0

Yes you are right. My link was not what I thought it was. Well, your link does not show USA as #1 either -- its 4th. So Josh's boast is still incorrect.

Well, maybe if you could actually read.. What I said was the U.S. has the highest gdp (per capita implied) for a country of ITS SIZE. As I look down the list, I see Luxembourg, Ireland, and Norway. Are those three countries about the size of the US? Huh? Are they? Uhh.. no. So, it looks like my 'boast' is correct, and your reading skills are questionable.

I wouldn't underestimate China though i think you could be in for a bit of a fight there. We've seen how much trouble you guys have had in Iraq. How do you plan on defeating a nation a 1000 times its size?

I know your a Redneck american and love your country and all but is it really nessicary to give me negative rep simply because i point out your country isn't as great as you say and thing it is?

Um.. yea, If we nuked China, we could kill them all in a matter of minutes..

And no, I am no redneck. Don't get all angry because your country sucks.. The USA is the greatest country in the world AS OF RIGHT NOW. I say that not because I'm a 'redneck', but because I am a patriot. And yeah, you can certainly expect some more bad rep from me once I've spread some around enough.

0

I am not the one that left Bad rep because someone said they don't want to live in my country infact i think its just a blatant abuse of the rep system. Grow up.

0

I am not the one that left Bad rep because someone said they don't want to live in my country infact i think its just a blatant abuse of the rep system. Grow up.

Wow.. Can you try to write in proper English? Or is that too much to ask for someone of your intelligence? "Infact" is two words. Why do you capitalize "Bad" in the middle of the sentence for no reason? "its" should be "it's". And damn man, you need to work on sentence structure, not using run-on sentences, and tense-agreement.

0

So far you have offered no proper evidence as to why America is the greatest country in the world other then the fact that you are an arogant American.

0

I actually did post quite a bit of evidence.. Maybe the fact that we have won two world wars.. and have the military might of several nations combined. Our military is the best in the world. Our spy agencies are the best in the world. Our economy is the best in the world. (Look at per capita GDP, unemployment rate, etc.)

*oh and btw GD, 4.3% unemployment is nearly nothing. Most people consider 3-4% unemployment to be virtual unemployment.

Also, everything in America is relatively cheap to the rest of the world. Oil, houses, cars, interest rates. Hmm.. we are the greatest capitalist country in the world, and thus have a huge variety of products to choose from. Land is cheap to buy, and there is a ton of it.. Our educational system is one of the top in the world.. which you could benefit from quite a bit..

What else do you need? Life here is great.. hardly ever have to worry about being attacked by another country, because they end up getting f***ed. Look at Japan, for instance. We aren't extremely liberal like the Netherlands (sorry, jt ;)) either. We have basic rights that the government respects. We always get a large influx of immigrants too.. Look at the mexicans.. their country is crap so they try to run across the boarder just to live here.

0

I actually did post quite a bit of evidence.. Maybe the fact that we have won two world wars.. and have the military might of several nations combined. Our military is the best in the world. Our spy agencies are the best in the world. Our economy is the best in the world. (Look at per capita GDP, unemployment rate, etc.)

*oh and btw GD, 4.3% unemployment is nearly nothing. Most people consider 3-4% unemployment to be virtual unemployment.

Also, everything in America is relatively cheap to the rest of the world. Oil, houses, cars, interest rates. Hmm.. we are the greatest capitalist country in the world, and thus have a huge variety of products to choose from. Land is cheap to buy, and there is a ton of it.. Our educational system is one of the top in the world.. which you could benefit from quite a bit..

What else do you need? Life here is great.. hardly ever have to worry about being attacked by another country, because they end up getting f***ed. Look at Japan, for instance. We aren't extremely liberal like the Netherlands (sorry, jt ;)) either. We have basic rights that the government respects. We always get a large influx of immigrants too.. Look at the mexicans.. their country is crap so they try to run across the boarder just to live here.

