independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Americans leaving America HAHAHAHAH!!!! i saw this coming!!!
| |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
See you guys later.
"I hate both of those dildos (Bush and Kerry), but Bush seems to be a smaller dildo, although even a small dildo can fuck the shit out of you." - Mastodon on the election | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
<----- Printing off the application today! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flashpointe said: <----- Printing off the application today!
[Edited 11/6/04 6:22am] See ya later. "I hate both of those dildos (Bush and Kerry), but Bush seems to be a smaller dildo, although even a small dildo can fuck the shit out of you." - Mastodon on the election | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have joked about going to Canada but I will never leave America!
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
shanti0608 said: I have joked about going to Canada but I will never leave America!
I have too much fight left in me. I would never leave here just because Bush is the president, that would be like giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of the terrorists. I will not let Bush get me down nor will I let terrorism scare me into changing my life. So, I guess you could say this "liberal", "progressive" is not going anywhere, well, I might move out of Florida but.... I will continue to vote, I will continue to point out mistakes that the administration is making, I will continue to help the environment, I will continue to help others here in America and around the world. I will always be patriotic towards America, it is my home but I will ALWAYS understand that we are not the only humans on this planet. You can be partiotic and respect other countries at the same time. I will continue to be ME! That is a much better position, in my opinion.  "I hate both of those dildos (Bush and Kerry), but Bush seems to be a smaller dildo, although even a small dildo can fuck the shit out of you." - Mastodon on the election | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's a damn shame that I even have to be talking about this. I am 28, and I'm not getting any younger, and I need some health care that I can afford. My wife, has many, many health problems, but she has to live miserably and deal with the fact that we can't afford it. I'm lucky that the State of Illinois at least has compassion for children, because my kids get free health care from the State. But, screw the adults I guess- we don't need to be healthy to take care of our kids better.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mastodon said: shanti0608 said: I have joked about going to Canada but I will never leave America!
I have too much fight left in me. I would never leave here just because Bush is the president, that would be like giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of the terrorists. I will not let Bush get me down nor will I let terrorism scare me into changing my life. So, I guess you could say this "liberal", "progressive" is not going anywhere, well, I might move out of Florida but.... I will continue to vote, I will continue to point out mistakes that the administration is making, I will continue to help the environment, I will continue to help others here in America and around the world. I will always be patriotic towards America, it is my home but I will ALWAYS understand that we are not the only humans on this planet. You can be partiotic and respect other countries at the same time. I will continue to be ME! That is a much better position, in my opinion. Thanks!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flashpointe said: It's a damn shame that I even have to be talking about this. I am 28, and I'm not getting any younger, and I need some health care that I can afford. My wife, has many, many health problems, but she has to live miserably and deal with the fact that we can't afford it. I'm lucky that the State of Illinois at least has compassion for children, because my kids get free health care from the State. But, screw the adults I guess- we don't need to be healthy to take care of our kids better.
At least in Canada they have a national health insurance plan. At least there, they help you when you want to raise your kids at home rather than put them in day care with strangers. And, no one really HATES Canada. You can't say that about America. We could be nuked at any second here. Whereas there, you have survival chances. I am seriously considering it. Peace, JD I understand how you feel. I have been out of work since Feb and it is getting frustrating. I wish you and your family the best and remember when it comes down to it, you have to do what is best for them. You seem to be a compassionate person and I am sure if I were in your position I would feel the same as you. I am sorry that you live in a country that is supposed to be the greatest super power in the world but it still refuses to take care of it's own ppl first. Peace and love to you and your family! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Milty said: HAHAHAHAH!!!! i saw this coming!!!
Saturday November 6, 07:34 AM Americans flock to Canada's immigration website By David Ljunggren 
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration website has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win this week. "When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our website hit a new high, almost double the previous record high," immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday. On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the website, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm. Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States. Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit. But please spare the sob stories. Asked whether an applicant would be looked upon more sympathetically if they claimed to be a sad Democrat seeking to escape four more years of Bush, Iadinardi replied: "There would be no weight given to statements of feelings." Canada is one of the few major nations with an large-scale immigration policy. Ottawa is seeking to attract between 220,000 and 240,000 newcomers next year. "Let's face it, we have a population of a little over 32 million and we definitely need permanent residents to come to Canada," said Iadinardi. "If we could meet (the 2005) target and go above it, the more the merrier." But right now it is too early to say whether the increased interest will result in more applications. "There is no unusual activity occurring at our visa missions (in the United States). Having someone who intends to come to Canada is not the same as someone actually putting in an application," said Iadinardi. "We'll only find out whether there has been an increase in applications in six months." The waiting time to become a citizen is shorter for people married to Canadians, which prompted the birth of a satirical website called www.marryanamerican.ca. The idea of increased immigration by unhappy Americans is triggering some amusement in Canada. Commentator Thane Burnett of the Ottawa Sun newspaper wrote a tongue-in-cheek guide to would-be new citizens on Friday. "As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life," he said. [img] Nah!!!, I Canada its a great country and I love that place and its people. But c'mon even a conservative run America is still AMERICA. By God what would a red blooded US citizen do in a clean, polite, low conflict country like Canada (outside of that whole Quebec being its own country thing and let's face it as a US born and raised child you really don't give a shit about that). Hey at the end of the day this friction between the far right and the far left is what makes you a certified American and I mean USA all the way baby. I love this shit. Eventually we will regain control of the country but going away and leaving does nothing to help this nation. Stop taking this defeat so personal and find ways to make a postive impact on YOUR country. But hey that is just my opinion. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! Peace THE CARDINAL HAS SPOKEN!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
"You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
In Canada you get to pay twice the taxes and for that you receive second-rate health care. 27 to 47 percent of your income is taxed. Did you really think that there was a magic way to get health-care?
