Happy 4th of July.

[Neutrino]

I can't believe this Neutrino guy! He quotes only the parts which suit his fancy.

Here's what he did, dmunster...to try and make you and luns101 look like you're in disagreement:

We have some of the most generous immigration laws in the world.

A tight immigration policy

Hmmm...

Here's what luns101 actually wrote:

A tight immigration policy mixed with responsible assimilation has brought considerable economic benefits to this country.

Well? I am still seeing the discrepancy. No matter what he put after it, (with maybe the exception of "I totally do not support the previous statement") it still dosen't change that he said that the US has a strict immigration policy, while dmunster said it had a very relaxed one.

Did you seriously believe I was using this to support my argument? What could have come of it? It was merely a bit of light fun, watching to see what the reaction was.

I also noticed that you criticized luns101 for being condescending. He tried to be conciliatory and admit to it. What did you do in your very next post:

Ahh, another success for the glorious nation of the USA. Will the successes ever end? I don’t think I can bare to live in such great times any more.

Hypocrite. You call for others to end it, but you continue on. You have no idea what you're talking about when you criticize our country.

I think you are taking this entire thing a bit too seriously. That statement was just a sarcastic response to Luns' post. The part I was quoting sounded so much like it had come from a pamphlet advertising the Pro Bono Project that I felt compelled to mock it. Again, it was just a bit of harmless fun on my part and I never expected anything to come of it.

Beezer, I think you are getting just a little too involved in all of this. If you want to discuss the point, fine, discuss, but if you want to make cheap personal attacks, take it to Flame Wars.

[Neutrino]

No you haven't used the exact words "horrible place", but you've argued beyond the point of just saying that we're not the best.

Only a horrible country would exploit others. Then you go on claim:

Eh, so sue me (given the current state that the Legal System is in, i'm not entirely sure that you'll loose [this is also a joke]) I was originally intending for that part of the statement to be directed towards Capitalism and not the US directly, but Luns' stubborn insistance that the US is the best no matter what anyone else said (not to mention is insistance on not answering my questions properly ) irritated me enough to change it to an attack on the US.
If you want me to direct it at Capitalism and not the US, I will, but the point is still pseudo-valid, sinse the US is Capitalist, and Capitalism exploits people.

All 3 points were refuted with facts. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
The last point about the USA becoming like communist China is especially telling of how you just throw out accusations against us.

Did you ignore my entire argument about the Legal System? If the US' Legal System were truely fair, then it wouldn't cost $40 000 to get justice.
His point about the health care system were a little stronger, sinse I could only base my arguments on my experiences ith the Australian healthcare system. I assumed they were reasonably alike, but without actually going over there and experiencing them, there is no way to tell.
As for the point about Communist China, a little more clarity on your part would be helpful. Just what are you accusing me of ( )? I'm sure as a citizen of the US you will have noticed that security is getting tighter, liberties are being curtailed and the President has Dictatorial powers.
The giving of dictatorial powers is generally the best sign that a dictator is fast approaching

This point was also refuted and then you claimed:

Ummm, 'twas not.
Luns responded with a list of ways the Space Program has benifited the USA and I pointed out that while the Space Program was great for quite a few industries, it wa not, in fact, fufiling it's original mission of exploring the Universe.

I never said anywhere that a Space Program is a bad thing.

No, not in those exact words, but you did say it was a joke. You're playing a semantics game when you're confronted with facts.

I never said that a Space Program, I just said that the (US) Space Program is a bad thing.

And you certainly can't deny this. Where are all those billions of dollars going? Certainly not into exploting the Universe; NASA hasn't launched a major probe in years.

Culture of humanitarian giving? You are doing your damndest to keep any and all foreigners out of your country! One of your reasons for invading Iraq was to better the standard of living for the poor Iraqui's, but you've only made it worse than ever. If you really want to invade someone to better their standard of living, go for Ethiopia or Rawanda. They are crying out for help much more than Iraq ever was

This quote alone should show everyone how little you know about our country and our intentions.[/quote]

Wha...?
I heard the highlights of Bush's speaches just as well as you Americans did and "liberating the poor Iraqi's from Saddam's cruel dictatorship" was certainly mentioned.
As for the immigrants part: Of course you are! Why do the majority of immigrants have to enter your county under the cover of darkness? Because they don't want to be 20 years older and probably dead before they are allowed into your country... yes...

