I was just wondering what your thoughts on compulsatory military service in the United States are. As you may know, im currently stationed in South Korea, where all males have to serve 2 years in the military. To be honest I think, (and so do they), that it does them some good.

I know its a pretty right wing thing to bring up, and I dont particularly support it per se, but what do you guys think?

I've long supported the idea of all able bodied citizens of the U.S., male & female to complete a minimum of 2 years service following high school and prior to attending college. For those who are documented conscientious objectors and those flatly refusing to serve in the military, a reincarnation of the C.C.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps), or the W.P.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration) might be considered. The U.S. would gain tremendously, regardless of where people served. Those programs served the U.S. quite well many years ago - many of those completed projects are still in use today.

I think that scenario takes the passion and commitment from our current service people. Most of my friends that joined the services did so because they want to better themselves, and to prove their commitment to something more than themselves. Suggestion that such an event wasn’t done through choice, but rather obligation, seems to lessen them as well as the service. Honor comes from choice and Valor comes from the execution of that choice. I don’t think it gets any better than that.

Lots of draftees proved to be truly fine soldiers. Many of them made the service a career. The military kind of loses out on that segment of society that would normally not enlist.

I was just wondering what your thoughts on compulsatory military service in the United States are. As you may know, im currently stationed in South Korea, where all males have to serve 2 years in the military. To be honest I think, (and so do they), that it does them some good.

I know its a pretty right wing thing to bring up, and I dont particularly support it per se, but what do you guys think?

If the U.S. was at peace, I might have liked this idea because it would bring more of a sense of national unity. Maybe. The diference between the U.S. and South Korea is that the South Koreans have a powerful enemy immediatly to the north in the form of Kim Jong Il and his North Korean army and a far, far more powerful enemy less than a thousand miles North of that in the form of Communist China. The true enemies of the U.S., the ones that could really do us something live on the other side of the ocean. This gives many Americans a sense of complacency that I'm guessing doesn't exist in South Korea, at least not to the extent that it does here. People here can come up with pretty silly ideas on the notions of "peace" when there are no enemies on their borders, dammit.

All in all, I wouldn't want somebody in our military who doesn't want to be there, who doesn't know why he's there, who doesn't have a true sense of patriotism. I wouldn't want a person like that in our armed forces, and I sure as hell wouldn't want them in Iraq, dammit.

I am not in favor of cumpulsory military service, or even of cumpulsory service at all. I would, however, favor something proposed by Robert Heinlein many years ago in his book "Starship Troopers". I think that the right to vote and hold office should be conditional, based on completing a couple of years of either civilian or military service. If you don't care about the country enough to serve, you shouldn't get a say in how it is run.

I am not in favor of cumpulsory military service, or even of cumpulsory service at all. I would, however, favor something proposed by Robert Heinlein many years ago in his book "Starship Troopers". I think that the right to vote and hold office should be conditional, based on completing a couple of years of either civilian or military service. If you don't care about the country enough to serve, you shouldn't get a say in how it is run.
Not a bad idea.

I still disagree in principle with making someone serve in the military or in some sort of government agency.

I still disagree in principle with making someone serve in the military or in some sort of government agency.
Why? Could it be because it's unamerican? Unconstitutional?

I prefer Heinlein's earlier idea. Wars are voted on by the people and you submit your name in your vote. You vote yes, you serve.

The population of Canada would increase very suddenly,wasnt there a lot of draft dodgers packed their bags wand went north in the sixties.

Why?
Our government should exist to facilitate the freedoms to choose what we do with our lives, not tell us how to live them.

Actually, that idea was first brought up in ancient Sparta. All the men, in order to vote, had to serve in the military. Consequently, since women were forbidden to serve, they could not vote. But that's another subject.

I believe that military service for anyone would give them a strong sense of discipline, and also increase the general preparedness of our armed forces. However, I do not think that such service should be compulsory. From what I've seen, the only nations or powers which have done this have had a strong and immediate reason for doing so, such as the case in South Korea. And in Sparta, they had to do that in order to keep the massive Helot population in check.


Just my 3 cents.

Compulsory anything is a dubious idea in a country that prides itself on the freedom of its citizens and free enterprise. If you force people into doing things they don't want to be doing, it reduces productivity. (e.g. Not all people make good soldiers)

Also, I think our military sytem works pretty well as it is. It is completely voluntary where people who work (notice, I don't think "serve" is an appropriate term) in the military are compensated much better than most government employees. If the country REALLY needs people in the military, it can draft civilians.

I also suspect you would see a LOT more revolting in this country if you tried to force people to serve in Iraq (see historical lesson when the Vietnam War draft was instituted). You already had plenty of domestic resistance as it was when Bush bullrushed the country into Iraq.

Personally, I never wanted to serve in the military because I knew our country has a bad habit of sticking its military where it doesn't belong, and I don't believe in signing a blank check over to the government which says that you have to kill someone whenever the government dictates. Unfortunately, our government decides to declare war on countries rather arbitrarily these days, which, by the way, is why very few people sign up for the armed forces nowadays.

