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.