If you want to debate with me, then debate, but on't be one of those people who hangs around the outside yelling "Yeah!"

[DangerBoy]

Seriously Neutrino, you have no clue on what life is like over here. You're just sounding ignorant.

[beezer]

I think you are taking this entire thing a bit too seriously.

You took it seriously enough to make false allegations against our country. Now when people refute your points you're going to try and act like you're taking the high road?

[luns101]

Luns, I've been following your responses on this thread. How DARE you insult our collective intelligence by quoting facts! Can't you see? Our emotions and personal insights dictate reality. And yet, you incessantly use logic and facts to support your position. As a matter of fact, I'd bet if I said that the sun does NOT rise each morning, you'd find some sort of proof the sun DOES rise each morning. There's no point in debating people like you.


There's only 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count, and those who can't.

I'll try to watch that from now on as well.

[Neutrino]

I think you are taking this entire thing a bit too seriously.

You took it seriously enough to make false allegations against our country. Now when people refute your points you're going to try and act like you're taking the high road?

How so?
The Legal system point crashed and burned ($40 000 is really fair), the Healthcare one is impossible to determine without expierencing both countries' health systems, and, as for the Communist China one:

The
President
Has
Dictatorial
Powers

Clear enough?

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

[Jenos Ridan]

If Bush has dictatorial power, why is the '08 election such a concern. Or why does the media still paint the Iraq 'War' as a failure? Reallity disproves your stance.

And on the immigrants part, shut up. Just shut up. You know NOTHING! The current regulations, when inforced, are NO where, nowhere near what they were decades ago. They don't have quotas anymore to my knowledge and if so, not by nation.

The sad fact is, for some demented reason, you hate americans and all the ideals we try very hard to uphold. Why, I can't say. Maybe you hate life just that much. If so, I pity you.

[Neutrino]

If Bush has dictatorial power, why is the '08 election such a concern. Or why does the media still paint the Iraq 'War' as a failure? Reallity disproves your stance.

Did everyone else miss this thread?
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 07&start=0

What would happen if Bush declared the US a dictatorship right now? Massive civilian uprisings? You betcha. Destinct chance of loss of power? Definatly. Huge casualties and economic damage? Nothin' but.

He's not an idiot (or at least, the people who plan things for him aren't). He knows that there is a chance, probably a pretty good one, that he will be kicked out of power, or, at least held in stalemate long enough for it to be worthless. Rather, a better plan is to play a long game; gradually strip away liberties until no-one notices the final slip into Totalitarianism.

I'm not saying this will happen, but, with those laws, it makes it a destinct possability.

And on the immigrants part, shut up. Just shut up. You know NOTHING! The current regulations, when inforced, are NO where, nowhere near what they were decades ago. They don't have quotas anymore to my knowledge and if so, not by nation.

It dosen't matter how harsh your immigration laws were 20 years ago, what matters is that you call your country 'the greatest country on earth' and then try to keep it all to yourself. If it were truely the greatest, then wouldn't it be open to everyone?

Most of your immigration, illegal or otherwise, comes through Mexico. Don't you think it's faintly possible that imporving the general standard of living in that area would essentially eliminate your immigrant problem?

The sad fact is, for some demented reason, you hate americans and all the ideals we try very hard to uphold. Why, I can't say. Maybe you hate life just that much. If so, I pity you.

Why would I hate America and Americans? I find the majority of American ideals to be good ones and have absolutly nothing against the place. What I do hate, however, is how some Americans refer to their country as 'the greatest nation on earth'. If they were truely great then they would be doing their best to help everyone, irrespective of wether it is to the US's immediate advantage to do so. They wouldn't restrict the border, so that only those that they deemed 'worthy' can pass through. They would have a fair and just legal system, one that it dosen't cost $40 000 to fight a simple case in.

These are the signs of a truely great country. When the US, or, in fact any other country does this, then and only them will I call that country 'great'.

