Bush says silly things again

[Bradylama]

Actually Canada's deaths by firearms in the last year were more around the 200's(like most other 1st world countrys) while the USA exceeded the 10,000 mark.

Any sources to back your figures up? For the sake of argument, I'll try and get the most recent ones I can find...


For the 2000 US census, the population was 281,421,906. According to the 1990 census, the population 248,709,873. So according to the average yearly increase, the estimated population today is 291,235,515.

Canadian census information is impossible to find. But the most recent numbers I could get are 30,007,094.

So you have a population practically 1/10 the population of the United States.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourceBook/executiveSummary.htm

According to the above, firearm related deaths in 2000 were 28,000. To put that with my estimated data, this year it would be about 29,000.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/death/default.asp

That's the best information I could find concerning Canadian firearm deaths, but from 1970 to 1996 and average of 1,385 Canadians died each year from gun fatalities.

No, let's factor in the data shall we?

291,235,515 / 29,000 = 10,042, or 1/10,042 civilians dieing from firearms.

30,007,094 / 1,385 = 21,665 or 1/21,665 civilians dieing from firearms. Which is half the death toll per capita of the US.

On that point, I'll concede. But I find this pretty odd, since the last time I did this, the Canadian death rate per capita was larger than America's. This whole thing would be a whole lot easier if I could actually find accurate information on Canadian population and death rates. >=/

Why would the UN care if we went after Osama? If we actually knew he was responcible for the embassy bombings, im sure the UN would even back the US. Plus the Clinton administration wasn't the only administration to fund the Taliban. Back in the eighties when Afganistan was under invasion by the USSR, the US not only funded and sold weapons to the Taliban, but Osama himself was trained by the CIA.

Oh? I thought the UN was adamantly anti-war. The Taliban sure as Hell wouldn't have given him up, so what course of action was there to take but invade the country? And besides, the administrations didn't fund the Taliban post-Soviet occupation. In fact, they never did. Aside from possible Stinger missiles they could've acquired from the CIA, Afghan rebels used predominantly Soviet munitions and equipment. The "funding" that you speak of was the result of thousands of dollars being poured into humanitarian aide for Afghanistan, just to have all the money seized by the Taliban for "distribution."

"Americans were just pussies"? i would like to see you throw down your Big Mac and fries and go to Somalia and show them "skinnies" with AK47s how badass us american's can be.

I would if my Aspurgers didn't bar me from enlistment in all branches of the armed forces according to their policies on mental illness. But you can't deny that the modern American no longer has the stomach to back up his own foreign policy. A thing evident of the current situation in Iraq. Don't any of you people pay attention to history? Did you really think this whole thing would be a cakewalk? Jesus Christ.

The reason Rosevelt would be pissed would be because he was a strong Isolationist(like most other countries) and against trusts and monopolies. Even though there were worse conditions in Europe and in Japan's occupation of China at the time than Iraq, he refused to get involved in WW2(eventhough he funded the allies) until the US was directly attacked by Japan. Also, if he were around today there wouldn't be taxe breaks for the rich, or monopolies like TicketBastard, and Microsoft. Eventhough most people don't realize it, Rosevelt was the most Socialist president ever. And if people did realize it the time he would have been stoned to death.

Pure speculation. For all you know, Roosevelt could be angry that the Social Security programs he set up were still around considering the excellent condition of the economy. Roosevelt was also one of the most war-mongering presidents we've had. Though he was right to recognize Germany and Japan as threats to the world, he practically goaded them into a fight in order to circumvent the predominantly isolationist movement.

And the UN didn't kick us off the Human Rights Council for no good reason. Concidering Bush, along with a lot of Americans, have pretty much demonized the religion of Islam. Plus what WAS the reason we invaded Iraq? Where are these chemical weapons? But they sure got lots of oil and some vacant land to put nice McDonalds or maybe even a STARBUCK'S!

Intelligent liberals don't believe that crap, so why should you? Unless...

