New America

[Titanic]

... When you're driving down the highway, going wherever, take notice of the cars you see pulled over to the side of the road, with the hood up, with some hapless individual trying to figure out what the hell went wrong. Take a look at the maker's mark. You'll see a lot of Chevy and other GM vehicles, more than a few Buicks, some Fords cars, but very few Hondas and/or Toyotas.

... There's a reason for this. I thought it was just the predominance of US vehicles on the road, but here, about every 3rd car is a Japanese import... so that's not it.

...

Nobunaga, it seems we seem to be agreeing on more and more as time goes on...

As for American cars? Fuch em, they're generally worse in quality than Japanese, and that's too bad, isn't it? Not only that but American car companies largely fell behind in the environmental scene, and now they're suffering mainly from their own faulty planning.

Also, anybody know how Japanese cars can be of such high quality from such a highly developed nation yet maintain lower prices than the United States? I'd like to easily blame high labor costs in America for this, but I'd like to hear what else may factor into that.

Healthcare is one major reason. I think it was a GM report which states that employee healthcare costs add around $1000-$1500 onto the price of every single car. Add onto this technological progress, with Japenese plants extremely reliant on robots and heavy machinery with labourers doing the more manual and individual jobs, whilst the hundreds of thousands employed by American companies to boost their US patriotism have just added onto their costs.

As for the actual quality of the cars, I can't go into too much detail as car engines is hardly my expert area, but East Asian companies have tended to design cars which would appeal to consumers worldwide, increase brand loyalty and would generally be a good buy, whilst American car companies have just attempted to cater to the home market and build the gas guzzlers and muscle cars and classic models so people can relive the dreams from the 50's and 60's when the USA was #1.

[thegreekdog]

this thread is mind blowing

What people think of the bailout is mindblowing. But, you can safely ignore those comments.

what?

Instead of focusing your limited time on the issue of people thinking the bailouts are free money, you've chosen to focus your limited time on this thread. I happen to think the more important issue is that people think bailouts are free money. You either don't think that's an important issue or (more likely) like to show disgust for GabonX wherever possible.

[SultanOfSurreal]

this thread is mind blowing

What people think of the bailout is mindblowing. But, you can safely ignore those comments.

what?

Instead of focusing your limited time on the issue of people thinking the bailouts are free money, you've chosen to focus your limited time on this thread. I happen to think the more important issue is that people think bailouts are free money. You either don't think that's an important issue or (more likely) like to show disgust for GabonX wherever possible.

you've typed an order of magnitude more words than me here broheim

[thegreekdog]

this thread is mind blowing

What people think of the bailout is mindblowing. But, you can safely ignore those comments.

what?

Instead of focusing your limited time on the issue of people thinking the bailouts are free money, you've chosen to focus your limited time on this thread. I happen to think the more important issue is that people think bailouts are free money. You either don't think that's an important issue or (more likely) like to show disgust for GabonX wherever possible.

you've typed an order of magnitude more words than me here broheim

True story.

My beef with this is that there is a large segment of the US population that simply does not understand the bailouts. It makes me weep for their stupidity. It makes me howl in anger that they are permitted to vote. I seem to be more concerned with the increasing idiocy of the people in our country.

[Titanic]

True story.

My beef with this is that there is a large segment of the US population that simply does not understand the bailouts. It makes me weep for their stupidity. It makes me howl in anger that they are permitted to vote. I seem to be more concerned with the increasing idiocy of the people in our country.

Thats so true, and not just for the USA. If all of the electorate was actually educated in true politics and kept up with current affairs then the government would be just so much more accountable then they currently are.

[Johnny Rockets]

Give this a spin:

Make a two tier system of citizenship. Those that qualify get a vote, those who do not...don't.

Has nothing to do with human rights, or access to social services, medical care or benefits.

But if you have not earned the right to help make the decisions that steer your society, then you can't bitch about where its going.

Didn't stay in school? You don't qualify.
Break the law? You don't qualify for your sentence, probationary term, or in some cases ever.
Don't have a job? You don't qualify.

That and start regulating those who reproduce. How the hell do you move forward as a people if you keep letting idiots breed? All the forms, classes, and lessons you need to obtain a drivers licience and no pre-requisits on income, education, or general ability to squeeze out babies.

We need to reform our collective sense of personal responsibilities before we can transpose true and productive change onto the goverments that we allow to rule us. Remove corperate infuence, and eliminate nanny laws, and let darwin cull the stupid and the lazy.

Amen.

Johnny Rockets

[SultanOfSurreal]

Give this a spin:

Make a two tier system of citizenship. Those that qualify get a vote, those who do not...don't.