Free Health Care?
by Walter E. Williams Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim health-care service is a human right regardless of ability to pay and that it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north -- Canada. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks. Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on province and diagnostic procedure, the wait can range from two to 24 weeks. As reported in a December 2003 article by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access denied: Canada's health-care system turns patients into victims", in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Miss Houston says hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks, and that's after waiting 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, became Canada's hip-replacement center. Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News, about 10,000 doctors left Canada in the 1990s. Compounding that exodus is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Miss Houston, Ontario has turned to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It is "creating" 369 new nurse practitioner positions to take up the doctor shortage. Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to be a prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only patients were forbidden to do so. The bill also empowers the government to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the health-care system and pay for your own surgery. Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand is by queuing -- making people wait. Another is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers. I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors. Canada's Medical Nightmare Written By: Robert J. Cihak, M.D. Published In: Health Care News Publication Date: September 1, 2004 Publisher: The Heartland Institute ----- For decades, Canadians have cast pitying glances at us poor American neighbors who actually have to pay for our medical care while they get theirs for "free." Yet the major candidates in Canada's recent national election both agreed the country's health care system is failing. They made the usual socialist diagnosis of "not enough money." None of the candidates mentioned government control as what ails the Canadian system. On this side of the border, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), with presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, also from Massachusetts, in tow, promotes Canadian health care to U.S. voters, in the hope we too can have "free" medical care. High Costs, Low Quality A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes. One of the major reasons for this discrepancy is that, unlike the countries in the study that outperformed Canada--Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France, for example--Canada outlaws most private health care. If the Canadian government says it provides a particular medical service, it is illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and obtain that service privately. At the same time, the Canadian government bureaucracy rations medical services. According to another Fraser Institute survey, Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (13th edition, October 2003), a Canadian health care patient, on average, must wait 17.7 weeks for hospital treatment. Those who live in Saskatchewan waited an average of 30 weeks, those in Ontario a relatively expeditious 14 weeks. Dying in Queues In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.) In other words, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line. In a May/June 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs, researcher Robert Blendon and colleagues described the results of a survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. Not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients had this brief a wait. Bare-Bones Health Care Barring epidemics and other disasters, fewer than one out of 10 people in prosperous societies will face a major medical crisis in any one year. Those suffering people, however, are the ones who need help the most, and the aging of the baby boomers in the United States makes it likely more serious illnesses will afflict more Americans in the next couple of decades. The kind of minor health care services the Canadian system provides well are not what America's aging Baby Boomers will need most urgently in years to come. America's health care system already includes too much Canadian-style bureaucratic delay and inefficiency. For example, the slow acceptance by Medicare and Medicaid of medical innovation, their exacting paperwork requirements, delayed and low payments of claims, and the threat of overzealous prosecution by health care bureaucrats are driving doctors out of business and giving patients fewer medical options. Fixing those flaws would seem to be a much more promising prospect than a further move down the road Canada has followed to high costs and low quality of health care. Canada’s “Free” Health Care Has Hidden Costs April 23, 2004 Pierre Lemieux The Wall Street Journal John Kerry’s health insurance proposals amount to a “sweeping socialization of [the U.S.] health care system,” writes Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute in a recent Daily Commentary on the Cato Web site. Although Mr. Kerry’s proposals do not echo the frequent calls for imitating the Canadian model, they would keep the U.S. heading down that slippery slope. This ought to alarm Americans. The Canadian system is much more costly than advertised because it is highly efficient in hiding costs. Proponents of the Canadian model praise its universal coverage and its apparent low cost. Total (private and public) health expenditures are only 10% of gross domestic product in Canada, compared to 14% in the U.S. A study published last August in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed that a third of this difference is explained by lower administrative costs in the Canadian system. But, among its other faults, this accounting ignores the hidden economic costs of Canadian health care. The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public-insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free. Of course, it is not free for the taxpayer, who finances the system at a rate of 22% of all taxes raised in Canada. The Canadian government pays about 71% of total Canadian health care expenditures, compared to 44% paid by the government in the U.S. This translates into public health expenditures of 7% of GDP in Canada and 6% in the U.S.