Do liberals even like this country?

[BasicHumanUnit]

Regarding the US Constitution.......

It is a folly of men to regard the US Constitution as their "Protector".....

Al Contrar.....it is but a collection of ideals with the intent to offer a framework for the defense of human rights through limited government

The US Constitution is only as good as the will of We The People to protect and defend it......and it is foolish and dangerous to think otherwise

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

What scares me is the god awful dumb folk out there who believe one party will save them or dev the country. This country thrives on division and is divided in 500 times the ways it Is United. 99.99 percent are too busy to care. But they but the proven lies both parties spew.

A bit hard to understand but yes, BOTH parties are the Establishment. The Establishment is a foe of the average American.

Recall that Trump talked of leaving the Republican party mid campaign. He mainly stayed because he knew that as an Independent he'd have absolutely no chance.
The Establishment knew or was confident they could shape Trump into "their man" at the end of the day....and we have yet to see for sure that he isn't.

Indications are the Establishment is anti-Trump...but truth be told, if they were THAT anti_Trump, he'd probably already be dead.

Diversity and division may have been great for the nation in it's early years.....now? Not so sure.

 

[charwin95]

1. That's stupid. Are all democrats living in inner city? ALL? Are all living outside inner city criminals? There are tons and tons of democrats in my neighborhood. So far I have not seen criminals.
Just because they didn't vote for Romney that doesn't mean they are all democrats.

2. That's stupid. Again democrats will not pull your dick. That is what ******* Trump told you and got stuck in your brain.
So you want criminals to get guns easier like loop holes at gun shows?
So you want to flood this country with more guns like Chicago?
So you want to buy guns like a candy at liquor store?

Your link doesn't mean a diddly shit.

To say that guns made Chicago dangerous is about as stupid a statement as I've heard.
If there were no guns how would decent people defend themselves? Chicago is a killing field NOT because of guns, but because of Democrat policies.
Believing ANYTHING else means you have your head so far up your ass you you'll never get it back out

I would rather flood the country with guns because more good guys would have them.....vs flooding the country with illegal immigrants which is what Democrats want.

Look how many people are dying due to illegal immigrants....ever heard of MS-13? Probably not.

That's dumb.
I never said guns are made in Chicago.
I never said you cannot have a guns. I never said I will pull your dick from your pants.

If this country is flooded with guns ----- then it will be like Chicago all over the country. You assumed all gun owners are responsible citizen. I'm not even sure if you are a responsible gun owner.

Are you saying that democrats armed those thugs in Chicago?
Are you saying all 20 millions illegals are committing crimes?

Contrary to Trump’s Claims, Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes

 

[WEATHER53]

I am a larger than average person yet very active. If I had to pay more for insurance as a result of the choices I am making then I will do it as that is personal responsibility in action.
I hope not more than $200 per month extra

 

[theHawk]

During a debate with a leftist this morning, I was once again told how much better things are in other places, and that made me ask myself if liberals even like this country yet alone love it?

How great other countries have it is a leftist argument they make all the time. It's beginning to be almost as common as saying the right are racist, sexist, homophobes.

What crossed my mind this morning is something I never thought of before: conservatives never say how much better it is in other places. We have our faults, we have our differences, but you never read a conservative say our country is not as good as X.

Liberals are quite the opposite. They want us to change our healthcare system like "theirs." They want us to have gun restrictions like theirs. They want us to have an education system like theirs. They want us to have a government structure like theirs. They want us to have an immigration system like theirs. They want us to have a justice system like theirs. We should take most of the money from rich people like they do. We need to change our election system like theirs.

So I'm going to ask this question one more time even though I've never gotten an answer before: If it's so good "there" WTF are you doing here?

It's apparent that we on the right love our country and the left does not. So the question I have (especially to you leftists) is if you do even like this country? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since you want to change every aspect of it.

By the way, the next time you talk to a liberal that likes to bring up "other countries" and their laws, bring up what their racial demographics are. They like to try to use the gun control laws in Europe as some great example of fixing the gun violence issues in the US, but never address the fact that Euro nations have far fewer blacks and Latinos. There are some Euro countries with gun ownership rates as high as the US, yet almost no gun violence.