Has nothing to do with human rights, or access to social services, medical care or benefits.

But if you have not earned the right to help make the decisions that steer your society, then you can't bitch about where its going.

Didn't stay in school? You don't qualify.
Break the law? You don't qualify for your sentence, probationary term, or in some cases ever.
Don't have a job? You don't qualify.

That and start regulating those who reproduce. How the hell do you move forward as a people if you keep letting idiots breed? All the forms, classes, and lessons you need to obtain a drivers licience and no pre-requisits on income, education, or general ability to squeeze out babies.

We need to reform our collective sense of personal responsibilities before we can transpose true and productive change onto the goverments that we allow to rule us. Remove corperate infuence, and eliminate nanny laws, and let darwin cull the stupid and the lazy.

Amen.

Johnny Rockets

yeah i totally agree, disenfranchising the poor and uneducated always works

and so does eugenics

you are totally on top of things dude

[thegreekdog]

True story.

My beef with this is that there is a large segment of the US population that simply does not understand the bailouts. It makes me weep for their stupidity. It makes me howl in anger that they are permitted to vote. I seem to be more concerned with the increasing idiocy of the people in our country.

Thats so true, and not just for the USA. If all of the electorate was actually educated in true politics and kept up with current affairs then the government would be just so much more accountable then they currently are.

There's a difference between being uneducated about politics and history generally and being a complete and utter moron like these idiots.

[Johnny Rockets]

Sultan of Sheep wrote:

yeah i totally agree, disenfranchising the poor and uneducated always works

and so does eugenics

you are totally on top of things dude

Disenfranchising the poor has been going on for ever, dude. Just not on an obvious level.
And I'm not talking about selective breeding/eugenics here, just ensuring that those who have children have the capabilities and fiscal structure to raise them on a level playing field.

Do you know how quickly you could reduce poverty and a host of social ills if you installed a few moderate prerequisits for having a child? f*ck, I needed to fill out 2 forms, wait in line and pay 20.00 to get a variance to build a garden shed. Can we not admit that giving a new life a decent chance of good shelter, food and education is not more important that the general asumption of the right to multiply?

Think of the society and the government it would create if you had raised productivity, eliminated illiteracy and generaly had a better raised generation of children to pass the torch to.

Because thats what it boils down to. How educated, involved and resposible the next generation is that will form the governments that guide the countries policy.

At this rate, we're all fucked by the sheep state apathy and materialistic desires that most are enthraled with. And we voted them in.



Baaaaaaaaa


JRock

[PLAYER57832]

Give this a spin:

Make a two tier system of citizenship. Those that qualify get a vote, those who do not...don't.

Has nothing to do with human rights, or access to social services, medical care or benefits.

But if you have not earned the right to help make the decisions that steer your society, then you can't bitch about where its going.

Didn't stay in school? You don't qualify.

Some of the more successful people in our country did not finish school. Shoot, 7 of the 20 richest people in the world did not finish (or did not even go to) college.

Break the law? You don't qualify for your sentence, probationary term, or in some cases ever.

Already the case for most serious crimes (felonies).

Don't have a job? You don't qualify.

#1 you will have to define "don't have a job". I don't make money, but I have a 24-7 job taking care of my kids and family.

#2 What of people who are retired, very smart but disabled, etc. Having a job does not mean one is more intelligent, more moral, a harder worker or anything else with consistancy. Having a job is as much about luck as anything else.

That and start regulating those who reproduce. How the hell do you move forward as a people if you keep letting idiots breed? All the forms, classes, and lessons you need to obtain a drivers licience and no pre-requisits on income, education, or general ability to squeeze out babies.

I think a lot of people would agree here. Problem is, humans have a pretty poor record of deciding what is and is not most important. (Think Nazis, for one example... but also look at the welfare system, etc.).

We need to reform our collective sense of personal responsibilities before we can transpose true and productive change onto the goverments that we allow to rule us. Remove corperate infuence, and eliminate nanny laws, and let darwin cull the stupid and the lazy.

Except "eliminating corporate influence" would be pretty well superceded by "no jobs=no votes", not to mention even the "no school-no vote" bit.


Nice try at sarcasm, though.

[jonesthecurl]

I may have mentioned before that my Dad once said he thought some people were too stupid to be allowed a vote. On the face of it, a reasonable statement.
But when I asked him what his test would be to qulaify, his reply was "Anyone who votes for the tories is a bloody idiot and should have their vote taken away".

Well, it would make predicting the outcome of elections a little easier...

[SultanOfSurreal]

Sultan of Sheep wrote:

yeah i totally agree, disenfranchising the poor and uneducated always works

and so does eugenics

you are totally on top of things dude

Disenfranchising the poor has been going on for ever, dude. Just not on an obvious level.
And I'm not talking about selective breeding/eugenics here, just ensuring that those who have children have the capabilities and fiscal structure to raise them on a level playing field.

