Please anyone, anything, besides wayward priest and deviant behavior.

Can’t we go back to bashing Bush and his international puppets for a while?

You heard me; puppets, they probably can’t go to the John without his permission.

And what would the poor British do without our enlightened guidance?

I guess it's been a few weeks since anyone has really gotten riled up around here? ;)

I'm trying Cindy; it’s getting pretty darn stale in here. That whole priest thing been done to death.

And I bet the rest of the middle aged guys here, would much rather argue about something that has relevance to them.

That whole priest thing been done to death.

But the Bush thing hasn't been done to death? ;) :D

But the Bush thing hasn't been done to death? ;) :D
Not yet! :D

Here we go.

Back on the Roller Coaster.

But it beats the heck out of the Merry Go Round.

Stop beating about the Bush and say what you think

:D :D :D

Stop beating about the Bush and say what you think

:D :D :D

Somebody should beat him around the bush:cool:

Somebody should beat him around the bush:cool:

You can do better thant that.

Take the conflict in Iraq.

What should be done about that?

You can do better thant that.

Take the conflict in Iraq.

What should be done about that?

Simple, Bush should go on a meet the people of Iraq fact finding tour and see if the Iraqis agree with him that he's winning the war on terror that he started there in the first place.:rolleyes:

Actually the US will as usual pull out when it becomes no longer productive to Americans to be there, the loss of life will of course continue on a massive and unacceptable level in the meantime.
Still it got the massive increase in the American armaments industry that Bush wanted for his cronies, shame it's being paid for by other people's blood

That’s a simplified and narrow view and you know it.

Unfortunately we are in a conundrum. Damned if do, damned if we don’t.

Never mind how we got here. That’s for the historians. What we need is a comprehensive strategy to restore self worth to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately for them they have no plausible framework to build on.

The tyranny of the Middle East is not a US manufacture, but in ways it’s lucky for them that they are of strategic value. Otherwise they would be left to whatever genocidal maniac that comes along. You could wrongly accuse the Bush Administration of that; but it would be a typical knee jerk reaction.

We’re here and what is needed is a total cooperation by all of the Western powers; to see this through. It worked in Bosnia, it can work in the Middle East. Unless your contention is that they are incapable of self rule. Which of course, was the British point of view, for decades.

So condemning US policy after the fact is by it’s vary nature fruitless.

First we have to deal with the insurgents at all cost.

Second we need to continue to train the Iraqi Guard.

Third we need to have a viable propaganda program; we must find the way to the hearts and minds of the people that live there.

Forth we need to make it easy for them to join the real world. The “World” where most of the problems people face are cured by an education and a job.

We need to get the oil flowing so Americans can have cheep fuel. No wait scratch that one.

We need to teach them how to end graft in the system so when the oil is flowing the black market and organized crime aren’t in charge of it.

Speaking of organized crime; I just read an article in the magazine, “The National Interest” where Robert E. Looney reported on the state of organized crime in Iraq. The entire magazine is well written and balanced in its approach. I highly recommend it.

There are many obstacles to overcome in Iraq. We need to encourage the powers that be to make the right decisions. The way we do this is by getting more informed and taking a more active role.

What about the problems in our own country? We have spent so much time and money trying to rebuild another country, when we have more than enough problems for one "man" much less an entire administration, to try and overcome. I don't even think I should have to tell you what problems we've been facing recently.

What about the problems in our own country? We have spent so much time and money trying to rebuild another country, when we have more than enough problems for one "man" much less an entire administration, to try and overcome. I don't even think I should have to tell you what problems we've been facing recently.



Had we not lost so many post, you would have been able to read my views on them as well.

The entire planet is in serious turmoil, the fixing needs to be everywhere humans live.

Americans have always been among the world greatest problem solvers and our culture promotes hard work and genius more than any other, we will continue to have major problems and we will continue to solve them.

I would love to debate specific issues from either side if you like.

That’s a simplified and narrow view and you know it.



No, like most of us including the Frenchies have said all along it's the truth and like I said here's what will happen, at least the first part

http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/costly_withdrawal.htm

What about the problems in our own country? We have spent so much time and money trying to rebuild another country, when we have more than enough problems for one "man" much less an entire administration, to try and overcome. I don't even think I should have to tell you what problems we've been facing recently.
Umm, that is pretty much what Clinton ran on.
That and the definition of the word "is" and hummers for everyone!:D

Americans have always been among the world greatest problem solvers and our culture promotes hard work and genius more than any other,


I can't believe somebody,anybody, would write that.

Brian

I can't believe somebody,anybody, would write that.

Brian
It's taught to them in school from an early age

What we need is a comprehensive strategy to restore self worth to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately for them they have no plausible framework to build on.
Because the US military destroyed all that

So condemning US policy after the fact is by it’s vary nature fruitless.
It was condemned before the fact and ignored by GWB and his warmongering cronies because they could see $$$$$$$$ signs

First we have to deal with the insurgents at all cost.
Who were under control before the US attack

Second we need to continue to train the Iraqi Guard.
They were trained

Third we need to have a viable propaganda program; we must find the way to the hearts and minds of the people that live there.
A USA propaganda programme? do you think just because its a US thing that the totally different cultured people want your propaganda? You get enough brainwashing in the USA via your biased news - how do you know what Iraqi people need?

Forth we need to make it easy for them to join the real world. The “World” where most of the problems people face are cured by an education and a job.
Why? the real world? you mean the USA world? They had a real world but USA destroyed it

We need to get the oil flowing so Americans can have cheep fuel. No wait scratch that one.

Thats the most sensible and true one so far

We need to teach them how to end graft in the system so when the oil is flowing the black market and organized crime aren’t in charge of it.
but its ok for US black market and organised crime under the guise of the US government to be in charge of it?


There are many obstacles to overcome in Iraq. We need to encourage the powers that be to make the right decisions. The way we do this is by getting more informed and taking a more active role.
why would Bush and his mob listen to the US people? he hasn't so far, he's just settling scores for his daddy so he/they can get richer and richer in the rebuilding contracts etc etc

Did you not see the brilliant Farenheit 9/11? its was on national network TV here in the UK a while back - has it not been on USA national TV?

Col

Unless your contention is that they are incapable of self rule. Which of course, was the British point of view, for decades.




The Iraq's had self rule, it was by a guy called Saddam, he may have been a bastard but he was their bastard.
Just because we in the west elect a dictator every few years doesn't mean everybody has to go down that path, some people are happy to abrogate all responsibility to some one else.

There used to be a mainly benevelent dictatorship managing half the world it was called the British Empire, but the USA thought it should be replaced by one called Uncle Sam, the trouble is he cuts and runs when the going gets tough.

Brian

but the USA thought it should be replaced by one called Uncle Sam, the trouble is he cuts and runs when the going gets tough.


and sadly, the know-it-all / save-the-world US government brain deads didn't reckon on the Iraq invasion farse being an excellent practice ground for all manner of low life to have a good pop at the US military without setting foot on US soil.

They must have thought it was an (Allah) heaven sent opportunity, they couldn't believe their luck - now we can kill thousands of US people on our own ground.

Now, its costing the US billions and billions whilst issues at home go short of money and shelved - like the levies that protected New Orleans from flooding - strengthening and replacement all shelved due to lack of money - what a joke:rolleyes: they soon find money for stupid pointless space exploration and stupid illegal wars.

Col

, but the USA thought it should be replaced by one called Uncle Sam, the trouble is he cuts and runs when the going gets tough.

Brian
and totally ignores international law, locking up prisoners without trial, kidnapping suspects, murdering suspects, remind me again why Saddam had to be removed:rolleyes:

and totally ignores international law, locking up prisoners without trial, kidnapping suspects, murdering suspects, remind me again why Saddam had to be removed:rolleyes:
don't forget the suspicious "ghost" flights into European countries by the US shipping prisoners to secret bases to be tortured by the CIA. Why was Saddam deposed now?

Condo - whats-her-name said it doesn't happen, odd that pictures appeared in the UK press showing such planes and flights.


Col

and they wanted to bomb a newspaper that didn't tow the Bush line, unlike CNN, NBC etc:rolleyes:

I can't believe somebody,anybody, would write that.

Brian



Well Brian,
Explain why over half of the inventions on the entire planet were by Americans over the last 150 years.

Don’t let jealousy cloud your vision.

What we are taught, Rich, makes us that way, so teaching us that we are the most innovative society it is Manifest Destiny.

Explain why over half of the inventions on the entire planet were by Americans over the last 150 years
Because America had the money to buy in the European scientists?

Peter

Because America had the money to buy in the European scientists?

Peter



Oh contraire Peter,
This inventive culture started before we were rich.

Going all the way back to early America where after only a few decades of ship building we had the finest ships in the world.

And the reason was not money. It was brain drain. All the best European minds flocked to America to participate in the American dream. Just like now when the brightest Indians, Chinese, Arab, and others come here to be educated.

The melting pot is the reason for American inventiveness not money, it’s cultural.

And a belief that we are the brightest in the world.

Which of course is the truth.

Going all the way back to early America where after only a few decades of ship building we had the finest ships in the world.

ha ha ha, which patriotic manual does that come out of?:rolleyes:

And a belief that we are the brightest in the world.
.

misplaced to say the least

Which of course is the truth.

actually it's a terminological inexactitude

Well Brian,
Explain why over half of the inventions on the entire planet were by Americans over the last 150 years.
.
yeah but most of 'em were useless:p

I can't believe somebody,anybody, would write that.

Brian
Once again, while I don't completely agree with jsanders' sentiment, he has a point. As far as a culture of hard work goes, the USA ranks seventh out of the 24 countries listed by the OECD for average hours worked each week per person (34.2). That's significantly higher than the UK (31.8), Germany (26.2) and France (25.9).

The United States has won 154 Nobel Prizes, only two less than the UK (66), Germany (52) and France (38) combined. Only a handful of people outside the USA have won the Nobel Prize for Economics in the past 25 years. The USA has also won 12 Fields Medals as opposed to France's and UK's seven apiece and Russia/USSR's six.

If you want to accuse jsanders of hyperbole or even ostentation then fine, but you cannot deny that the United States has been the single greatest contributing nation to the intellectual pursuits for the past century.

ha ha ha, which patriotic manual does that come out of?:rolleyes:



Actually British in Origin

Yeah, OK why do they call it the Americas Cup? Because of our ship building and by way of technology transfer, our yacht building.

I guess the history books made that up as well.

If you’re going to ridicule my post at the very least you should have a clue about the facts.

Maybe this fact was left out of your upper class British education ( It wouldn’t do to have a bunch of upstarts out performing you on the Seas and upsetting British sensibilities), the American Clipper Ships set the standard for ships made in that time period. They were faster, sleeker, and they would point better than anything the British, Dutch, Spanish, or French had.

So look it up, and be proven wrong once again.

The United States has won 154 Nobel Prizes, only two less than the UK (66), Germany (52) and France (38) combined.
With 50% more population than UK,Germany and France combined you would have thought they should have got more?

The USA has also won 12 Fields Medals as opposed to France's and UK's seven apiece

Not sure what a Field Medal is but again with nearly 5 times the population of the UK they should have been able to at least double our score?

Peter

Actually British in Origin

Yeah, OK why do they call it the Americas Cup? Because of our ship building and by way of technology transfer, our yacht building.

I guess the history books made that up as well.

.
Oh you're talking about toy boats, now let me see, which country took most medals on the water in the last couple of olympics?
Which country was the first to sail single handed around the globe, which country holds the record for sailing single handed around the globe?
Which country held the Blue Ribband the most times?

Maybe this fact was left out of your upper class British education

It's obvious that it was upper class in terms of content, you guys spend too much time swearing at the flag, perhaps if you'd spent some time getting an education:rolleyes:

So look it up, and be proven wrong once again

I do so hate putting poo in your custard, even with all your money you can't beat ingenuity, skill and sheer determination:cool:

Which forward and free thinking country is leading the world on stem cell research?

It was brain drain. All the best European minds flocked to America to participate in the American dream.

They went for the money and if they born and bred elsewhere does that make it an American success, oh! of course it does, like Navratilova and Lendl those great american tennis players.

You accuse Rich of no facts so lets have them

Invention, inventor, place of birth and education. at least us ignorant foriegners can then gaze in awe at your achievements, like inventing computers the jet engine penicillin etc etc

Brian

Yeah, OK why do they call it the Americas Cup? Because of our ship building and by way of technology transfer, our yacht building.


Joey babe - remind us again how many different countries participate in the "World Series":rolleyes:
and also remind us how many of those countries (other than the USA) have won it

Col

With 50% more population than UK,Germany and France combined you would have thought they should have got more?



Not sure what a Field Medal is but again with nearly 5 times the population of the UK they should have been able to at least double our score?

Peter
Perhaps Jo can work out the awards on a pro-rata basis based on population, that would give a better picture.

Col

Ya'll missed out.
It's called Americas Cup after the first yacht that won it. :D
You shouldv'e looked it up.

Ya'll missed out.
It's called Americas Cup after the first yacht that won it. :D
You shouldv'e looked it up.
we knew you'd take delight in telling us anyway;) BTW, was there any other countries participating at the time? or just America

any thoughts on my earlier question?

Col

we knew you'd take delight in telling us anyway;) BTW, was there any other countries participating at the time? or just America

any thoughts on my earlier question?

Col

Here's the start.


The concept of the America's Cup developed from Lord Wilton inviting America to send a yacht across the Atlantic to race as part of an Industrial World Fair - otherwise known as Prince Albert's Great Exhibition.

The New York Yacht Club, in its formative years itself, sent over a challenger and duly won the event.

Britain's desire to win back the trophy saw the development of the America's Cup and ensured that the 1851 race was not a one off.

Who else would you have expected?

Looks like we're keeping up a fine Tradition here.

1851 - Squadron fleet 0-1 America

John Cox Stevens, first Commodore and founder of the NYYC, travelled across the Atlantic with the express intention of denting British seafaring pride.

J you crack me up.

Noble prizes to population ratio

US population 295,734,134 according to:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

1 Noble prize per 1920351 head of population

UK population 60,441,457 same source

1 Noble prize per 915779 head of population

That's twice the number of Noble prizes per head for the UK :p

Graduation statistcs source: IES/OECD Education at a Glance 2002

Graduation rates in OECD countries (per cent)
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/FTORocket/399fig3.gif

Sorry matey but you just don't cut the mustard;) :D

Nice one Stoat;)

Col

1851 - Squadron fleet 0-1 America

John Cox Stevens, first Commodore and founder of the NYYC, travelled across the Atlantic with the express intention of denting British seafaring pride.


Like some Yank in a little boat wanting a race would do that?

Jo, even the Spanish armada couldn't do it, so some Yankee geezer doesn't stand a chance:rolleyes:

Col

PS

This site

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908742.html

says that of 15,927,987 enrollments for all degree types in the US only 2,494,009 actually graduated :D That's ~1:6 graduates to enrolements:rolleyes:

Yay! Statistics wars! Now I can go fiddle with the data to prove whatever I feel like...

Yay! Statistics wars! Now I can go fiddle with the data to prove whatever I feel like...


But the numbers are from US sources ;) :confused:

J you crack me up.

Noble prizes to population ratio

US population 295,734,134 according to:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

1 Noble prize per 1920351 head of population

UK population 60,441,457 same source

1 Noble prize per 915779 head of population

That's twice the number of Noble prizes per head for the UK :p

Graduation statistcs source: IES/OECD Education at a Glance 2002

Graduation rates in OECD countries (per cent)
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/FTORocket/399fig3.gif

Sorry matey but you just don't cut the mustard;) :D


Well I’ve been trying to tell you this for months. And you guys still don’t listen.
The bottom 1/3 of the US population doesn’t count. Their only desire is to stay ignorant and poor.

Well I’ve been trying to tell you this for months. And you guys still don’t listen.
The bottom 1/3 of the US population doesn’t count. Their only desire is to stay ignorant and poor.

If that is how you think of your fellows then i pity you. :(

If that is how you think of your fellows then i pity you. :(



Why?
It's a fact; generational ignorance is a way of life for some here. Only in small areas has anyone been successful at eliminating it.

We are unfortunately headed for a divided country. Similar to South American ones, but that will be ok too, since that’s who will be living here. They’re used to it.