Same goes for their health care systems. Euro countries don't have tens of millions of bottom feeders on welfare not paying into their health care systems. Plus, many of the health care systems in Europe aren't that great and people end up buying their own private insurance on top of paying for the public one.

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

 

[frigidweirdo]

During a debate with a leftist this morning, I was once again told how much better things are in other places, and that made me ask myself if liberals even like this country yet alone love it?

How great other countries have it is a leftist argument they make all the time. It's beginning to be almost as common as saying the right are racist, sexist, homophobes.

What crossed my mind this morning is something I never thought of before: conservatives never say how much better it is in other places. We have our faults, we have our differences, but you never read a conservative say our country is not as good as X.

Liberals are quite the opposite. They want us to change our healthcare system like "theirs." They want us to have gun restrictions like theirs. They want us to have an education system like theirs. They want us to have a government structure like theirs. They want us to have an immigration system like theirs. They want us to have a justice system like theirs. We should take most of the money from rich people like they do. We need to change our election system like theirs.

So I'm going to ask this question one more time even though I've never gotten an answer before: If it's so good "there" WTF are you doing here?

It's apparent that we on the right love our country and the left does not. So the question I have (especially to you leftists) is if you do even like this country? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since you want to change every aspect of it.

By the way, the next time you talk to a liberal that likes to bring up "other countries" and their laws, bring up what their racial demographics are. They like to try to use the gun control laws in Europe as some great example of fixing the gun violence issues in the US, but never address the fact that Euro nations have far fewer blacks and Latinos. There are some Euro countries with gun ownership rates as high as the US, yet almost no gun violence.

Same goes for their health care systems. Euro countries don't have tens of millions of bottom feeders on welfare not paying into their health care systems. Plus, many of the health care systems in Europe aren't that great and people end up buying their own private insurance on top of paying for the public one.

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

 

[theHawk]

By the way, the next time you talk to a liberal that likes to bring up "other countries" and their laws, bring up what their racial demographics are. They like to try to use the gun control laws in Europe as some great example of fixing the gun violence issues in the US, but never address the fact that Euro nations have far fewer blacks and Latinos. There are some Euro countries with gun ownership rates as high as the US, yet almost no gun violence.

Same goes for their health care systems. Euro countries don't have tens of millions of bottom feeders on welfare not paying into their health care systems. Plus, many of the health care systems in Europe aren't that great and people end up buying their own private insurance on top of paying for the public one.

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Here we go, now you're arguing that the only reason Muslims are terrorists in France is because they treat them "like shit". Typical pro -Islamist progressive, it's all white peoples' fault Muslim are a bunch of murdering psychopaths. We need to just let more in and be nicer to them, because obviously Muslims have a great track record of living peacefully with non-Muslims. Just look at all the majority Muslim countries with Christians, Jews, and atheists that are treated equally.....oh that's right, there isn't one.

As for the blacks in the US, you've gone right back to just proclaiming my only point was that blacks are violence just because of their skin color, when I never said any such thing. I merely stated the facts that they have higher crime rates, something you still cannot refute. Multiculturalism has failed in the US with blacks, and it has failed in Europe with Muslims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, are you saying that it is blacks or latinos which automatically make crime higher?

Because Africa's intentional homicide rate is LOWER than the Americas homicide rate. So, it can't be because of black people, right?

Madagascar has an intentional murder rate of 0.62, that's low. And it's full of black people.

There are 18 African countries with a murder rate LOWER than the US's murder rate. And they're mostly full of black people.

Blame it on hispanics? Well, Spain and Portugal have lower murder rates than the US too. So.... is it hispanic blood? Er.. no, probably not.

So what is it?

How about this. Christians.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

You have to get down to number 27 on the list before you hit a non-Christian country, South Sudan. The next is number 42, Mali.

The bottom four happen to be Christian too, but they're so small you'd never really notice them. The first proper country there is Japan, not Christian. That's not to say there aren't Christian countries at the bottom, Europe has a low level of murder and lots of Christians, but it's more Christian lite.