Do you know how quickly you could reduce poverty and a host of social ills if you installed a few moderate prerequisits for having a child? f*ck, I needed to fill out 2 forms, wait in line and pay 20.00 to get a variance to build a garden shed. Can we not admit that giving a new life a decent chance of good shelter, food and education is not more important that the general asumption of the right to multiply?

Think of the society and the government it would create if you had raised productivity, eliminated illiteracy and generaly had a better raised generation of children to pass the torch to.

Because thats what it boils down to. How educated, involved and resposible the next generation is that will form the governments that guide the countries policy.

At this rate, we're all fucked by the sheep state apathy and materialistic desires that most are enthraled with. And we voted them in.



Baaaaaaaaa


JRock

holy shit you have got to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth

[Johnny Rockets]

Wow....can't compete with a witty retort like that.....

J

[PLAYER57832]

Sultan of Sheep wrote:

yeah i totally agree, disenfranchising the poor and uneducated always works

and so does eugenics

you are totally on top of things dude

Disenfranchising the poor has been going on for ever, dude. Just not on an obvious level.
And I'm not talking about selective breeding/eugenics here, just ensuring that those who have children have the capabilities and fiscal structure to raise them on a level playing field.

Do you know how quickly you could reduce poverty and a host of social ills if you installed a few moderate prerequisits for having a child? f*ck, I needed to fill out 2 forms, wait in line and pay 20.00 to get a variance to build a garden shed. Can we not admit that giving a new life a decent chance of good shelter, food and education is not more important that the general asumption of the right to multiply?

Think of the society and the government it would create if you had raised productivity, eliminated illiteracy and generaly had a better raised generation of children to pass the torch to.

Because thats what it boils down to. How educated, involved and resposible the next generation is that will form the governments that guide the countries policy.

At this rate, we're all fucked by the sheep state apathy and materialistic desires that most are enthraled with. And we voted them in.



Baaaaaaaaa


JRock

holy shit you have got to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth

I have to say that as liberal, caring, Christian, etc I am, there are still plenty of times when I (and I suspect every other human being on earth) feels similarly. Particularly after I just get off the phone with Children and Youth, only to be told that "letting a kid run around without supervision (note -- causing vandalism), thinking 2 soda pops a day for a 5 year old is "being responsible", sending your kid to school over and over in torn shirts and shorts (no matter the weather.. and I have a kid who thinks 60 is "balmy weather"), and having an alchoholic husband who the kids say they are "afraid of" is NOT reason to file a complaint/begin and investigation.

Oh, yes... and neither is being in a house with no heat, heating water with a turkey fryer, IN THEIR HOUSE!, to take a bath. IN WINTER, IN PA!!!!!!!!!!

[nesterdude]

I may have mentioned before that my Dad once said he thought some people were too stupid to be allowed a vote. On the face of it, a reasonable statement.
But when I asked him what his test would be to qulaify, his reply was "Anyone who votes for the tories is a bloody idiot and should have their vote taken away".

Well, it would make predicting the outcome of elections a little easier...

Ergo in America the Electoral College. The founders knew most people were too stupid to vote.
Johnny makes some good point, however his application of the idea via government is a bit wrong me thinks.

What would I do?

Remove the incentive for having children by overhauling and limiting the welfare system.
Institute (and this is very non Republican of me) a civil service program where you earn your right to vote. Three years military, post office, labor, etc. depending on your academic history. A free vote is never appreciated; obviously through voter turnout over the past century.
Allow communities to socially criticize people who aren't performing. We've taken this away systematically over the past few decades. i'm not talking violently here, but simply socially.

Also, the vid is gone from the first page. I'm interested to see it. Can someone find it again?

[Snorri1234]

Remove the incentive for having children by overhauling and limiting the welfare system.

You think people have kids because of the taxcredits?

[nesterdude]

Remove the incentive for having children by overhauling and limiting the welfare system.

You think people have kids because of the taxcredits?

Absolutely.
But I said remove the incentive.
You'll think twice if you don't have a resourece to use.

[Timminz]

Remove the incentive for having children by overhauling and limiting the welfare system.

You think people have kids because of the taxcredits?

Absolutely.
But I said remove the incentive.
You'll think twice if you don't have a resourece to use.

I don't think most of the morons who overprocreate are thinking once before getting knocked up, let alone twice.

[Snorri1234]

Remove the incentive for having children by overhauling and limiting the welfare system.

You think people have kids because of the taxcredits?

