| Author |
Message |
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Nov 12, 2003 18:10 Post subject: |
   |
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
In civilized countries, education is of course free, no matter what level it is on or what status the university has.
Also, I'm fairly sure (despite having no background knowledge) That in many other countries, such as those of the EU, don't have an economy that stresses getting every dollar possible, causing everything to be run to maximize profits, even if it's a "non-profit" organization...
In the US, all public universities recieve, on average, half of their funds from the government. At my university, that works out to about US$10,000 (~€8,700, or ~78,000Kroner)per student, per year. The other half comes from funds payed by the students. Also, the cost of tuition goes up by a large percentage every year, averaging 2.5% here...
I wouldn't be surprised if universities fully funded by the government had much lower operating expenses... at CMU, we have to have a "university president", who is paid more than $300,000 a year, as well as a large board of trustees, who also recieve rather lucrative salaries... Not to mention, CMU seems to have little capability to get any real deal for contracted services: they paid US$166,000, just to get minor repairs to a minor stretch of sidewalk (somewhere around ¼mi/½ km, or ½ km/¼mi), and paint two white lines down it, which serve no real purpose...
Oh, and while you're in this topic, Mattias, would you mind telling us how old you are? I'm just trying to stay with the (hijacked) topic...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 12, 2003 18:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Mattias Welander wrote:
Which is why only rich people can be sure to get an education in the US, something that is a big problem, especially considering the US has a lot of poor people.
Yes, to me the education system is part of the way those in power can keep their grip on it, tinting this country a nice fascist shade... In fact, the only major reason public education up to grade 12 is fully public funded is due to how abysmally poor US citizens are with their abilities in science and math, which were needed to make sure the US could keep up with the communist nations...
Also, that reminds me of the US government's stance on Cuba... Personally, I don't see all that much evil in Fidel Castro... he's made sure that even the poor people can have decent lives, by fully funding many services... But then again, I'm not the US government, fearful of a revolution coming from the lower class...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
japh
Gamorrean
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 12, 2003 23:01 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm curious, what are the taxes like in Sweden? (IIRC Mattias comes from Sweden. I apologise if I'm wrong.)
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 00:03 Post subject: |
 |
|
Taxes are fairly high in Sweden, though that's not a problem in itself since they pay for education and health care, a place to live and any other basic human requirements needed. I can provide you with numbers if there are any specific taxes you are curious about.
What is a problem is how taxes are misused, which means we don't get as much out from them as we could have got. Anyway, that's my opinion as an anti-Communist, though since most Swedes are Communists I guess my opinion on taxes aren't really representative for Sweden.
|
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, sure. Only the rich can get an education in the U.S.
I'm not wealthy by any possible stretch of the imagination; in fact, my parents' income in some years is literally in the poverty level, yet I'm in college.
Education isn't for the wealthy; it is for those who want to work for it.
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 01:31 Post subject: |
|
|
You're not rich, you say? You're on the Internet, and you say you're not rich?
I have a budget of about 600 US$ per month, and that's not even my own money. But that's enough for me to consider myself rich.
You're actually saying that anyone in the US - even if they have no money at all, or even are in debt - can get a doctorate at, say, Harward? I don't think so.
|
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 07:13 Post subject: |
|
|
My Internet access is provided by the college I am attending; not only that, but it is available for public use across the nation.
Getting a doctorate at Harvard? Unlikely, as the school has standards to be admitted. However, it is not impossible to get a college education, even for those in debt. Hell, most students come into college with little money and leave with debt. However, they are not barred from attending college.
Student loans are readily available for those who want to work hard, and are willing to not screw around. Rather than criticize our system, some of you should actually look into how it works.
Edited for formatting purposes
|
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 10:27 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 19:30 Post subject: |
|
|
I stil live with my parents, so I am not paying taxes, but me and my brother worked hard for the last three years mowing yards, we averaged each about three thousand ($3000) dollars a summer. We made probably the most money of anyone in my youth group. But I still am by no means rich. I don't exactly know how I am going to go to collage, because my parents wont pay for it. I am looking at community collage for a few years then Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, tuition is free, but room and board cost a bit.
Actully, I think I am going to join the military for collage. (Yes I know, I am an American butcheteer  )
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 19:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed you are. A murderer at a Bible Institute? Are you worshiping the devil in the basement, too?
|
|
Taton
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 13, 2003 22:17 Post subject: |
|
|
UH-OH!!!  HIT THE DECK!!!
_________________
"A fight should be clean and elegant, without waste"
-Asuka Langley Sohryu, Evangelion |
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 14, 2003 00:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I can assure you I am not worshiping the devil. And I would not join the military in hopes that I would get to kill someone, rather as a way to serve my country, co to collage and get training that would help me in several areas of life.
I don't think many people in the military are there so they can kill people, and I don't think many people enjoy it either, I would recomend you watch; We Were Soldiers, I think it will put a very real face on the Butcheteer.