The US is one of the most Christian countries in the first world, and one of the highest murder rates.

So, it's much easier to make such a case that Christian society ends up forgiving way, way too easily, and ends up with higher crime.

But blaming it on blacks doesn't work. Yes, in the US blacks have a massive problem. But is this because they're black, or because they're black IN THE USA? Probably the latter. And after years of slavery, segregation and beyond that something similar, you can see why.

There's a big difference between blacks living in white countries and blacks living in African countries. Take your example of the Japanese, they have one of the most strict immigration laws in order to keep Japan for the Japanese. The result is a relatively peaceful society not destroyed by multiculturalism. Africans can be very peaceful if they are in their natural cultural setting, although you still cherry picked peaceful ones when there are also many African countries that are completely barbaric and violent. You're also nuts if you think those third world countries keep crime statistics accurately anywhere near what Western countries do.

By the way, the Portuguese and Spanish are European, not Latino.

There is a problem with your argument here.

I went to Japan and I went to cross a road because I wanted to go to a store on the other side. I wasn't crossing where I should have crossed, I crossed in the middle of the street, because I didn't want to have to walk 100 meters each way just to get to a store. The road was empty more or less, just one guy on a push bike. I was half way across the road and the guy on the push bike STOPPED his bike so I could go past, even though he could easily have got ahead of me.

He didn't do this because Japan doesn't have many Japanese citizens who are not ethnically Japanese. He did this because that's Japan.

Japan has plenty of foreigners, go to Kyoto and you see them all the time, they work there, they're not citizens but they're not going to get kicked out any time soon either.

Africans can be peaceful in their "natural cultural setting". Oh, and then I'm cherry picking because I looked at all the stats and found 18 African countries who have lower murder rates than the US? How is that cherry picking exactly? Oh, it's because you want me to show only the countries that have HIGHER murder rates than the US, because that somehow makes YOUR argument. Oh, please, stop with the nonsense.

My argument was it isn't blacks who make problems, counter to your argument that high crime exists because the US has more black people than Europe. Right?

So, to back up my point I showed that 18 African countries have LOWER murder rates than the US. Which therefore shows that it isn't blacks who are the problem.

Now you've gone off and said blacks in Africa are different to blacks in America? What, they have three hands or something?

If it were a simple case, which you were suggesting, of blacks being far more prone to crime, then all or most countries with black people in them, would have much higher murder rates than the US, probably proportional to the number of black people in those countries. They don't.

So, your argument is bullshit.

Once again you completely missed the points I made.

Japan may have foreigners in their country, but those that are there are very carefully selected, as you pointed out they are people who are working there. Professionals with jobs. Does Japan have a huge population of non-Japanese that are on welfare? No, they don't.
If we were as selective of who we allowed in our country, our crime rate would be much lower.

As for the African/blacks, the statistics do not lie that in the US they have a much higher violence rate. Your 18 African countries that supposedly have lower murder rates than the US doesn't change that. I never stated that all blacks just commit more violence just because they are black, you just like to jump to that conclusion so you can label me a racist.

Liberals love to cherry pick certain European laws and claim that if the US just did the same, our crime rates would go down. In the case of gun laws, there are several Euro countries with high ownership rates, yet very low crime rates. Even in the US there are huge differences. Take a look at the gun violence rates of Idaho and compare it to any other state with high gun ownership but with a more "diverse" population.

Oh, I have no doubt I'm missing your point, seeing as your point is complete nonsense.

Japan has "carefully selected" foreigners, huh? Yeah, they don't like the Chinese, there's a huge deposit and requirements for them.

But having care immigration doesn't impact the US. Many of the black people were slaves. They've been American for a long time. It's not about color here. There are Russians coming in and doing dodgy stuff alongside the Hispanic, black, Asian, white etc gangs.

The problem in the US is the gangs, not the color of the gang.

No, 18 African countries does not change the fact that there is a problem with black Americans. However this was NOT your point. Your point was the color of their skin caused them to commit crime, that is not the case. There is plenty there that we can look to to see why there are problems, slavery, segregation and being treated as underlings for hundreds of years doesn't help. That many of them are under educated, born into poor families, doing the jobs that white people didn't want to do, etc etc, this has a MUCH BIGGER impact on why they have problems.