Finally, I wanted to point out a distinction between South Korea and the U.S. Serving in the military in South Korea means you're going to stay close to home. Serving in the military in the U.S. means there is a good chance you're going to find yourself on the other side of the world.

Personally, I never wanted to serve in the military because I knew our country has a bad habit of sticking its military where it doesn't belong, and I don't believe in signing a blank check over to the government which says that you have to kill someone whenever the government dictates. Unfortunately, our government decides to declare war on countries rather arbitrarily these days, which, by the way, is why very few people sign up for the armed forces nowadays.

Excellent point. Well said.

Unfortunately, our government decides to declare war on countries rather arbitrarily these days, which, by the way, is why very few people sign up for the armed forces nowadays.
Name all the wars we have arbitrarily gotten involved in the last 15 years.

And, do you actually know the enlistment rates of the armed forces now, or are you spewing drivel?

Name all the wars we have arbitrarily gotten involved in the last 15 years.

Of the past 40 years, we've spent at least 8 involved in what I would call "uncalled for" wars (Vietnam and Iraq). That means our country has been involved in such wars 20% of the time. In my opinion, that's way too much. And I'm not even considering questionable deployments that wouldn't be properly termed "wars."

And, do you actually know the enlistment rates of the armed forces now, or are you spewing drivel?

I read and watch the news and dropping enlistment rates has been a widely covered story. If you have information that tells me otherwise, feel free to enlighten me.

Of the past 40 years, we've spent at least 8 involved in what I would call "uncalled for" wars (Vietnam and Iraq). That means our country has been involved in such wars 20% of the time. In my opinion, that's way too much. And I'm not even considering questionable deployments that wouldn't be properly termed "wars."
I said the past 15. And I said arbitrary. Vietnam and Iraq do not qualify as such.
I read and watch the news and dropping enlistment rates has been a widely covered story. If you have information that tells me otherwise, feel free to enlighten me.
You made the claim, you back it up. I'm not doing your work for you.

I said the past 15. And I said arbitrary. Vietnam and Iraq do not qualify as such.

You're welcome to that opinion. Once again though, those two wars are widely regarded as major blunders in our country's history. Even Dubya has acknowledged that the invasion was a mistake.

You made the claim, you back it up. I'm not doing your work for you.

I'm not going to research widely known facts for you. If you want to be anything but ignorant, then you can type in "google.com" yourself. However, if you want to remain ignorant, nothing I say will change that.

Now you've two facts to prove. Hoorah.

Now you've two facts to prove. Hoorah.Try discussing something with Evakian and you get snide, sarcastic remarks. How fun. :)

Try discussing something with Evakian and you get snide, sarcastic remarks. How fun. :)
That remark was neither snide nor sarcastic.

I'm just messing with you, Evakian.

Hoorah.

Actually, that idea was first brought up in ancient Sparta. All the men, in order to vote, had to serve in the military. Consequently, since women were forbidden to serve, they could not vote. But that's another subject.

I believe that military service for anyone would give them a strong sense of discipline, and also increase the general preparedness of our armed forces. However, I do not think that such service should be compulsory. From what I've seen, the only nations or powers which have done this have had a strong and immediate reason for doing so, such as the case in South Korea. And in Sparta, they had to do that in order to keep the massive Helot population in check.


Just my 3 cents.


The Spartans are probably a poor example, because they almost quite literally breed the most feared army to ever step foot on Earth. Young males were taken from their homes, and forced to fend for themselves, aside from any family commitment. It was literally, dog eat dog. The survivors then walked into a line of service. And of course, this brutality paled in comparison to their brutality on the field of battle. No army could withstand the losses of winning, let alone loosing on the field of battle. Entire cities surrender at the mere presences of the first line of the Spartan Army. Yet, the society as a whole was not based upon freedom or choice, so it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Plus we also have history telling us it didn’t work in the end.

I think it would be a mistake. In the short run, it would drastically reduce our combat effectiveness. Things are bad enough in Iraq now without sending thousands of troops who don't want to be there in the mix. Killing Americans would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Assuming we do win this war, now we have a huge standing army to maintain. The US spends far more equipping and feeding our troops than any other country on the face of the planet, and if an entire segment were to be conscripted, we would have to vastly scale up the expenditures to keep them combat ready, paying them to sit on their asses and guard dirt, instead of doing the things that make America great; like staffing our malls, gas stations, and telemarketing call centers.

It would also move this country much further towards socialism than people would even dream of. All of a sudden, the government is going to have to exert this huge direct influence on the economy, and much much further make it the largest and most wasteful consumer of resources in the nation, nay, the world even.

It's a great idea on paper, but it's very likely the reality of it would be much, much worse.

If we want to nationalize something, we should start with health care.