Some parts of what you have said is true and i agree with you. However other parts however seem to me as just plain arogance and boasting. Im also not quite sure what to make of your comment about your military being the best in the world or what would even define the best military.

0

In an attempt to ignore the trolling here (please guys, give up on the rep wars...), I'll chip in my $.02. I think that the gun ownership laws in the US are better than most other developed nations, but I will also admit that they are a bit overboard. Machine guns have no place in the house. Sniper rifles either, though I'll point out that there are many guns which might be considered "sniper rifles" but are intended for valid uses such as hunting.

I was about to say that we should have a right to own handguns, but I thought better of it. We should be given the privilege of owning handguns; as with driving, it is something that should be available with absolutely minimal legal hindrance to those who deserve it. However, as a privilege, it should be (and is) possible to lose the "right" to own guns (or drive cars).

I'll not comment on the validity of arguing that gun ownership is a good or bad thing. I have my opinion that it's good, and I won't change that. Most likely, neither will any of you.

0

Mister jwenting must be the Archy Bunker of the Lowlands.

When the second amendment was written arms were knives, sabers, muskets that took ten minutes to load, and single shot pistols. That's what the right to bear arms was intented to cover.

Now you talk about machine guns, automatic weapons, and sniper rifles that can blow your brains out from 2 miles away. Pretty soon we are talking about beam weapons, and photon torpedoes. Where do we stop?

Admittedly, the right to bear arms has somewhat to do with the nature of the weaponry. The last major case to deal with it before the United States Supreme Court, if I recall correctly, was in the 1930's, and stated that the defendant's 'Sawed-off Shotguns' weren't valid militia weapons. I'm not sure event that's correct, but in any event, the ruling said nothing about their right to bear the weapons, only that the weapons themselves weren't legit as 'militia' weapons.

So yeah, if the actual military begins to develop better systems, then the militias, whose purpose is to enable the people to protect themselves from the military should the government turn tyrannical, should also be permitted the same level of equipment.

0

Here is a good article on why banning guns in usa will never work

If banning guns worked, Washington, DC and New York City would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC is the "murder capital of the United States."

New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.

A national gun ban won't help. With an estimated 220+ million guns now in the US, an unpoliceable 12,000 miles of borders and coastlines, and the world's largest stock of precision machine tools, criminals will always be able to buy, steal, or make guns and ammunition.

A competent backyard mechanic can build a rifle or handgun. Even Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalog, have built machine guns capable of firing Soviet AK-47 cartridges

1

interesting is it, how the left always has to resort to namecalling and fantastic overexagerration whenever they have to defend their ideology of total population control to thinking people.

Like it or not, the first thing any totalitarian state always does is take away peoples' rights and means to defend themselves.
And don't think for a moment that "if we only limit what guns people can have everything will be fine" because that will inevitably lead to the eventual banning of ALL weapons of any kind.

The UK is now considering a ban on kitchen knifes, because those can potentially be used as weapons.
In the Netherlands water pistols are banned if they "can be confused for a real weapon" (which they easily can be by police workers who've never seen a real weapon except in movies where most aren't real but are made to look real).
All that is the result of giving up ever more rights in very small chunks.
We now no longer have the right to defend ourselves. If a burglar breaks into my house and threatens to kill me (with an illegal weapon which he's allowed to have, it's a business expense for him, as has been decided in court here) and I defend myself, giving him a black eye, I am the one who's arrested, the burglar walks.

If that's where you want the US to go, taking away peoples' rights to own any weapon they please is the first step.
Mind that this is personal weapons only, the 2nd does not cover crew operated weapons like heavy machine guns, tanks, etc. (though some poeple consider it to cover those as well, that's a grey area).