And please tell me why its such a bad thing that a 3rd party be elected into office? Concidering Democrats and Republicans the issues that matter "irrelivant". There so hellbent on increasing defence spending on boxcutter wielding terrorists, and funding more money into the ever pointless "Drug War". Most other countries have gone towards legalizing Marijuana and trying to develop a better society, rather then spend money on missiles to fend off them boxcutters.

Have you taken a look at the third party candidates? Would you honestly want a Green Party or Reform Party member in office? 3rd party politics represent political extremes. The point of 3rd party politics is to steal votes away from the two major parties enough so that one of the big boys adopts some of the 3rd Party's policies. Its just not practical for one to actually win an election.

Of course we are! Why should Americans die because of other countries short comings. I don't call that being a "pussie", I call that understanding the value of human life. Watching people get shot on TV might not mean much to you but Im sure you wouldn't be to happy when the guns pointing at you.

What you fail to understand is that a soldier's life is expendible.

As cold-hearted as that may seem, a soldier's duty is to live, fight, and if need be die for his country. If you sign up just to pay your way through college and you end up dieing on some strip of land in Africa, then that's your fault. The US Armed Forces is a volunteer force.

 

[Brother None]

Any sources to back your figures up? For the sake of argument, I'll try and get the most recent ones I can find...

He's quoting Bowling for Columbine. Hehehe.

I have no gun death figures, but here're the homocide rates for Canada and the US:

Canada 1.79 per 100,000 per year
US 5.87 per 100,000 per year

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf

 

[Loxley]

Oh? I thought the UN was adamantly anti-war. The Taliban sure as Hell wouldn't have given him up, so what course of action was there to take but invade the country? And besides, the administrations didn't fund the Taliban post-Soviet occupation. In fact, they never did. Aside from possible Stinger missiles they could've acquired from the CIA, Afghan rebels used predominantly Soviet munitions and equipment. The "funding" that you speak of was the result of thousands of dollars being poured into humanitarian aide for Afghanistan, just to have all the money seized by the Taliban for "distribution."

The weapons that the rebels got in afghanistan was chinese and jugoslavian weapons of russian design that was bought by the British Inteligence service and then handed over to the rebels later on so that it would appear that the weapons was taken from dead russian soldiers. I dunno weather they supported Taliban though.

 

[Bradylama]

He's quoting Bowling for Columbine. Hehehe.

^_^

I have no gun death figures, but here're the homocide rates for Canada and the US:

Canada 1.79 per 100,000 per year
US 5.87 per 100,000 per year

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf

Hmm. The 1,385 Canadians up there averaged to be 75% suicide. but does it matter if people are killing each other or themselves? Until recently, a form of suicide in Japan where one kills his family and then commits suicide wasn't considered illegal. So the deaths were counted as suicides as opposed to homicides.

Though it is good to see the crimerate dropping by 20% from 1996-2000. =D

The weapons that the rebels got in afghanistan was chinese and jugoslavian weapons of russian design that was bought by the British Inteligence service and then handed over to the rebels later on so that it would appear that the weapons was taken from dead russian soldiers. I dunno weather they supported Taliban though.

Well, as I understand, the Taliban gained control in 1991 by seizing control of Kabul. It did end the civil war that had been going on since Soviet withdrawal, but it forced Afghanis into an oppressive totalitarian regime.

Information on their activities prior to their capture of Kabul I can't find. =/

 

[Loxley]

Now what the Taliban did was that they got rid of the northern alliance wich belive it or not were a tiny bit worse than Taliban. They created peace, even though it was a totaliterian regime. But then all the rulers in afghanistan had been totaliteritan since, yeah ever.

 

[Bradylama]

Totalitarianism is only bad so long as the people in power look out more for themselves rather than the people. The royal family in combination with parliament did pretty well for Afghanistan until 1978, when the Communist coup destroyed the ruling government and pretty much handed Afghanistan over to the Soviets.