Why does Europe have less problems? Because, in general, they treat these people better. Why does France have a big problem with Muslims? Color of their skin? No, because they treated them like SHIT for a long time, they massacred them in Paris, they massacred them in Algeria, they made life hard for them.

Here's your problem, not the color of their skin.

Oh, so Liberals like to cherry pick... not conservatives huh? Can I roll my eyes enough at this blatantly partisan comment? Yes, I'm sure people all over like to cherry pick, it seems to happen here all the time, what with people saying that crime happen because of someone's skin color. Then go off making factually incorrect statements to back up their nonsense.

Here we go, now you're arguing that the only reason Muslims are terrorists in France is because they treat them "like shit". Typical pro -Islamist progressive, it's all white peoples' fault Muslim are a bunch of murdering psychopaths. We need to just let more in and be nicer to them, because obviously Muslims have a great track record of living peacefully with non-Muslims. Just look at all the majority Muslim countries with Christians, Jews, and atheists that are treated equally.....oh that's right, there isn't one.

As for the blacks in the US, you've gone right back to just proclaiming my only point was that blacks are violence just because of their skin color, when I never said any such thing. I merely stated the facts that they have higher crime rates, something you still cannot refute. Multiculturalism has failed in the US with blacks, and it has failed in Europe with Muslims.

No, I'm not arguing that. Jeez, you like to jump to simple assumptions, don't you. We're not talking about why people become terrorists either... are we?

As for trying to get out of what you said... wah....

By the way, the next time you talk to a liberal that likes to bring up "other countries" and their laws, bring up what their racial demographics are.

but never address the fact that Euro nations have far fewer blacks and Latinos.

Didn't say this huh? Nope, not at all, you didn't write a single word of that, except for the fact that it's available for EVERYONE to see.

 

[rightwinger]

Who is cutting funding to Planned Parenthood?

The very organization that has been advocating family planning for 100 years. Then you complain if someone has five kids

You don't need planned parenthood to avoid having five kids. You need to keep your legs closed is all.

The only problem with that plan is that humans like to ****

Only lower income humans or all? Because it seems to me that lower income humans have more children than middle-class humans. Check out my other thread about 50% of babies born in this country do so on Medicaid.

Your problem is that EVERYBODY likes to ****. Even though you have no money...you can still ****

The rich? They have high cost doctors to make sure they only have the children they want. The poor? If you didn't pay for your birth control that week.....shit happens

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

 

[danielpalos]

obese or should pay higher rates for health insurance. Personal responsibility means keeping a healthy weight and avoid proven toxic fast food.

Then maybe you should move to Japan, because this is where liberals want to take us:

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions

The right wing prefers, stop and frisk, not stop and measure.

 

[RealDave]

22 million who would have lost insurance, older Americans who would have seen their rates skyrocket, low wage workers no longer eligible for subsidies or Medicaid....that was Trumpcare

And then there are the tens of millions of conservative voters who bought the lie that Republicans would repeal Obamacare if they voted for them

The Republican plan didn't take anybody off of Medicaid.

What was Obama Care? Making health insurance for low wage likely Democrat voters affordable while making it unaffordable to middle-class voters who vote Republican. But nobody on the left cared about that.

WTF. The Republican plan slashed federal funding for medicaid.

The chickenshit POS Republicans were making the States do it.

Wow, You defend that? Chickenshit politics.

The ACA did not make premiums u affordable. That is a lie. Premiums rose at a lower rate than before the ACA.

People buying insurance as individuals saved mega bucks whether they got a subsidy or not. A family of 4 making $90K could qualify for a subsidy. According to dumbass you, those are low wage people.

I ,lob=e it when you asswipes ***** about the ACA & then show you know nothing about it.

WTF are you talking about? When did you apply for Commie Care and what did they offer you? I did. I know what they offered me. I know how much it cost. I know it was unaffordable because I don't make french fries for a living.