Votes + Comments
Good post ;)
0

Admittedly, the right to bear arms has somewhat to do with the nature of the weaponry. The last major case to deal with it before the United States Supreme Court, if I recall correctly, was in the 1930's, and stated that the defendant's 'Sawed-off Shotguns' weren't valid militia weapons. I'm not sure event that's correct, but in any event, the ruling said nothing about their right to bear the weapons, only that the weapons themselves weren't legit as 'militia' weapons.

So yeah, if the actual military begins to develop better systems, then the militias, whose purpose is to enable the people to protect themselves from the military should the government turn tyrannical, should also be permitted the same level of equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#Interpretations

0

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Lack of universal health care I suspect is the main reason US was ranked so low. And I agree with WHO that it is critical to the quality of health care in this country. Quality does not mean only how well doctors do their jobs or how much medical technology we have, but also includes how easy it is for everyone to have ready access to health care. We could have the best doctors and best hospitals in the world but it means nothing if people can't have access to it.

0

in that case most countries with socialised healthcare would rank a LOT lower than the US as there they have poor healthcare AND poor accessibility...

I speak from experience. We have socialised healthcare, with an alarming rate of medical failures, terribly long waiting lists for most procedures, and many people being excluded from treatment (with no legal means of obtaining it through other channels) for various reasons.
My parents were told that they could not get certain medication they require to stay alive for more than half a year, because that's the maximum term set by the government. Doctors aren't allowed to prescribe that medication for a longer period without going through a lengthy review board to determine the merrit of the case (a board which is made up not of doctors but bureaucrats).
In the end they got lucky and an alternative was found, many others are not so lucky.
The government publishes lists of "permitted" procedures and medications for everything, inclusion being based solely on cost rather than effectiveness.
If the listed medication or procedure isn't possible for you (for example because you're allergic to some substance in the only medication allowed for your ailment) you're out of luck and won't be treated.

In 2002 my mother was put on a waiting list to have a suspected cancerous tumour removed from her abdomen.
Estimated waiting time: 6 months to a year. Had it indeed been cancer she'd have been dead before that.
As it was she suffered agonising pain for 2 months until someone on the waiting list died and her surgeon was able to get her case jumped in the queue. Who knows how many others died because of that, they're not recorded anywhere.

Those deaths are the true cost of socialised healthcare but there's no record of them anywhere, so they don't show up in the WHO statistics of the "quality" of a healthcare system.

In the UK (where socialised healthcare has been taken pretty much to Soviet style extremes) many people are so afraid to go to the doctor they will not submit to treatment unless it's a life or death situation.
The quality of medical facilities and staff is so poor it's often more risky to see a doctor than not to.
If you think Medicare and Medicaid in the US are bad, take a long hard look at the NHS to see where it will go when turned into the national system for everyone.

0

Lack of universal health care I suspect is the main reason US was ranked so low. And I agree with WHO that it is critical to the quality of health care in this country. Quality does not mean only how well doctors do their jobs or how much medical technology we have, but also includes how easy it is for everyone to have ready access to health care. We could have the best doctors and best hospitals in the world but it means nothing if people can't have access to it.

To make this applicable to the US, it's illegal for hospitals to turn away patients in need of care. So, while we don't have socialized insurance, care is still provided for those who need it. Part of why hospital costs are so high here is because hospitals know that their patients often can't pay; so they charge more to those who can.

0

jwenting: your explaination is one reason I am against governments controlling health care. I don't care the USA is ranked so low, when I do care about is government not dictating and controlling patient treatment, which should be left to the doctors. USA also has HMO health insurance, which is a lot like what you described, and no one likes it.

infarction: >> so they charge more to those who can.
Yes I found that out too a couple years ago. Went to er for heart condition and was charged $800.00 just to walk in the front doors! Meanwhile there were some people there who were charged zero. Fortunately my health insurance company paid 100% of that bill.

0

infarction, and how do you defend that theft?
People who earn more money already pay LOTS more money. They pay higher taxes, get a lot less freebies handed out, etc. etc.

