. Unless you’re trying to be ironic here, you are looking mighty inconsistent. [/quote]

When I say ‘cheapskate’, I’m playing on a Scottish stereotype. It was tongue in cheek more than anything

Yeah maybe I am being inconsistent however that post came from the heart, which probably explains it being all over the place! Tea party was the only comparison I could make, due to my limited knowledge of American politics.

323

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:
Must admit I’m not too up to scratch with what goes on the good ol’ US of A but to suggest us Eurofaggots live in a socialist hellhole is WILDLY off the mark.

Oh

And god bless the NHS[/quote]

I don’t think anyone said you were Eurofaggots lol. If you like having the things Europe does, then by all means enjoy it and revel in it. But personally, I don’t.[/quote]

Of course. I was just trying to be funny.

Please bear with me here as I never get involved in these high brow subjects as I find it difficult to convey my thoughts, through a lack of knowledge tinged with apathy, however your posts have forced me to respond.

I, personally find it difficult to grasp this concept of ‘Europe’ that is being banded around.

When I hear you say ‘Europe’, I immediately think stricter gun control and medical care, as if that is the overall defining culture or ideology that ‘Europe’ projects. They’re just a small part of a very big picture.

The ‘culture’ in my country is so far removed from the likes of Finnish ‘culture’ or Italian ‘culture’, as are the ideologies but then I imagine that would be the case considering there are 50 countries within the borders of Europe.

Also, the emergency rooms you visited may have been below your standards however do they represent the medical system as a whole?

I had nasal polyps a couple of years back. I had to wait 2 months for surgery to remove them. What I didn’t have to wait for, was some insurance company deciding if my policy covered the operation. I just had to wait a wee while and endure the inability to breath through my nose. I, being a Scottish cheapskate, prefer this approach.

I also get my inhalers for free(I’m asthamatic). This is because Scotland gives FREE prescription charges to all its people. England doesn’t and they’re only across the border. So as you can see, the differences in ‘idealogies’ kick in, 100 miles down the road.

So please spare us the grim euro state nightmare that you seem to bang on about. I feel you’re cherry picking your argument based on some Eurotrip you went on and tea party propaganda however If I’m wrong, then heart felt apologies from across the Atlantic!

[/quote]

Sure waiting to have nasal polyps removed is no big deal, but what if it had been more serious or painful?

Well as you have shown I don’t know the intricacies of each individual country. I have been to Europe 4 times. Once was for an entire summer, and the other three ranged from 2-4 weeks.

I am really not saying Europe is a grim nightmare of disastrous proportions, but I have had my fill for as long as I live.

And I will never understand why people think FREE is good. Nothing is ever FREE.

But in all I do thank you for response, it was not full of venom and came from an informed spot in your experience.

324

They must be doing something right. Europe has two great powers in the United Kingdom and France, and Germany would join those ranks if it decided to become a nuclear weapons state.

325

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:
Maybe you mean socialized medicine where the hospitals are utterly disgusting and run down? Where if you don’t have cash, good luck getting seen anywhere within that week. You can downplay this all you want or call bs, but I have been to Emergency rooms in Rome and one in England and both I wouldn’t want my dog to be given care in.
[/quote]

Although it is indicated U.S.A has the most top ranking hospitals in the world:

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world

It’s funny European health care systems are considered better than U.S.A, no?

(rankings based on health, health equality, responsiveness, responsiveness equality and fair financial contribution)[/quote]

326

[quote]Bauber wrote:
Sure waiting to have nasal polyps removed is no big deal, but what if it had been more serious or painful?

Well as you have shown I don’t know the intricacies of each individual country. I have been to Europe 4 times. Once was for an entire summer, and the other three ranged from 2-4 weeks.

I am really not saying Europe is a grim nightmare of disastrous proportions, but I have had my fill for as long as I live.

And I will never understand why people think FREE is good. Nothing is ever FREE.[/quote]

I appreciate your measured response, mate. I was a little irked at some of the claims made and actually feel a little stupid for sticking my chin in now however whats done is done! Hope all is well

327

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:
live in a socialist hellhole is WILDLY off the mark.