[Iz Man]

Luns has already done a stellar job in rebutting this dribble.

Ignorance is very blissful.......

*cue circus music*

[Dmunster]

Why is it, purely because you were born in the US that you gain the ability to decide who gets a better standard of life? I'm sure there are Americans who are cruel, viscous, have roughly the IQ of a small rodent and are yet allowed to live in what you term 'the greatest nation on earth' while many more intelligent, kinder and more talented people are not admitted, purely because of an accident of birth.
Does this seem fair to you?

If we let everyone in we wouldnt have the opprotunity to improve the lives of the immigrants we do let in. Could you imagine the stress it would put on our econonomy and social welfare programs if we let every stinking heap of worthless humanity into our country that would like to be here? You're country has a pretty nice economy and standard of living, why dont they let more people in? Here are the numbers for year 2003 (the most recent year I could find Austrailian stats on): Legal Australian Immigrants: 89,437 - Legal united States Immigrants: 705,827.

Hmmm...

I actually know someone who migrated from the US to Australia. She lives in Perth and runs a company that does safaris in africa and australia called Global Gypsies. I asked her at one point how difficult it would be for me to move there. She told me not to bother, that the laws were so restrictive it would take me forever to gain citizenship and the only reason she was living in Oz was because she married an Australian.

Not really. Intelligence and ambition are useful qualities, but they aren't going to get you to the top by themselves; you also need a certain degree of luck.

Okay...I have been about as unlucky as one person can get with his lot in life and I've managed to make the most of it to this point. I wont go into details but its been no cakewalk.

You could be infinately intelligent or ambitious, but get stuck in one dead-end job with a never-ending repayment cycle and you are completly screwed.

Okay, if you get stuck in this type of job with the opprotunities available to you here in the states you are either A) Too lazy to go out and try to find another job or B) Too stupid to realize that you are in this situation. I didnt have the benefit of having a college education but I regularly hire less ambitious people with Masters(!) degrees that cost them tens of thousands of dollars to work for less than I do. It didnt take luck to get the job I have, unless you consider my boss finding my resume on a job board luck, it took patience and the smarts/charisma to sell myself at every step of the process to get noticed.

Make one tiny mistake and you could find yourself out on the street, your reputation screwed up forever.

Thats the beauty of this country, we forgive people thier mistakes. Trust me, I have made many many large mistakes in my life and havent ended up in the gutter. I have done this without the help of a safety net like some may have with parents to help out. My reputation is maybe a bit tarnished for some minor criminal activities but my current employer still hired me.

[DangerBoy]

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

Now THAT is funny considering the accusations you've been making!

[Neutrino]

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

Now THAT is funny considering the accusations you've been making!

Such as...?

[DangerBoy]

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

Now THAT is funny considering the accusations you've been making!

Such as...?

1. Your legal system is a joke.
2. Your healthcare system is a joke.
3. Your space program is a joke.
4. Your president has dictatorial powers.

Yeah, those would be the main ones.

[beezer]

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

It's not a debate when you just go on and on. It's like listening to a filibuster.

If you're not a Marxist, then how would you describe yourself? You don't sound like anyone who thinks capitalism is good.

[Neutrino]

For the third time: if you want to debate, then do so. Don't just stand in the background making really generalised accusations.

Now THAT is funny considering the accusations you've been making!

Such as...?

1. Your legal system is a joke.
2. Your healthcare system is a joke.
3. Your space program is a joke.
4. Your president has dictatorial powers.

Yeah, those would be the main ones.

Dosen't anyone here actually read what I have posted? Your primary occupation seems to be ignoring everything I post and then treating points which I have already rebutted as valid points.

1.It is. $40 000 to fight a simple court case is in the exact opposite of the spectrum from fair.
2. Without actually expierencing both healthcare systems it is nigh impossible to make a comparison.
3. Again, it is. Untold billions have been given to NASA and what do we get? A few unmanned probes, which frequently fail and leave a several-billion dollar hole which needs to be filled by yet another unreliable spacecraft.
4. He does. Did you not see the link? Again, I already posted all of this stuff.

[beezer]

Dosen't anyone here actually read what I have posted?