That's twice the number of Noble prizes per head for the UK

OK so if you double the 66 UK NP's that's (counting on fingers, now counting on toes, damn, getting out calculator) 132 for the UK, still not up to the US's 154. Given the US is only 229 years old, and the UK is like, well, a few years older, they should have all of them, NO WAIT, most left to come the USA to get away from the tyrants in the UK!

OK so if you double the 66 UK NP's that's (counting on fingers, now counting on toes, damn, getting out calculator) 132 for the UK, still not up to the US's 154. Given the US is only 229 years old, and the UK is like, well, a few years older, they should have all of them!

You do realise that the Nobel Prizes (with the exception of Economics, which came later) were only initiated in 1901, six years after the death of Alfred Nobel, so the age of the United States is irrelevant.

Doubling up the UK's 66 to get 132 to place against the 154 of the US means nothing; that's why The Stoat demonstrated that the comparison is only relevant when you double one Nobel Prize per heads of population.

The Stoat demonstrated that the comparison is only relevant when you double one Nobel Prize per heads of population.
Naw the whole thing is irrelevant that's what you don't seem to see (are you a Brit, don't sound like a true Scott) and we are better than you, NAHNEE NAHNEE BOO BOO:D

Why?
generational ignorance is a way of life for some here.
can't you go to an adult educational facility then, there may be some hope for you yet Joeline? :cool:

and we are better than you,
At what exactly?:confused:

I think that the Stoat was actualy trying to talk about population numbers, mass not quality. but then the states has a lot of space. only 30 people to the sqKm as opposed to our 243.

Peter

Ya'll missed out.
It's called Americas Cup after the first yacht that won it. :D
You shouldv'e looked it up.
One piddly little boat race:rolleyes:
Who built the worlds first passenger jet airliner
Who built the worlds largest airliner
Who built the worlds fastest passenger airliner
Who built the worlds first hovercraft
Who built the worlds first VTOl
Who built the worlds first nuclear power plant
Which car company wouldn't ship their cars to the States with ABS fitted, in case the concept got borrowed?:rolleyes:

I know these are tough questions for you Joey and you won't find the answers in your history books, try Google if you're stuck

Who failed to properly punctuate a question 6 out of 7 times? :rolleyes: :p

One piddly little boat race:rolleyes:
Who built the worlds first passenger jet airliner
Who built the worlds largest airliner
Who built the worlds fastest passenger airliner
Who built the worlds first hovercraft
Who built the worlds first VTOl
Who built the worlds first nuclear power plant
Which car company wouldn't ship their cars to the States with ABS fitted, in case the concept got borrowed?:rolleyes:

I know these are tough questions for you Joey and you won't find the answers in your history books, try Google if you're stuck


These must be a real source of national pride for you guys.

A similar list of American first achievements would fill up…let me see… oh yeah over 6,000,000 patents filed.

Originally Posted by Rich

One piddly little boat race

Which after taking from the nautically challenged British, we kept for 120 years until a New Zealander took it.

Who built the worlds first passenger jet airliner

Who built the first aircraft?

Who built the worlds fastest passenger airliner

Who built the passenger aircraft with the best safety rating? And went on to build ½ of all passenger aircraft in the world.

Who built the worlds first hovercraft

It was about time.

Who built the worlds first VTOl

Very Cool, but it took Americans to perfect it.


Which car company wouldn't ship their cars to the States with ABS fitted, in case the concept got borrowed?

That's ok, Ford later bought them out.


Who built the worlds first nuclear power plant


In this case you're history is incorect.

The first one (non-commercial) was used to enrich plutonium. I think that was called Manhattan.

OK Richard the Lion Heartless,

How about these?

Who flew around the globe first both first and non stop?

Who first walked on the moon?

Who built the first sky scraper and about to built the tallest again?

Who was first to Mars?

Where was the first open heart surgery?

Where is the world largest ball of yarn?

Who broke the sound barrier?

Who split the first atom?

Who created the first fusion reaction?

Etc,etc,etc

Richard,

Here's an important one you missed.

Who made the first aircraft carrier?

But the numbers are from US sources ;) :confused:

Who was it that said "There is the truth, there are lies, and then there are statistics?" :D

The bottom 1/3 of the US population doesn’t count. Their only desire is to stay ignorant and poor.

If that is how you think of your fellows then i pity you. :(

Do you not have any problems like this over there?

(P.S. - Yippee! I reached 100 posts... again. :rolleyes: :( )

In this case you're history is incorect.

The first one (non-commercial) was used to enrich plutonium. I think that was called Manhattan.
Not so, you know I meant commercial

I see you completely ignored the comment about the American Clipper ships.

This is fun it reminds me of my daddy can beat up your daddy.

OK Richard the Lion Heartless,

How about these?

Who flew around the globe first both first and non stop?



pointless

Who first walked on the moon?



pointless



Who built the first sky scraper and about to built the tallest again?



pointless



Who was first to Mars?

the Martians


Where was the first open heart surgery?


South Africa


Where is the world largest ball of yarn?



since Yanks are full of Yarn..........

Who broke the sound barrier?

pointless


Who split the first atom?


Ernest Rutherford whilst living in Britain:cool:

Richard,

Here's an important one you missed.

Who made the first aircraft carrier?
Japa n

Japa n

Actually the British, The HMS Hermes

But as usual an American was the first to take off from a ship.

But as usual an American was the first to take off from a ship.
That was stationary
Commander Charles Samson, RN, became the first airman to take off from a moving warship on May 2, 1912. He took off in a Short S27 from the battleship HMS Hibernia while she steamed at 10.5 knots (19 km/h) during the Royal Fleet Review at Weymouth.

Actually the British, The HMS Hermes
wrong again

HMS Ark Royal was the first aircraft carrier. She was originally laid down as a merchant ship, but was converted on the building stocks to be a seaplane carrier. Launched in 1914, she served in the Dardanelles campaign and throughout World War I.

South Africa

Prove it. Cause I thought it was In Hou TX

Prove it. Cause I thought it was In Hou TX
ask anyone who the heart pioneer was; Christian Barnard

Who was it that said "There is the truth, there are lies, and then there are statistics?" :D


But TS posted the facts, not the statistics:D

Prove it. Cause I thought it was In Hou TX

1967, South African, Christian Barnard

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/christian_barnard.htm

I said open heart surgery not transplant


On September 2, 1952, two University of Minnesota surgeons, Dr. Walton Lillehei and Dr. John Lewis, attempted the first open heart surgery on a five-year-old girl who had been born with a hole in her heart.

That was a double play
Rich and SJ two little English sparrows; one American Eagle.

A similar list of American first achievements would fill up…let me see… oh yeah over 6,000,000 patents filed.

Not quite honest use of statistics here!

Caveat: Patent filing statistics are not a definitive measure of innovation. Patents are sought in the markets which matter to the patentee, not necessarily in the country where the invention was developed:

Peter

That was a double play
Rich and SJ two little English sparrows; one American Eagle.
we've clipped your wings so many times, you now look more like an ostrich

An intresting and timely article about American inventors
http://biz.yahoo.com/usat/051206/13263022.html
It doesn't seem unusual to have a foreigner holding so many patents. Of the top 10 living patent holders on the 1997 list, eight were from other countries. Six were Germans, and two were Japanese. The only two Americans were flower guy Weder and oil industry researcher Hartley Owen.

And the 'flower guy Weder'
Weder, who is still alive and whose family runs floral packaging company Highland Supply, has his name on 1,321 patents. Almost all have to do with items you'd find at a florist. Weder's most recent patent - No. 6,962,021, granted Nov. 8 - is for a sleeve for holding a group of flowers. Before that, on Oct. 11, Weder was issued a patent titled, "Method of covering a flower pot." On Sept. 20, he was issued a patent titled, "Method of covering a flower pot or floral grouping."

Watch out interflora!!

Peter

Who was it that said "There is the truth, there are lies, and then there are statistics?" :D

Do you not have any problems like this over there?

(P.S. - Yippee! I reached 100 posts... again. :rolleyes: :( )

My statistics were a tongue in cheek rebutal for the previous attempts to prove that America was a superior race by posting the number of Noble prizes awarded. :rolleyes: I quite frankly find it hilarious that people actually think that one country's people are better than anothers. Our political systems may reward our endeavors in different ways but a human is a human.

And that is why i feel pity for J and for anyone who writes off 1/3 of their countrymen. Once you objectify people it becomes so easy to see them as a problem with a final solution. Every country has it's problems but not every man or every country feels the need to vilify those people with them. Based on J's statement and your follow-up "Do you not have any problems like this over there?" what i see is someone who believes that people = problem. I would suggest that people = solution. If the truth is your culture promotes hard work and genius more than any other, we will continue to have major problems and we will continue to solve them then how come 1/3 of those in that culture are not valid. Before you suggest that they have stepped outside of the culture or refuse to participate i would suggest that that is simply another failing of the culture. If your culture cannot excite people to better themselves then how can you look down upon those cultures that do?

TS

The problem with this discussion is you are trying to compare the US based on a paradigm that exists in Britain.

A much more accurate view would be to compare the US with Europe not Great Britain. So why don’t you guys take your tax money and fix the unemployment problem in France?

Or maybe you should fix what ever ails Turkey I’m sure you guys could straighten them out.

It’s easy to condemn us from your place on a small mostly monogenetic island. We are spread out over a huge geographical area. And what ya’ll continue to misunderstand is; we are a nation of states.

We do not have a central culture.


I think most of the British guys that post on this site actually have no idea what life is like here. You continuously try to lump us into a group. There is no group America. It’s an amalgamation of people from all over the world.

A much more accurate view would be to compare the US with Europe not Great Britain. So why don’t you guys take your tax money and fix the unemployment problem in France?
France???? you must be joking - I'm not sure the British would relish paying to solve the frogs unemployment problems. They're quite happy to burn our sheep and cause summer disruption with strikes - let the frogs sort out their own problems.
Or maybe you should fix what ever ails Turkey I’m sure you guys could straighten them out.
we could do, but unlike the US, we try not to just barge in and tell another country what they should believe in etc

It’s easy to condemn us from your place on a small mostly monogenetic island. We are spread out over a huge geographical area. And what ya’ll continue to misunderstand is; we are a nation of states.We do not have a central culture.
so whats the Prez there for then if you all do your own thing anyway?:confused:

I think most of the British guys that post on this site actually have no idea what life is like here.
Is it not the American dream then? a land of milk and honey or whatever the constitution says

Col

The problem with this discussion is you are trying to compare the US based on a paradigm that exists in Britain.

A much more accurate view would be to compare the US with Europe not Great Britain. So why don’t you guys take your tax money and fix the unemployment problem in France?

Or maybe you should fix what ever ails Turkey I’m sure you guys could straighten them out.

It’s easy to condemn us from your place on a small mostly monogenetic island. We are spread out over a huge geographical area. And what ya’ll continue to misunderstand is; we are a nation of states.

We do not have a central culture.


I think most of the British guys that post on this site actually have no idea what life is like here. You continuously try to lump us into a group. There is no group America. It’s an amalgamation of people from all over the world.


If you have such cultural diversity and no central culture then why don't you accept that people from these different cultures might not want to buy into your idea of the American dream - though i fail to see how you can have an American dream if there is no American culture. You condemn yourselves if you support an argument that says all immigrants are equal but some of us are more equal than others. So much for a political debate what's the point if the views of 1/3 of people are considered null and void. How do you expect to solve anything with that attitude? Perhaps you should stop talking about the success of your "country" and start with the success of your State if that is the way you feel about it? Maybe the success of your parent country what ever that might have been?

TS

If you have such cultural diversity and no central culture then why don't you accept that people from these different cultures might not want to buy into your idea of the American dream - though i fail to see how you can have an American dream if there is no American culture. You condemn yourselves if you support an argument that says all immigrants are equal but some of us are more equal than others. So much for a political debate what's the point if the views of 1/3 of people are considered null and void. How do you expect to solve anything with that attitude? Perhaps you should stop talking about the success of your "country" and start with the success of your State if that is the way you feel about it? Maybe the success of your parent country what ever that might have been?

TS

It's not that the bottom 1/3 doesn't count; those are your words.

I said the bottom 1/3 is ignorant and poor.

What you guys completely fail to understand is they WANT to be that way. There is no need to help them. They want to get a hand out from Uncle Sam, take their food stamps to the local store and buy a 6 pack.

Why do you feel like I should solve their problems?

And by the way no one ask them to participate in the American Dream, but their participation is that they have the freedom to be ignorant.

Like I said you have absolutely no reference point here.

When you (Great Britain) spend all your money to solve Europe’s problems, then you will have a leg to stand on.

When you (Great Britain) spend all your money to solve Europe’s problems, then you will have a leg to stand on.
Why would the UK want to solve Europes problems? Thats what the EU is there for not the UK.
The UK gets a healthy several billion pound rebate per year from the EU because of the French being paid so much via the common agricultural policy.

Now, the stupid French and the bloody Germans are up-in-arms about our rebate but casually forget its there because of their greedy farmers subsidies.

Col

Why would the UK want to solve Europes problems? Thats what the EU is there for not the UK.
The UK gets a healthy several billion pound rebate per year from the EU because of the French being paid so much via the common agricultural policy.

Now, the stupid French and the bloody Germans are up-in-arms about our rebate but casually forget its there because of their greedy farmers subsidies.

Col

That answers the debate.

That answers the debate.
What does? the fact that the British don't like being part of the EU?

Col

Having defended all this.

I’m going to change horses, for a while.

The real problem in the U.S. today is one thing.

Corporate greed and power.

Most people here and I expect there as well have no idea of the extent of this power. It’s why the poor bastards at the bottom don’t have health insurance.

It’s the reason millions of American jobs are moving to China, which is going to create millions more, that don’t have insurance.

It’s the reason we have such a huge illegal immigration problem.

America’s international prestige has diminished because of GWB and Company, he give you guys something to focus on. But he’s not the real problem.

The real problem is globalization. And believe it or not you will eventually be affected by it as well.

Well I’ve been trying to tell you this for months. And you guys still don’t listen.
The bottom 1/3 of the US population doesn’t count. Their only desire is to stay ignorant and poor.

No they are your words.

I'm not suggesting that you should solve their problems. I'm suggesting that a system that creates people who feel that they have no role to play in the greater well being of a culture both from the perspective of working to improve themselves or by creating people who do not see that an economic underclass might be a major failing of that system shows that the system is both flawed and corrupt.

But as you say there is no system there is no culture and by that argument you can neither justify yourself nor condemn them against a set of principles that you clearly do not believe in. If there is no America then how can:

..American [be] the first to take off from a ship.


how can there be?

one American Eagle.

where did this name come from?


It's called Americas Cup after the first yacht that won it. :D

My statistics were a tongue in cheek rebutal for the previous attempts to prove that America was a superior race by posting the number of Noble prizes awarded. :rolleyes:
You misunderstood my intent; I thought I made it clear that I did not agree with jsanders' sentiment (ie., Americans are the best, etc.).

I simply showed that based on a certain criteria (granted, a rather arbitrary *but reasonable* one) America - as a nation - has been the single greatest contributor to scientific, mathematical and literary pursuits for the past century. While that's no reason to have an inflated sense of superiority, it is a reason to be proud as a citizen and expect a small degree of recognition and respect, just as almost every person in almost every country in the world has pride in their nation.

I also think jsanders made a very interesting point that is relevant to almost every discussion in this Watercooler: the United States is more closely comparable to the continent of Europe/EU than an individual country. When evaluating the social or political conditions in the U.S. and making points about what should/could be changed, our European friends often look at it from the perspective of what is done in their own country, when the more accurate comparisson would be to examine how the EU handles it. I'm sure you will see the challenges are much greater when attempting to serve the interests of people from 50 different countries and vast cultures than one country with limited cultural variation. I think it could go a long way in improving constructive communication.

No they are your words.

I'm not suggesting that you should solve their problems. I'm suggesting that a system that creates people who feel that they have no role to play in the greater well being of a culture both from the perspective of working to improve themselves or by creating people who do not see that an economic underclass might be a major failing of that system shows that the system is both flawed and corrupt.

But as you say there is no system there is no culture and by that argument you can neither justify yourself nor condemn them against a set of principles that you clearly do not believe in. If there is no America then how can:




how can there be?



where did this name come from?


They dont count in the statistics.