 

[Grizzly~Adams]

Actually I haven't even seen that movie yet(is it any good?). The figures I heard that from was a gun control advocate who visited my college last year. The whole CIA and funding afganistan I heard on the news shortly after 9/11. I figured that was just common knowledge.

And I know a soldiers life is expendable in certain situations. I know that going into the military and dying for your country is an honorable thing to do. But like Bradylama said, the people who join the military for college and job training have risks too when they sign up, but thats why the join the reserves or have a non-combat specialty.

But what about Viet Nam, one of the most unpopular wars in history? They weren't fighting for America), they were unwillingly fighting for the south vietnamese government that was probably better off being wiped out anyway. Sure, we wanted to stop the spread of communism, but the only thing the U.S. government actually knew about communism back then was to fear it.

And what about that Chinook helicopter that was just shot down in Iraq that was filled with soldiers on vacation? You honostly think that those soldiers who died on the helicoptor expected to die that way after ridding the Iraqi governmant of tyranny?

Do you really believe that when you enlist in the military your going to fight for YOUR country?

 

[Bradylama]

The figures I heard that from was a gun control advocate who visited my college last year. The whole CIA and funding afganistan I heard on the news shortly after 9/11. I figured that was just common knowledge.

Don't believe everything you're told, especially when it comes from some gun-control nut.

But what about Viet Nam, one of the most unpopular wars in history? They weren't fighting for America), they were unwillingly fighting for the south vietnamese government that was probably better off being wiped out anyway. Sure, we wanted to stop the spread of communism, but the only thing the U.S. government actually knew about communism back then was to fear it.

Stemming the tide of Comunism was deemed pivotal for American foreign policy. It was most certainly a war in American interests, as the further spread of communism in Southeast Asia would've been detrimental to American interests.

And what about that Chinook helicopter that was just shot down in Iraq that was filled with soldiers on vacation? You honostly think that those soldiers who died on the helicoptor expected to die that way after ridding the Iraqi governmant of tyranny?

Do you think a sentry on guard duty expects to be knifed in the gut by an insurgent? Nobody expects to be killed. Yet they get killed anyways. Considering the guerilla war that's been raging since the end of major conflict those soldiers were probably well aware of the possibility.

Do you really believe that when you enlist in the military your going to fight for YOUR country?

When you enlist in the American military, you're always fighting for your country. We don't just fight wars for no reason.

 

[Grizzly~Adams]

The figures I heard that from was a gun control advocate who visited my college last year. The whole CIA and funding afganistan I heard on the news shortly after 9/11. I figured that was just common knowledge.

Don't believe everything you're told, especially when it comes from some gun-control nut.

But what about Viet Nam, one of the most unpopular wars in history? They weren't fighting for America), they were unwillingly fighting for the south vietnamese government that was probably better off being wiped out anyway. Sure, we wanted to stop the spread of communism, but the only thing the U.S. government actually knew about communism back then was to fear it.

Stemming the tide of Comunism was deemed pivotal for American foreign policy. It was most certainly a war in American interests, as the further spread of communism in Southeast Asia would've been detrimental to American interests.

And what about that Chinook helicopter that was just shot down in Iraq that was filled with soldiers on vacation? You honostly think that those soldiers who died on the helicoptor expected to die that way after ridding the Iraqi governmant of tyranny?

Do you think a sentry on guard duty expects to be knifed in the gut by an insurgent? Nobody expects to be killed. Yet they get killed anyways. Considering the guerilla war that's been raging since the end of major conflict those soldiers were probably well aware of the possibility.

Do you really believe that when you enlist in the military your going to fight for YOUR country?

When you enlist in the American military, you're always fighting for your country. We don't just fight wars for no reason.

Well first off, I don't believe in gun control and for most of his speech I wasn't even listening. Even though the numbers might have been off, his statement is relatively true concidering the amount of gun deaths in the U.S. is high compared to other countrys like Canada and most european countrys.