Yes, and it's hilarious. I've had a change of heart. Please don't stop.

[Neutrino]

Dosen't anyone here actually read what I have posted?

Yes, and it's hilarious. I've had a change of heart. Please don't stop.

That's great. If you want to Flame, then take it to Flame Wars.

On the other hand, if you think your points are strong enough to withstand the rigors of debating, then do that.

If you want to debate, then my post with the link to the "President has Dictatorial Powers" thread might be a good place to start.

[beezer]

Dosen't anyone here actually read what I have posted?

Yes, and it's hilarious. I've had a change of heart. Please don't stop.

That's great. If you want to Flame, then take it to Flame Wars.

On the other hand, if you think your points are strong enough to withstand the rigors of debating, then do that.

If you want to debate, then my post with the link to the "President has Dictatorial Powers" thread might be a good place to start.

No, it's funny. You give a link to a website about how it costs an average of $40,000 to defend a common lawsuit. That's the cost to an employer! You then ask the rhetorical question...Do you have $40,000 that you can spare? You shift into individual legal defense. You keep changing the nature of the debate every time someone presents you with facts. How can anyone debate or discuss things with you when you change your tactics.

I was looking back on some of your earlier accusations for some fun reading. You stated that:

The Space Shuttle is a flying piece of inefficient and hideously expensive crap, you only went to the Moon to show the Russians up (and very nearly didn't go) and Americans didn't invent the telescope, you just have the biggest one (making up for something, maybe... )

So you use sarcastic humor too, don't start crying, "take it to the flame wars".

[Neutrino]

No, it's funny. You give a link to a website about how it costs an average of $40,000 to defend a common lawsuit. That's the cost to an employer! You then ask the rhetorical question...Do you have $40,000 that you can spare? You shift into individual legal defense. You keep changing the nature of the debate every time someone presents you with facts. How can anyone debate or discuss things with you when you change your tactics.

And...? Both prosecuting and defending a case are prohibitively expensive. It dosen't matter whether you are sueing or being sued, the cost is still far too high.

The Space Shuttle is a flying piece of inefficient and hideously expensive crap, you only went to the Moon to show the Russians up (and very nearly didn't go) and Americans didn't invent the telescope, you just have the biggest one (making up for something, maybe... )

So you use sarcastic humor too, don't start crying, "take it to the flame wars".

You are really exerting yourself to find things to mock me about, aren't you?

What I said was a joking pseudo-insult on an entire nation. What is constantly coming at me are personal attacks. See the difference?

On a scale of 1-10, what I said was maybe a 0.25. Constantly said in friendly company and no-one takes any notice.
What is coming at me is maybe 4-5. Liable to start a fight if circumstances are right and will even raise eyebrows in friendly company.

I'm not saying that I am offended or even remotely interested in the insults, I am just pointing out that what is coming in is far in excess of what is going out.

[beezer]

So when you make sarcastic and cynical remarks, it's warranted. When we point it out to you we're being personal??!!! On top of that you get to set up this "point system". You're really being a hypocrite on this.

You've made countless accusations based on extreme cases and applied them to entire systems (legal, healthcare, space). Those are laughable. The reason the judge's case made the news is because it is extreme! It is so un-American and everyone knows it. It doesn't prove anything to make your case.

Since it costs $40,000 for an employer to defend a case (on average), most just make concessions and it is resolved without legal proceedings. This means the little guy has some power without having to actually go to court. Isn't that what people like yourself want...power for the less advantaged?

There are so many levels of the law...which area(s) of the law are you saying is prohibitively too high?...torts, contracts, family, real property, federal misdemeanors & felonies, state misdemeanors & felonies, business, drug, employment & labor, patents & trademark, immigration, health, privacy, etc. You can't just make blanket accusations against the entire system.

Also, what is your standard for saying it's too expensive?

[DangerBoy]

I just learned a few things by going to the U.S. Department of Justice's own website:

The conviction rates for indigent defendants was about the same at both the federal and state levels regardless of whether the counsel was publicly funded, court-appointed, or privately hired. 90% at the federal level and 75% at the state level.