Is it not the American dream then? a land of milk and honey or whatever the constitution says

I don't think that's mentioned anywhere in the constitution. :rolleyes: What it does say is that we have the freedom to pursue the "American dream" as you call it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what the constitution says. Happiness is not guaranteed for every citizen, but we all have the same freedom to pursue it. The point that jsanders was trying to make with his comment about the bottom 1/3 of the population is that some people think it is too much work to try to better themselves and would rather just sit at home and collect a free check every month for doing nothing. Sometimes people are able to break free from that but when you have a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation welfare recipient it becomes harder because that is what they have learned from their parents and grandparents, etc. and it is the only way of life that they know.

I also think jsanders made a very interesting point that is relevant to almost every discussion in this Watercooler: the United States is more closely comparable to the continent of Europe/EU than an individual country. When evaluating the social or political conditions in the U.S. and making points about what should/could be changed, our European friends often look at it from the perspective of what is done in their own country, when the more accurate comparisson would be to examine how the EU handles it. I'm sure you will see the challenges are much greater when attempting to serve the interests of people from 50 different countries and vast cultures than one country with limited cultural variation. I think it could go a long way in improving constructive communication.


The problem with that approach is the EU doesn't function like the US. You might as well argue that Africa is a comparison or any Continent with a broad political aim but the fact is in order for the comparision to be affective the structures need to be the same. Europe can't agree to a single constitution on how to handle trade and political situations. Two of the most pro-european nations rejected it as they felt it would dilute their sovereignty and culture. We still have a mulitude of currencies we have 41 official languages and over 220 "unofficial" ones. We have a principle agreement for a European army but in reality it's no more than a subset of NATO. The EU has no tax raising powers and it's money is gained by donation - and that is often one way traffic. We don't have an elected president. We don't really like each other that much most of the time - politically speaking. We are 25 sovereign nations that have joined a club whose original intention was to reduce the likelyhood of a European war and free up restrictive trade practices. It's snowballed since then but we have nothing like the consensus that the US has on domestic or foreign policy and certainly if there was a vote tommorrow on whether England should remain part of it i wouldn't be at all surprised if we voted to leave. Most of us, i think it's fair to say, don't see ourselves as European culturally or politically. No matter what anyone has said so far all the Americans i know and have met would consider themselves American first and say Californian second or perhaps Italian American or African American. The best way i can put this is if the Stars and Stripes was lying in the middle of a road how long would it remain there? If the Eu flag was left lying around it wouldn't stand a chance. I'd certainly wipe my bum on it. Or perhaps another way. If we had presidential elections and there was 1 candidate from each country and each country had one vote. We'd have a 25 way tie. You can't say that about the US.


I'm not suggesting that running a large country or group of states is a cake walk but your structures allow this to happen. You have a system in place that allows the states to function as a coherent whole when required. And you present a single face to the rest of the world that is nothing like the EU as this recent middle-eastern conflict has proven.

When non-US people here the word America they think of a country. That's not through ignorance that is what is projected by the US. The might of America, the power of America, the American ideal, the American way, the American dream. People haven't emigrated to America because of the Idaho dream or the Kentucky Ideal.

no-one has the right to say you should not be proud of your achievements but if one accepts those achievements as American then one must accept their is an America and that it has a culture and that culture has created what it sees around itself.

TS

The point that jsanders was trying to make with his comment about the bottom 1/3 of the population is that some people think it is too much work to try to better themselves and would rather just sit at home and collect a free check every month for doing nothing. Sometimes people are able to break free from that but when you have a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation welfare recipient it becomes harder because that is what they have learned from their parents and grandparents, etc. and it is the only way of life that they know.

That's my point what kind of system allows that to continue? To what purpose? Who does it serve? It's craziness i tells ya :D

That's my point what kind of system allows that to continue? To what purpose? Who does it serve? It's craziness i tells ya :D


If there is a unified culture in America it would be Rugged Individualism.

The problem with that approach is the EU doesn't function like the US. [...]
All good and valid points. On the other hand, I could list just as many points that differentiate the United States from other individual countries, so I think using the EU perspective still has value. Obviously, the EU is not an exact comparrison but everything you list almost exactly describes the early U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, which I find very interesting.

If there is a unified culture in America it would be Rugged Individualism.
I can't say I agree. That may have been true 100 or even 50 years ago, but today I think you'd have to drop the "Rugged".

The problem with that approach is the EU doesn't function like the US. You might as well argue that Africa is a comparison or any Continent with a broad political aim but the fact is in order for the comparision to be affective the structures need to be the same. Europe can't agree to a single constitution on how to handle trade and political situations.

So basically neither can be used as a comparison, as pretty much we have been trying to say for quite a long time......
And we do have squables inter-state, it is just we have Big Daddy looking out so it can't grow into a squirmish instead. And certain states think they are better (but what does New York and California know anyway;) ).

Ok looking at it from a different approach can anyone explain to me the shape of the State of Colorado? Or more precisely how it came to be a great big square :D

All good and valid points. On the other hand, I could list just as many points that differentiate the United States from other individual countries, so I think using the EU perspective still has value. Obviously, the EU is not an exact comparrison but everything you list almost exactly describes the early U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, which I find very interesting.


I can't say I agree. That may have been true 100 or even 50 years ago, but today I think you'd have to drop the "Rugged".

I'm from Texas, remember?
Kicken ass and taken names.

Of Course I don’t think Americans are better than anyone else.

We are everyone else.

But there is something to be said about genetic and cultural diversity. It’s just that it’s a sword, which unfortunately cuts in both directions.

I can't believe somebody,anybody, would write that.

Brian

I can't believe that my comment back at post16 has created such an amount of ire and hot air. It was not even an anti American statement, regular readers of the Watercooler will know that I am not anti American, but it was anti Jhotair, Kraj got close to understanding what I was about in his first post on the subject when talking of hyperbole and ostentation, me , I just call it arrogance.

Brian

I can't believe that my comment back at post16 has created such an amount of ire and hot air. It was not even an anti American statement, regular readers of the Watercooler will know that I am not anti American, but it was anti Jhotair, Kraj got close to understanding what I was about in his first post on the subject when talking of hyperbole and ostentation, me , I just call it arrogance.

Brian


I think it was just a bunch of ball busting to be honest with you.

We will work together to deal with what’s coming or we may perish together.

That's my point what kind of system allows that to continue? To what purpose? Who does it serve? It's craziness i tells ya :D

I agree and as I said, I don't have all the answers about how to fix it. Once again, I guess you don't have problems of this type over there?

I can't believe that my comment back at post16 has created such an amount of ire and hot air. It was not even an anti American statement, regular readers of the Watercooler will know that I am not anti American, but it was anti Jhotair, Kraj got close to understanding what I was about in his first post on the subject when talking of hyperbole and ostentation, me , I just call it arrogance.

I know you're not anti-American. ;) One of our problems over here I suppose is that we are fiercely proud of what we have accomplished as a nation and even despite our widely varying cultures and customs even within our own borders we are able to present a united front to other nations. We enjoy freedoms here that other people around the world do not have and we want them to enjoy the same freedoms that we enjoy. As someone else mentioned earlier, sometimes other peoples don't want things to be that way, they may be perfectly happy to hand complete control of their lives over to a dictator. (Please, no jokes about GWB) :rolleyes:

I can't believe that my comment back at post16 has created such an amount of ire and hot air. It was not even an anti American statement, regular readers of the Watercooler will know that I am not anti American, but it was anti Jhotair, Kraj got close to understanding what I was about in his first post on the subject when talking of hyperbole and ostentation, me , I just call it arrogance.

Brian
I am also quite aware you're not anti-American. In fact, you're one of the only UKers I'm aware of who actively argues against (unwarranted) anti-American posts. Yes, it's quite a thin line between hyperbole and arrogance, but the former applies to the content of a person's message and the latter tends to be applied more to a person, so I tend to tread carefully with that word. :) Nevertheless, this nation could certainly use a lesson in humility.

What you guys completely fail to understand is they WANT to be that way. There is no need to help them. They want to get a hand out from Uncle Sam, take their food stamps to the local store and buy a 6 pack.

How do you know this, simply because 2thirds have made it doesn't mean the other third are lazy, what opportunities do they have, lets look at Texas, it's cheaper to send blacks to prison than school so that's what you do, equal opportunity for all, no I don't think so

the United States is more closely comparable to the continent of Europe/EU than an individual country.

No it isn't the US is made up of states as ONE country, the UK, which is where we post from, is made up of Four countries. They all make some of their own laws which aren't applicable in others, but the government of the UK take control of education and make sure that all are treated fairly.
As for the size comparison the UK is the most overcrowded island on the planet with very few natural resources, the US on the other hand has masses of room and a myriad of natural resources.
It would follow therefore by Joeys arguments that the UK should have far more social problems than the US, it doesn't, some yes, but not enough to have to keep a gun under the pillow.
As for the cultural diffences of nations the UK has the most diverse cultural population on the planet

What it does say is that we have the freedom to pursue the "American dream" as you call it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what the constitution says. Happiness is not guaranteed for every citizen, but we all have the same freedom to pursue it.

But every free and democratic country on the planet has that right, why was it necessary to put that in the constitution in the States?

How do you know this, simply because 2thirds have made it doesn't mean the other third are lazy, what opportunities do they have, lets look at Texas, it's cheaper to send blacks to prison than school so that's what you do, equal opportunity for all, no I don't think so

Who says it's cheaper? It actually costs quite a bit to clothe, house, and feed inmates for long periods of time than it would be to send them to school. Not to mention medical costs of inmates and all other costs I'm not thinking of. Blacks have the same opportunity to go to college as every other citizen in this country. More opportunity in some cases as there are many scholorships available for blacks only that aren't available to others. If blacks are in prison, then it is because they have broken the law, been caught and arrested, and tried and found guilty by a jury. Race has nothing to do with it, there are whites in prison as well. :rolleyes: I'm not terribly sympathetic to those who say they didn't have the "opportunity" to attend college when I worked for 14 years and paid my own way through and did it. It wasn't easy for me either but life's all about choices. Yes, it's harder for some people and easier for others but that's the way it is. It isn't impossible for anyone.


It would follow therefore by Joeys arguments that the UK should have far more social problems than the US, it doesn't, some yes, but not enough to have to keep a gun under the pillow.

We don't have to keep guns under our pillows here either, but we do have the right to own guns. This has been thrashed to death.

But every free and democratic country on the planet has that right, why was it necessary to put that in the constitution in the States?

Because that is what we stand for and our forefathers wanted to ensure that future generations were guaranteed the same rights. I was really making a point about Col stating that our constitution said that America was supposed to be the land of milk and honey for everyone. That is in itself ridiculous. The right to search for happiness is what is guaranteed.

But every free and democratic country on the planet has that right, why was it necessary to put that in the constitution in the States?
Because they all (well most anyway) came from Europe at the time and figured if it was not in writing, America would end up like another Europe and they didn't want that.:cool:

Who says it's cheaper? It actually costs quite a bit to clothe, house, and feed inmates for long periods of time than it would be to send them to school. Not to mention medical costs of inmates and all other costs I'm not thinking of. Blacks have the same opportunity to go to college as every other citizen in this country. More opportunity in some cases as there are many scholorships available for blacks only that aren't available to others. If blacks are in prison, then it is because they have broken the law, been caught and arrested, and tried and found guilty by a jury. Race has nothing to do with it, there are whites in prison as well. :rolleyes: I'm not terribly sympathetic to those who say they didn't have the "opportunity" to attend college when I worked for 14 years and paid my own way through and did it. It wasn't easy for me either but life's all about choices. Yes, it's harder for some people and easier for others but that's the way it is. It isn't impossible for anyone.

If that's the case and every one is equal when do you think southern states will agree to the election of a Black president, or even a woman? As for whites also being held then why are the majority of those held in prisons in Texas Black? When was the last white man executed for murdering a black man? If there are more blacks in prison in Texas than in school then there must be something fundamentally flawed in the system surely? What's being done to break the cycle, other than to say it's their own fault, they're uneducable?

We don't have to keep guns under our pillows here either, but we do have the right to own guns.
but that's what we can't understand, when someone's gunned down or kids are massacred by nutters with guns you simply dismiss it as it not being your fault but that of the individual and your constitution guarantees the right to own a gun, but you're not that bothered about the right to life, except in the case of abortion. Is the right to life not guaranteed in the constitution. ?
I don't mean you personally by the way, but you as a nation;)



The right to search for happiness is what is guaranteed.

Does that include a guarantee of a happy marriage?:D

Because they all (well most anyway) came from Europe at the time and figured if it was not in writing, America would end up like another Europe and they didn't want that.:cool:

God, not again Joey?:confused: I might remind you that a large part of your country came from Africa and had no say in your constitution, any chance they'll get asked if they want to make one or two changes?:rolleyes:

Because they all (well most anyway) came from Europe at the time and figured if it was not in writing, America would end up like another Europe and they didn't want that.:cool:

God, not again Joey?:confused: I might remind you that a large part of your country came from Africa and had no say in your constitution, any chance they'll get asked if they want to make one or two changes?:rolleyes:

Joey? :confused:

No it isn't the US is made up of states as ONE country, the UK, which is where we post from, is made up of Four countries.
I said Europe or European Union, not the UK. Nevertheless, this is an obvious difference, yes.

They all make some of their own laws which aren't applicable in others,
With all your bashing on American education, you'd think that after the 20th time this has been explained to you you'd get it: Each state that comprises the United States is sovereign and makes its own laws. What you just described is the exact same role the federal government takes in the U.S.

As for the size comparison the UK is the most overcrowded island on the planet
Island nations with a higher population density than the United Kingdom:
Singapore
Malta
Maldives
Bahrain
Barbados
Mauritius
Tuvalu
Japan (they also have twice the population of the UK)
Marshall Islands
Comoros
Sri Lanka
Phillipines
Haiti
Saint Lucia
Grenada
Jamaica

It would follow therefore by Joeys arguments that the UK should have far more social problems than the US, it doesn't,
Where, exactly, did anyone assert that population density and availability of natural resources determines social problems?

some yes, but not enough to have to keep a gun under the pillow.
Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences. A very small number of American posters have stated they own a gun, and to the best of my knowledge not one of them keep it for protection purposes. Why do you refuse to give up your illusion that the entirety of America is populated by cowboys? I can understand you ignoring me, Ken, FoFa, jsanders, cheuschober... we're all a bunch of arrogant ignoramuses. But Cindy? You won't even listen to her? :confused:

As for the cultural diffences of nations the UK has the most diverse cultural population on the planet
This is the exact same kind of sweeping generalization and hyperbole that you claim Americans are guilty of. Not to mention that it is an absurd claim since it is extraordinarily difficult to measure cultural diversity.

But every free and democratic country on the planet has that right, why was it necessary to put that in the constitution in the States?
Ask George III.

Joey? :confused:
Just a collective name:D or the lager:cool:

If that's the case and every one is equal when do you think southern states will agree to the election of a Black president, or even a woman?
Humm, I have not seen a primary where the split was along the Mason-Dixon line. So just for total utter curiosity,, what are you basing that on?

If that's the case and every one is equal when do you think southern states will agree to the election of a Black president, or even a woman? As for whites also being held then why are the majority of those held in prisons in Texas Black? When was the last white man executed for murdering a black man? If there are more blacks in prison in Texas than in school then there must be something fundamentally flawed in the system surely? What's being done to break the cycle, other than to say it's their own fault, they're uneducable?

I don't know the answers to all of those questions and I'm not saying that more can't be done to reach out to those who are disadvantaged, I'm just saying that if someone makes the choice to do something with their life then they can. Making the decision is half the battle. Well, not quite half maybe. :D


but that's what we can't understand, when someone's gunned down or kids are massacred by nutters with guns you simply dismiss it as it not being your fault but that of the individual and your constitution guarantees the right to own a gun, but you're not that bothered about the right to life, except in the case of abortion. Is the right to life not guaranteed in the constitution. ?
I don't mean you personally by the way, but you as a nation;)

Yes, the right to life is guaranteed in the constitution. It's not a perfect system but a lot has been done in recent years to try to keep criminals and other "nutters" from buying guns. As I've said before, I'm unconvinced that a gun ban would do anything except keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals certainly aren't going to turn theirs in. :rolleyes:



Does that include a guarantee of a happy marriage?:D

Judging by the divorce rate, apparently not. :D :cool: Although maybe that's just part of the "search for happiness". :p

Just a collective name:D or the lager:cool:

I'd wager on the latter. :D

I said Europe or European Union, not the UK. Nevertheless, this is an obvious difference, yes.