I think most of us know that you really never know when your gonna die ,unless you have a terminal illness. What I was just trying to say that in the past military conflicts, it justs seems that these "expendable" troops are pretty much dying for no relevant reason. And of course technically these wars are motivated by something. But like you said earlier about most americans not believing in our foriegn policy. I personally think that American foreign policy is a crock of shit. I think that the U.S.A. has no right to be the worlds police force and its pointless to try to make these third world countrys live the way we do.

If a large ammount your countries populace disagrees with your foriegn policie or involvement in a conflict, I really don't see how you could be "fighting for your country". Doesn't really make any sense.

 

[Bradylama]

I personally think that American foreign policy is a crock of shit. I think that the U.S.A. has no right to be the worlds police force and trying to make these third world countrys live the way we do.

If that's what you believe then the US would have to break off all ties to the UN, effectively destroying it. As much as I hate it, the UN at least puts on the facade of global co-operation. So long as people think there's a common ground, things will remain relatively stable.

If a large ammount your countries populace disagrees with your foriegn policie or involvement in a conflict, I really don't see how you could be "fighting for your country". Doesn't really make any sense.

Well, see, the majority of Americans did believe in our foreign policy. But as soon as people found out, "SOLDIERS DIE OMG!" they stopped supporting it. Again, Americans have no stomach.

 

[Grizzly~Adams]

If that's what you believe then the US would have to break off all ties to the UN, effectively destroying it. As much as I hate it, the UN at least puts on the facade of global co-operation. So long as people think there's a common ground, things will remain relatively stable.

Maybe I should have rephrased my words. Most of America's foriegn policie is a crock of shit. I too believe in the global co-op that the UN trys to give us.

Well, see, the majority of Americans did believe in our foreign policy. But as soon as people found out, "SOLDIERS DIE OMG!" they stopped supporting it. Again, Americans have no stomach.

I think that it was a little more than soldiers dying to turn alot of the public against the war. Eventhough we have the best military tech in the world, Americans should know that War = Dead Soldiers. I think that most of the public a cynical of why we were involved in this war, concidering that they haven't found any chemical weapons.

 

[Roshambo]

I would hope nobody is playing with the report post button.

 

[Sander]

Yes, we Americans should work our damndest to give free hand-outs. Sorry, but charity should be left to charities.

Man, I'm not even getting into this topic. Where's Sander?

Hmm? What? Ow....

Oh, yeah, wait, I'll get into this now. I've not been interested for a bit. I'll be ignoring the rest of this thread, though. At least for now.

Now, you say that you should not be responsible for anyone but yourself. Wow. How ignorant. Now, let's see, the people benefiting most from public healthcare and social security are the disabled, the low-pay people, those without a job, and older people.

Now, the disabled cannot(usually) work, they need support, and help from people to survive. If you leave this to be handled by charity work, those people are fux0red. They will have a lot less money and, more specifically, a lot less support and treatment from anyone. Why? Because people will not give more money out of free will than the government is giving. I'd like to hear you say that social security is bullshit if you were paralysed from the neck down.

Then there's the people without a job. Aha, yes, they benefit a lot from social security. <sarcasm>They can do nothing and live a great life in luxury due to social security </sarcasm>. Okay, social security is there to help people who don't have a job, for whatever reason, because their employer went bankrupt, because their business failed, because their company had to make cuts, or whatever reason. The money you get is almost always less than minimum wage. And that minimum wage is called minimum for a reason. It's the minimum one has to earn, and it's close to the minimum someone needs to live reasonably. The money you get from social security is LESS than that. Which means that it's usually enough to survive, and get a bit more than that, but not that much. If you don't work, you'll have very little. This is NOT living off of someone else's back, this is making sure that everyone can live a life.
Now, if social security wasn't there, those people who have no jobs, would not be able to survive. People aren't going to give them enough money to survive if everyone who is now in social security has to rely on people and charity, instead of on the government. Without that, a lot of those people would probably be barely able to survive, and without that, they will effectively be outside of society. They will probably never get a job again, and get in a load of shit.
WITH social security, on the other hand, people can survive while finding a job, or studying(!). Yes, this is costing you money. But what if the place that you're working at goes bankrupt, you lose your job, and you had just invested all the money you had in a failing business(or something which caused you to lose your money), and there is no social safety-net to prevent you from landing on the street?(Okay maybe it's a bad example, but I hope you understand what I'm saying here).