—a rather small difference. The difference in total expenditures is due to higher private expenditures in the U.S. Why are private health expenditures so low in Canada? The main reason is that they are illegal, which gets us to the heart of the system’s hidden costs. Canadian public health insurance is not only compulsory, it is also monopolistic. The system is administered by provincial governments under strict guidelines imposed by federal law and federal subsidies. Private insurance covering publicly insured services is illegal. Physicians are forbidden to accept private payments above the fees billed to the government. Hospitals are public or non-profit, and tightly regulated. Physicians’ fees are determined—or “negotiated”—by provincial agencies. Prices of drugs are controlled. In short, the public supply of medical services is rationed, and there is little private alternative. Hence the apparent low cost of the system. The hidden costs include the poor quality of services, and the costs imposed on customers (aptly called “patients” in this case) who have to wait in queues. Quality is subjective and can only be evaluated through consumer choices, but the government won’t let consumers make choices and vote with their feet if they are not satisfied. Anecdotal evidence of questionable quality is everywhere. In a recent piece in Montreal’s Gazette, a Canadian related her own experience, and contrasted the “kindness, discretion and professionalism” of staff in U.S. hospitals, with the frequent rudeness of unionized personnel in the Canadian system. Long waiting lines are a fixture of the system. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver think tank, has calculated that in 2003, the average waiting time from referral by a general practitioner to actual treatment was more than four months. Waiting times vary among specialties (and, less wildly, among provinces), but remain high even for critical diseases: The shortest median wait is 6.1 weeks for oncology treatment; excluding radiation, which is longer. Extreme cases include more than a year’s median wait for neurosurgery in New Brunswick. The median wait for an MRI is three months. Since 1993, waiting times have increased by 90%. Waiting lines impose a real cost, which is approximated by what individuals would be willing to pay to avoid them. Waiting costs include health risk, lost time (especially for individuals whose time is most valuable), pain and anguish. Socialist systems are notoriously oblivious to anguish, discomfort, humiliation and other subjective factors which bureaucrats cannot measure or don’t value the same way as the patient does. A Québec physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, is suing the government for not allowing patients to pay for better care. The Supreme Court of Canada will hear his appeal of lower-court rebuttals in June. Last month, a class-action case was launched against Québec hospitals on behalf of 10,000 breast cancer patients who, since October 1997, have had to wait more than eight weeks each for post-surgery radiation therapy. Liberalization proposals are met by the “two-tier system” bogey man—that if choice is allowed an unequal system will develop. But if directly paying a doctor is illegal, there are legal ways to jump the queues. As pointed out by Professor Livio Di Matteo of Lakehead University in Ontario, what now exists is a three-tier system. The very rich (like Robert Bourassa, the late Premier of Québec) go to the U.S. for rapid, personalized, high-tech treatments. The second tier is made of “the well informed and aggressive, who can push their way to the front of the treatment line.” The poor and those with no connections get stuck in the queue. At least two Indian groups are now considering building private clinics or hospitals on their land—just as other sorts of illegal-elsewhere trade thrive on Indian reserves. Yet, Canadians who patronized such clinics would still be prohibited from purchasing private insurance to cover the service, leaving the opportunity only to the wealthiest. As noted by Wharton professor Patricia Danzon, another hidden cost of the Canadian system comes “from forcing everyone to have the same level and type of insurance,” whatever their individual preferences are. One last cost should not be ignored: the loss of personal responsibility and the habit of dependence on the state. Opinion polls show that Canadians are generally proud of their public health insurance. Indeed, for most people, any basis for comparison has been made illegal. Auberon Herbert, a libertarian Member of Parliament in late 19th century England wrote, “If government half a century ago had provided us all with dinners and breakfasts, it would be the practice of our orators today to assume the impossibility of our providing for ourselves.” | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lovemachine said: EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. Back in 2000, Alec Baldwin said that if Bush won, he'd leave the country. Well, obviously he never left. When an interviewer asked him about it he said "This interview is over, get out." Another example of a shit talker. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lovemachine said: EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. I'm still waiting for Alec Baldwin to fucking leave already  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flashpointe said: It's a damn shame that I even have to be talking about this. I am 28, and I'm not getting any younger, and I need some health care that I can afford. My wife, has many, many health problems, but she has to live miserably and deal with the fact that we can't afford it. I'm lucky that the State of Illinois at least has compassion for children, because my kids get free health care from the State. But, screw the adults I guess- we don't need to be healthy to take care of our kids better.