Compulsory anything is a dubious idea in a country that prides itself on the freedom of its citizens and free enterprise. If you force people into doing things they don't want to be doing, it reduces productivity. (e.g. Not all people make good soldiers)

Also, I think our military sytem works pretty well as it is. It is completely voluntary where people who work (notice, I don't think "serve" is an appropriate term) in the military are compensated much better than most government employees. If the country REALLY needs people in the military, it can draft civilians.

I also suspect you would see a LOT more revolting in this country if you tried to force people to serve in Iraq (see historical lesson when the Vietnam War draft was instituted). You already had plenty of domestic resistance as it was when Bush bullrushed the country into Iraq.

Personally, I never wanted to serve in the military because I knew our country has a bad habit of sticking its military where it doesn't belong, and I don't believe in signing a blank check over to the government which says that you have to kill someone whenever the government dictates. Unfortunately, our government decides to declare war on countries rather arbitrarily these days, which, by the way, is why very few people sign up for the armed forces nowadays.

Finally, I wanted to point out a distinction between South Korea and the U.S. Serving in the military in South Korea means you're going to stay close to home. Serving in the military in the U.S. means there is a good chance you're going to find yourself on the other side of the world.


What domestic resistance was there? Approval numbers were in the 90s, and Bush was following, hardly leading. 9-11 throw the Middle East right in the lap of every American citizen, and they reacted. First with Afghanistan, and then with Iraq, when that wasn’t enough. There have been only a handful of great leaders capable of bull rushing the country to war, and there hasn’t been one of those leaders for over 40 years. I’m not going to jump on the media bandwagon in calling Bush the worse leader ever, that’s simply naïve, childish, and ill conceived. However, I hardly see him breaking the ranks of the middle, at best.

I also can’t agree with your statement that our government has a habit of sticking its military where it doesn’t belong. What world crisis doesn’t dictate American involvement? If something ‘bad’ is happening, do you hear them say: Why isn’t (insert some country other than America) doing something about it? No, since the end of 40’s, American successes have placed it to the head of the class.

Which to get off subject a little, you have to give credit to the darkest irony of all. If you study history, you will know that it was the sole opinion of the fledgling US that open markets should be spread to the Middle East, at the turn of the century. But just like any other Neophyte, it was sent to the back of the class, and the continued European policy of exploitation through sovereignty was spread to the Middle East. Europe went to bed with the Nobles, the Nobles returned the favor, and Europe came before the people. Now the people are pissed off, only the Neophyte is now at the head of the class, fighting against a resistance to what it originally believed in the first place, still trying to deliver what it wanted in the first place. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction.

I am not in favor of cumpulsory military service, or even of cumpulsory service at all. I would, however, favor something proposed by Robert Heinlein many years ago in his book "Starship Troopers". I think that the right to vote and hold office should be conditional, based on completing a couple of years of either civilian or military service. If you don't care about the country enough to serve, you shouldn't get a say in how it is run.

I usually agree with you Imagineer but I don't agree with going from the old days when you could vote only if you were a land-owner to a present time when you can vote only if you are a DD-214 owner. That pesky little thing called the constitution just gets in the way all the time.

It would certainly be neccessary to amend the Constitution to enact what Heinlein proposed. Note also that what I said was either civilain or military service. I think it is just as valid to serve in the Peace Corps or VISTA as in the military. I do think that some sort of service to the country is something that every citizen should undertake at some point in their life.

The Spartans are probably a poor example, because they almost quite literally breed the most feared army to ever step foot on Earth. Young males were taken from their homes, and forced to fend for themselves, aside from any family commitment. It was literally, dog eat dog. The survivors then walked into a line of service. And of course, this brutality paled in comparison to their brutality on the field of battle. No army could withstand the losses of winning, let alone loosing on the field of battle. Entire cities surrender at the mere presences of the first line of the Spartan Army. Yet, the society as a whole was not based upon freedom or choice, so it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Plus we also have history telling us it didn’t work in the end.

We're on the same side. My overall point was that it made their society efficient, and their military razor sharp, it was out of necessity. The only way their society could survive was through this discipline.

For an individual, I believe the service provides strength and discipline. However, it is just too strenuous on society in general.

What domestic resistance was there? Approval numbers were in the 90s, and Bush was following, hardly leading. 9-11 throw the Middle East right in the lap of every American citizen, and they reacted. First with Afghanistan, and then with Iraq, when that wasn’t enough. There have been only a handful of great leaders capable of bull rushing the country to war, and there hasn’t been one of those leaders for over 40 years. I’m not going to jump on the media bandwagon in calling Bush the worse leader ever, that’s simply naïve, childish, and ill conceived. However, I hardly see him breaking the ranks of the middle, at best.

I also can’t agree with your statement that our government has a habit of sticking its military where it doesn’t belong. What world crisis doesn’t dictate American involvement? If something ‘bad’ is happening, do you hear them say: Why isn’t (insert some country other than America) doing something about it? No, since the end of 40’s, American successes have placed it to the head of the class.