They told me there was only one insurance company available for me to continue seeing my doctor and going to my hospital I've been going to all of my life. They wanted over 25% of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible and a 7K out of pocket. No dental, no prescriptions, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

In other words it didn't cover shit unless I made plans to run out in front of a moving bus. Even the worker on the phone admitted she could never afford that plan.

You keep proving how little you know about the ACA.

Commie care? Really? You are that stupid?

No one forced anyone to buy through the exchanges. You were perfectly free to buy your insurance where ever you wanted.


If that policy was 25% of your net pay, you were eligible for a subsidy.


If you could not afford a policy in the exchanges then you could not have afforded one prior to the ACA.

Before Commie Care came along, I had employer provided insurance my entire adult life, and I'm 57 years old with preexisting conditions since I was 25. But that's not the point. The point is that Commie Care was designed to give likely Democrats voters affordable insurance at the cost to Republican voters. If you make an average income, you don't get crap from those subsidies. If you don't make any kind of real money, subsidies pay for most of it. That's why they wanted over 25% of my net pay.

Really Ray., you need to work on your logic. You are not a Democrat yet you had access to the exchanges. Yes, Ray, Republicans also used the exchanges. There are lower income Republicans. Really. Check out those red states that utilize food stamps & welfare among the top ten.

So, it is the fault of Democrats that your employer fucked you over.

The ACA protected you from pre-existing conditions. Your own party will bring them back. Your own party will allow insurance companies to charge you 5 times what they charge younger people . Under the ACA it was 3 times.

I laugh at ignorant fools like you voting for Republicans as they are about to totally **** you over with their new healthcare bill.

BTW the ACA base their subsidies on holding the maximum you should pay for health insurance at 9.5% of your income. Your party will set that at 16-17%.

Under YOUR party's bill, your premiums are likely to double. But hey, Ray, keep voting Republican.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republican plan didn't take anybody off of Medicaid.

What was Obama Care? Making health insurance for low wage likely Democrat voters affordable while making it unaffordable to middle-class voters who vote Republican. But nobody on the left cared about that.

WTF. The Republican plan slashed federal funding for medicaid.

The chickenshit POS Republicans were making the States do it.

Wow, You defend that? Chickenshit politics.

The ACA did not make premiums u affordable. That is a lie. Premiums rose at a lower rate than before the ACA.

People buying insurance as individuals saved mega bucks whether they got a subsidy or not. A family of 4 making $90K could qualify for a subsidy. According to dumbass you, those are low wage people.

I ,lob=e it when you asswipes ***** about the ACA & then show you know nothing about it.

WTF are you talking about? When did you apply for Commie Care and what did they offer you? I did. I know what they offered me. I know how much it cost. I know it was unaffordable because I don't make french fries for a living.

They told me there was only one insurance company available for me to continue seeing my doctor and going to my hospital I've been going to all of my life. They wanted over 25% of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible and a 7K out of pocket. No dental, no prescriptions, and a $50.00 copay for doctors visits.

In other words it didn't cover shit unless I made plans to run out in front of a moving bus. Even the worker on the phone admitted she could never afford that plan.

You keep proving how little you know about the ACA.

Commie care? Really? You are that stupid?

No one forced anyone to buy through the exchanges. You were perfectly free to buy your insurance where ever you wanted.


If that policy was 25% of your net pay, you were eligible for a subsidy.


If you could not afford a policy in the exchanges then you could not have afforded one prior to the ACA.

Before Commie Care came along, I had employer provided insurance my entire adult life, and I'm 57 years old with preexisting conditions since I was 25. But that's not the point. The point is that Commie Care was designed to give likely Democrats voters affordable insurance at the cost to Republican voters. If you make an average income, you don't get crap from those subsidies. If you don't make any kind of real money, subsidies pay for most of it. That's why they wanted over 25% of my net pay.

Really Ray., you need to work on your logic. You are not a Democrat yet you had access to the exchanges. Yes, Ray, Republicans also used the exchanges. There are lower income Republicans. Really. Check out those red states that utilize food stamps & welfare among the top ten.

So, it is the fault of Democrats that your employer fucked you over.