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Mattias Welander
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 14, 2003 01:45 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that it is not the training itself that would make you a murderer, so if you can assure us you fully intend to desert if you after your training are ordered to go to war, then I admit you are not a murderer.
Still, I don't think training to learn to murder other fellow human beings is a good thing in any case, even if you don't intend to actually make use of that training. For generations, Christians have chosen to go to prison rather than join the army.
|
|
Brad Oliver
Ree-Yees
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
Tom Manning
Trandoshan
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 14, 2003 17:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I wont assure you that I would ditch my country when I was called to war, that alone would get me in trouble, I would not join the ARMY for training on how to kill people, but rather, for the disipline and physical training.
I don't really think going to war and fighting would be murdering. as for going to jail rather than joining the military, I haven't heard that, and in anycase, that would be a differnet story, in those days armys went to war simply to gain new land, in the US's case, it is to defend ourself, and others who can not defend themselves.
I guess I would turn out looking like this though huh?. . . 
_________________
Tom Manning
For all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you, Stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn: Return of the King |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 14, 2003 20:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Tom Manning wrote:
I don't really think going to war and fighting would be murdering. as for going to jail rather than joining the military, I haven't heard that, and in anycase, that would be a differnet story, in those days armys went to war simply to gain new land, in the US's case, it is to defend ourself, and others who can not defend themselves.
If you are a male in the United States, and refuse to register with selective services within about 6 months after turning 18, during which recruiters will hound you, you get sent to jail. It works the same way if there's a draft (in the old days, it was called conscription). If you try to avoid it, you are prosecuted.
As far as "defending ourselves", the last (and only) actual war where the United States of America has actually fought to defend its own territory, was the War of 1812, when Brittian fought to try to reclaim their lost colonies. The civil war was a dual-agressor war, with the Confederacy being a full nation. The closest the World Wars ever reached actual U.S. Shores is when Pearl Harbor was bombed, and the Fascist Axis (Japan, Germany, Italy) knew that they literally stood no chance of taking any continental US territory, at least not for another several decades.
As far as the more recent "wars" (The US congress, the only US force that has the power to declare war, never did for any of these conflicts) Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf I&II, along with any other operations in the past 50 years, were never to defend US territory. They were fought to defend US INTERESTS. With over 5 million serving in the US Department of Defense, and some $500 billion (€435 billion, or almost 4 trillion kroner), the US can withstand any conventional attack directed at it, and has no real need to go overseas to defend itself.
As for Weapons of Mass Destruction, the US still uses the same concept that has protected it from the USSR: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), through the potential to launch thousands of nuclear weapons, from countless sources, on a moment's notice.
As far as our servicemen/women, I don't see THEM as the "butcherers". Granted, their hands have caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if they disobey command, that is a major crime, which will scar them for life.
Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read the entire Sweddish constitution. I'm unsure if the Head of State (King) is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. Unfortunately, that's part of the President of the United State's list of duties:
Commander-in-Chief
Chief Diplomat
Chief Legislator
Chief Administrator
Chief Judiciary
...And so on. As "president" (by US law, he is not legally the president), George W. Bush has supreme say over the military, unquestionable by any other person.
The United States Consitution grants the power to declare war only to the US Congress. The President may moves forces into another area, but may only have the presence of troops there for 90 days. George Bush has broken this law.
So, i really don't blame the troops, since capital punishment is permitted in the military, and corporal punishment is very common, unfortunately.
Aside from allowing capital and corporal punishment, along with giving the president too many powers, the US constitution is rather similar to the Sweddish constitution... It just happens to be that US politicians seem to be very apt to ignore it...
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 14, 2003 20:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Also, I forgot to mention that the United States Congress can is the only force in the US that can declare war. In order to do so, I believe that a 2/3 majority is required in BOTH parts, the House of Representatives AND the Senate.
In history, the US Congress has only declared war five times, for the following conflicts:
The war of 1812,
The Mexican-American War,
The Spanish-American War,
World War I, and
World War II.
These are listed at: http://etech.northern.edu/blanchak/epublius/declaration_of_war.htm
These are the only wars that have been approved by the US congress, the only body LEGALLY allowed to do so. There have been many official conflicts, that have not been authorized by Congress:
The American Civil War (1861-1865)
The Korean War (1950-Today)
The Vietnam War (1961-1975)
The Afghanistan War I (1980-1988)
The Persian Gulf War I (1991)
The Former Yugoslavian War (1999)
The Afghanistan War II (2001-Today)
The Persian Gulf War II (2003-Today)
Of course, the word "War" has no real value for these conflicts, as the president moved troops in, without agreement from Congress.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 15, 2003 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
Not bad, Nottheking, but you don't know everything. In recent years, due to the nature of the modern world, Congress has authorized the President to be able to deploy troops for a period of ninety days. After those ninety days, the President must respond to Congress with reasons for troop deployments. If Congress gives him permission to continue on, the President may continue operations. If he is told to withdraw, he has thirty days to cease military operations and withdraw the American soldiers.
The President was given permission by Congress to invade Iraq months before it happened, so he was acting under their authorization.