Why should the taxpayers have to pay for you and your children to have healthcare? Why does everyone think that other people should pay for them? You could get a part-time job at UPS loading boxes (as few as 15-20 hours a week) and you would receive fabulous healthcare for you and your entire family you wouldn't have to pay a dime for it and you would even make a little bit of extra money. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: lovemachine said: Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. Back in 2000, Alec Baldwin said that if Bush won, he'd leave the country. Well, obviously he never left. When an interviewer asked him about it he said "This interview is over, get out." Another example of a shit talker. I heard Marissa Tomei and Robert Redford both promise they were leaving if Bush won so they had better otherwise I will make a point of never seeing another movie of theirs again. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lovemachine said: I heard Marissa Tomei and Robert Redford both promise they were leaving if Bush won so they had better otherwise I will make a point of never seeing another movie of theirs again.
I just wish their statements would be repeated over and over in the media so people can see what bullshit artists these assholes are. "You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." "
Al Pacino- Scarface | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. i'm not going anywhere. i don't like bush but i love my country. there are alot of things i can do that i can't do anywhere else. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heybaby said: EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. i'm not going anywhere. i don't like bush but i love my country. there are alot of things i can do that i can't do anywhere else.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm ready to get the hell out of USA, but I have to wait until I'm 18. Actually, I'm going to start college when I'm 17, and I'm thinking of going to school in another country. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheJourney4all7 said: I'm ready to get the hell out of USA, but I have to wait until I'm 18. Actually, I'm going to start college when I'm 17, and I'm thinking of going to school in another country.
its fine to go to school in another country but don't leave permently. no matter where you go there's gonna be problems. you probably don't believe it now but you will miss usa. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
heybaby said: TheJourney4all7 said: I'm ready to get the hell out of USA, but I have to wait until I'm 18. Actually, I'm going to start college when I'm 17, and I'm thinking of going to school in another country.
its fine to go to school in another country but don't leave permently. no matter where you go there's gonna be problems. you probably don't believe it now but you will miss usa. True, but I think I'd like to live somewhere a little more liberal. I know that everyplace has problems, but I just don't agree with many things that are typically "American." But it's all good, I haven't made up my mind yet.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EvilWhiteMale said: lovemachine said: Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. Back in 2000, Alec Baldwin said that if Bush won, he'd leave the country. Well, obviously he never left. When an interviewer asked him about it he said "This interview is over, get out." Another example of a shit talker. 
A wee baldy Tory bastard from the UK called Paul Daniels said he'd do that in 1997 if Labour won the election. The slimey wee gobshite never left | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Lovemachine, that's ok and all, but then I spend no time with my family.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
And, to answer some of your comments and questions, I am not just blowing off steam or whining. I have been considering the move since I received the Holy Spirit of Christ in 2001. This election was just more evidence. Both candidates were in the system's control loop anyhow.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Flashpointe said: Lovemachine, that's ok and all, but then I spend no time with my family.
A dad absent from the home is what the moral right wing are always complaining about. They say that it causes behavioral problems in children, hence their whole argument about "traditional marriage". Let's just put it this way, I would rather be a bleeding heart than have no heart at all. Also, I would prefer second rate health care, since I have NO health care now. Plus, why the hell should I work my behind off while there are people waaaaay dumber than me making billions who won't come up off any personal income to help people like me. People like me would get along fine with the rich if they actually enabled me to be a contributor to the system. If I had millions, I would open my own business or franchise. I would help capitalism. But, they don't trust anyone, and they hoard their money. Until they change their attitude, I will not change mine. Jason If everyone thought like you the entire system would crumble because NOBODY would be paying into it. Also, you could work nights or whatever but I guess you don't want to because for some reason you think the Illinois tax-payers should pay for you. . [Edited 11/6/04 11:13am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
lovemachine said: EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. I don't think we should leave. Dispite the results of The Dukes going out in full force and voting, America is still America, chruch and state are still seperate and we aren't just one big rich conservative white guy. We are America and I for one care too much about it to see it turn into one big swampy red state. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EvilWhiteMale said: lovemachine said: Amen. But none of these pussies will actually leave. They just talk to hear themselves talk. They think it sounds cool to say they are going to leave. Back in 2000, Alec Baldwin said that if Bush won, he'd leave the country. Well, obviously he never left. When an interviewer asked him about it he said "This interview is over, get out." Another example of a shit talker. He never said that. His ex-wife Kim apparently said something of that sort. Even that pervert Bill O'Reily defended Alec on this. I know how much you love "Oh, O'Reily" but you must have missed that episode. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EvilWhiteMale said: Hell, I encourage people to get the fuck out of this country. It's already too crowded here and the less sour-asses we have here, the better.
I'd be happy to pack their bags for them. Yeah, leave the country. We need more room for chruches and cotton fields! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