The ACA protected you from pre-existing conditions. Your own party will bring them back. Your own party will allow insurance companies to charge you 5 times what they charge younger people . Under the ACA it was 3 times.

I laugh at ignorant fools like you voting for Republicans as they are about to totally **** you over with their new healthcare bill.

BTW the ACA base their subsidies on holding the maximum you should pay for health insurance at 9.5% of your income. Your party will set that at 16-17%.

Under YOUR party's bill, your premiums are likely to double. But hey, Ray, keep voting Republican.

Even if there was any truth in your lies, what difference does it make to me? Either way I still can't get insurance.

You puppets are so brainwashed that you actually believe everybody in a red state is Republican and everybody in a blue state is Democrat. Your puppet masters kept the truth from you which is states don't get welfare--people get welfare. There are plenty of Republicans in blue states like there are plenty of Democrats in red states.

Although we are a swing state, we are and have been red for some time with the exception of voting for that big-eared commie. However our cities are blue just like many across the country. It is there you will find the most welfare leaches. It's in those places you will find otherwise healthy younger and middle-aged people walking around during the day doing absolutely nothing dragging their four kids with them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't need planned parenthood to avoid having five kids. You need to keep your legs closed is all.

The only problem with that plan is that humans like to ****

Only lower income humans or all? Because it seems to me that lower income humans have more children than middle-class humans. Check out my other thread about 50% of babies born in this country do so on Medicaid.

Your problem is that EVERYBODY likes to ****. Even though you have no money...you can still ****

The rich? They have high cost doctors to make sure they only have the children they want. The poor? If you didn't pay for your birth control that week.....shit happens

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

 

[initforme]

most people are moderate slightly to the right. Yet everyone paints with a broad brush. The words left and right are vague at best.

 

[initforme]

Better yet get they can get a college degree and avoid working on scumholes such asWal-Mart and bring home a doc figure income which can help one survive...not easily...but survive without assistance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People who have businesses are allowed to write off expenses, and they all work the same. Why did I bring up the flat tax? Because your assertion is that taxes are unfair based on the business or size of business.

Does everybody get a tax break offer? No, not if it's not an investment for a city or state. If a small company wants tax breaks to move into a city, and they are only going to hire 25 or so people, it's a loss for the city and they don't need it. A city won't open up a new industrial area or create new streets for a business that isn't going to produce a lot of tax revenue for the city.

As for the standard tax write offs for myself, larger apartment buildings have more write offs than I do. If they repave their parking lot, that could cost them 70K or more. If I repave mine, probably closer to 5K. They hire people to show apartments, take applications, and forward them to the company. They have to hire lawyers to get back rent, evict people, and settle possible lawsuits against them. I don't have any of those expenses. They have in ground swimming pools, some have spas and workout rooms. I don't have any those things. So they have much more to write off than I do, and there is nothing unfair about that.

One thing is what is allowed to happen, that doesn't make it right, or fair, that doesn't mean it benefits the country, it doesn't mean it doesn't give an unfair advantage to the rich.

It just means that it is allowed, it means the rich have paid the politicians who make sure it's legal, the politicians are happy, the rich are happy.

Nope, I still don't get why you brought up flat taxes, what you said doesn't make sense.

Again, as I've written about tax breaks for large companies, it doesn't benefit the country or the local area. It merely takes jobs away from other people, and hands it to those working for less at larger companies.

You seem to be blinded by partisan politics when you think it's the same that a large company, paying less, or no tax, and paying workers less, is the same as if they're working for smaller businesses paying their taxes.....

I don't get it Ray, I don't get why you seem to think an unfair system is good for the country.

Okay, let's look at your situation.

The problem I see is that you seem to be equating this to simply, if I have one, and you have ten, I pay half, you pay 5.

This isn't the case. This isn't what we're talking about here, but you seem to be ignoring the reality. i did a whole theoretical thing about Walmart, and I bet you didn't even read it.

Look.

You have a large business and a small business. They compete together.

If the large company is paying 10% tax, and the small company is paying 25% tax, are they competing? No, the larger company is getting the advantage. If they can then have workers being paid less, then they're paying less and therefore have more profits or lower prices.