First, let's get the numbers right. Bush's approval rating has never, ever been "in the 90's". The highest approval rating I found on him was 72%.
(Citation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml). One thing I know for sure, is that I never approved of him despite my conservative leanings....I was against this war from the start (feel free to check my posting history!) because it was a misguided effort at targetting terrorists, it would be too costly, and we just didn't have enough evidence to go forward. Not to mention, he can't balance a budget or seem to exclude religion from his decision making.

As for domestic resistance, perhaps you don't recall, but there was quite a bit of rioting before the war. Maybe not Vietnam scale rioting, but enough to have mobs clash with riot police. The resistance quieted when the war appeared to be successful and many Iraqis seemed to welcome our invasion.

As for America sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, that's precisely why people expect America to be involved in every one's business....because we have done that historically. Granted, this is a matter of opinion. There are still plenty of people who think invading Iraq was a good thing and that the Vietnam War was a worthwhile effort, but they're almost certainly a minority.

I believe in mandatory service either of a military or a non-military nature by every citizen able to hold down a civilian job of any kind. I think it should consist of at least six months of basic military training to begin either at age eighteen or graduation from High School, whichever occurs later. After six months the draftee can choose to either continue military training for another eighteen months or spend eighteen months performing some non-military service such as tutoring, working an nursing homes, etc.

... After six months the draftee can choose to either continue military training for another eighteen months or spend eighteen months performing some non-military service such as tutoring, working an nursing homes, etc.

The time frames are OK, but I'd not put them to work tutoring or in nursing homes. Better to put them rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation. Rehabilitation of our inner cities is another worthy task. Realize that you're talking about recent high school graduates - few (overall) would have the necessary skills for tutoring, or the maturity for nursing home work.

You're probably right. They should offer some service to their nation and their fellow citizens though.

Of that, there is absolutely no argument. When you & I were coming up the Selective Service was still a functional entity. It was almost like a right of passage - either wait for the draft board to send you the "Greetings from the President ..." letter or just enlist, get it over with and go on with life.

I beat the draft. I enlisted when I was seventeen with an agreement that I wouldn't actually leave for boot camp until I was eighteen.

Didnt Mr Kennedy do something,what was it called,the peace Corp,I think.

Hip hip hooray for slave labor!

Hip Hip Hooray for giving something back to the nation that gives you so much.

"I give you food, now plow my fields or I will throw you in jail."

''Think not what your country can do for you,but what you can do for your country''.
I could see that going down well in some of the rough areas of Urban America.

That was a different time, Paul. Now it's, Grab whatever you can with no thought of giving anything back.

That was a different time, Paul. Now it's, Grab whatever you can with no thought of giving anything back.
So you wish to force people to "give something back"?

That's fairness and freedom all summed up.

Think I should start a new thread:Whats gone wrong with America.

Think I should start a new thread:Whats gone wrong with America.
Gone wrong? That philosophy has always been a segment of America. Fortunately we have this pesky little agreement called the "Constitution" that prevents these self titled "do gooders" from ruining this country. A little agreement based largely off of things that philosophers like to call "social contracts". The sole purpose of social contracts is to dictate where the power comes from, what it can be used for and the entire reason we exist in a society in the first place. And we most certainly don't exist in society for the benefit of others. Compulsory military service will absolutely kill this country. Society works because doing a little for others will help yourself. There is no such thing as an altruistic society, and nobody has ever bothered to try designing one. Utopia isn't about helping others, it's about the most efficient way to help yourself through the preservation of a necessary structure, society.

I understand the argument for manditory service. There are those who believe that if we had it, then wars like Iraq would be harder to get into.

I also understand the argument that an all volunteer force is essentially nothing more then mercinaries.

So long as Americans are too timid to stand up to our own government, our troops will continue to be used as Mercinaries for whatever corporate enterprise comes along, such as the Mess-O-Potamia.

As long as that is the case we are better off with a mercinary force so innocents are not used in such a callous way.

Hip Hip Hooray for giving something back to the nation that gives you so much.

What does America give me that other civilized nations don't?

Anyone who responds "freedom" is hopelessly naive.

What does America give me that other civilized nations don't?

What do you want? High standard of living, relatively low taxation, the freedom to be a complete screwball and not starve to death, a good healthcare system, a generally secure place to live ... you need more? You even have the opportunity to give a little something back in the way of service of your country.

If you can find a better place to live, America even gives you the freedom to leave and not come back.

I love America. I just hate Americans.

I love America. I just hate Americans.

We don't much like you either.:hitout:

You know the saying, youth is wasted on the young? Well, America is wasted on Americans.

What do you want? High standard of living, relatively low taxation,

Not to be completely contrary, but this is all at the expense of future generations.

the freedom to be a complete screwball and not starve to death.

I question whether this is a good thing.

What does America give me that other civilized nations don't?

Anyone who responds "freedom" is hopelessly naive.
Oppertunitys that you wouldnt get in Europe.