My parents had a quite decent income (several times median) but due to all of that they came close to having to choose whether to send me or my sister to university.
We got lucky, there was just enough money for both of us.
In the meantime people on low wages get so much in the way of grants and breaks that they can send every kid they can breed through every education they wish without it costing them a cent.

And we're now experiencing the same here in healthcare as well. Insurance premiums (which are now collected in part as tax, since the government took over the insurance business last year) are dependent on income.
If you earn more money you pay higher insurance premiums for no other reason that your income is higher.
At the same time people on low income can get part of the (lower already) premium back through tax breaks not available to those with higher incomes, causing us to pay extra twice.
And they're now planning to make the actual coverage also income dependent, deciding that "rich" people (so people who already paid twice as much for the same coverage, which is government dictated) won't be given certain treatment and medication under that insurance because "they can afford to pay it themselves", making them pay 3 times for something...

As it is I pay (through premiums and taxes) about twice as much for my health insurance as someone earning 30% less than I do (before taxes, after taxes we make about the same due to all kind of things like this).
And now you're telling me that it's perfectly alright for me to also be charged a higher rate (without the insurance covering it of course as that only covers the minimum rate) because I have that higher pre-tax income?

My mother needs a wheelchair, has only one leg.
Under that new proposal she'd not get one, would have to pay for it herself because they have more money than the minimum retirement money the government hands out.
Already they had a request for modifications to their home denied 'because you are too rich' that would make it possible for her to reach her bedroom and the shower, despite them having paid premiums to cover such expenses for decades.
In the end that decision was overturned after intervention of her medical staff who pulled some strings in an oversight committee, but how many people don't have such connections and are left with the option to either move to a retirement home (where all your money and posessions are taken away from you, you're not allowed to own anything but the clothes on your back) or pay for the modifications (a few thousand Euro, which they were entitled to) themselves?

0

So we went from the private armory to the sop stories about healthcare! How did that ever happen? I guess the trick is to keep your Uzi loaded and in the closet and stay healthy!

0

infarction, and how do you defend that theft?
People who earn more money already pay LOTS more money. They pay higher taxes, get a lot less freebies handed out, etc. etc.

I can't and won't defend it. But it's not a problem with the care actually given. I'm just saying that ranking the US low because there isn't socialized insurance is an invalid argument. Personally, I find the cost of healthcare to be ludicrous at best. Thank god my job gives me good insurance and that I've been healthy thus far.

My parents had a quite decent income (several times median) but due to all of that they came close to having to choose whether to send me or my sister to university.
We got lucky, there was just enough money for both of us.
In the meantime people on low wages get so much in the way of grants and breaks that they can send every kid they can breed through every education they wish without it costing them a cent.

My parents had about median income, and my dad quit his job during my first quarter of college. They still managed to pay for my 3 years and are paying for my sister's college now (there was a 1 year overlap as well). I had no grants, and my sister had (past tense) some small scholarship for her grades.

0

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We need to look at this in the contest of the language that was actually in use in the late 18th century, and at the actual conditions.

- The militia was also the police. The concept of a civilian police force had not yet materialized.

- They had just fought a war to END the use of the militia to repress the colonists.

- The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a check and balance, to keep the military (and police) from having too much power.

So, if the original intent is to be preserved, anyone should be able to buy, have, and own any weapon the military has.

The government also abuses the 9th and 10 th amendments, which are intended to prevent government from doing anything unless the Constitution specifically allows it.

The Constitution does not specifically allow administrative law. So the EPA, IRS, FCC, ICC, FTC, and many other administrations are all unconstitutional.

0

>>The Constitution does not specifically allow administrative law. So the EPA, IRS, FCC, ICC, FTC, and many other administrations are all unconstitutional.

Probably falls under Article 1, Section 8

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

0

Exactly where does the Constitution vest the powers claimed by the EPA, IRS, FCC, ICC, FTC, etc. ? The wording as you have just given it merely states that the laws necessary for those duties in the Constitution to be carried out are valid.