It should be the other way around. Smaller businesses are BETTER for the economy. It means the cash is spread around more evenly, rather than in the pocket of one rich person who buys another summer house.

How some companies end up paying -33% tax is beyond me. The govt is paying them to do the work someone else would do, if they could be competitive, and pay their taxes like everyone else.

If someone is paying -33%, that means other people are having to pay a lot more taxes in order to fill in what the govt is paying this company AND what the company isn't paying. -33% is like the govt losing 66% of taxes. It takes from others, if it's taking from others, then they have a competitive advantage, don't they?

This means the GOVERNMENT is GIVING them a competitive advantage, doesn't it?

No, it does not.

Let's say a small and large business open up in the same area. Both pay 35% in taxes. Both are allowed to use 240 different items they can write off. The smaller store can only write off 35 of those items, and the larger store can write off 125 of those items, therefore, the larger store pays less in taxes because they have more write-offs.

In other words there are not two sets of tax laws for the same types of companies. There is only one set of tax laws for both.

Who gets more of a write-off, Applebee's, or the guy with the hot dog stand two blocks from Applebee's?

But we're not talking write offs Ray. Come on, stick to the topic.

We're talking about governments, at whatever level, giving tax breaks to companies so they get an unfair competitive advantage.

Then show me one business where this is true. Show me where two businesses (one large and one small) have two different tax codes because of their size.

Again, what are you talking about? We're not talking about TAX CODES. Come on, I don't have the energy for pushing you back to the topic every post.

Well if you are not talking about two sets of rules for two like businesses just different sized, then I don't know WTF you are talking about. If both industries of like kind follow the same rules and have the same ability to write-off, then there is nothing unfair about it. That's besides the fact that prices are not set based on taxes paid instead of ability to buy in bulk and from the lowest price providers.

I go grocery shopping every week, but once every month or so I go to Sam's Club. Why? Because when you buy in larger quantities, you get a lower price just like businesses do. Our customers deal with Walmart and they are constantly dropping providers and picking up new ones; sometimes at a disadvantage to us and sometime an advantage to us. But none of our customers deal with K-Mart, Target or any other stores. They don't put as much effort into getting products at the lowest possible price as Walmart does. Even if they did, they would not sell their products as cheap as they sell to Walmart because Walmart buys in much larger quantities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

nope...but I eat healthy and maintain myself. Why should i pay extra for overweight people who swallow fast food? They are irresponsible....no better than welfare recipients who don't work.

Because choice is what makes America great. For instance, if you don't want to pay for people that eat fast food (nothing wrong with eating FF in moderation) then you have the choice not to buy health insurance. You don't have to pay for them at all.

 

[initforme]

it is fun to people watch at Wal-Mart. Can be scary at times.

 

[initforme]

The negative health effects of fast food cannot be over emphasized. If people eliminated it completely from their diets obesity plummets. Then so does heart disease cancer diabetes. Then costs go down. Why can't people figure this out? Americans are far and out of shape....truth be told.

 

[rightwinger]

The only problem with that plan is that humans like to ****

Only lower income humans or all? Because it seems to me that lower income humans have more children than middle-class humans. Check out my other thread about 50% of babies born in this country do so on Medicaid.

Your problem is that EVERYBODY likes to ****. Even though you have no money...you can still ****

The rich? They have high cost doctors to make sure they only have the children they want. The poor? If you didn't pay for your birth control that week.....shit happens

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

I think these poor people could manage to get a job at McDonald's for one day a month or collect aluminum cans for a day to afford their own birth control.

You seem to be dancing on both sides of the equation here. You complain about poor people having five kids then are outraged if insurance pays for birth control. Even if that birth control only costs nine dollars a month

How Much Do Birth Control Pills Cost? - CostHelper.com

• For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
• For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
• Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation[1] lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control.

So what's your point? At the most, fifty bucks a month. That's less than what you could earn at Walmart working one day a month. I understand you belong to the party of excuses, but you are not making any kind of point here.

The point is you got to make up your mind
You either support low cost or free birth control or you accept poor people having kids

Personally, I would convert ice cream trucks and have them driving up and down the street offering FREE birth control