What do you want? High standard of living, relatively low taxation, the freedom to be a complete screwball and not starve to death, a good healthcare system, a generally secure place to live ... you need more? You even have the opportunity to give a little something back in the way of service of your country.

If you can find a better place to live, America even gives you the freedom to leave and not come back.

Thank you for proving my point for me. I asked for things that other nations do not provide. All the things you mentioned are provided by every other civilized nation in the world.

Some of the things you mentioned are completely untrue.

Good Healthcare?!?

Sure it is affordable, providing you don't actually need to use it.

Good healthcare means AFFORDABLE healthcare. Affordable healthcare is precisely what we do NOT have in America.

Low Taxes??? Nonsense.
My R.O.I. for my taxes is NIL.
I am a single male who makes less then $200k a year in wages. I am paying almost 40% of my income in taxes. If I lived in Canada I would pay only 10% more but get a LOT more for my money. I would save all the money I currently waste on for-profit health insurance.
If I was a trustfund baby who sat around at the pool all day waiting for my dividend check to arrive I would pay a MAXIMUM of 14% thanks to the Republicans.

A Generally secure place to live?!? Nonsense.
I live in the Detroit Area. I have found bullet holes in my car in the parking lot at work. A woman less than a mile away was brutally stabbed to death earlier this year in her own home in the middle of the day.

Thanks again for proving my point for me.

Oppertunitys that you wouldnt get in Europe.

Such as???

Nobody has been able to name a single one.

Well,the good thing about Europe is,its rotten from the top down,which means theres always hope.You go try and climb the social ladder here and it wont be long before you meet a brick wall,the class system is alive and well,I would say more so than the US.

If I lived in Canada I would pay only 10% more but get a LOT more for my money.

Buy a compass, head north and keep walking, Dharmabum. Eventually you will reach your paradise.

Thank you for proving my point for me. I asked for things that other nations do not provide. All the things you mentioned are provided by every other civilized nation in the world.

Some of the things you mentioned are completely untrue.

Good Healthcare?!?

Sure it is affordable, providing you don't actually need to use it.

Good healthcare means AFFORDABLE healthcare. Affordable healthcare is precisely what we do NOT have in America.

Get the bean counters and the litigators off the MD's backs, and maybe you'll see prices come down a bit.
What I hear is your saying you want FREE healthcare for all.

Low Taxes??? Nonsense.
My R.O.I. for my taxes is NIL.
I am a single male who makes less then $200k a year in wages. I am paying almost 40% of my income in taxes. If I lived in Canada I would pay only 10% more but get a LOT more for my money. I would save all the money I currently waste on for-profit health insurance.
If I was a trustfund baby who sat around at the pool all day waiting for my dividend check to arrive I would pay a MAXIMUM of 14% thanks to the Republicans.

What keeps you in the U.S.? Apply for Canadian residency. One of my cousins did just that, and she's been in Welland for 20 years selling real estate. I can put you in touch with her if need be.

A Generally secure place to live?!? Nonsense.
I live in the Detroit Area. I have found bullet holes in my car in the parking lot at work. A woman less than a mile away was brutally stabbed to death earlier this year in her own home in the middle of the day.

Thanks again for proving my point for me.

Maybe you pissed someone off.

The deceased woman could have been living in virtually any city in the world and have the exact same thing happen. No real excitement there.

Low Taxes??? Nonsense.
My R.O.I. for my taxes is NIL.

If you're expecting an ROI on your taxes you need some education. Do you expect a return on your investment in groceries as well? You get services in return for your taxes.

I am a single male who makes less then $200k a year in wages. I am paying almost 40% of my income in taxes. If I lived in Canada I would pay only 10% more but get a LOT more for my money. I would save all the money I currently waste on for-profit health insurance.

You'd get free health care. What else do you get? Besides, it's not the same level of health care you get here, so it's not like there's no trade-off.

If I lived in Canada I would pay only 10% more but get a LOT more for my money.

Buy a compass, head north and keep walking, Dharmabum. Eventually you will reach your paradise.

No thanks, I am born and raised an American Patriot and I would rather stay and fight for my country.

What keeps you in the U.S.?

Patriotism.

If you're expecting an ROI on your taxes you need some education. Do you expect a return on your investment in groceries as well? You get services in return for your taxes.

I SHOULD expect some return on investment for my taxes! I absolutely should! Unfortunately my ROI on my taxes in America are Nil because most of them go to paying off debt that never benefitted me and a bloated military that is bleeding money like the Titanic.



You'd get free health care. What else do you get? Besides, it's not the same level of health care you get here, so it's not like there's no trade-off.

National Healthcare would be a fantastic thing! And it isn't "free" because it is paid for with taxes. The ONLY ones who would lose anything are the insurance companies and since they can afford to pay their CEOs $1.6 BILLION bonuses, they can afford to quit fleecing Americans.

The quality of American healthcare is also ONLY good if you can afford it.

If you can't afford to use it then it does you no good whatsoever.

I SHOULD expect some return on investment for my taxes! I absolutely should!