With all your bashing on American education, you'd think that after the 20th time this has been explained to you you'd get it: Each state that comprises the United States is sovereign and makes its own laws. What you just described is the exact same role the federal government takes in the U.S.

.

Then your government isn't doing it's job, is it?

Island nations with a higher population density than the United Kingdom:
Singapore
Malta
Maldives
Bahrain
Barbados
Mauritius
Tuvalu
Japan
Marshall Islands
Comoros
Sri Lanka
Phillipines
Haiti
Saint Lucia
Grenada
Jamaica




I should have said Countries and one the most

Where, exactly, did jsanders assert that population density and availability of natural resources determines social problems?


I didn't say he did

It’s easy to condemn us from your place on a small mostly monogenetic island. We are spread out over a huge geographical area. And what ya’ll continue to misunderstand is; we are a nation of states.

We do not have a central culture.



Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences. A very small number of American posters have stated they own a gun, and to the best of my knowledge not one of them keep it for protection purposes. Why do you refuse to give up your illusion that the entirety of America is populated by cowboys?


Statistics



This is the exact same kind of sweeping generalization and hyperbole that you claim Americans are guilty of.

just fighting fire with fire



Oddly enough it was an American who made the claim here first, I doubt he's read thishttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0bow.htm


Ask George III.
' can't, he's dead:confused:

Humm, I have not seen a primary where the split was along the Mason-Dixon line. So just for total utter curiosity,, what are you basing that on?
Impression gained from interviews given by American liberals, are there any figures available to change that opinion?

I don't know the answers to all of those questions and I'm not saying that more can't be done to reach out to those who are disadvantaged, I'm just saying that if someone makes the choice to do something with their life then they can. Making the decision is half the battle. Well, not quite half maybe. :D


I agree there's no easy answer, I just wonder if more couldn't be done especially by central government



Yes, the right to life is guaranteed in the constitution. It's not a perfect system but a lot has been done in recent years to try to keep criminals and other "nutters" from buying guns. As I've said before, I'm unconvinced that a gun ban would do anything except keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals certainly aren't going to turn theirs in. :rolleyes:


But it would surely make the job of law enforcement easier if the number of guns in circulation was drastically reduced

Although maybe that's just part of the "search for happiness". :p
You're lucky if you can find and keep it for any length of time;)

Then your government isn't doing it's job, is it?
What do you mean?

I should have said Countries and one the most
Is there a difference between countries and nations I'm unware of? Each entrant in the list is an independant nation.

I didn't say he did
Then what arguments were you referring to? You said, "it would follow by Joeys arguments" that the UK should have more social problems than the U.S. because there is greater population density and less natural resources. So what are you referring to?

Statistics
Care to provide any?

just fighting fire with fire
That's a nice way of describing hypocrisy.

' can't, he's dead:confused:
Well, then try reading the Declaration of Independence. It describes quite nicely all the reasons why colonial Americans were not free to pursue happiness under his "democratic" rule.

But it would surely make the job of law enforcement easier if the number of guns in circulation was drastically reduced
I agree. But the vast majority of criminals obtain their guns illegally, so removing the legal right to own a gun won't help much. What we need are tougher penalties for criminals who use guns (although considering the overcrowded prison system, it's not much of a solution) but most importantly we need to stop illegal gun trafficing. And that's a huge challenge.

What do you mean?

.
Well if freedom and justice for all is written into the constitution then isn't it your governments job to enforce it?


Is there a difference between countries and nations I'm unware of? Each entrant in the list is an independant nation.

I corrected the previous post by adding "one of the", I guess you missed it:rolleyes:

Then what arguments were you referring to? You said, "it would follow by Joeys arguments" that the UK should have more social problems than the U.S. because there is greater population density and less natural resources. So what are you referring to?


jj said that the US doesn't have a central culture, neither do we, both have central government though.


It’s easy to condemn us from your place on a small mostly monogenetic island. We are spread out over a huge geographical area.

OK so let's look at it from another angle, so is Canada, what point was jj trying to make?


Care to provide any?


FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).


That's a nice way of describing hypocrisy.


Why is the phrase when in Rome do as the Romans still ringing in my ears?:rolleyes:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

What sheer hypocrisy, your current government doesn't even give suspects the benefit of a trial:mad:


What we need are tougher penalties for criminals who use guns

But you already have some of the toughest penalties for gun crime and it isn't working, the only thing that will change it is a change in attitude toward gun ownership and their use

...can anyone explain to me the shape of the State of Colorado? Or more precisely how it came to be a great big square :D

I am relatively certain that an early American explorer and map-maker (named Rhombus) who was fond of square dancing and in love with an Indian squaw named Parallelogram-hantas originally surveyed the area.

Regards,
Tim

Well Rich,
I just got in and I have to say it looks like the Americans have arrived. And by the looks of it, they gave you quite a thrashing.

Well Rich,
I just got in and I have to say it looks like the Americans have arrived. And by the looks of it, they gave you quite a thrashing.
You should have stayed out, looks like you've caught a head cold. You'll be telling me next that you're winning the war on terror in Iraq too:rolleyes:

Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences.
Its not only Hollywood or TV shows. Its what we see on the BBC news.
I only refer to US TV shows because there are so many of them glorifying violence and the gun in the USA - I'm not stupid enough to think that US life is like the A Team or an Arnie Schwartz film - when I refer to them, I'm referring to the huge number of them (showing violence and killing as a daily norm), and the fact that film / TV makers think the rest of the world wants to see things like Clinty babe blow someones brains out with a magnum, or whatever.

A very small number of American posters have stated they own a gun, and to the best of my knowledge not one of them keep it for protection purposes.
I'm not going to embarrass any US posters but it was stated in the last US gun debate that certain a US poster keeps a loaded handgun on top a wardrobe for protection purposes. The debate as I recall was whether they would use it and when would they use it, and how it fitted in with their beliefs. That was one of the best discussions we've had in the 'cooler in recent years;)

Why do you refuse to give up your illusion that the entirety of America is populated by cowboys?
Because we see on US police reality shows any number of US public brandishing guns as well as the police wandering round like modern day Jesse James or Wyatt Earp. These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction. In one show the cop pulled over a car for speeding and got out the cop car to approach the driver, the first thing he did was to pull his gun out. He hadn't even approached the driver yet. . . .
What does that show the world?

But Cindy? You won't even listen to her? :confused:
Cindy always put forward a good argument - personally I think Cindy's discussion points are extremely well thought out, without the need to drone on and on confusing the issue.


Col

I am relatively certain that an early American explorer and map-maker (named Rhombus) who was fond of square dancing and in love with an Indian squaw named Parallelogram-hantas originally surveyed the area.

Regards,
Tim

:D

I picked Colorado because it shape suggests that someone thought you can only have so much country before you need a border. Countries in Europe are organic in nature. Even the island nations -apart from Malta - have borders that have moved and shifted with the ebb and flow of history. This idea that we misunderstand the US can be understood by Colorado. It would seem no-one cared about it. It was just carved out without consideration for natural borders. An almost arbitary line drawn in the sand where people on one side, for example, were to be [come] from Wyoming and the other Colorado without thought, without reason. How can a country that is an aribitary square be a country i ask myself? How can the people within it's borders be any different from the people in the neighbouring squares? We fought over our borders. Killed men in their millions. Horrible as that is it shows that people cared about their identity as a nation. It means something to be English or French or Italian etc When we look at the US we see a country with it's organic shape and it's neighbours coverting glances. We could never imagine Colorado going to war with Mexico or Canada but we can see that could be the case for the US. There is complete contradiction in many of the posts here on the one hand you are rugged individualists on the other proud of the achievements of America. And even the individualists refer to themselves as American. That is perhaps the problem. You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities. Perhaps truly, you are not a country, but as a country you are viewed.

We have our problems as any nation does. We have people who live on benefits when they could be working but no-one pretends that is a right. We see those who can't work as in need of protection and those who can needing a kick up the bum. But i don't think we'd ever write them off. And that is where we part company. I cannot view America the US or the Commonwealth as the greatest country or conglomeration because it cannot grasp that all it's citizens should be great and that the country or the commonwealth or the state has failed if people are 4th generation unemployed and accepted as such.

TS

You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities.
Could that be why most US citizens are having therapy of some kind?

(just for Kraj;) :D )

or so we are led to believe

Col

:D
But i don't think we'd ever write them off...
TS

As you know, two or three Scrooges who happen to be American don't necessarily reflect an entire country. And the "I work-they should work" posture is as old as the hills, a sweeping generalization that is mostly meaningless.

How can a country that is an aribitary square be a country i ask myself?


Lol -- I like that sentence just for itself... God knows what deals were struck to set the borders of Colorado and Wyoming. I think the de-centralized structure of the U.S. government is exaggerated here (though I won't pretend to have read every post). We have, over time, become more and more centralized (our civil war was the watershed) with many overarching mandates coming to the states from the federal government. Outside of this forum, Americans usually only talk about "state's rights" when they are oppposed to a law that came down from high. They are generally quiet about it otherwise. There are no frontier guards at states' borders (whether they meet at a right angle or otherwise).

And, no, clearly we don't have as rich a history as the U.K. In grammar school, when "studying" history pre-1776, your history becomes our history: Our school books are almost always slanted in favor of the British side of things until 1776 when the French suddenly become good people. Of course it is just an infantile brag to say America is the "greatest country" (whatever that means).

Regards,
Tim

Impression gained from interviews given by American liberals, are there any figures available to change that opinion?
So once again not a viable source for your information. Your response would be like me saying the extrem right says that aint so. As opposed to my personal observations as I stated.

I agree there's no easy answer, I just wonder if more couldn't be done especially by central government
See there is the rub, central government already does TOO MUCH. Government is not mommy and daddy, some times you just have to take responsability yourself.

But it would surely make the job of law enforcement easier if the number of guns in circulation was drastically reducedBy lawabiding people or by criminals?
And if the guns were gone, who would watch the Canadians?:eek:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
Interesting when it is in YOUR post, all of a sudden those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play. Liek I say, statistics is the uninformed stressing point made by bad information.

Because we see on US police reality shows any number of US public brandishing guns as well as the police wandering round like modern day Jesse James or Wyatt Earp. These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction. In one show the cop pulled over a car for speeding and got out the cop car to approach the driver, the first thing he did was to pull his gun out. He hadn't even approached the driver yet. . . .

It show ONE person, and if you watch all those real life cop shows, how many do you see, 10's not even a 100 I bet, as opposed to the population of the US, once again, where is the graph of gun tot'n hoodlums on COP shoes vs the population of the US?
Oh BTW I watch those upon occansion and saw some UK folks running from the cops, running over stuff with their car etc. Oh and Brandishing a knife. A cooking Knife. SO is the UK going to ban knives and cars next? Might be a good move by the central gov. to protect it's people....:p

those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play
alowing for population difference would probably bring the UK figure up to around the 300 mark v US's 12,000

Peter

As you know, two or three Scrooges who happen to be American don't necessarily reflect an entire country. And the "I work-they should work" posture is as old as the hills, a sweeping generalization that is mostly meaningless.



Lol -- I like that sentence just for itself... God knows what deals were struck to set the borders of Colorado and Wyoming. I think the de-centralized structure of the U.S. government is exaggerated here (though I won't pretend to have read every post). We have, over time, become more and more centralized (our civil war was the watershed) with many overarching mandates coming to the states from the federal government. Outside of this forum, Americans usually only talk about "state's rights" when they are oppposed to a law that came down from high. They are generally quiet about it otherwise. There are no frontier guards at states' borders (whether they meet at a right angle or otherwise).

And, no, clearly we don't have as rich a history as the U.K. In grammar school, when "studying" history pre-1776, your history becomes our history: Our school books are almost always slanted in favor of the British side of things until 1776 when the French suddenly become good people. Of course it is just an infantile brag to say America is the "greatest country" (whatever that means).

Regards,
Tim

Thank you. That was exactly what i was looking for, very eloquently put :)

And rich is a good word to describe the colour of blood which is what most of our history is soaked with.

I must be bored posting in here. Two points;

1. Download Google Earth. You can look at the Gun Crime Stastics in there. Not that statistics prove anything, but at least its better than basing your opinions on television.

2. There has been a program on BBC 2 called "Making Slough Happy". It appears now that happiness is now being studied by scientists. Unsurprisingly they are finding that material wealth has nothing to do with it. To the Americans reading; do you feel that the constitution guaranteeing your pursuit of happiness is anything more than simply words? Has the American government looked into the "science" of happiness and done anything practical towards this end? I can't think that anyone would disagree that health (both mental and physical) is a huge contributor to happiness. Perhaps a National Health Service for all Americans would be a more pratical route to making people happy?

I must be bored posting in here. Two points;

2. There has been a program on BBC 2 called "Making Slough Happy". It appears now that happiness is now being studied by scientists. Unsurprisingly they are finding that material wealth has nothing to do with it.


It’s a good thing because after the right gets done, we won’t have any more material wealth.

Maybe they’re looking out for our wellbeing after all.

Wow. There've been quite a lot of interesting posts today. Let's begin...

Well if freedom and justice for all is written into the constitution then isn't it your governments job to enforce it?
I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with comparing the structures of the United States with the European Union.

I corrected the previous post by adding "one of the", I guess you missed it:rolleyes:
If you said, "I should have said one of the most", then that would make sense. What you actually said was, "I should have said Countries and one the most". So what were you trying to communicate by changing "nations" to "countries"?

jj said that the US doesn't have a central culture, neither do we, both have central government though.
I think the point jsanders is trying to communicate is that the social structures of countries with a large variety of incorporated cultures and high degree of variance based, in part, on geographical distances is much more challenging to manage than a small country with a generally homogenized culture. I think it is a valid point.

OK so let's look at it from another angle, so is Canada, what point was jj trying to make?
Actually that's not true. Canada is geographically large, yes, but the vast majority of the population inhabits a very small slice of the country, so the effect of geography is minimal. Nevertheless, Canada is a poor example to support your point of view since they have clear and controversial cultural lines drawn. Consider the fact that Quebec is clamoring for independence from the rest of Canada and you hardly have a foil to jsanders' argument.

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:[...]
I don't think anyone, at any point, has denied that gun violence is a large problem in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with the average citizen. You said nothing to deny that you think the entire population of America are gun-toting backaroos, but total gun crimes are not an indicator of that, nor would gun crimes per capita be. If you could show a majority of households owning guns, or a majority population percentage who've been arrested for some sort of gun crime, then you've have an argument. All you've shown so far is that criminals have access to guns.

BTW, the vast majority of gun homicides in the United States are gang members killing other gang members. This means even moreso that gun violence is being caused by career criminals and not the average citizen.

Why is the phrase when in Rome do as the Romans still ringing in my ears?:rolleyes:
Because you use that to justify all your bad behavior.

What sheer hypocrisy, your current government doesn't even give suspects the benefit of a trial:mad:
And this has anything to do with anything I've said because? :confused:

But you already have some of the toughest penalties for gun crime and it isn't working, the only thing that will change it is a change in attitude toward gun ownership and their use
Agreed on the first part, not on the second. Like I said, I think the real solution is to stop illegal gun trafficing and keep guns out of criminals hands. The majority of people who legally own and regularly use guns in this country are responsible individuals. (Or at least they're not using their guns to commit a crime.)

Its not only Hollywood or TV shows. Its what we see on the BBC news.
Like I said, we've been over this a million times: what you see on TV is not representative of the average U.S. citizen, yet you insist on believing the television instead of the people who live here. Fine. Whatever. Keep it up. Jolly good show.

I'm not going to embarrass any US posters but it was stated in the last US gun debate that certain a US poster keeps a loaded handgun on top a wardrobe for protection purposes. The debate as I recall was whether they would use it and when would they use it, and how it fitted in with their beliefs. That was one of the best discussions we've had in the 'cooler in recent years
Apparently I missed that one. Fair enough. That doesn't really change my point, though. We now have one individual who owns a gun for protection, a couple who own them for hunting/recreation, and a large majority who don't own one at all. That's a pretty good representation of reality.

