which was when exactly ?burnzz wrote:
the United States former glory
January.jsnipy wrote:
which was when exactly ?burnzz wrote:
the United States former glory
Good. For I moment I thought you were going to make a reference to a white only toilet.burnzz wrote:
January.jsnipy wrote:
which was when exactly ?burnzz wrote:
the United States former glory
^ that would be racialist.
The South shall rise again.
no A cups though
Porcelain, what most toilets are made of, generally is white. And it were brown or yellow it would need to be cleaned.jsnipy wrote:
Good. For I moment I thought you were going to make a reference to a white only toilet.burnzz wrote:
January.jsnipy wrote:
which was when exactly ?
Australia restricts immigration to about 100-150k p.a. It hardly makes the US 10 times more desirable because their quotas are around the 1 million mark.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying that total immigration numbers determine the desirability of a place to immigrate to?Kmarion wrote:
Space vs population isn't even close when compared to the US. I don't see why per capita makes more sense. Maybe you're trying to get at a point I'm not? The bottom line is what it is.
What you might find interesting is 1 in 4 Australians were born overseas, while only 1 in 8 Americans were.
I live in Denmark, and 8% of my income is siphoned by the government as an explicit health care tax. I can assure you that if I paid those 8% to a private insurer, I wouldn't have to pay extra either. Hell, if I set aside 8% of my income every year to cover medical expenses, not even the fury of deities could generate hospital bills that I couldn't cover myself. The government isn't a magical entity, it's just your mandatory friendly neighbourhood insurer..Sup wrote:
i don't have to pay extra when my guts are half out like some have to - "pay or we will let you die"mikkel wrote:
What makes you think that people don't pay for it? Where do you think your taxes go?.Sup wrote:
?
no one pays for it here
I would say paying for a heart at once will be more expensive than those 8% you pay each month.mikkel wrote:
I live in Denmark, and 8% of my income is siphoned by the government as an explicit health care tax. I can assure you that if I paid those 8% to a private insurer, I wouldn't have to pay extra either. Hell, if I set aside 8% of my income every year to cover medical expenses, not even the fury of deities could generate hospital bills that I couldn't cover myself. The government isn't a magical entity, it's just your mandatory friendly neighbourhood insurer..Sup wrote:
i don't have to pay extra when my guts are half out like some have to - "pay or we will let you die"mikkel wrote:
What makes you think that people don't pay for it? Where do you think your taxes go?
Not by a significant amount, and that's just about the most expensive procedure that you can find. It's also certainly something that would be covered if the amount was paid to a private insurer..Sup wrote:
I would say paying for a heart at once will be more expensive than those 8% you pay each month.mikkel wrote:
I live in Denmark, and 8% of my income is siphoned by the government as an explicit health care tax. I can assure you that if I paid those 8% to a private insurer, I wouldn't have to pay extra either. Hell, if I set aside 8% of my income every year to cover medical expenses, not even the fury of deities could generate hospital bills that I couldn't cover myself. The government isn't a magical entity, it's just your mandatory friendly neighbourhood insurer..Sup wrote:
i don't have to pay extra when my guts are half out like some have to - "pay or we will let you die"
The money you get from a private insurer is close to zero, you have to become an invalid to get something. Here it would not cover 1/8 of what a heart transplant costs.mikkel wrote:
Not by a significant amount, and that's just about the most expensive procedure that you can find. It's also certainly something that would be covered if the amount was paid to a private insurer..Sup wrote:
I would say paying for a heart at once will be more expensive than those 8% you pay each month.mikkel wrote:
I live in Denmark, and 8% of my income is siphoned by the government as an explicit health care tax. I can assure you that if I paid those 8% to a private insurer, I wouldn't have to pay extra either. Hell, if I set aside 8% of my income every year to cover medical expenses, not even the fury of deities could generate hospital bills that I couldn't cover myself. The government isn't a magical entity, it's just your mandatory friendly neighbourhood insurer.
You don't really know anything about private insurance, do you?.Sup wrote:
The money you get from a private insurer is close to zero, you have to become an invalid to get something. Here it would not cover 1/8 of what a heart transplant costs.mikkel wrote:
Not by a significant amount, and that's just about the most expensive procedure that you can find. It's also certainly something that would be covered if the amount was paid to a private insurer..Sup wrote:
I would say paying for a heart at once will be more expensive than those 8% you pay each month.