Taxes aren't an investment. They're bills to pay for services. Mind you, those bills are way too high and the services you get in return suck, but that's still not an investment.

National Healthcare would be a fantastic thing! And it isn't "free" because it is paid for with taxes. The ONLY ones who would lose anything are the insurance companies and since they can afford to pay their CEOs $1.6 BILLION bonuses, they can afford to quit fleecing Americans.

There would certainly be many positives. Given our government's history of failure to do anything on budget, I question the return on that investment.

The quality of American healthcare is also ONLY good if you can afford it.

If you can't afford to use it then it does you no good whatsoever.

Yes and no. If you're sick you get the best health care in the world. You will get stuck with an ugly bill, yes, but you won't be denied care. In Canada it's free, but you have to wait in line to access the relatively small number of specialized services.

Mind you, I'm not so much defending our system as much as I'm pointing out that the other countries' systems have large issues of their own.

Taxes aren't an investment.

Absoluetly Wrong. Taxes ARE most certainly an investment. They are one of the best investments we used to make because it was an investment in ourselves.

Our taxes pay for our Roads, the Military and The Internet. They built the middle class in America and for a time made America the greatest nation in the world.

Our taxes are the dues you pay for the PRIVILEDGE of living in this country.

The lie has been the rightwing idea that Taxes are an undue burden that you need "relief" from.

If you're sick you get the best health care in the world. You will get stuck with an ugly bill, yes, but you won't be denied care.

That is Incorrect. Plenty of people are denied care everyday. I used to work for an insurance company and I saw it every day.


In Canada it's free, but you have to wait in line to access the relatively small number of specialized services.

Mind you, I'm not so much defending our system as much as I'm pointing out that the other countries' systems have large issues of their own.

Actually, I know from personal experience that Canada's system isn't as bad as the rumor mill likes to claim.

My original point was that you shouldn't listen to the hype, America doesn't have the vast differences with other nations that we used to. We don't offer anything that other nations don't.

My original point was that you shouldn't listen to the hype, America doesn't have the vast differences with other nations that we used to. We don't offer anything that other nations don't.
Which gives me all the more reason to leave if they enforce compulsory military service.

Which gives me all the more reason to leave if they enforce compulsory military service.

I wouldn't blame you in the least.

That is Incorrect. Plenty of people are denied care everyday. I used to work for an insurance company and I saw it every day.

That's denial of coverage, which I don't deny happens plenty. I'm talking about denial of care - like someone wanders into the ER with a broken arm. They won't send him away because he doesn't have insurance.

My original point was that you shouldn't listen to the hype, America doesn't have the vast differences with other nations that we used to. We don't offer anything that other nations don't.
Name one other country in which offers you anywhere near the ability to get as rich as you can here, and we'll talk. I'm not saying it can't be done elsewhere - I'm just saying that it's far less likely, that's all.

All I'm asking for is the name of ONE country. Do you think you're up to it? I mean, if you truly believe you are, then you'll have to pardon me because I think you're full of shit.

Were'd you go wrong then my man.
Dont tell me,you find being working class more interesting.

Were'd you go wrong then my man.
Dont tell me,you find being working class more interesting.
I am working class - I only make 60k a year, but I'm 29 (err, 30 next month). By the time I'm 33, I'll be a millionaire, and by the time I'm 35, I'll be a multi, multi-millionaire. Some of that will be inherited wealth (some day), but a large portion I'll make on my own. I started a limited liability company last year in which deals with the vacuum Enron left brokering energy transactions (oil, gas, and petroleum products) in the Huston area for several major overseas refineries, and thus have been given a college education in regards to international finance, business, and contract law. I've dealt with several lawyers, established relationships with ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, the Saudi Royal Family, and just as of recently, the crowned prince of Brunei. I've brokered a few deals in which generate only a small amount of revenue through ConocoPhillips (around 2k a month in addition to what I already make), and I anticipate making over 50k a month in less than a year. I've been through the worst of it already, and I'm starting to make some money (albeit not much), and more importantly, I'm getting to know some heavy hitters. Just last week, I had a conference call with the mulit-billionaire Herbert Hunt of the Hunt Oil fortune (think; circle K and Libyan Oil).

Some day, I'll be a very rich man, and the scary thing is....I'm looking forward to it.

Im impressed.
Just dont forget your friends in Europe when you make it ok.

Don't worry, Paul - I like you. We're gonna party someday, trust me.

Did you personally speak with the sultan of Brunei? That would be something cool to bring up in conversation.

That's awesome, Prae. I myself am learning the fine art of picking up women. By the time you're rich, I'll have the skills necessary to make your rich decadent parties; rich decadent, packed full of hot babes ala the club scene in Swordfish galas.

Take my advice,before you guys get any older.Book yourselves 2 weeks in the old town of San Antonio in Ibiza,August or July,youll think your in Heaven.