These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction.
I guess you guys in the UK haven't gotten the memo yet: reality shows aren't reality. They're edited, they're scripted, and they're produced. The only difference is they aren't fictional. The show "Cops" does no more to represent the average day of the average police office than "Miami Vice".

Cindy always put forward a good argument - personally I think Cindy's discussion points are extremely well thought out, without the need to drone on and on confusing the issue.
I agree. Yet despite her repeated assertions that television does not accurately protray real life America, you still insist that it does. Why won't you listen to her?

There is complete contradiction in many of the posts here on the one hand you are rugged individualists on the other proud of the achievements of America. And even the individualists refer to themselves as American. That is perhaps the problem. You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities
Yeah, that pretty much nails it. There is a very heavy focus on the individual in America - individual rights, individual achievement, what's good for the individual is good for the whole, etc. That culture of individualism, however, is what creates our national identity. We are proud of our individualism and we are proud of how our government protects and supports our individualism. We are proud of what the indivduals who make up our nation have achieved. That much makes sense; the schizophrenia comes from the lairs, hypocrites, and psychoticly self-righteous. (I'm sure Rich will have nothing to comment about that sentence. :rolleyes: )

To the Americans reading; do you feel that the constitution guaranteeing your pursuit of happiness is anything more than simply words?
Absolutely it is. Granted, "the pursuit of happiness" is far less concrete than life and liberty, but that's why it's usefull. The first two elements are very legal-ish and codifiable; you can concretely say whether or not someone has been deprived of life or liberty. The pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, an ideal that we can use as a guide in more ambiguous situations. Whether that is applied well is another story...

Has the American government looked into the "science" of happiness and done anything practical towards this end? I can't think that anyone would disagree that health (both mental and physical) is a huge contributor to happiness. Perhaps a National Health Service for all Americans would be a more pratical route to making people happy?
I'd agree, but that'll be one hell of a pill for Americans to swallow. When it comes to health care we want to have our cake and eat it too, we want the best care, newest technology and lastest advancements. We want them cheaply and we want them now. We used to have that, but the cheaply part is no longer sustainable and it's not an area most Americans can afford to give up. So one of the other elements is going to have to go, but there will be a lot of resistance to it.

Kraj,
As my business grows, I want to hire young people of your caliber.
Joe

Kraj,
As my business grows, I want to hire young people of your caliber.
Joe
Joe,
If I find any, I'll let you know ;)

Seriously, thank you for the compliment :D

Greg

Absolutely it is. Granted, "the pursuit of happiness" is far less concrete than life and liberty, but that's why it's usefull. The first two elements are very legal-ish and codifiable; you can concretely say whether or not someone has been deprived of life or liberty. The pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, and ideal that we can use as a guide in more ambiguous situations. Whether that is applied well is another story...


Kraj I understand what you are saying. Life and Libery; excellent, these are things that the government can do a lot to ensure for people. However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees. For example, what is happiness? How do you measure it? Can we define happiness as a universal concept, or does is vary so widly from person to person to make it undefinable? Is "happiness" in itself a goal we should truly aspire to? Is happiness not the polar opposite of sorrow (and therefore in order to be happy you must also experience sadness)? I personally enjoy being "melancholy" sometimes (for want of a better word) as it seems a perfectly natural reaction to the world. Whilst in theory I agree it seems to be a great thing to have, I still think its far too vague to have any real meaning. Now to guarantee people's right to happiness and then add certain measures to help with this would seem to be a better idea.


I'd agree, but that'll one hell of a pill for Americans to swallow. When it comes to health care we want to have our cake and eat it too, we want the best care, newest technology and lastest advancements. We want them cheaply and we want them now. We used to have that, but the cheaply part is no longer sustainable and it's not an area most Americans can afford to give up. So one of the other elements is going to have to go, but there will be a lot of resistance to it.

Sorry I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Are you saying you think that an Amercian national health model is unsustainable because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for it in taxes? Do you think a model of both private and public health care is possible?

Kraj However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees.
.

They meant the government would not impede the pursuit of happiness. The way English tyranny and had been impeding theirs.

However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees.
I certianly see what you're saying. Like I said, I don't believe the phrase has any concrete meaning, but I think there is meaning there nonetheless.

Sorry I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Are you saying you think that an Amercian national health model is unsustainable because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for it in taxes?
Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. We'll have to accept certain lifestyle changes when it comes to healthcare if we are going to sustain it. Either we give up more money in taxes to pay for it, or we accept lower quality care.

I don't know why this thought never occurred to me before, but to those who argue against government-run health care by saying "that's what insurance is for": insurance companies make a profit, the government does not. Simply by virtue of that, a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system. We currently have neither.

Do you think a model of both private and public health care is possible?
I honestly don't know enough to say. Part of me thinks that this sort of compromise will be the first step in nationalizing health care. Another part of me says we'll need an all-or-nothing change, otherwise people won't accept the new system.

a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system.
ROFL
ROFL
a well-managed governmental system
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL

I'm glad you're amused.

hat has got to be one of them Oxymorons right?
well-managed and governmental in the same sentence?

Kraj,

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.

Probably we need to update the law to make them similar to the regulations that controlled AT&T during its monopoly of the countries communications system. That was simply that they had to provide telephone service to all people regardless of the cost, and they were regulated on what they charged.

Even with that system they became the world largest and most profitable company, as well as
builiding and maintaining the best communications system in the World.

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.
There's certainly room for disagreement, but I think I make a good point. The government runs many essential services - emergency services, schools, military, etc. I doubt anyone could say they are run efficiently, but at least they're not raking in a profit. If the government is so poor at running everything, why is there no outcry to privatize their services (other than the one that's popular to have an outcry about, social security)? If insurance companies are so much more effecient, why are their costs spiralling out of control?

Kraj,

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.
.
Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either:rolleyes:

Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either:rolleyes:
Eloquent and informative as always. I wish I had such mastery of intellectual nuance as you. Bravo. :rolleyes:

Wow. There've been quite a lot of interesting posts today. Let's begin...


I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with comparing the structures of the United States with the European Union.




I'm not, you did and as was pointed out earlier you can't use the two as a comparison, they are nothing like the same


If you said, "I should have said one of the most", then that would make sense. What you actually said was, "I should have said Countries and one the most". So what were you trying to communicate by changing "nations" to "countries"?



Because we see ourselves as one country although we're obviously not, you on the other hand though don't even though you are


I think the point jsanders is trying to communicate is that the social structures of countries with a large variety of incorporated cultures and high degree of variance based, in part, on geographical distances is much more challenging to manage than a small country with a generally homogenized culture. I think it is a valid point.



How can it be valid when you claim to be a united country, you either are or aren't:confused:


Actually that's not true. Canada is geographically large, yes, but the vast majority of the population inhabits a very small slice of the country, so the effect of geography is minimal. Nevertheless, Canada is a poor example to support your point of view since they have clear and controversial cultural lines drawn. Consider the fact that Quebec is clamoring for independence from the rest of Canada and you hardly have a foil to jsanders' argument.

Since Quebec is mainly of French stock and doesn't want to be part of a united country it isn't a valid point to foil my argument. You too have vast areas of uninhabited land.
Having said that Canada has made great efforts to make the French feel that Canada is their country too.

I don't think anyone, at any point, has denied that gun violence is a large problem in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with the average citizen. You said nothing to deny that you think the entire population of America are gun-toting backaroos, but total gun crimes are not an indicator of that, nor would gun crimes per capita be. If you could show a majority of households owning guns, or a majority population percentage who've been arrested for some sort of gun crime, then you've have an argument. All you've shown so far is that criminals have access to guns.


I've never said that the entire US were gun toting backaroos, whatever that is, however it's not true that all gun deaths are soley attributable to criminals either and you know it. If all I've shown is that guns are available to criminals then surely that's a valid reason for denying them access to a gun:confused:

Because you use that to justify all your bad behavior.


Yes I'm easily led, but then one day we'll all be perfect



And this has anything to do with anything I've said because?

You told me to read your constitution, that's as far as I got.

Agreed on the first part, not on the second. Like I said, I think the real solution is to stop illegal gun trafficing and keep guns out of criminals hands. The majority of people who legally own and regularly use guns in this country are responsible individuals. (Or at least they're not using their guns to commit a crime.)



By the same token I assume the vast majority of car drivers aren't involved in an accident that will put their head through the windscreen yet some states now require you to wear a seatbelt, although oddly enough not on a nationwide basis. Where does your valid argument fit now?:confused:

Eloquent and informative as always. I wish I had such mastery of intellectual nuance as you. Bravo. :rolleyes:
Forget the compliments, is it true or not?

Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either:rolleyes:

Much less than you think; the insurance industry controls hospital billing. If you want to talk about the rip off it’s in the cost of health insurance.

Interesting when it is in YOUR post, all of a sudden those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play. Liek I say, statistics is the uninformed stressing point made by bad information.
That bad information comes from an American site and oddly enough was compiled by an American, are you all guilty of this trait?:confused:

As a nation it’s appalling that we the middle class and up get such good medical care. And the people that work in the Wal-Mart have none.

It another one of those statistical averages that makes it seem like our's isn’t working. When actually Americans pay the highest percentage of GDP for health care than all of the other industrialized nations.

Much less than you think; the insurance industry controls hospital billing.
you guys don't even read your own news
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hospitals+overcharging+&FORM=QBRE

That bad information comes from an American site and oddly enough was compiled by an American, are you all guilty of this trait?:confused:
I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's :p , BBCA, etc

you guys don't even read your own news
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hospitals+overcharging+&FORM=QBRE


It’s relatively small part of a much bigger problem. That’s probably happening because the insurance companies are squeezing them to death. While all the time the same institutional money is going to build a better automobile industry in China.

It’s relatively small part of a much bigger problem. That’s probably happening because the insurance companies are squeezing them to death. While all the time the same institutional money is going to build a better automobile industry in China.
That's not a valid reason, drugs are much cheaper in Canada than the US, what's it got to do with China?

I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's :p , BBCA, etc
With the exception of BBCA, I wouldn't argue with you;)

That's not a valid reason, drugs are much cheaper in Canada than the US, what's it got to do with China?


The insurance companies are making huge profits and using them to create jobs in China instead of investing in American medicine.

Here’s another example of your seemingly unlimited misunderstanding of America. If you’re insured the insurance company pays a large percentage of you’re drug cost. So it all boils down to needing a way to force the insurance companies to except people with pre-existing conditions and making it a law that large corporations like Wal-Mart pay for their employee’s health insurance.

Many of your points I'm simply going to ignore, since by now I can tell when any attempts at meaningful continuation of a topic will be completely pointless. Feel free to ressurected them at your discretion, but otherwise I'm going to let them be.

I've never said that the entire US were gun toting backaroos, whatever that is,
That's another way of saying "cowboy", so yes you did. Or, more accurately, I said that's what you think and you agreed.

however it's not true that all gun deaths are soley attributable to criminals either and you know it.
That's quite true and I do know it, but that's not what I said. You quoted homicide statistics exclusively, so you're talking about criminals exclusively. If you want to talk about accidental gun deaths, that's an entirely different topic.

If all I've shown is that guns are available to criminals then surely that's a valid reason for denying them access to a gun:confused:
I agree, and measures are taken to prevent that from happening. Whether they are effective or not, again, is another topic. But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a different matter than keeping them out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. There's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to accomplish the former without the latter.

You told me to read your constitution, that's as far as I got.
Ah, I see. This had nothing to do with why the freedom to pursue happiness was listed in the Declaration of Independence, but at least I can make sense of the comment now...

By the same token I assume the vast majority of car drivers aren't involved in an accident that will put their head through the windscreen yet some states now require you to wear a seatbelt, although oddly enough not on a nationwide basis.
It's interesting how you see a contradiction and I see a parallel. Yes, we require seatbelts; what we don't do is ban automobile use. Just as we try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we try and keep dangerous drivers off the road. Just as we require certain safe practices while operating a vehicle (licenses, safety belts, observance of speed limits, etc.), so do we require certain safe practices for gun ownership (licenses, restrictions on how and where a gun may be carried, background checks, waiting periods, etc.).

I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's :p , BBCA, etc
I'm assuming you're referring to my use of snopes.com as a source. As I recall, you've never identified which article you had an issue with?

If we are going to have a full scale debate; I choose Kraj to be on my team.

That's another way of saying "cowboy", so yes you did. Or, more accurately, I said that's what you think and you agreed.
.

Where? :confused:


That's quite true and I do know it, but that's not what I said. You quoted homicide statistics exclusively, so you're talking about criminals exclusively. If you want to talk about accidental gun deaths, that's an entirely different topic.


Does it? how many of that figure are shot and killed by law enforcement officers, members of the public using a gun to defend themselves etc.
You accuse me of ignorance yet you haven't provided evidence to disprove my argument. Tell me would the mentally ill patient who was shot and killed on a plane just recently be added to the statistics or not?

I agree, and measures are taken to prevent that from happening. Whether they are effective or not, again, is another topic. But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a different matter than keeping them out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. There's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to accomplish the former without the latter.


but even you agree it isn't working


Ah, I see. This had nothing to do with why the freedom to pursue happiness was listed in the Declaration of Independence, but at least I can make sense of the comment now...


yes I was curious that since you've stated on numerous posts that it's your constitution that makes you what you are why some of those rules are simply ignored when the President sees fit.


how and where a gun may be carried

didn't I read that there's controversy concerning this at the minute, and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?

If we are going to have a full scale debate; I choose Kraj to be on my team.
yes, you do need all the help you can get:p

yes, you do need all the help you can get:p


It was more like he has an articulate and reasonable mind.

And the only help I require is keeping my frustration at some people’s stubborn ignorance from killing me.

And the only help I require is keeping my frustration at some people’s stubborn ignorance from killing me.
Yes I know, now then, why don't you consider moving to a more liberal country, where freedom and justice exists for all?
Silly me, you don't want that, strange though, your president tells you you're being invaded by terrorists and spends billions on attacking a country that hasn't been anywhere near America and rides roughshod over every decent thinking man ideals on the planet and yet when someone points out that at times you need protecting from yourselves he's subjected to a torrent and virulent outpouring of scorn and ridicule.
What a peculiar lot you are , have a nice day:rolleyes:

Where? :confused:
My mistake, that was Colin. Sorry.

Does it? how many of that figure are shot and killed by law enforcement officers,
Zero. That's not homicide.

members of the public using a gun to defend themselves etc.
I don't know. But I'll bet in the majority of those cases the defender's life was truly threatened.

You accuse me of ignorance
Where? :confused:

yet you haven't provided evidence to disprove my argument.
Nor have you provided sufficient evidence (and I've already explained why) to prove your argument. According to one of the most basic rules of logic and debate, the burden of proof is on you.

Tell me would the mentally ill patient who was shot and killed on a plane just recently be added to the statistics or not?
No, that's not a homicide. Would you prefer he killed someone else on the plane or caused it to crash?

but even you agree it isn't working
That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.

yes I was curious that since you've stated on numerous posts that it's your constitution that makes you what you are why some of those rules are simply ignored when the President sees fit.
Because he's a hypocrite to a nauseating degree.

didn't I read that there's controversy concerning this at the minute, and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?
Yes, there is always tension between those who believe there should be tighter restrictions on guns and those who believe it's their God-given right to pack a bazooka in their trunk. Unfortunately, instead of a sane and sensible debate on this topic, you have one group who wants to eradicate guns from the country and another who thinks even the slightest concession on the freedoms of gun ownership means the inevitable eradication of guns from the country.

Zero. That's not homicide.

I don't know. But I'll bet in the majority of those cases the defender's life was truly threatened.

Nor have you provided sufficient evidence (and I've already explained why) to prove your argument. According to one of the most basic rules of logic and debate, the burden of proof is on you.


That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.

Yes, there is always tension between those who believe there should be tighter restrictions on guns and those who believe it's their God-given right to pack a bazooka in their trunk. Unfortunately, instead of a sane and sensible debate on this topic, you have one group who wants to eradicate guns from the country and another who thinks even the slightest concession on the freedoms of gun ownership means the inevitable eradication of guns from the country.

The figures make even sadder reading and I have to ask why would somebody be arrested for possession of Cocaine whether they intended to use it or not?:confused:


Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2001 alone, 30,242 Americans died by gunfire: 17,108 in firearm suicides, 12,129 in firearm homicides, 762 in unintentional shootings, and 243 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.