Then there's the group of old people. YOu will one day(hopefully for you) be part of that group. And if you are, and you haven't saved that much money(for instance, because you were on minimum wage), wouldn't you like to be able to rely on the government to survive? If you have no family, noone else is going to be helping you.

And then there are the low-pay workers. The ones who earn the most, but are still very important to society. The people who collect garbage, clean streets, clean offices, and other menail, but very important jobs. Without those jobs, you'd be living in a society which doesn't work at all. Those people are much more important to society than the Bill Gates's, the people who earn a lot of money, generally are. Those people benefit from social security mainly through healthcare and other such things. Without that, they would be leading a worse life. And charity cannot possibly make up for that.

Now, I hope you have some seriously better reasons than "I don't want to pay money" to be against social security and healthcare.

 

[Loxley]

Totalitarianism is only bad so long as the people in power look out more for themselves rather than the people. The royal family in combination with parliament did pretty well for Afghanistan until 1978, when the Communist coup destroyed the ruling government and pretty much handed Afghanistan over to the Soviets.

No they did not do too well, the cpuntry was a hopeless backwater country that needed large reforms so that they would not go into further isolation. When the communists got into power they tried to do the needed reforms, but the people resisted saying that girls at school was bad and that their leaders was not religious enough blah blah blah fucking losers who did not like change. So a mujahedin gruop appeared and with american support started a war on the russian friendly gouverment. (yes the us was in there allready then fighting communism) The Answer from the communist leaders was terror bombing of the civillians who got more pissed. And then the situation escalated and boom the russians moved in. But the leaders that was before the revolution did nothing more than to sit on their arses and keep the country a backwater place,

 

[Bradylama]

Now, I hope you have some seriously better reasons than "I don't want to pay money" to be against social security and healthcare.

Yes, I do.

Social Security and Healthcare are by and large programs you'll more than likely never see much of a return on. Until one reaches old age, however.

The amount of money that comes out of your taxes to pay for Social Security or Healthcare you'll never see come back to you. Its much easier to save money for retirement rather than relying on an income that doesn't allow for any amount of respectable living. Social Security is meant as a supplement, not an income replacement. If you can't be bothered to save money for your retirement, then that's your problem.

As for healthcare, healthcare is a system that underpays doctors and lowers the standard of medicine due to lack of proper funding. Instead of healthcare, we Americans have this thing called Health Insurance. It works quite nicely, and doesn't create a system that forces us to go to foreign countries in order to receive major surgery.

Ultimately, our disagreements stem from our willingness to rely on the government for suppliment. You'd rather rely on the government, and I wouldn't.

Not to mention that universal healthcare is simply too massive a project for the government to undertake. The money doesn't just magically appear from the government's fingers, it has to be pulled from somewhere else. Like education and security.

 

[Sander]

The amount of money that comes out of your taxes to pay for Social Security or Healthcare you'll never see come back to you. Its much easier to save money for retirement rather than relying on an income that doesn't allow for any amount of respectable living. Social Security is meant as a supplement, not an income replacement. If you can't be bothered to save money for your retirement, then that's your problem.

Or when you lose a job, or when you don't earn a lot of money etc. etc.
For people who earn a decent wage, social security may not be coming back to them, but if they lose their income, it WILL come back to them. The problem here, is that most people won't get into that position. But for those who DO get into that position, social security is a bliss. To say it is only for old people, than you're just ignoring a large part of it.
Also, as I said, it's possible to lose all the money you saved(Via fraud, bank bankrupcy or other things), and how would you feel if you had lost all the money you saved, and you didn't have social security to help you?