Forgot the link haha:

http:www.Ibiza-spotlight.com/night_i.htm

Did you personally speak with the sultan of Brunei? That would be something cool to bring up in conversation.
No, I haven't. Truth be told, I've only spoken to the prince a few times. His lawyer, OTOH, is the one I've been talking to, and trust me, he's a royal pain in the ass.

Take my advice,before you guys get any older.Book yourselves 2 weeks in the old town of San Antonio in Ibiza,August or July,youll think your in Heaven.
I've heard Ibiza's awesome.

Believe me my friend,theres nothing or nowhere like it on Earth.Anything,I mean anything,goes.
Yourself and your Buddies should head there,instead of the boring Caribbean or Resorts down South.

That's denial of coverage, which I don't deny happens plenty. I'm talking about denial of care - like someone wanders into the ER with a broken arm. They won't send him away because he doesn't have insurance.

Sure, but if you lose your house because you couldn't afford the care in the first place, they didn't really do you any favors.

Name one other country in which offers you anywhere near the ability to get as rich as you can here, and we'll talk. I'm not saying it can't be done elsewhere - I'm just saying that it's far less likely, that's all.


I challenge you to provide any evidence to support your claim.

The "American Dream" is not to become uber-wealthy. It is to become middle class. The house with the white picket fence and the car in the garage is not the picture of the uber-wealthy lifestyle, it is the middle-class lifestyle.

I believe you are, in fact, full of shit.

I challenge you to provide any evidence to support your claim.

The "American Dream" is not to become uber-wealthy. It is to become middle class. The house with the white picket fence and the car in the garage is not the picture of the uber-wealthy lifestyle, it is the middle-class lifestyle.

I believe you are, in fact, full of shit.

You're the one who has been challenged here. You don't like the U.S., you don't feel you've enough opportunity here? Name another place you'd have a similar or better ride. Prae isn't full of it, it appears that you are.

You're the one who has been challenged here.

Incorrect. I offered the challenge and nobody has been able to answer me yet.

I am still waiting.

You don't like the U.S., you don't feel you've enough opportunity here?

Nope. I never said any such thing. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

Name one other country in which offers you anywhere near the ability to get as rich as you can here, and we'll talk. I'm not saying it can't be done elsewhere - I'm just saying that it's far less likely, that's all.

All I'm asking for is the name of ONE country. Do you think you're up to it? I mean, if you truly believe you are, then you'll have to pardon me because I think you're full of shit.

You certainly don't sound as if you like it here.

I've been to plenty of other countries during my travels and have yet to see another country that has what we do here.

I challenge you to provide any evidence to support your claim.

It's a bit disingenuous to ask for proof for such an assertion. It isn't that type of argument. You should make a similar assertion if you want to challenge his. Give us some kind of anecdote about how you're uncle struck it rich in Moscow selling vacuum cleaners or something.

The American dream is just as lively now as it was fifty years ago. In fact, I think it's gotten even easier to move between classes.

My father is an electrical contractor. He's in his early forties, and he's going to make about forty thousand dollars profit flipping this house he bought a month ago. His helper, whose only contribution to the job was getting a loan to buy part of the house, is walking away with eighty thousand, and the house, which he can rent or sell to get out from under the obligation. He's going from helper to homeowner, with eighty grand in his pocket. My father and his business associate were shaking their heads at how lucky this guy is. It's a life changing opportunity. The more my father is looking at the flipping houses business, the more he's looking at scaling down his electrical trade and going full-time into flipping houses.

If you find the right people, one can build a thriving business, assuming one keeps one's responsibilities light and one's eye keen. And you don't even have to do any of the grunt work, unless you really want to. All you need is a halfway-decent credit score to get started and a good bet, and you can hire someone to find a good bet. I might well get rich doing that, using the money made to get into anything I want, modeling, singing, acting, whatever, never having to hammer a nail or pull a wire or pour a foundation. After my first deal, I won't even need a day job. I would just live out of the house I'm flipping and keep an eye on what's going on, and cut checks as I need to, having my father find the General Contractors he can trust to do all the work.

This is the challenge that I issued:

What does America give me that other civilized nations don't?

Nobody has been able to give me a good answer. They have issued their own challenges, but nobody has answered mine yet.

You're shopping for an answer you like. There have been several responses, you just don't like what you're reading.

No, I am looking for a valid answer.

I have not seen one of those yet. Please point one out if you see one.

Please define, "valid answer," and give us an example of what would be acceptable to you.

I would like a valid answer to the following question:

What does America give me that other civilized nations don't?

A valid answer is something non-rhetorical and true. I would give an example but I cannot think of anything. For instance "Freedom of Speech" is guarenteed in the constitutions of other nations, so that would not be a valid answer.

I'd like "civilized nations" defined and, if possible, some examples.

It's hard to argue against such a generalization. For example if I said "freedom of the press" you'd say England has that. If I said baseball you'd say Japan. If I said a strong military, you'd say Israel.

I would be competing against the best cherry-picked aspects of every country in the world. Each positive trait of the United States may be topped by one specific country. The real question is do any of these other countries rate as high in as many important categories as the US.