Tell me, would washing machines still be legally sold if ONE million people had been killed by them even if say 100million hadn't?

No, that's not a homicide. Would you prefer he killed someone else on the plane or caused it to crash?

Why not reach for a stun gun instead, in any case I'm sure the plane was on the ground and his baggage must have been searched beforehand surely.
I also see that your authorities want to allow sharp objects to be carried on board 'cause it's costing too much to enforce security:confused:

From Rich of Cource.
17,108 in firearm suicides,



Lucky for them they didn't mame themselves with a butter knife.

An intresting and timely article about American inventors
http://biz.yahoo.com/usat/051206/13263022.html


And the 'flower guy Weder'


Watch out interflora!!

Peter

Actually Edison's real contribution was inventing inventing.

Actually Edison's real contribution was inventing inventing.
actually Europe invented inventing, but then it would depend on how one defines invention
Edison stole other people ideas

The first electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.
Much later, in 1860, the English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (1828-1914) was determined to devise a practical, long-lasting electric light. He found that a carbon paper filament worked well, but burned up quickly. In 1878, he demonstrated his new electric lamps in Newcastle, England.

Think back. Who invented the light bulb? Thomas Edison? Right?
WRONG
In 1875, Edison purchased half of a Toronto medical electrician's patent to further his own research. That researcher was named James Woodward.
Woodward and a colleague by the name of Matthew Evans, described in the patent as a "Gentleman" but in reality a hotel keeper, filed a patent for the Woodward and Evan's Light on July 24, 1874.
Working at the Morrison's Brass Foundry on Adelaide St. West in Toronto, they built the first lamp with a shaped rod of carbon held between electrodes in an glass bulb filled with nitrogen.
Woodward and Evans were treated as cranks and subject to much public ridicule. "Who needs a glowing piece of metal!!" They attempted, with very little success, to form a company to raise money to refine and market their invention. (Where is the federal government when you really need them?)
In 1876, Woodward obtained a U.S. patent on his electric lamp and, in 1879, Edison considered it sufficiently important to completely buy out the patent from Woodward, Evans, and all their Canadian partners. Woodward sold a share of his Canadian patent to Thomas Edison in 1885.
Thus the electric light bulb became American.

From Rich of Cource.




Lucky for them they didn't mame themselves with a butter knife.
Now you're getting the point and how about if there weren't so many hand guns lying around that figure would be a great deal lower.
But then what's obvious so often here is that you don't care enough about each other as a nation to want to actually change anything in pursuit of a truly united nation.
Maybe one day you'll end up electing a leader that actually cares about all of you instead of just himself and his cronies.

Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences.
Doesn't the arts and entertainment industry reflect a country's culture?:confused:

That's true, I do. But (if I may use a plattitude) I also don't think you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Like I said, there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to keep guns away from criminals while letting responsible adults have them. If the current set of laws and procedures doesn't work, try something else. But to resign that the only solution to the gun problem is to completely ban their presence throughout the entire country, well that's just plain lazy.


I think this is where you're missing the point. Firstly. You cannot legislate for someones future intention to use something in a criminal manner. No laws will protect you from someone who has a gun and intends to use it to kill.
Secondly. Most things in life serve a purpose. A motor vehicle may be used in a criminal manner but it also allows freedom to travel. In the form of an ambulance or a fire appliance to save lives. A gun has only 2 functions as i see it, target practice or killing. Neither of which would be a loss to a modern western society. As usual these debates take a posturing position but there is a reality that can be observed. The UK has gun crime. You can buy a shot gun if you are able to get a licence but it must be kept in a secure locked metal box unloaded with the ammunition in a seperate secure location. That is intended to reduce the chances of anyone actually using it to kill intruders or intruders using it against the occupants. And the police will turn up un-announced to check it's storage conditions. Hand guns and any sort of automatic or semi-automatic weapon are unavailable legally. Our police aren't routinely armed. We have special armed response units who are called in to deal with fire arms situations. And we have a few hundred firearms related deaths compared to the thousands in the US when normalised against every factor. The simple fact is relatively few criminals in the UK use firearms. You can -and most probably will - get 14 years in prison for even possessing one illegally. Criminals don't generally use firearms because they don't expect to meet any. The stakes appear to be raised in the US. Criminals go armed because they might need to use them. How can you remove firearms from the general public if they are used as a matter of course by criminals? And if you can rob someone's house and steal a loaded gun then that's one more gun in criminal hands. That option simple isn't available to criminals here. In order to get guns here they really need to smuggle them in and that dramatically increases the chances of being caught. You need a de-escalation policy and i can't honestly see how that is going to happen. I think you've unintentionally created a situation that has left you desensitized to the violence with no way out. We had a policewoman killed a few weeks back in an armed incident - with non-uk citizens - and the whole country was aware of it. It was headline news for nearly a week. Could you say the same for the death of a police man/woman? That's a genuine question.

TS

[QUOTE=Rich]
Why not reach for a stun gun instead, in any case I'm sure the plane was on the ground and his baggage must have been searched beforehand surely./QUOTE]

This is why I like NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5047889

I'm assuming you're referring to my use of snopes.com as a source. As I recall, you've never identified which article you had an issue with?
Actually quite forgot about that one. You do hold a grudge (so to speak).

and why the need for citizens to be armed with assault rifles, notwithstanding why they need to be armed at all, unless that is, the wild west culture still exists?
Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.

We had a policewoman killed a few weeks back in an armed incident - with non-uk citizens - and the whole country was aware of it. It was headline news for nearly a week. Could you say the same for the death of a police man/woman? That's a genuine question.
Yes, locally. Do hear about a police person killed in Spain? We don't usually in other states either. Again, the apples and oranges comparison.

Yes, locally. Do hear about a police person killed in Spain? We don't usually in other states either. Again, the apples and oranges comparison.


If you want to think of us as a state within Europe - which is just sooo wrong :eek: - then by comparison if a police officer is killed in Florida or New York State or California would everyone in that State know about it. Would it be headlines in the newspapers for a week and on whatever passes for TV that covers the whole state for a week?

TS

Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.

I think he may have been refering to something like this

http://www.gunsamerica.com/fast.cgi?guncat=1105

or this

http://www.ak-47.us/

If you want to think of us as a state within Europe - which is just sooo wrong :eek: - then by comparison if a police officer is killed in Florida or New York State or California would everyone in that State know about it. Would it be headlines in the newspapers for a week and on whatever passes for TV that covers the whole state for a week?

TS


News coverage is about money and the news organization pretty much no how long to milk a story.

Coverage, or not, of shootings, is less of a sin than our blatant disregard for traffic law.

A better question would be.

Why do so many Americans appose the cameras at intersections?

Over 5000 people die each from red light runners and the federal government wants to redirect the police to look for terrorist.

I don't know why this thought never occurred to me before, but to those who argue against government-run health care by saying "that's what insurance is for": insurance companies make a profit, the government does not. Simply by virtue of that, a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system. We currently have neither.


I never got an alert to say you replied; bit of a late reply!

I'm not entirely sure that a Government could provide a Health Service cheaper than the Private sector. In England of course there is a much greater wealth of resources in the National Health Service than in Private Health care; indeed I would imagine the majority of Private Health care staff came directly from the Public Sector. However, I do not think a Health Care service run on market economics is a good thing, for many reasons.

Thanks for the objective reply :-)

I never got an alert to say you replied; bit of a late reply!

I'm not entirely sure that a Government could provide a Health Service cheaper than the Private sector. In England of course there is a much greater wealth of resources in the National Health Service than in Private Health care; indeed I would imagine the majority of Private Health care staff came directly from the Public Sector. However, I do not think a Health Care service run on market economics is a good thing, for many reasons.

Thanks for the objective reply :-)

Although an interesting statistic (which there are many ways to interpret this one for sure) is that Americans spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than do the British. And they live 1.5 years longer than us.

Of course we live more than them, when we're alive. hehehe

Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.


So let’s say it’s a 223 or a 22-250 and it holds 24 rounds in a banana clip.

Would that be an assault rifle?

So let’s say it’s a 223 or a 22-250 and it holds 24 rounds in a banana clip. Would that be an assault rifle?

Hard to tell, just bcause it takes the same MAGAZINE as an assault rifle, does not make it an assault rifle. The Camp 9mm RIFLE takes a certain magazine. The S&W 9mm handgun takes the same magazine. Does that make the handgun a rifle or the rifle a handgun? BTW the .223 and 22-250 are VARMIT rounds, and many people think the .223 and 5.56 mm are the same, close, but not the same. Check here (http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=11) if you care. It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.

Tell me, would washing machines still be legally sold if ONE million people had been killed by them even if say 100million hadn't?

See, that depends, if just walking by a washing machine killed you, probably not. How ever if someone else took the washing machine and killed you with it, they would still be sold.
But let me ask you this, of those statistics, how many actual guns did they pull from the bodies? I mean, if guns killed, they would be pulling guns from the bodies left and right, yet I don't hear a word about a gun being pulled from within someone. (Ok a trick question I know, and has no real bearing, but it struck me as funny so there:p )

Hard to tell, just bcause it takes the same MAGAZINE as an assault rifle, does not make it an assault rifle. The Camp 9mm RIFLE takes a certain magazine. The S&W 9mm handgun takes the same magazine. Does that make the handgun a rifle or the rifle a handgun? BTW the .223 and 22-250 are VARMIT rounds, and many people think the .223 and 5.56 mm are the same, close, but not the same. Check here (http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=11) if you care. It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.


My parent owned a sporting goods store so I guess I have a little knowledge

A 223 may be a varmint rifle but it still spits them out at roughly 3000 fps
When a 55 or 65 grain bullet hits a human with that velocity, 5.6mm or 22/100ths of an inch really doesn’t make much difference.

What makes it dangerous to society, is the kill rate, the reload rate and its ability to point. Why are you bantering semantics.

Is it that all guns should be legal no mater what the configuration? Lets just bring back the Tommie Gun or better yet lets make 3 burst weapons legal, that way when a wacko gets a hold of one he can kill 75 or 80 people instead of just 15.

It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.

So why should they be legal to own?

What makes it dangerous to society, is the kill rate, the reload rate and its ability to point. Why are you bantering semantics.
Because of your mis-information.
A gun has a zero kill rate. Do you see those guns jumping off the shelves and killing people, I mean if your parents owned a sporting goods store, those killer guns must have wasted a customer or two, it is so hard to keep them still on the shelf, after all they are just itch'n to kill someone aren't they? Just the other I read in some sporting goods store two handguns managed to unlock the cabinet they were in from the inside, jump over to the ammo, load themselves and shot 3 customers.

So why should they be legal to own?
Why should they not?

Because of your mis-information.
A gun has a zero kill rate. Do you see those guns jumping off the shelves and killing people, I mean if your parents owned a sporting goods store, those killer guns must have wasted a customer or two, it is so hard to keep them still on the shelf, after all they are just itch'n to kill someone aren't they? Just the other I read in some sporting goods store two handguns managed to unlock the cabinet they were in from the inside, jump over to the ammo, load themselves and shot 3 customers.

I own guns.

I just don’t buy into this theory that if we give up a little then they’ll take a lot. Fully automatic weapons were made illegal 50 years ago and people still hunt all over the country.

I am certainly not an advocate of relinquishing the right to bare arms. I am saying as Kraj said earlier that neither end of this debate is correct.

And guns have a fire rate and that translates to a kill rate. You certainly would be glad that I had limited fire power if I ever went berserk.

I used to own a 22-250 which is hotter than a 223, 223 mag, or a 224.

I had a Reminton 700bdl with the ebony tip. At 200 yards I could stack the bullets on top of each other (with a rest). Later a friend let me shoot his Stier Rifle (made in Austria) You would not believe how well that gun points, it was actually scary. Within 2 hours I could have anyone off the street hitting kill zones 90% of the time.

They make it easy for wackos to kill.

How would you like it if the gangs were armed with these?

And guns have a fire rate and that translates to a kill rate. You certainly would be glad that I had limited fire power if I ever went berserk.
Only if the bullets strike something like a person. But since full auto's are pretty much unobatainable, and converting them is pretty much illegal, where is your point. Sounds like more strick punishment for those law breakers might be a bigger soution, which has not been the real push in the past due to the anti-gunners, you see, it is not in their best interest, it's a power thing.

I had a Reminton 700bdl with the ebony tip. At 200 yards I could stack the bullets on top of each other (with a rest). Later a friend let me shoot his Stier Rifle (made in Austria) You would not believe how well that gun points, it was actually scary. Within 2 hours I could have anyone off the street hitting kill zones 90% of the time.
So now we do away with handguns and all hunting rifles, which leaves us with what? Shotguns, shoot just move to the UK if it bothers you that much.

So now we do away with handguns and all hunting rifles, .
That's the first sensible suggestion you've made so far. How many more innocent lives have to be lost before you see a need for change, will you feel so generous towards what can only be described as a private army if one of your kids gets blasted to bits by a whacko?

The Stier rifle is an assault rifle. A Remington 700 is a hunting rifle.
Assault = kill people
Hunting = hunt animals

What I don’t understand is why would any regular hunting enthusiast advocate making assault rifle legal? What’s the point?

And don’t try to confuse others that are reading this thread, we both know what we’re talking about.

That's the first sensible suggestion you've made so far. How many more innocent lives have to be lost before you see a need for change, will you feel so generous towards what can only be described as a private army if one of your kids gets blasted to bits by a whacko?
So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?

So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?
Cause they give whackos the ability to kill, why is it that the first thing your cops do when wanting to defend themselves is reach for their gun?

So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?

It's attitudes like that, that make many people want total gun control. Thank God there are powerful lobies on both sides.

The Stier rifle is an assault rifle. A Remington 700 is a hunting rifle.
Assault = kill people
Hunting = hunt animals
What I don’t understand is why would any regular hunting enthusiast advocate making assault rifle legal? What’s the point?
And don’t try to confuse others that are reading this thread, we both know what we’re talking about.
Scoped rifle = sniper rifle = kill people
assult?, No semi-automatic rifle with a military look.
As I said before, these are used mostly today in target shooting. Sure they are fun for plinking, and other then they look scary, are no different than any other semi-automatic rifles. I have freinds that use SKS's for deer hunting. They say they are great in the brush.

Scoped rifle = sniper rifle = kill people
assult?, No semi-automatic rifle with a military look.
As I said before, these are used mostly today in target shooting. Sure they are fun for plinking, and other then they look scary, are no different than any other semi-automatic rifles. I have freinds that use SKS's for deer hunting. They say they are great in the brush.

We’re finely getting to the crux. Where do you draw the line on what’s legal and what’s not.

Cause they give whackos the ability to kill, why is it that the first thing your cops do when wanting to defend themselves is reach for their gun?
Yeah, like they would not be a wacko if the gun was not there.

Yeah, like they would not be a wacko if the gun was not there.
You have to admit that a wacko with a sling shot aint half as bad as a wacko with a 3 burst, quick load, short barreled, hollow point spitting, assault rifle.

We’re finely getting to the crux. Where do you draw the line on what’s legal and what’s not.
Fully automatic, no need for that pretty much except in the military.
Is my Rem. 1100 an assult shotgun? It actually has a longer range than the "black" shotguns in use.
What about a henry rifle? Holds 10-14 rounds, about as fast as a semi-auto (ok slower to reload, but not by much using a column reloader)? Should we cruise the western shoot'n circuit and start conficating those?

You have to admit that a wacko with a sling shot aint half as bad as a wacko with a 3 burst, quick load, short barreled, hollow point spitting, assault rifle.
But a wacko with a 3 burst, quick load, short barreled, hollow point spitting, assault rifle is less worse than a wacko with 5000 gallon fuel tanker under his control if total kill potential is what you are talking about.
Besides, even here we don't have than many wacko's out shooting people, the biggest problem are criminal who have them. It is illegal for them to have them, use them, etc. Sounds like it is more of a crime problem.

Fully automatic, no need for that pretty much except in the military.
Is my Rem. 1100 an assult shotgun? It actually has a longer range than the "black" shotguns in use.
What about a henry rifle? Holds 10-14 rounds, about as fast as a semi-auto (ok slower to reload, but not by much using a column reloader)? Should we cruise the western shoot'n circuit and start conficating those?

