Or, from staring into your thongs until you see the light? Think on it, son.

Man TP&C is on fire tonight.

I remember that whole conversation about how WW2 made Americans more free...because it closed the gap between rich and poor!

Not that it stopped the Nazis from attacking. Not that it solidified our place in international law. Not that it ended Japan's war in the Pacific.

No no, in his world we were safer because we had more money. Meanwhile, FDR was chumming up with "Uncle Joe" Stalin and leading us smack into a Soviet spy ring.

specific language in the UN charter that allowed the invasion to be claimed as legal??? The Iraqis are grateful for our occupation????That's interesting, because I've recently read in the past month that a majority of them feel attacks on US soldiers are justified...but, ....the Iraqis are grateful. 4 million grateful refugees.....now I know where Jerry Garcia got his idea for the name of his band!!

allowable for a just war. One is self defense. No one can claim this war was for self defense. The other was through a unanimous security council resolution which wasn't voted on. We are a signatory to the charter, and the constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the US become part of US law. The war is a violation of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Show me the specific terms in the UN charter that allow for an aggressive war and this will be my final post. YOU CAN'T ! Our aggressive wars have only radicalized more people. If you kill a 1000 and radicalize 10 thousand, your anti -terrorism measures are stupid and counterproductive. But, this isn't about terrorism at all. It's about robbing the public blind with useless anti terror programs that give hundreds of billions of dollars to private companies from my taxes.

 They have social democracies , along with a better overall quality of life than the US.  ALL of them traded risk taking, progressing, and rugged individualism for being coddled, babied, and completely pampered by the Nanny State.  As such, they have been sapped of ALL ambition, all incentive to improve their lives (and by extension, the world around them).  And as such, they will ossify and fade into nothingness, without impacting the world...at all. 

All three of the nations you SO LOVE Are All Going Nowhere. 

People aren't a major surgery away from bankrupcy and stricter regulations by government protects people against the kind of crony capitalism which let criminal corporations like Enron ply their trade with lil awol's blessings.  If people like you want to f$#k off and piss away your earnings, you shouldn't come running to me to pay off things you should have planned for.  Lack of preparedness on your part does not give you the right to steal from others.  What's next? Do I next get to pay for your groceries?  And for some reason, even leaders in these Socialist nations come HERE for their medical treatment...because the medical care and know-how in their countries pales in comparison to here.  I'd be willing to bet that more money is spent on medical research in the city of Houston than in ALL of your beloved "Going Nowhere" states.    I think chains are put on people when they can't afford to provide good healthcare, education and jobs to people as they spend a few trillion dollars on the death and suffering war machine.  This country is NOT your PERSONAL PAMPERING AGENCY.  It is not your CHARITY.  What do you do after taking a dump in the morning?  SCREAM AND SCREAM AND SCREAM AND SCREAM for the Nanny to come wipe you? 

NO ONE DESERVES...ANYTHING.  Not even life.  \

We have GREAT health care...but not because crybabies like you want to STEAL from people. You have to go out and GET it like anyone else.  By the way...go to ANY HOSPITAL in the country, and show me where people are turned away because they can't afford it.  Hint: YOU CAN'T. 

Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."  It will merely delude people into thinking there is one.  To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now?  Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now.  If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving?  No, because there would be no incentive to.  But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do. 

Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves?  Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts.  This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage". 

 The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only.  In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system.  (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care.  France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time!  This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) 

Take a look at this passage from The Struggle For Europe (pages 55-56) on the mess Britain created for itself by giving away the store.  The book is authored by William I. Hitchcock: “Alongside his heavy responsibilities for housing, (Ernest) Bevan also crafted the centerpiece of the Labour government’s social policy: the National Health Service.  The Churchill coalition, in 1944, proposed a National Health Service based on the twin principles that every citizen in the country had a right to the best medical facilities available and that these services should be free.  Bevan started by proposing the nationalization of all hospitals, which gave the government total control over the system and brought them into one unified structure.  The real problem was with the doctors and their lobbying arm, the British Medical Association.  They feared a loss of autonomy, a weakened relationship with patients, and of course, the inability to charge fees to paying customers who wished to have special treatment.  Bevan wisely decided to give the BMA what it demanded, but not before a great deal of invective from the doctors, who accused Bevan of seeking dictatorial control over the profession. 

 “Bevan took immense pride in the fact that ‘despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilized thing in the world – put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration’.  These were noble words, but very quickly it became clear the government underestimated the cost of the NHS.  Bevan assumed that free health care would mean a healthier public, and therefore fewer trips to the doctor.  He did not consider the natural human impulse to take full advantage of a free service. (Italics courtesy of Unsane) Consider the testimony of Mrs. Claire Bond of Leeds, recorded by the historian Paul Addison: “When the National Health Service came along, it was fantastic.  My mother and dad had been having problems with their teeth for ages, and I think they were the first at the dentist, as soon as it was opened, they were there for an appointment.  And instead of having just a few teeth out, they had the complete set out.  And free dentures.”  They were not alone.  In the first year of operation, eight and a half million people sought free dental treatment, and over 5 million pairs of free spectacles were dispensed.  Doctors wrote 187 million prescriptions in the first year alone.  Overnight, the NHS overran its budget by more than 50 million pounds.  By 1951 it cost more than 400 million pounds a year to run.  The chancellor of the Exchequer, then Hugh Gaitskill, insisted that a small charge be imposed on prescriptions for teeth and glasses; Bevan refused, saying it would undermine the principle of free service that lay at the heart of his Health Service.  On 23 April 1951, Bevan resigned in protest.”   

Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south.  Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program.  (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.)  But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them.  While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy.  And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity.  The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor.  The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200.  The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south.  I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.

As for education: you are living proof that we spend WAY too much money on education.  I never vote for school district bond issues, and many thanks to you for confirming WHY.  We need to de-fund education, because the more we spend on it, the worse it becomes!  If educational woes were solved by money...please explain why DC and NJ aren't cranking out vast armies of Mozarts, Shakespeares, Baarnards, and Einsteins? 

Jobs?  They can't get them in your precious Going Nowhere nations.  If they can't find a job working for the government or the major firms, they cannot start up anything on their own, due to giant disincentives to do so.  No one in those nations can trail blaze and thus bring more people along for the ride.  And they have no incentive to, as they are CODDLED, PAMPERED, and BABIED, just like you want to be. 

And your precious Going Nowhere nations wouldn't have one damn thing if it weren't for my country's armed forces threatening to rain ruin upon the neighboring Evil Empire if they made even a false move.  ALL of them would be speaking По-Русский if not for that "war machine" threatening hell, fire and chaos against those who would enslave whiners like YOU!

Lil awol is still America's greatest disaster.  The only reason you hate him is because he hasn't made the government your PERSONAL PAMPERING AGENCY.  You cannot breathe without a government hack telling you when and how.  You are a pathetic, helpless, hate-filled creature who needs endless professional help. 

Finally, if this nation is the locus of ALL EVIL...THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?  Go to Helsinki, or Stockholm, or Oslo.  They desperately need your tax money anyways.  They will be HAPPY to take you.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.