0

The IRS is an easy one -- the constitution says the gov can collect taxes. don't know about the others but probably because of the last phrase in that sentence> Since the USSC has not declared them unconstitutional then they probably are ok too.

or in any department or officer thereof

0

Depends. If the alphabet agency in question was set up by extra-constitutional laws, but does not specifically violate the constitution, I'd say it's in an uncertain area between the two.

0

The 9th and 10th amendments, properly interpreted, make anything government does that is not specifically provided for in the Constitution unconstitutional. Logicians would say they are the "Nothing else allowed" amendments.

The Constitution does not give anyone other than Congress the power to make any laws. Administrative law violates this.

There is nothing wrong with having the IRS to collect taxes. But the IRS should not have the power to make its own rules to force upon taxpayers.

0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_the_Lost_Constitution#Rollback

Over the years, the Constitution's original meaning has been slowly eviscerated.

  • The Commerce Clause has been interpreted as allowing Congress to regulate practically anything, starting with meatpackers in Swift v. United States (1905) and going all the way to hotels in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). The unchecked expansion was finally thrown into doubt when the Court drew a line in United States v. Lopez (1995), but even this was heavily contentious, and Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which Barnett argued for the respondents, re-opened the question of the Court's willingness to enforce limits on Congressional power.
  • The necessary and proper clause has been read to allow Congress to do whatever they find not only necessary and proper, but also convenient for exercising their enumerated powers, starting with the creation of a federal bank in McCullough vs. Maryland (1819).
  • The Second Amendment has simply been ignored.
  • The Fifth Amendment's takings clause has been neutered by reading "public use" as "public purpose". See Kelo v. New London.
  • The privileges or immunities clause has been interpreted as meaningless redundancy, starting with allowing Louisiana to create a slaughterhouse monopoly in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873).
  • Violating the Ninth Amendment has become Supreme Court policy, starting with the famous footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), which held that only rights listed in the first ten amendments could be protected by the courts. (Carolene Products itself ruled that Congress could prohibit entire forms of milk.) [N.b., this view presumes that the purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to render enforcable by the Federal judiciary an unenumerated list of substantive rights. This view is itself highly questionable, though, as there are reasonable, alternative readings of the Ninth Amendment would render this criticism a nullity.]
  • The Tenth Amendment has been made meaningless, insofar as Congress has assumed (and the Courts have permitted it) the power to do almost anything.
0

Depends. If the alphabet agency in question was set up by extra-constitutional laws, but does not specifically violate the constitution, I'd say it's in an uncertain area between the two.

Very well said, EnderX!

0

My right to bare arms is better than you're (you are) right to arm bears! (so they can shoot back) I'll keep my arms, thank you, and bare them... and my legs. However, I can bear the neighbors having a rifle, hunting, and joining a =well regulated= militia... but not bear them having automatic weapons, grenades, and nukes. A nuke is an 'arm', is it not? Shouldn't we all have nukes? Why can't we all just have rifles? Who needs an uzi? Who needs an 'assault rifle'? We don't 'assault' deer, do we? Don't we 'hunt' them? Unfortunately, I find pistols to be too easy to use in anger, esp. when always carried, often concealed... unless =well regulated= (supposedly like the police, hmmm?) Rifles fulfill the purposes intended in the Constitution, defense and hunting. Not too many militias are armed with pistols and not rifles. Guns don't kill people... people with guns... kill people (usually those without)? Pistols, police... rifles, citizens and militia. Militia wins, right? Oh, but no infringement... so, lets all have a nuke.... just for deterrence though. Sometimes you can't win. An armed society is a polite society... how do you tip your hat without any arms? Don't forget to shake hands... because that's usually how we used to make sure the other guy didn't go for his weapon... by grabbing hands. Ok, I'll stop now ;)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.