Of course not I have an 1187 nearly the same as yours. And I would use it on an intruder in a heart beat.

I would love to own one of those British over and unders as well. But only for show I dont have much use for a lion gun.

I don't think the semiautomatic part of the rafle is as troublesom as the rapid loading, that makes it very hard for a determiend wacko to get shot safely.

I don't think the semiautomatic part of the rafle is as troublesom as the rapid loading, that makes it very hard for a determiend wacko to get shot safely.
Define rapid reload? I can reload my T/C Contender in seconds (Oh and it is a hand rifle).
I can reload my revolvers rather quickly using quick release reloaders. My friend can reload his browning bolt action (sniper rilfe?) deer rifle in seconds as he has a second 5 round "clip". YET my SKS does NOT have a detachable magazine, as do things like the M1 Garands, yet those are Assault rifles. And the old M1 A1 could be reloaded in seconds, as the British Enfield and those are bolt action (sniper?) rifles.

But a wacko with a 3 burst, quick load, short barreled, hollow point spitting, assault rifle is less worse than a wacko with 5000 gallon fuel tanker under his control if total kill potential is what you are talking about.

That's a nonsensical argument, how many tankers have been used in this way in the States, you can't conceal a frigging tanker.
You guys still treat the country as if it were the wild west and you didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if one of your kids was blasted to bits by one of these pop guns

That's a nonsensical argument, how many tankers have been used in this way in the States, you can't conceal a frigging tanker.
You guys still treat the country as if it were the wild west and you didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if one of your kids was blasted to bits by one of these pop guns

That's a dumb statement. How would any parent feel.

That's a dumb statement. How would any parent feel.
That's a dumb question, how would the rest of the country feel? Sad enough to forgo their own gun ownership to ensure that all was being done to try and prevent another massacre. That's what happened in this country, in yours you allow a fervent supporter to rub the victims parents noses in the ground by holding an NRA meeting in the same town shortly after. Like I said, you guys don't care about your kids, you dismiss it as being part of gang warfare, aren't they kids too? I'm guessing here but I suspect most of them are black.

That's a dumb question, how would the rest of the country feel? Sad enough to forgo their own gun ownership to ensure that all was being done to try and prevent another massacre. That's what happened in this country, in yours you allow a fervent supporter to rub the victims parents noses in the ground by holding an NRA meeting in the same town shortly after. Like I said, you guys don't care about your kids, you dismiss it as being part of gang warfare, aren't they kids too? I'm guessing here but I suspect most of them are black.

You really don't get this.
Private gun ownership is not the problem.

If gangs are populated by Black people or Hispanic or Asian or Anglos, it’s because there families failed to keep them out of the gangs.

The lure of easy drug money, the fact that they were 14 and 15 when she got pregnant. The list goes on. Nothing can be done by the nation to fix it.

Only the local village can fix the problem.

But when a young person rises up out of the quagmire, they leave to go to the military or college, and they never look back.

So how do you hold us accountable? There is no accounting that would be fair. For 40 years we have tried and if someone doesn’t want to work their way out of it then nothing you, we , or anyone, can do will change it.

Taking guns away from the average citizen will have no affect on the urban problem. Any way you’re a human being why don’t you fix it? They’re just as much you’re problem as ours.

Rich why don’t you think any of the black people that visit this forum ever say anything about this?

It’s because they’re to busy making sure their families futures are intact. You need to step back from you’re high horse and see this problem for what it really is.

Read the thread on discipline. What you see there is a bunch of people that are raising college students and future successful citizens. That is in stark contrast to the inner city mentality of daddy getting teenage mommy pregnant and robbing the local 711 to get drug money. Not even diapers.

Successful people in this country of any color get over their victim mentality and move on. Your writing seems to indicate that you actually believe we don’t care so we don’t try. That is a load of bunk. The system is set up to notice kids that want to move up. Someone is there to help. But if you choose a gang, then die by the gang and good riddance. Hopefully your death is before you have any kids of your own but unfortunately that is probably not the case.

Well that was politically incorrect, but a lot of people agree with it.

You really don't get this.
Private gun ownership is not the problem.
.
Yes I do and yes it is. Gun ownership is big business and that's the reason why you'll never do anything to try and address the problem.


If gangs are populated by Black people or Hispanic or Asian or Anglos, it’s because there families failed to keep them out of the gangs.

The lure of easy drug money, the fact that they were 14 and 15 when she got pregnant. The list goes on. Nothing can be done by the nation to fix it.

Only the local village can fix the problem.



You mean it's somebody elses problem and not the society that you guys live in. You can send your army into other countries to tell them how to lead their lives but you can't do it in your own country:rolleyes:

But when a young person rises up out of the quagmire, they leave to go to the military or college, and they never look back.



I see, so teaching them to shoot at other countries takes the problem away


So how do you hold us accountable? There is no accounting that would be fair. For 40 years we have tried and if someone doesn’t want to work their way out of it then nothing you, we , or anyone, can do will change it.

You haven't tried as a United Nation Joey and you know it. Remind me again who forced Alabama to allow equal education, the State of Alabama or National government with a leader who had the balls to tackle the problem.

You really don't get this.
Private gun ownership is not the problem.



Stats > Crime > Murders with firearms
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita

Country---------Murders | Ratio | Population | Pop Ratio
United States | 8,259 | 133.20 | 295,734,000 | 4.89
United Kingdom | 62 | 1 | 60,441,000 | 1

DEFINITION: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Like I said, we've been over this a million times: what you see on TV is not representative of the average U.S. citizen, . . . . . . . . .I guess you guys in the UK haven't gotten the memo yet: reality shows aren't reality. They're edited, they're scripted, and they're produced.
You have spent alot of time explaining that the USA is nowhere near "Dirty Harry" or any fictional TV show, so "Dallas" and "The Waltons" bear no resemblence to reality? - is there any TV show that reflects actual American life?.
Fair enough, but in a reality TV "fly-on-the-wall" police show - I was merely making the point that the first thing the police patrolman did after pulling someone over for speeding was to pull his gun out before approaching the driver.

Now the question is why did he do that? and what was he expecting to happen if "totin' a gun" is as rare as you make out it is.

Col

Fair enough, but in a reality TV "fly-on-the-wall" police show - I was merely making the point that the first thing the police patrolman did after pulling someone over for speeding was to pull his gun out before approaching the driver.

Now the question is why did he do that? and what was he expecting to happen if "totin' a gun" is as rare as you make out it is.

Col

Col:

This is why:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1398115

Col:

This is why:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1398115

Thats exactly why - but this is not a rare event obviously.

What I can't seem to get across to people here, is that this is the way people perceive life to be in the USA and it seems to be getting worse.
Whilst I believe Kraj /Ken /Cindy /TessB etc when they say its not the norm -what you have to do is look at the image that the USA portrays to the rest of the world.

People that have never been to the USA can only judge on what they see - rightly or wrongly - its easy for a US poster to dismiss it as totally wrong.

Its all about image, the image of the USA is fairly low, being the most hated nation in the world (since Bush took over) - how do US posters think this can be rectified? can it be rectified? do the USA people care about their image? or is it just a "sod it, we're the greatest and we don't give a toss about anyone"

Personally I give credit to the US in that when the India/Pakistan earthquake happened recently, the US military were in there airlifting and dropping supplies within a day or so - that was bloody impressive stuff in terribly remote areas. (Kraj, note thats a compliment to the USA:D ;) )

Col

Rich why don’t you think any of the black people that visit this forum ever say anything about this?


Just as a matter of interest how do you know who is black and who isn't?

Just as a matter of interest how do you know who is black and who isn't?

Well have any Americans on this board whined about inequality?

Well have any Americans on this board whined about inequality?

And with that statement you finally damn yourself. :(

Well have any Americans on this board whined about inequality?

Its all about image. . . .
. . .. . . . . . .
Col

Its all about image, the image of the USA is fairly low, being the most hated nation in the world (since Bush took over) - how do US posters think this can be rectified? can it be rectified? do the USA people care about their image? or is it just a "sod it, we're the greatest and we don't give a toss about anyone"


These are the lyrics of a song I heard that gives a new spin on the situation: -

Here's an interesting bit of conspiracy theory for you...

George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
Trained by Al Qaeda in the heart of Texas to fight for the faithful army
He's now in the process of uniting the rest of the world against the good old U S of A
The land of the free will come crashing down if he has his way

It's the only explanation, old Bushy boy is an Islamic Fundamentalist
He's three quarters the way through his plan already and no-one's even noticed
That must be a damn-fine Al Qaeda training camp they've got down there in Texas (Yee ha!)
Getting him to pretend he's as thick as pig-shit was a stroke of pure bloody genius

Yeah, George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
Trained by Al Qaeda in the heart of Texas to fight for the faithful army
He's now in the process of uniting the rest of the world against the good old U S of A
The land of the free will come crashing down if he has his way, trust me

He's presided over and has been involved with one of the worst financial disasters of a generation
Every move he makes seems to be directly against the interests of his nation, haven't you noticed?
He's used the media to increase the social insulation of an already fairly bland population, since the McCarthy days
And now he's declared war on Islam just to increase the consternation

As far as I can see there's only one explanation
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously

These days on the street you hear all kind of interesting conspiracy theories cos no-one knows what the f**k's going on, we're all looking for explanations
The most interesting one I heard the other day was that the West was controlled by genuine democracies that actually represent the will of their populations
Only the one about the aliens, the anti-Christ and the Freemasons is more laughable. Ha ha ha ha.

I think my theory is much more plasible, let me tell you about it, it goes like this,
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
It really is the only explanation I can see
For his truly anti-American foreign policy.

Now, at this point, I would ask you all to sing along with the chorus, normally. If it wasn't for the fact that there are cameras on the premises and the CIA might be requisitioning the tapes at any time. So I recommend that at under all circumstances, catchy though this numbers is, you do not sing along, you do not even smile. I recommend the most you do is tap your feet. But you do that at your own risk.

That's a nonsensical argument, how many tankers have been used in this way in the States, you can't conceal a frigging tanker.
You guys still treat the country as if it were the wild west and you didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if one of your kids was blasted to bits by one of these pop guns
Just because it hasn't does not make it so. Just my point a wacko wanting to kill a lot of people has many means, not just guns. And for the most part if you want to kill a lot of people, guns are not the way to do it (unless you have an army). That is one reason behind the suicide bombers. They get a group of people with a bomb where with a gun they a get one or two usually.

I would feel terrible, but I know it is not the fault of some inanimate object none the less. I would like to see the person responsible burn in hell, not the vehicule they used.

and truthfully, I think it is a stupid question.

that the first thing the police patrolman did after pulling someone over for speeding was to pull his gun out before approaching the driver.
Now the question is why did he do that? and what was he expecting to happen if "totin' a gun" is as rare as you make out it is.
I have never seen a cop pull a gun on an average traffic stop, even on black's Rich. How ever I bet you don't get the average traffic stop on TV either. If the car is stolen, or some other illegal vocation is involved, then that is a different story all together. And in that case yes, they could have a gun, or a knife, or a tire iron even.

Its all about image, the image of the USA is fairly low, being the most hated nation in the world (since Bush took over) - how do US posters think this can be rectified? can it be rectified?
Do we care?
We have more nukes than you, NANEE NANEE BOO BOO

And with that statement you finally damn yourself. :(

Please explane that to me.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. I've seen it on a documentary on BBC 2.

Yowza! What a thread!

... I have to ask why would somebody be arrested for possession of Cocaine whether they intended to use it or not?:confused:
I'm confused too. What does cocaine possession have to do with this discussion?

Why not reach for a stun gun instead,
In this country, law enforcement are trained to draw their weapon only if, in their judgement, deadly force is necessary. A man with a bomb in an airport could kill hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. The priority is stopping that person and protecting the innocent people being threatened. The problem with stun guns is they are not always effective, have limited range, and if you miss you're screwed. A stun gun is not what you want to use when in a "it's him or me (or these 200 people)" situation.

Doesn't the arts and entertainment industry reflect a country's culture?:confused:
Yes, it does. The key word here is "culture". The entertainment industry does not reflect reality.

Remind me again who forced Alabama to allow equal education, the State of Alabama or National government with a leader who had the balls to tackle the problem.
According to you, Americans don't get an education at all, so the point is moot isn't it?

Actually quite forgot about that one. You do hold a grudge (so to speak).
Not at all. That was the only thing I could think of when you refered to "Kraj's" site of bad information, but I guess it was just a poke at me. :)

You have spent alot of time explaining that the USA is nowhere near "Dirty Harry" or any fictional TV show, so "Dallas" and "The Waltons" bear no resemblence to reality? - is there any TV show that reflects actual American life?
No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Television is for entertainment. You don't see actual American life on TV because actual Americans are already experiencing actual American life and it is not entertaining.

Fair enough, but in a reality TV "fly-on-the-wall" police show - I was merely making the point that the first thing the police patrolman did after pulling someone over for speeding was to pull his gun out before approaching the driver.

Now the question is why did he do that? and what was he expecting to happen if "totin' a gun" is as rare as you make out it is.
Without seeing the show, I can't offer more than educated guesses. But I can say that I've seen the show "Cops" plenty and even on that show (which is edited to maximize the action) it's rare for the police to draw their weapon.

how do US posters think this can be rectified? can it be rectified? do the USA people care about their image? or is it just a "sod it, we're the greatest and we don't give a toss about anyone"
Based on the election results, I'd say just a smidge over half the country doesn't give a toss while the other half would like to see changes made. I'm not entirely sure how the situation can be rectified, but a start would be getting Bush and his cronies out of power. Beyond that, I don't know. Irregardless of who's in the White House, the United States is always going to put it's own interests first (as I think any nation ultimately should). As long as we're the economically and militarily strongest nation in the world, we're going to be doing things people don't like.

Personally I give credit to the US in that when the India/Pakistan earthquake happened recently, the US military were in there airlifting and dropping supplies within a day or so - that was bloody impressive stuff in terribly remote areas. (Kraj, note thats a compliment to the USA:D ;) )
Compliment noted ;) Maybe we're finally getting a clue. But it's probably more like we had all this stuff lying around from previous disasters and a use for it just happened to come up. :rolleyes:

I think this is where you're missing the point. Firstly. You cannot legislate for someones future intention to use something in a criminal manner. No laws will protect you from someone who has a gun and intends to use it to kill.
I agree. But this point is basically legal philosophy and the same logic could be used to argue the opposite position. If you cannot legislate intent, then how can it be right to take guns away from those whose intentions are legal?

Secondly. Most things in life serve a purpose. A motor vehicle may be used in a criminal manner but it also allows freedom to travel. In the form of an ambulance or a fire appliance to save lives. A gun has only 2 functions as i see it, target practice or killing. Neither of which would be a loss to a modern western society.
I agree. Frankly, I hate guns, but just because I hate something doesn't mean everyone else has to. I hate cigarettes too. Cigarettes have no redeeming value and cause physical and social harm. But I don't believe cigarettes should be outlawed, and apparently neither does the UK.

How can you remove firearms from the general public if they are used as a matter of course by criminals? [...] You need a de-escalation policy and i can't honestly see how that is going to happen. I think you've unintentionally created a situation that has left you desensitized to the violence with no way out.
Again, I agree. I think it's telling, though, that you note there is no way out of the situation. I don't think that's entirely true, but I think that simplistic solutions will not work. ("Historical Mindedness is ... suspicion of simplistic responses to human problems.")


We had a policewoman killed a few weeks back in an armed incident - with non-uk citizens - and the whole country was aware of it. It was headline news for nearly a week. Could you say the same for the death of a police man/woman? That's a genuine question.
Finally! An easy answer: not a chance.

Kraj,
How come you always leave me out of you quotes? I’m hurt you know.

Kraj,
How come you always leave me out of you quotes? I’m hurt you know.
Is that better? :p

I seem to have lost an entire chunk of my response and I thought it was important so I'm adding it here.

What I can't seem to get across to people here, is that this is the way people perceive life to be in the USA and it seems to be getting worse.
Whilst I believe Kraj /Ken /Cindy /TessB etc when they say its not the norm -what you have to do is look at the image that the USA portrays to the rest of the world.

People that have never been to the USA can only judge on what they see - rightly or wrongly - its easy for a US poster to dismiss it as totally wrong.
Colin, I think you've made it perfectly clear how you and other folks around the world perceive life in the U.S. And I agree that the image the United States projects is very important and valid to discuss. I also agree that conclusions based on your perceptions are perfectly valid, since that is the information you have available.