So as far as conviction goes...there's no real difference, which would rebut Neutrino's point that our legal system is a joke. Especially since there's no charge to the defendant. Neutrino's claim that it cost an average of $40,000 to defend oneself doesn't apply as the website he referenced was talking about the employer's cost to defend themselves when disputing disability claims. That's a separate area of the law.

Of those found guilty, incarceration as a result of sentencing was higher for defendants represented by publicly financed counsel than those who had hired private counsel. Federal level: 88% - for those represented by publicly financed counsel compared to 77% - for those who hired their own lawyer. State level: 71% - for those represented by publicly financed counsel compared to 54% - for those who hired private counsel.

This would seem to give some credence to Neutrino's argument as it seems that those who could afford to pay for their own private counsel had a better chance of avoiding jail time.

When it comes to the length of incarceration, it actually appears that it would be advantageous to be represented by a publicly funded counsel as opposed to hiring a private lawyer. Federal level: Average sentence length when represented by publicly funded lawyer is just under 5 years while average sentence length when represented by private counsel is just over 5 years. State level: Average sentence length when represented by publicly funded lawyer is 2.5 years as opposed to average sentence length when represented by private counsel is 3 years.

This would rebut Neutrino's argument as it is advantageous to reduce the length of sentence served to a shorter amount for defendants represented by our publicly funded defense counsels rather than hiring private lawyers.

Neutrino, I got these facts from the United States DOJ. I didn't call you a name. These facts seem to give an overall picture that our legal system is quite good and not a joke after all. Would you concede that point?

[Neutrino]

Fina- freaking- ly. It only took you two a mere 3 days to think up something useful to post

So when you make sarcastic and cynical remarks, it's warranted. When we point it out to you we're being personal??!!! On top of that you get to set up this "point system". You're really being a hypocrite on this.

I still think you are blowing this entire thing out of proportion. How would you react of someone said "Making up for something, maybe... " to you? Destinct lack of care, certainly...
This is the bit I want to stress: my comment was a joke, all yours were insults. Notice the difference?

You've made countless accusations based on extreme cases and applied them to entire systems (legal, healthcare, space). Those are laughable. The reason the judge's case made the news is because it is extreme! It is so un-American and everyone knows it. It doesn't prove anything to make your case.

Then why are they taking place in America? Even though I already knew about both of these cases (Judge and Brokeback) from threads here, I was informed of both of them by entirely non-Conquer Club related sources slightly later.
Have I ever heard of outrageous court cases from countries beside America?
Nope.




Anyway, about the judges case: even if the judge does loose the case, the people he was sueing must have gone through a horrible ordeal. How would you feel if someone walked up to you and told you you were being sued for $65 million? Absolute panic? Yep.

Even besides the panic that this caused, (and is probably still causing) if the judge wanted to be viscous about it, he could easily invent reasons for the case to drag on. This would have a huge impact on those who he is sueing, and practically none on himself.

Since it costs $40,000 for an employer to defend a case (on average), most just make concessions and it is resolved without legal proceedings. This means the little guy has some power without having to actually go to court. Isn't that what people like yourself want...power for the less advantaged?

Yes, it is a good system when the prosecutor and defendant have roughly equal funds available, but an absolutely crap one when one or the other has a monetary advantage.

My brother's best friend's father was injured by one of those roller-doors. It was known to be faulty, yet the company who owned it (Bunnings Warehouse) did nothing about it. He is suing them for compensation because he can no longer function in his former job (builder).
Yet they resist. This happened about 5 years ago and all the while lawers have been busily draining his bank account. To a huge store-chain that drain is nothing; to a now unemployed builder it is huge. The store's tactic is simple: stall for time so hopefully he will go bankrupt before the trial reaches it's end.

You cannot call this an anomaly. The store's tactic is a tried and true one. Simply stall for time and hope the opposing party goes bankrupt. At least then they will have a hollow victory; some obscene percentage will go to his lawers.

I just learned a few things by going to the U.S. Department of Justice's own website:

The conviction rates for indigent defendants was about the same at both the federal and state levels regardless of whether the counsel was publicly funded, court-appointed, or privately hired. 90% at the federal level and 75% at the state level.