Now, healthcare cerainly doesn't lower the standards of medicine, if it is done properly. Of course, if you have a system that isn't functioning well, than that might be the case. But then you need to work on that system.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, I think that Health Insurance is as much Healthcare as factual hospitals and doctors paid for by the government. As long as the healthcare is provided for by the government in ANY way, it is public healthcare.

 

[Bradylama]

Or when you lose a job, or when you don't earn a lot of money etc. etc.
For people who earn a decent wage, social security may not be coming back to them, but if they lose their income, it WILL come back to them. The problem here, is that most people won't get into that position. But for those who DO get into that position, social security is a bliss. To say it is only for old people, than you're just ignoring a large part of it.
Also, as I said, it's possible to lose all the money you saved(Via fraud, bank bankrupcy or other things), and how would you feel if you had lost all the money you saved, and you didn't have social security to help you?

Perhaps I should re-phrase then. I apologize for not making this clear, but my main problem with Grizzly's statements was that there was something wrong with our current state of Social Security. Well, there's nothing wrong with it, so long as you're not relying upong it as a staple source of income. Its an income suppliment when you're out of work or need a little help with retirement. Which it does just fine. There's no reason it should be able to support people as a job or years of saving would.

Now, healthcare cerainly doesn't lower the standards of medicine, if it is done properly. Of course, if you have a system that isn't functioning well, than that might be the case. But then you need to work on that system.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, I think that Health Insurance is as much Healthcare as factual hospitals and doctors paid for by the government. As long as the healthcare is provided for by the government in ANY way, it is public healthcare.

I'll give you that, but having healthcare dependant upon the government makes its quality unreliable. Proper funding can keep the medical system at a respectable level, but it still might take years before new equipment or medicinal practices can be adopted. Canadian citizens for instance still come to the US for major surgery. A thing which can't be done in most hospitals up north.

Public healthcare is a part of the budget, which means that it can have its funding raised or lowered in accordance to the state of the treasury. If medicare has cuts in funding then the people suffer due to lack of proper medicine.

A medical system relying on the consumer, however, is universally stable, as there are always people paying for care. If people can't afford proper healthcare on their own, then Health Insurance policies can be taken out. Even though the likelihood of an accident is low, should one ever occur, the Health Insurance is there to support the medical bills depending on your policy.

Another problem with public healthcare is that people waste doctor's time with little things like colds or the flu. Its all free so why not go see the doctor? Well its not free, you're wasting your tax dollars.

Public Healthcare simply can't be done in the States. Even if its possible, the system change would be too much and hurt the patients. Though it would be free, the end result would be a loss in the quality of medical services.

 

[Brother None]

Hmm. The 1,385 Canadians up there averaged to be 75% suicide. but does it matter if people are killing each other or themselves? Until recently, a form of suicide in Japan where one kills his family and then commits suicide wasn't considered illegal. So the deaths were counted as suicides as opposed to homicides.

Yeah, well, if you count euthanasia as homocide, the Dutch homocide rate is somewhere between 10 and 11 (10.8, I think), so let's not get into that.

As for the public healthcare thing, rather than speaking of non-existing things here, look at one thing, practically; how many Americans have no access whatsoever to healthcare? And yes, I do know they'll get immediate attention in an emergency, it'd be inhumane if that were not true, but a number of these people will die of general illhealth, because they receive no healthcare whatsoever.

Are you really not willing to sacrifice an amount of the quality of healthcare so that everyone can get it? No offense, but that's kind of inhumane.

 

[Bradylama]

Do you think everyone in Canada can afford to fly to the US in order to have Major Surgery?

Anybody can afford health insurance in the US. Though some policies are better than others, overall everybody gets good medical attention.

Wait lines for operations are also considerably shorter than those in countries with Universal Healthcare.

 

[Ugly John]

No but if the surgery is not available in Canada the government will pay fot you to get it in the states.

But up here in Canada, they are talking about a two speed health system, where if you jave the money, you don't have to wait by going to privately owned clinics, this in turn takes these people off the regular waiting lists, and thus speeds it up for everybody.