Where I and the others you mentioned have issue is your tendancy to reject new information based on real-life experience in favor of your perceptions based on the media. Perhaps if I provide a reverse example my point will be more clear:

I start watching BBC every day and I see story upon story of how prevalent yobbish behavior is in Essex. Whenenver I see a story that mentions Essex, it's always about yobs. After a while, I come to hold the opinion that Essex is mostly populated by yobs because that's how it's being portrayed in the news. I then post such a comment online, and you inform me that yobs are a relatively small group of troublemakers who are becoming a large problem and are simply given a lot of time on the news. Which source is more reliable? Wouldn't it be frustrating if I dismissed your assertions and insisted that Essex is, in fact, full of yobs?

In this country, law enforcement are trained to draw their weapon only if, in their judgement, deadly force is necessary.
That's very nearly every threatening situation because there are so many guns in circulation.
It's an automatic reaction by the cops over there, we had a cop over here from Texas who's now returning home because every time he feels threatened he wants to reach for a gun. It's a gun loving society that's created this as an automatic reaction.




Yes, it does. The key word here is "culture". The entertainment industry does not reflect reality.


But you have a gun culture and that is reflected in your entertainment industry.



According to you, Americans don't get an education at all, so the point is moot isn't it?


I've never said all Americans aren't educated, but then I've never said all Americans are armed to the teeth.

I hate cigarettes too. Cigarettes have no redeeming value and cause physical and social harm. But I don't believe cigarettes should be outlawed, and apparently neither does the UK.

But we do have a 500% tax rate on them and a garuntee that the tax level increases will excede the inflation increase ever year, maybe the same tax on Guns/Ammo would reduce the sales abit :)

Peter

I start watching BBC every day and I see story upon story of how prevalent yobbish behavior is in Essex. Whenenver I see a story that mentions Essex, it's always about yobs. After a while, I come to hold the opinion that Essex is mostly populated by yobs because that's how it's being portrayed in the news. I then post such a comment online, and you inform me that yobs are a relatively small group of troublemakers who are becoming a large problem and are simply given a lot of time on the news. Which source is more reliable? Wouldn't it be frustrating if I dismissed your assertions and insisted that Essex is, in fact, full of yobs?
Your example is actually very accurate. There are loads of yobs in Essex. If you watch any UK police reality show you will see that its very true. Likewise if you read any Essex paper on a monday, it refers to the fights and arrests over the weekend.

In Essex we have a very strong yobbish culture fuelled by excess drink, particularly on a friday and saturday night. This is called "binge drinking" and affects many town centres nationwide at night.

There are many people who avoid the town centres at night due to this yobbish binge drinking behaviour, fighting, attacking passers by, antisocial behaviour etc etc. The place is swarming with police trying to keep order.

I have been in our town centre at 2am and its heaving with young people drunk and people fighting after turning out of the clubs, there are as many people in the town centre at 2am as there is during a normal shopping day. Sadly, the majority (both male and female) are very drunk. I've actually seen young girls (and lads) pass out in the street with too much drink. It is a really big problem in the UK.

In order to curb this binge drinking, the government has now extended the drinking hours.

Note: "Binge drinking" is where a people try to drink as much as possible in an evening before the pubs / clubs close. Hence the drinking hours extension. But when they're drinking neat vodka and tequila with one swallow, they soon become uncontrollable - and in many cases, violent.

The police usually arrest them and put them in the slammer overnight and release them next day.

Col

Please explane that to me.
Easy.

You've eluded to the idea that Black Americans are a burden on your society in previous discussions and this confirms what you think about them. Your argument that your society is somehow a functioning group of immigrant peoples is damned by your statement that this immigrant group are no more than a collection of whiners. It's clear to most people that they have suffered and still suffer from predjudice. A predjudice which you clearly displayed in your comment by your gross generalization and belief that you can tell someone's ethnicity by the words they write. Before you state all the lego-political moves to introduce equality and the enshrined rights that Black people now have I would point out that they would be entirely unnecessary if people just treated each other humanly in the first place.

TS

I agree. But this point is basically legal philosophy and the same logic could be used to argue the opposite position. If you cannot legislate intent, then how can it be right to take guns away from those whose intentions are legal?



You could argue it from a philosophical point of view but that belies the reality. We do legislate for things that are deemed in the common good and limit the freedoms of people to do as they might please. For example speed limits, not everyone who has a car will intend to drive recklessly quickly, true? The obvious reality is we weigh up the rights of the individuals against each other and the group. If we are brutal there are economic reasons for the sale of guns but they also have cost in terms of healthcare, loss of earnings of victims - not just talking dead people obviously - and their families. And there are obviously human costs. The US appears to have weighed these economic costs and decided that they and the 17,000 lives a year that are lost do not outweigh the benefits of keeping the commerical arms industry in business. As societies we sacrifice certain freedoms for the common good, we sacrificed gun ownership in favour of a reduced level of gun deaths and injuries. I simply suggest that this is one area where the sacrifice isn't actually that great, it's more to do with an unwillingness to lose a freedom and a strong pro-gun lobby.

TS

I guess you guys in the UK haven't gotten the memo yet: reality shows aren't reality. They're edited, they're scripted, and they're produced.

You have spent alot of time explaining that the USA is nowhere near "Dirty Harry" or any fictional TV show, so "Dallas" and "The Waltons" bear no resemblence to reality? - is there any TV show that reflects actual American life?

No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Television is for entertainment. You don't see actual American life on TV because actual Americans are already experiencing actual American life and it is not entertaining.

Ok lets recap;)

1) There is no TV show in the USA that reflects American life - so what we see on TV (via US programmes) is not American life

2) Reality USA police shows are not reality (scripted and edited) - so the US police TV reality shows are not reality.

3) We've already established ages ago your TV news is biased to only showing good things (not dead soldiers coffins coming back from Iraq)

Therefore, anything that comes from the USA on TV or film (fiction or reality) is nowhere near the truth. Hmmm . . . . . . interesting.

I can only say, what a sad society it must be in the USA knowing that all you see on TV is made-up, censored, untrue, biased TV programmes. Presumably the newspapers are the same.

Its sad really that you never get to see the real truth about whats going on in the world - that must be why Americans (people) are blissfully unaware of reality and go round chanting that the USA is the greatest nation etc.

Does your government tell you that Fahrenheit 9/11 is all lies? would that ever be shown on national network TV?

Col

Ok lets recap;)

Does your government tell you that Fahrenheit 9/11 is all lies? would that ever be shown on national network TV?

Col
mmmm, let's see, who was that guy that was immediately censored by the networks for stating on air that Bush hated blacks, whilst at the same time posting Bush's lies with regular monotony:rolleyes:

In Essex we have a very strong yobbish culture fuelled by excess drink, particularly on a friday and saturday night. This is called "binge drinking" and affects many town centres nationwide at night.
Sounds like alcohol should be banned, or at least taxed 500% to limit this unsocial behavoir! :p

You've eluded to the idea that Black Americans are a burden on your society in previous discussions and this confirms what you think about them. Your argument that your society is somehow a functioning group of immigrant peoples is damned by your statement that this immigrant group are no more than a collection of whiners. It's clear to most people that they have suffered and still suffer from predjudice.
Or maybe you are jumping to conculsions. OK I can't speak for jsanders, but there is a subculture (not just blacks mind you, all races) that would rather be at the lowers levels of the income ladder and not work and just collect a check from the government. Without starting a debate on who's fault that is, it seems the black portion of this subculture is shown more on TV than the others. I can't say if there are actually more blacks in this subculture or not, because even if they had statistics on this, I would think they would not be accurate because not all people come out in the open to be counted so to say. I can not say there is not any predjudice either, that would be an idiots statement. There is predjudice everywhere there are people. But what I can say is that the American culture is broadened and enriched by people from all over.

Sounds like alcohol should be banned, or at least taxed 500% to limit this unsocial behavoir! :p
Alcohol is banned for persons under 18 and is heavily taxed.

I don't know how youngsters can afford it night after night.:confused:

This unsociable behaviour is a British thing, it doesn't happen in Europe (except where the British go - like Ibiza, or Greece) Thats why there will be trouble at next years world cup finals in Germany, the English will be fuelled up wanting to fight the Germans.

Col

ps - World Cup is the soccer tournament where all countries are allowed to enter - not like the USA's World Series where only the USA play;)

This unsociable behaviour is a British thing, it doesn't happen in Europe (except where the British go - like Ibiza, or Greece) Thats why there will be trouble at next years world cup finals in Germany, the English will be fuelled up wanting to fight the Germans.
So in reality the Brits should be banned, or at least taxed 500% :D

So in reality the Brits should be banned, or at least taxed 500% :D
Possibly, - incidentally there was a time when some English football clubs fans were banned from travelling to overseas games because of violent behaviour.

Plus, if you add all the different taxes we pay, I suspect your 500% is not far off. We are taxed on almost everything these days.

Col

Just the English. If the Scots were good enough to go to Germany they wouldn't have caused any trouble.

Just the English. If the Scots were good enough to go to Germany they wouldn't have caused any trouble.
Sadly we'll never know;) :p

Col

That's very nearly every threatening situation because there are so many guns in circulation.
But you have a gun culture and that is reflected in your entertainment industry.
Well, I can say that what goes on in Texas is not what goes on in Illinois. Gun ownership is much less prevalent in the northern states and therefore the gun culture is not the same.

All in all, however, I pretty much agree with you.

Your example is actually very accurate.
That's quite unfortunate since, if it wasn't, I may have gotten my point across.

As societies we sacrifice certain freedoms for the common good, we sacrificed gun ownership in favour of a reduced level of gun deaths and injuries. I simply suggest that this is one area where the sacrifice isn't actually that great, it's more to do with an unwillingness to lose a freedom and a strong pro-gun lobby.
I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I also think the culture of violence in this country is so ingrained that it will take a major trauma to correct it (much like an addict must hit rock bottom in order to recover). I don't believe changing gun laws or entertainment laws, etc., will work. I don't think government can force this change onto people. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic.

Ok lets recap

1) There is no TV show in the USA that reflects American life - so what we see on TV (via US programmes) is not American life

2) Reality USA police shows are not reality (scripted and edited) - so the US police TV reality shows are not reality.

3) We've already established ages ago your TV news is biased to only showing good things (not dead soldiers coffins coming back from Iraq)

Therefore, anything that comes from the USA on TV or film (fiction or reality) is nowhere near the truth. Hmmm . . . . . . interesting.
Yep, that's pretty accurate, except that you've changed terminology. Truth and reality are very different concepts. A movie you see may portray a culture of violence in the U.S. That is true. The same movie might lead you to believe most police officers shoot criminals on a daily basis. That is not reality. Truth deals in concepts, reality deals in facts.

It's fair to discuss concepts about American social issues based on your perceived truth. But when you discuss real-life solutions, you need to deal with the facts.

I can only say, what a sad society it must be in the USA knowing that all you see on TV is made-up, censored, untrue, biased TV programmes. Presumably the newspapers are the same.
I agree with the sentiment, but newspapers (and news television programs) are not the same. Some influences are similar, yes, but newspapers and other news media do not exist for entertainment purposes. Some networks might choose to pander to a certain audience, but most real news networks at least attempt to maintain journalistic integrity. One of the social costs of capitalism, however, is that successfull businesses give consumers what they want, not necessarily what's good for them. We, as a society, have chosen our own shallowness.

Its sad really that you never get to see the real truth about whats going on in the world - that must be why Americans (people) are blissfully unaware of reality and go round chanting that the USA is the greatest nation etc.
I'm not intending this statement to be belligerent or provocative, but to be honest... in the couple years I've been in the Watercooler reading comments from you and some of the others from the UK about how you perceive the U.S., I've seen volumes worth of posts that I know are biased, inaccurate, or totally false. I have a hard time believing what you describe above is all that different in the UK. Sorry if you find that offensive.

Does your government tell you that Fahrenheit 9/11 is all lies?
No, because if they did all someone would have to do is produce a speck of proof to shred them to pieces. Instead they attack Michael Moore.

would that ever be shown on national network TV?
Not likely, but what purpose would it serve if it was? The majority of Bush supporters continue to do so despite his obvious incompetence and hypocrisy. Is that movie going to change their minds? The majority of people who don't supoprt Bush already can't stand him, so all that movie would do is throw another log on the fire. And the majority of people who really don't care still won't care.

Its sad really that you never get to see the real truth about whats going on in the world - that must be why Americans (people) are blissfully unaware of reality and go round chanting that the USA is the greatest nation etc.

I have a hard time believing what you describe above is all that different in the UK. Sorry if you find that offensive.
Not at all offensive, but just to clarify - we in the UK don't go round chanting that the USA is the greatest nation - fact;) :rolleyes: Not sure where you got that idea we did from:confused:


Your example is actually very accurate.

That's quite unfortunate since, if it wasn't, I may have gotten my point across.

I know the point you were making, but I find it almost spooky that you were so accurate with a "made up" example. (is "gotten" a real word used in the US?;) :p )

Col

we in the UK don't go round chanting that the USA is the greatest nation Col
Or that the UK is since Bliar took office:mad:

I know the point you were making, but I find it almost spooky that you were so accurate with a "made up" example. (is "gotten" a real word used in the US?;) :p )
A quick Google yeilded an explaination from Dr. Grammar better than what I could have come up with:

Have got or have gotten?
According to Patricia O'Conner, author of Woe Is I, "At one time, everyone agreed that the verb get had two past participles: got and gotten.... It's true that the British stopped using have gotten about three hundred years ago, while we in the Colonies kept using both have got and have gotten. But the result is not that Americans speak improper English. The result is that we have retained a nuance of meaning that the Britons have lost.
When we say, Bruce has got three Armani suits, we mean he has them in his possession. It's another way of saying he has them.
When we say, Bruce has gotten three Armani suits, we mean he's acquired or obtained them.
It's a useful distinction...

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I also think the culture of violence in this country is so ingrained that it will take a major trauma to correct it (much like an addict must hit rock bottom in order to recover). I don't believe changing gun laws or entertainment laws, etc., will work. I don't think government can force this change onto people. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic.


That's interesting because the trigger - no pun intended - for the gun restrictions we now have in the UK was a massacre at a school in Scotland.

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112749,00.html

You've had similar experiences in the US with the massacre at Columbine most prominent among them. What in your opinion would consitute a major trauma?

Easy.

You've eluded to the idea that Black Americans are a burden on your society in previous discussions and this confirms what you think about them. Your argument that your society is somehow a functioning group of immigrant peoples is damned by your statement that this immigrant group are no more than a collection of whiners. It's clear to most people that they have suffered and still suffer from predjudice. A predjudice which you clearly displayed in your comment by your gross generalization and belief that you can tell someone's ethnicity by the words they write. Before you state all the lego-political moves to introduce equality and the enshrined rights that Black people now have I would point out that they would be entirely unnecessary if people just treated each other humanly in the first place.

TS
No TS,
You’re the one that wants to make this a black thing.

This generational dependence is everywhere in the Good Ol’ USA. Some of the lazy bastards climb up, some don’t.

The only thing here about race is in your mind.

All Americans (and a whole lot of illegal immigrants) have the capacity to move up. Going back to my original statement better here than anywhere else.

You just want to say the big bad Americans treat their black citizens badly.

I do know this if you’re taught as a child that you have no hope, it hard to find it on your own. Many ignorant people teach their children that lesson.

No TS,
You’re the one that wants to make this a black thing.

This generational dependence is everywhere in the Good Ol’ USA. Some of the lazy bastards climb up, some don’t.

The only thing here about race is in your mind.

All Americans (and a whole lot of illegal immigrants) have the capacity to move up. Going back to my original statement better here than anywhere else.

You just want to say the big bad Americans treat their black citizens badly.

I do know this if you’re taught as a child that you have no hope, it hard to find it on your own. Many ignorant people teach their children that lesson.

I'm only going by what you said. I wouldn't attempt to conclude from someones posting whether they are black, white, green or orange. Perhaps you can explain what you actually meant by ;



Just as a matter of interest how do you know who is black and who isn't?

Well have any Americans on this board whined about inequality?.

I don't think that it is unfair to say it's a racial stereotype.

TS