So as far as conviction goes...there's no real difference, which would rebut Neutrino's point that our legal system is a joke. Especially since there's no charge to the defendant. Neutrino's claim that it cost an average of $40,000 to defend oneself doesn't apply as the website he referenced was talking about the employer's cost to defend themselves when disputing disability claims. That's a separate area of the law.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1360/Lega ... -Poor.html

BJS reports that in the late 1990s, conviction rates in both federal and large state courts were the same regardless of the type of attorney a defendant had. However, defendants with publicly financed attorneys who were found guilty were more likely to go to prison (71% compared to 54% in large state courts, and 88% compared to 77% in federal courts). BJS does not speculate on why this is so.

I think this just blew your argument out of the water

Wonder why the DoJ dosen't speculate on why publicly-financed lawyers...
Maybe it's because it will reflect badly on them...

I hope you didn't just take these numbers straight of the DoJ's website... You should know that taking stastics off a site that is undeniably biased (and the DoJ is very undeniably biased...) is not a good idea...

When it comes to the length of incarceration, it actually appears that it would be advantageous to be represented by a publicly funded counsel as opposed to hiring a private lawyer. Federal level: Average sentence length when represented by publicly funded lawyer is just under 5 years while average sentence length when represented by private counsel is just over 5 years. State level: Average sentence length when represented by publicly funded lawyer is 2.5 years as opposed to average sentence length when represented by private counsel is 3 years.

This would rebut Neutrino's argument as it is advantageous to reduce the length of sentence served to a shorter amount for defendants represented by our publicly funded defense counsels rather than hiring private lawyers.

Same site.

Defendants represented by court-appointed lawyers could expect to spend two more years in prison than defendants represented by salaried public defenders — or by a private attorney.

I think my site is much less obviously biased than yours

Also:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/app ... 7707010495

"A person working 40 hours a week will not qualify (for a public defender) if the hourly rate exceeds $2.33 per hour."

This means that you can't expect to get a court appointed lawyer if you earn above $4846 anually. Does this seem to be a reasonable cuttoff point?
I would question your humanity if you said yes.

Neutrino, I got these facts from the United States DOJ. I didn't call you a name. These facts seem to give an overall picture that our legal system is quite good and not a joke after all. Would you concede that point?

And I congratulate both of you for coming up with reasonably well researched arguments (sorry of this sounds condescending; I couldn't think of any better ways to term it).

Ahh, I just noticed that you had already put in something ot the effect of my response to DangerBoy's first point. I must have deleated it when I was typing up the reply
Anyway, the point is still valid.

[DangerBoy]

BJS reports that in the late 1990s, conviction rates in both federal and large state courts were the same regardless of the type of attorney a defendant had. However, defendants with publicly financed attorneys who were found guilty were more likely to go to prison (71% compared to 54% in large state courts, and 88% compared to 77% in federal courts). BJS does not speculate on why this is so.

I think this just blew your argument out of the water

No, what it shows is that you are truly not taking the time to consider my point. I quoted the same exact thing and even said that it seemed to back up your point. Really Neutrino, you're being a bit weird. I'm wondering if you're not letting your personal feelings get in the way of reason. Even though you went back and saw it the second time, that shows that you are not thoroughly considering facts which go against your ideology.

It's really silly for you to just ignore facts which go against what you want to believe and only consider ones which suit your purpose. If that's the way you want to make arguments, then I will simply ignore your citations and say I'm right no matter what, because that is how you are approaching this.

[unriggable]

Guys, its been nine days since the 4th of July. Can't somebody rename this thread?

[beezer]

Guys, its been nine days since the 4th of July. Can't somebody rename this thread?

I agree unriggable, but this Neutrino guy just keeps making false charges against our country. I'm not about to let that go. If you look back at the original reason why people got upset it was simply because Luns101 said he thought he lived in the greatest country on earth. He's explained that this doesn't mean he thinks we're superior to other countries. But no...Neutrino can't let it go. He's got to keep making really weird accusations, while ignoring facts that have been posted here.

As long as he denigrates our country with false charges, I'm going to respond. Why can't he just let us have a thread which states how happy we are to be living here?