[/quote]

I don’t know if that is true, as I’m not about to spend my day looking up what percentage European business is owned by government, however I think many people confuse “socialist” with “ever expanded safety net”. (To use a kinder description)

They are really two different conversations, and you can be a capitalist nation and still have the second problem. [/quote]

It’s a remnant of the industrial revolution. Late industrializing states couldn’t hope to establish a foothold in a market dominated by early industrialized such as Great Britain or the US without heavy government support of business. You see this especially in Germany and Japan, who even today are much more inclined to see the relationship between business and government as a symbiotic one.

328

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Germany was unable to defeat a state that it shared contiguous geography with in France, much less an Island nation in Britain. The offense-defense balance was certainly in favor of the defense. The stopping power of water would have made an invasion of the British Isles virtually impossible. The entente didn’t need to win, they needed only not to lose. American forces were not a decisive material contribution to the conflict.

What do you base that assessment on? 2/3 of the best units in the Wehrmacht were being annihilated on the eastern front and an imperially minded Japan was bogged down in China. The war would have certainly lasted longer if the US had stayed on the sidelines, but it’s a stretch to say that without American involvement European states would be mere provinces of a hegemonic Germany.

[/quote]

Germany had England on its knees near parlaying for peace or facing an invasion of its isle after being bombed to oblivion once Hitler had consolidated power across the rest of Europe. In the face of a long term war without US involvement Britain was doomed and they were realistically the last power bastion holding strong at the time.

Churchill in his Memoirs wrote the following:

In two or three minutes Mr. Roosevelt came through. "Mr. President, what's this about Japan? "It's quite true," he replied. "They have attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We are all in the same boat now."

No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!

Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war�¢??the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand's-breath; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress. We had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live.

How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutilated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.

Seems like he was worried too and knew they were doomed had the US not been pulled in.

You know a lot about history there is no question there. And the outcome either way could never be fully predicted, but without US involvement… the outcome and future was grim. And by involvement I don’t only mean active bodies, but the enormous amount of supplies the US was able to crank out during its manufacturing height. That was critical in both wars for Europe.

329

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Germany was unable to defeat a state that it shared contiguous geography with in France, much less an Island nation in Britain. The offense-defense balance was certainly in favor of the defense. The stopping power of water would have made an invasion of the British Isles virtually impossible. The entente didn’t need to win, they needed only not to lose. American forces were not a decisive material contribution to the conflict.

What do you base that assessment on? 2/3 of the best units in the Wehrmacht were being annihilated on the eastern front and an imperially minded Japan was bogged down in China. The war would have certainly lasted longer if the US had stayed on the sidelines, but it’s a stretch to say that without American involvement European states would be mere provinces of a hegemonic Germany.

[/quote]

Is it not theorised also that Hitler, before American intervention, considered seeking peace with Great Britain to ensure the war on two front scenario did not happen yet again, hence why British troops were “allowed” to escape Dunkirk en masse? The Battle of Britain sealed the deal and ensured the threat of sea invasion was put to rest for sure.

In regards to American involvement in WW1, I was always taught that it was the the British Navy’s blockade of Germany - an act which U.S.A did not support as they wished to profit from trading both the Triple Alliance and Entente sides - that had the most profound impact?

330

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I also get my inhalers for free(I’m asthamatic). This is because Scotland gives FREE prescription charges to all its people.[/quote]

This is a large part of the problem we’re discussing.

First you say you’re a “cheapskate” and then go on to celebrate “free” things the government provides you. Two issues here:

  1. It isn’t free. You can call it free until you are blue in the face, and hey, you might not pay for it, however someone, some where is paying that cost on your behalf. What are you doing for that person in return? Anything?

There is no such thing as free. It costs money to run the store you get the script from, the package it comes in costs money to make and package, it costs money to produce the drug and ship it to market, and someone at some point paid quite a bit of money to develop the drug.

  1. A government powerful enough to provide you with everything, is certainly powerful enough to take it away. And a short trip through human history shows the government tends to end up taking it away.

Trust me, you’re view of the “tea party” is no more accurate than what you think his is of Europe. Unless you’re trying to be ironic here, you are looking mighty inconsistent. [/quote]

When I say ‘cheapskate’, I’m playing on a Scottish stereotype. It was tongue in cheek more than anything

Yeah maybe I am being inconsistent however that post came from the heart, which probably explains it being all over the place! Tea party was the only comparison I could make, due to my limited knowledge of American politics.
[/quote]

You’re completely ignoring the actual important parts of my post.