He's like 12 years old, what do you expect?mikkel wrote:
You don't really know anything about private insurance, do you?.Sup wrote:
The money you get from a private insurer is close to zero, you have to become an invalid to get something. Here it would not cover 1/8 of what a heart transplant costs.mikkel wrote:
Not by a significant amount, and that's just about the most expensive procedure that you can find. It's also certainly something that would be covered if the amount was paid to a private insurer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
tbh if someone would put me up id move to the US and make my money winning shooting competitions.
some people dream of winning the world cup, or owning a veyron, ill be content with shooting guns at inanimate objects thank ya very much
some people dream of winning the world cup, or owning a veyron, ill be content with shooting guns at inanimate objects thank ya very much
Miley Cyrus lives in the US. People can't commit suicide because they're paralyzed by the shit-storm that pours through their radio each day, but they sure ain't happy. It all makes sense to me.
EDIT-
Opps, DST section. Well, I'll go with the obvious answer: the US was never that shitty a place to live. People just like complaining, regardless.
EDIT-
Opps, DST section. Well, I'll go with the obvious answer: the US was never that shitty a place to live. People just like complaining, regardless.
Last edited by Pochsy (2010-02-01 06:06:08)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
eleven bravo wrote:
rather live in new jersey than texas
When youre in Texas look behind you,
Cuz that's where the rangers are gonna be
I'd imagine so with such a relatively small population. If getting citizenship were so easy here we wouldn't have an illegal population approaching the entire population of Australia.DrunkFace wrote:
Australia restricts immigration to about 100-150k p.a. It hardly makes the US 10 times more desirable because their quotas are around the 1 million mark.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying that total immigration numbers determine the desirability of a place to immigrate to?
What you might find interesting is 1 in 4 Australians were born overseas, while only 1 in 8 Americans were.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm not sure if getting citizenship in Australia is "easy." It might be easier than getting it here though.Kmarion wrote:
I'd imagine so with such a relatively small population. If getting citizenship were so easy here we wouldn't have an illegal population approaching the entire population of Australia.DrunkFace wrote:
Australia restricts immigration to about 100-150k p.a. It hardly makes the US 10 times more desirable because their quotas are around the 1 million mark.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?
What you might find interesting is 1 in 4 Australians were born overseas, while only 1 in 8 Americans were.
Shitness of original country and ability to get to new country are probably bigger factors. Crappy countries near to total hell-holes would likely have higher immigration per capita than nice places that are surrounded by other nice places.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying that total immigration numbers determine the desirability of a place to immigrate to?Kmarion wrote:
Space vs population isn't even close when compared to the US. I don't see why per capita makes more sense. Maybe you're trying to get at a point I'm not? The bottom line is what it is.
That's why immigration per capita is a very bad way to measure desirability of a country. You get wierd results like Iceland and Scandinavia being very undesireable, but Saudia Arabia being one of the most desirable places in the world.
I concur,,
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Our population is still primarily a Euro-American one. They didn't all get here by walking. European country of origin is still about the same as Mexican country of origin here.PureFodder wrote:
Shitness of original country and ability to get to new country are probably bigger factors. Crappy countries near to total hell-holes would likely have higher immigration per capita than nice places that are surrounded by other nice places.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?Turquoise wrote:
Are you saying that total immigration numbers determine the desirability of a place to immigrate to?
That's why immigration per capita is a very bad way to measure desirability of a country. You get wierd results like Iceland and Scandinavia being very undesireable, but Saudia Arabia being one of the most desirable places in the world.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not really. While it is true that nearly all Americans can trace their origins to immigration and white ethnicities make up most of our population, the majority of modern immigration is from Mexico, South America, South Asia, Africa, and East Asia. Most of the countries of origin are poor, or at least much poorer than the U.S.Kmarion wrote:
Our population is still primarily a Euro-American one. They didn't all get here by walking. European country of origin is still about the same as Mexican country of origin here.PureFodder wrote:
Shitness of original country and ability to get to new country are probably bigger factors. Crappy countries near to total hell-holes would likely have higher immigration per capita than nice places that are surrounded by other nice places.Kmarion wrote:
They represent something. You disagree?
That's why immigration per capita is a very bad way to measure desirability of a country. You get wierd results like Iceland and Scandinavia being very undesireable, but Saudia Arabia being one of the most desirable places in the world.
The same is true for most First World nations. The largest immigrant group in the U.K. is Indians. The largest immigrant group in France is North Africans. The largest immigrant group in Canada are South Asians.
Most immigration occurs due to economic interests. Ever since the early 1900s, most immigration to America is focused on economic opportunity in the same way that it is for all other major First World nations. Proximity does play a big part in who chooses to come to your country as well.
I entered the U.S. yesterday on a K-1 visa, and I'm applying for a permanent residence permit in a couple of weeks. We'll see how this place stacks up to Europe.
so much for homeland security.