Absolutely.
But I said remove the incentive.
You'll think twice if you don't have a resourece to use.

I don't think most of the morons who overprocreate are thinking once before getting knocked up, let alone twice.

If they actually did think about it they would realise that it's financially not a good idea to have kids despite the checks you receive.

[got tonkaed]

Besides if we really wanted to deincentivize something meaningful wed stop giving preferential tax status to married couples.

[nesterdude]

Besides if we really wanted to deincentivize something meaningful wed stop giving preferential tax status to married couples.

Married couples offer (or are more likely to offer) a new citizen (or worker) to the common good than a single person would. Study upon study has offered evidence that children who are raised in a home w/ both parents end up as productive citizens. Therefore you offer the incentive of a tax break to married couples to that end.
Let's stay on topic.

[2dimes]

American cars are much less reliable. That's why there's a 1966 chevelle parked on this block. That's a 43 year old car that someone drives.

I typically drive 20 year old GMs and Fords. But in a way you are right, I won't be as keen to do that now that most of the delco parts come from mexico and suck now, on the bright side they are %60 more expensive.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I have to say that as liberal, caring, Christian, etc I am, there are still plenty of times when I (and I suspect every other human being on earth) feels similarly. Particularly after I just get off the phone with Children and Youth, only to be told that "letting a kid run around without supervision (note -- causing vandalism), thinking 2 soda pops a day for a 5 year old is "being responsible", sending your kid to school over and over in torn shirts and shorts (no matter the weather.. and I have a kid who thinks 60 is "balmy weather"), and having an alchoholic husband who the kids say they are "afraid of" is NOT reason to file a complaint/begin and investigation.

Oh, yes... and neither is being in a house with no heat, heating water with a turkey fryer, IN THEIR HOUSE!, to take a bath. IN WINTER, IN PA!!!!!!!!!!

and exactly what does any of this have to do with disenfranchising entire swaths of the american population (which always works so well), or turning reproduction into a nightmarish, chinese-style bureaucracy of iq tests, endless form filing, and institutional corruption

because i'm not seeing the relevance. we already have ways of stopping abuse that don't involve resurrecting honest-to-god nazi policy

[got tonkaed]

Besides if we really wanted to deincentivize something meaningful wed stop giving preferential tax status to married couples.

Married couples offer (or are more likely to offer) a new citizen (or worker) to the common good than a single person would. Study upon study has offered evidence that children who are raised in a home w/ both parents end up as productive citizens. Therefore you offer the incentive of a tax break to married couples to that end.
Let's stay on topic.

It is topical, your point seems to be that by giving something to individuals who on are welfare they are burdening the state. It is very likely a far greater burden to allow for any and all married couples to get a benefit that deprives the state of revenue nor is logical to continue to provide such a benefit as you seem to be citing more children as a bad thing. Considering the changing nature of the family in general, its also a bit of an antiquated notion to use the logic that families are more likely to produce productive citizens, as the nuclear family which those studies tend to be hinged upon is less and less relevant in contemporary society.

[PLAYER57832]

I have to say that as liberal, caring, Christian, etc I am, there are still plenty of times when I (and I suspect every other human being on earth) feels similarly. Particularly after I just get off the phone with Children and Youth, only to be told that "letting a kid run around without supervision (note -- causing vandalism), thinking 2 soda pops a day for a 5 year old is "being responsible", sending your kid to school over and over in torn shirts and shorts (no matter the weather.. and I have a kid who thinks 60 is "balmy weather"), and having an alchoholic husband who the kids say they are "afraid of" is NOT reason to file a complaint/begin and investigation.

Oh, yes... and neither is being in a house with no heat, heating water with a turkey fryer, IN THEIR HOUSE!, to take a bath. IN WINTER, IN PA!!!!!!!!!!

and exactly what does any of this have to do with disenfranchising entire swaths of the american population (which always works so well), or turning reproduction into a nightmarish, chinese-style bureaucracy of iq tests, endless form filing, and institutional corruption

because i'm not seeing the relevance. we already have ways of stopping abuse that don't involve resurrecting honest-to-god nazi policy

In the first place, I don't think anyone here is SERIOUSLY suggesting such major parenting restrictions. Its in the realm of "the idea seems superficially attractive if you ignore realities of implementation". You implied that anyone even halfway thinking this was a complete idiot. I was simply saying "not so fast!"

It goes directly to the idea that having children requires some responsibility. Chinese-style draconian measure... no! However, better integration of parenting skills into ALL school curricula.. I think it is an idea who's time may well have come, based on what I see, even in decent families.

As for the "disinfranchising of America" -- I already said that would not work (and don't think it was seriously proposed anyway, even if I did answer seriously before).