Your challenge, the way you've set it up, is impossible for you to lose.

It's hard to argue against such a generalization. For example if I said "freedom of the press" you'd say England has that. If I said baseball you'd say Japan. If I said a strong military, you'd say Israel.

Now you are starting to catch on.

Your challenge, the way you've set it up, is impossible for you to lose.

Of course, because I am right.

In the words of Bill Maher:

And finally, New Rule: America must stop bragging that it's the greatest country on earth and start acting like it. Now, I know — I know this is uncomfortable for the faith-over-facts crowd, but the greatness of a country can, to a large degree, be measured. Here are some numbers: Infant mortality rate, America ranks 48th in the world; overall health, 72nd; freedom of the press, 44; literacy, 55th. Do you realize there are 12-year-old kids in this country who can't spell the name of the teacher they're having sex with?

Now, America, I will admit, has done many great things: making the New World democratic comes to mind, the Marshall Plan, curing polio, beating Hitler, the deep-fried Twinkie. But what have we done for us lately? We're not the freest country. That would be Holland, where you can smoke hash in church, and Janet Jackson's nipple is on their flag.

And, sadly, we're no longer a country that can get things done, either. Not big things, like building a tunnel under Boston or running a war with competence. We had six years to fix the voting machines. Couldn't get that done. The FBI is just now getting email!

You ask for something non-rhetorical, yet also true. This is the problem. You can have one or the other. Allow me to demonstrate.

You use Freedom of Speech as an example. Well, the freedom gained by freedom of speech is a highly relative one. Different nations guarantee it in different ways, and we can only speak in terms of degrees, not absolute veracity. Economic freedom, personal freedom, can all be measured in degrees. Only claims of a rhetorical kind can be demonstrated to be true or false, in a rhetorical fashion.

We could say that the USA allows a greater degree of economic freedom than any other nation existing today. That could, if one took pains to do so, be proven to be true. But you would claim it as a rhetorical argument. You would likely not accept any anecdotal evidence to the proposition, leaving us with the unsavory position of having to prove that obviously true statement. Only someone with enough time and inclination to do so as Evakian, could do that.

We're armchair debateers, not bums with all the time in the world in our hands.

*shrugs* I think you need to re-examine your distaste for rhetoric, and instead learn to use it properly.

Of course, because I am right.No, all you've done is set up an irrelevant comparison.
If we agreed on who was the best president, I could probably name a president who exceeded him in foreign policy, and another who beat him in economic theory, and another who topped him in military strategy and yet another who was a better speaker. Well so what?

You may find individual countries that surpass the United States in any single individual category, but what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

What you have set up is a very simple, non-intellectual and unlosable (?) challenge. Not all that clever or relevant.

You may find individual countries that surpass the United States in any single individual category, but what does that prove?

Just that America is full of shit in claiming to be "the greatest country on earth".

Literacy, America ranks 55th in the world.

Infant mortality rate, America ranks 48th in the world;

Overall health, America ranks 72nd in the world;

Freedom of the press, America ranks 44th in the world;

There are several more if that doesn't adequately illustrate the point to you.

Freedom of the press, America ranks 44th in the world;
(I'd love to know the criteria for that one.)


Free, are you purposely avoiding my point or what?

Cuba, for example, has a much better infant mortality rate than the US.
Does that mean you want to live there?
What nation ranks 42nd in freedom of the press? If it's New Guineau will you move there?

Taking individually cherry picked issues is an irrelevant way to judge a nation.

It's a cheap tactic.

It's a cheap tactic.
No doubt.....

As a matter of fact, this whole conversation is pretty sad if you ask me.

No, all you've done is set up an irrelevant comparison.
If we agreed on who was the best president, I could probably name a president who exceeded him in foreign policy, and another who beat him in economic theory, and another who topped him in military strategy and yet another who was a better speaker. Well so what?

You may find individual countries that surpass the United States in any single individual category, but what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

What you have set up is a very simple, non-intellectual and unlosable (?) challenge. Not all that clever or relevant.
And who (with an IQ over 50, that is) wouldn't realize that???

This is the challenge that I issued:



Nobody has been able to give me a good answer. They have issued their own challenges, but nobody has answered mine yet.

How about the ability to drive 3000 miles and speak the same language, use the same money, and the share the same culturethe entire way? That is nothing to sneeze at

Just that America is full of shit in claiming to be "the greatest country on earth".

Literacy, America ranks 55th in the world.

Infant mortality rate, America ranks 48th in the world;

Overall health, America ranks 72nd in the world;

Freedom of the press, America ranks 44th in the world;

There are several more if that doesn't adequately illustrate the point to you.

how do you wake up and keep yourself from blowing your head off every day? I swear you are the most bitter, unhappy person I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. How do you sleep at night knowing how low your country ranks in these areas??

This is the challenge that I issued:



Nobody has been able to give me a good answer. They have issued their own challenges, but nobody has answered mine yet.
OPPERTUNITY