Brush up on your law a bit better, my friend.
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 15, 2003 21:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Casey Neumiller wrote:
Not bad, Nottheking, but you don't know everything. In recent years, due to the nature of the modern world, Congress has authorized the President to be able to deploy troops for a period of ninety days. After those ninety days, the President must respond to Congress with reasons for troop deployments. If Congress gives him permission to continue on, the President may continue operations. If he is told to withdraw, he has thirty days to cease military operations and withdraw the American soldiers.
The President was given permission by Congress to invade Iraq months before it happened, so he was acting under their authorization.
Brush up on your law a bit better, my friend.
I apologize for not citing the part of the law you are refering to in the second part (IT'S IN BOLD IN THE FIRST POST). Also, I do happen to know it better than you do. The period is 60 DAYS, and with the 30-day addon, it adds up to 90. Bush is still breaking the law, beacause there are troops that have been in Afhghanistan for over a year now. No authorization from congress is required for the 60-day allocation, though, but Bush has still gone WAY beyond it...
Also, that troop alocation for the president IS noted at the web site cited, so please, look at everything I post before you respond.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 15, 2003 21:54 Post subject: |
|
|
If the President was breaking the law, don't you think Congress would have forced him to recall the troops in Afghanistan? Congress gave him permission to wage the war there, as well.
As far as the ninety/sixty day thing, that was my mistake. I wrote sixty initially, then changed it to ninety right before I posted. That was my mistake.
|
|
Patrick Haslow
Trandoshan
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
|
|
Kir Kanos
Gamorrean
Joined: 28 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 16, 2003 07:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, point of fact: The southern confederacy was NOT a legitimate nation. It was still legally part of the United States under it's constitution. You know, that thing. That's part of what the south was fighting for. And why the hell is this in the editing forum? Hahahah! I should talk!
_________________
"Curse you, Kanos!!! Why don't you just DIE?!" |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 17, 2003 18:28 Post subject: |
|
|
As far as the confederacy, they declared themselves to be a seperate nation. In case you don't know, "confederate" means that the power is held by the states, and the national government is simply a weak binding force. Thus, to them, what the federal government said had no real weight. As was shown in the debate between US/Sweden internet laws, when you have two statements that contradict, the one that holds up better is the one that's true.
Even if the USA didn't recognise the CSA, it still took 4 years before the USA got their way. During that time, the CSA was a full nation, because they managed to hold up their belief that they were a separate nation.
Just because the USA recognises political boundaries one way, doesn't mean that that's the way things are. as an example, I believe that only the USA recognises Taiwan as a separate nation, whereas the rest of the world (including Taiwan) see Taiwan as part of China.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 17, 2003 18:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Casey Neumiller wrote:
If the President was breaking the law, don't you think Congress would have forced him to recall the troops in Afghanistan? Congress gave him permission to wage the war there, as well.
Of course, you seem to show little understanding of political pressure. Legally, George W Bush is a war criminal under US law, as well as the law of countless other nations and organizations. In order to continue using troops after the 60 day period, Congress MUST declare war.
The reason nothing seems to have been done about it is the pressure for congress to not force Bush to recall the troops. It's always an unpopular move to pull troops out, as was well demonstrated in the Vietnam "war". Thus, if congress forced the president to recall troops, not only could Bush just ignore the order (he's the top of the military, and he'd be sentenced to life/death no matter what anyways...), but the press would have a heyday with these "un-American" legislature, "making" this a "new Vietnam".
Thus, Congress is standing by helplessly. Also, Bush does have some supporters among Congress, despite that even the Republicans in there are often disagreeing with him. as a result, Congress is electing to say nothing, allowing Bush's escapades to continue unaltered, and the Representatives and Senators get to keep their "credibility".
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 18, 2003 03:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Bah. If it was illegal, the democrats would be calling for Bush's head. Where do you get the notion that after sixty days war must be declared?
|
|
Nottheking
Kell Dragon
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 18, 2003 20:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Casey Neumiller wrote:
Bah. If it was illegal, the democrats would be calling for Bush's head.
Many of the democrats are. I personally believe that Bush should be publicly executed, for the deaths of thousands, including ove 400 US troops in Iraq. Those that aren't are afraid of silent retribution from Bush's crew, the kind that never makes it into the media.
Casey Neumiller wrote:
Where do you get the notion that after sixty days war must be declared?
declaring war is the only way the United States can authorise the use of troops to attack foreign soil. Of course, War needn't be declared to fight off an invasion of US soil, or if the opposing nation declares war first. If war isn't declared, then the president is breaking consitutional law, but Congress isn't doing anything about it.
_________________
Wake up, George Lucas... The Matrix has you.. |
|
Casey Neumiller
Gamorrean
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Nov 18, 2003 22:22 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. After sixty days, if Congress approves the use of troops, the president can continue as planned. It is a 'military action,' not a war. However, I have yet to see anyone point out that this is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constition does it prohibit use of troops unless war is declared.
|
|
|