331

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I also get my inhalers for free(I’m asthamatic). This is because Scotland gives FREE prescription charges to all its people.[/quote]

This is a large part of the problem we’re discussing.

First you say you’re a “cheapskate” and then go on to celebrate “free” things the government provides you. Two issues here:

  1. It isn’t free. You can call it free until you are blue in the face, and hey, you might not pay for it, however someone, some where is paying that cost on your behalf. What are you doing for that person in return? Anything?

There is no such thing as free. It costs money to run the store you get the script from, the package it comes in costs money to make and package, it costs money to produce the drug and ship it to market, and someone at some point paid quite a bit of money to develop the drug.

  1. A government powerful enough to provide you with everything, is certainly powerful enough to take it away. And a short trip through human history shows the government tends to end up taking it away.

Trust me, you’re view of the “tea party” is no more accurate than what you think his is of Europe. Unless you’re trying to be ironic here, you are looking mighty inconsistent. [/quote]

When I say ‘cheapskate’, I’m playing on a Scottish stereotype. It was tongue in cheek more than anything

Yeah maybe I am being inconsistent however that post came from the heart, which probably explains it being all over the place! Tea party was the only comparison I could make, due to my limited knowledge of American politics.
[/quote]

You’re completely ignoring the actual important parts of my post. [/quote]

I know because I’m heading off to the boozers to watch the 2nd half of the Man City game! Sorry. We’ll do lunch sometime!

332

[quote]Bismark wrote:
it’s a stretch to say that without American involvement European states would be mere provinces of a hegemonic Germany.

[/quote]

I think you forgot about the scope that the US provided supplies to Great Britain and Russia.

Without the US providing the materials to Britain, Russia, and other countries, I think the outcome would have been significantly different.

For example, the US provided the following to the USSR (from Lend-Lease - Wikipedia)

“In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[25] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[26] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[27] and 1.75 million tons of food.[28]”

It wasn’t just the troops we sent.

333

You people spend so much time argueing On here, when really, no one gives a shit what you think or say.

334

Jumbled in with a bunch of other nonsense someone said something along the lines of education and healthcare being a “right”.

Neither of those are a right. A service provided to you is not and cannot be a right by definition. Rights are inherent an inalienable, not services donated to you for your accord.

335

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

[quote]CB said:

You’re completely ignoring the actual important parts of my post. [/quote]

I know [/quote]

lol, fair enough. Enjoy the game.

336

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Jumbled in with a bunch of other nonsense someone said something along the lines of education and healthcare being a “right”.

Neither of those are a right. A service provided to you is not and cannot be a right by definition. Rights are inherent an inalienable, not services donated to you for your accord. [/quote]

Sadly, I know a lot of people who would argue that they are rights until they passed out.

337

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
it’s a stretch to say that without American involvement European states would be mere provinces of a hegemonic Germany.

[/quote]

I think you forgot about the scope that the US provided supplies to Great Britain and Russia.

Without the US providing the materials to Britain, Russia, and other countries, I think the outcome would have been significantly different.

For example, the US provided the following to the USSR (from Lend-Lease - Wikipedia)

“In total, the US deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[25] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[26] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[27] and 1.75 million tons of food.[28]”

It wasn’t just the troops we sent. [/quote]

In regards to the material aid that US supplied Great Britain, without it we would have starved like Germany in WW1 and dropped out without a doubt; hence why the U-Boats spent so much time sinking commercial shipping.

338

[quote]SuperAlienFreak wrote:
You people spend so much time argueing On here, when really, no one gives a shit what you think or say.[/quote]

Thank you for your amazingly thought out and poignant post.

339

[quote]SuperAlienFreak wrote:
You people spend so much time argueing On here, when really, no one gives a shit what you think or say.[/quote]

I doubt very many of us are taking this seriously.

Whether minds change or not, the exchange of ideas and information is unlikely to counter-productive.

340

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:
I know because I’m heading off to the boozers to watch the 2nd half of the Man City game! Sorry. We’ll do lunch sometime![/quote]

Priorities! Have fun and a pint for us.