Pimppeter2: Look at the post that sparked this debate. Unless the poster worded it horribly wrong, my impression was that the American Left si laughable for simply not being Left compared to his country. Which is the reason I started up telling him how that idea is not a very bright one.
I did indeed word it horribly wrong. It wasn't my intention to cause offence. I think the point I was trying to make was that when Americans talk about their Left, I automatically expect it to be the Left-leaning politics of Europe rtaher than the slightly less Right-leaning politics of the Republicans. As you say, I was looking at it incorrectly.
I tried to explain that I was more laughing at my own ignorance than at your political systems, but as so often happens, my eloquence was found lacking and the point of my post was lost in the delivery.
The point being? A lot of modern countries were created due to other nations intervention
If France had never inteveined, unified Italy wouldn't exist, nor would Germany. Greece wouldn't have been liberated if it wasn't for England.
The point being that the 'argument' of America deserving unlimited gratitude (or, at the least, why peope "need to stop hating on america") for its role in WWI and WWII is equally retarded.
That's beside the point. The argument is not whether or not Barack Obama is a centerist or a leftist, but the point being that all political opinions are based on your own. You cannot blame someone for believing he is left when they compare him to their own ideologies.
Yeah, but just because I am to the right of Mao does not make me right wing. Obama can be to the left of the Republican part but still be a centrist.
YOu can say that he is not left because of his policies that are centerist. But saying that he is not left because he's not as left as (insert country here) politics is wrong.
I wasn't saying that, I was saying that calling him a socialist or something similarly hyperbolic is confusing because there are people who could also be considered socialist who are much more left wing than him.
Freer countries are wealthier countries and people can afford to buy what they want for themselves. Coulter's column simply points out simple truth: where the government is less involved, capitalism creates terrific, cheap miraculous goods and services.
Funny how that study was 10 years ago and only studied the deliverance of the healthcare and its methods were scrutinized, its also funny how parliment members of foreign countries fly to America for transplants.
United States Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80 Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8 Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Cuba Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 363 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 7.1 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76/80 Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/70 Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 7 Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 127/82
Holy crap, cuba spends ONE EIGHTEENTH of what the US spends per capita on health and and Cuba performs equally or BETTER in nearly all the categories the WHO considers to be the most important in the measure of a country's health system.
This must reflect the "market efficencies" I've heard so much about :p
LOL. When you are in need of advanced medical care, feel free to go to Cuba. I'll stay in the USA.
I don't hate america but like someone said some pages ago it's disturbing to find out that a big part of the population still believes that Earth is 6000 years old. And even more disturbing to find out that they want to teach it ON SCHOOLS! I mean, what the hell??!!
and cuba is one of the poorest countries out there, so yeah..
I think that would be due to that whole embargo thing, rather than their healthcare system.
Well its clearly not due to providing quality healthcare as cuba also speends less than half the GDP% the US does on healthcare. They can do this by doing things like paying doctors a salary closer to normal people which also has the nice effect of atteracting people to the medical profession who want to help people rather than make themsleves rich.
You are seriously arguing that because European countries do not have a Second Amendment equivalent, we are all nations enslaved by our governments?
how do you think the US was able to declare a rebellion against England buddy? by having weapons to fight that war with
You were able to declare independence because your Spanish, French, and Dutch allies agreed to help you out. You were also so far away that order took two months to get there. The other three empires pitched in to help you out by expanding the UK's engagement area to cover the whole world. We were fighting everywhere and so were stretched too thin. It's not like your own country was even 100% united against the UK, a big chunk were actually on their side. Your second amendment made little difference when professional armies were being marshalled anyway, on both sides. Anyway, such is history.
and cuba is one of the poorest countries out there, so yeah..
Well that's hardly their fault, and that fact only serves to make their healthcare system look even better. Perhaps the cubans have been forced to realise that money isn't wealth?
Warforger: Cuba has been known to lie about their statistics i.e. when the mortality rate for infants was low it was discovered that Cuba didn't count the ones that died a few hours after birth which is where the most deaths occur anyway IIRC or something like that.
Citation? I'm pretty sure the statistics from the WHO are gathered by the WHO.
True, but then many people think that the country so focused on moving on from those old imperialist attitudes, touting themselves as the land of the free and brave and all things good, would generally behave itself in a more progressive manner. At least in this age.
Yah, but thats kinda geopolitical arrogance showing it off.
It's not arrogance if he's just stating facts. If he said, "We are better than you because... [empire]", then it'd be arrogance. If he's just explaining how we had the largest empire ever, then you'd be better of examining your response rather than his words.
I mean, is it really a competition? Who cares! It's the past now anyway! You're top dogs now! Woop!
No. While the news may portray the Republicans as majority, truth be told the majority are Democrats.
I was talking about the guy who said that healthcare was worse in America.
The care is good, but the coverage is horrible. What good is the most advanced machinery in the world if you can't use it to fix your liver infection because you had a yeast infection at age 19? Or your brain tumour when the Insurance company flat-out denies you have one. Yes, I have seen sicko. Yes, I realise he is alarmist, but there is a lot of truth in there. And yes, I have been to America, twice. And yes, I have relatives there (New Jersey), and many friends there, who were able to confirm a lot of this.
Freer countries are wealthier countries and people can afford to buy what they want for themselves. Coulter's column simply points out simple truth: where the government is less involved, capitalism creates terrific, cheap miraculous goods and services.
The underlined part is a pretty huge assumption.
Oh tsh. Things are not so black and white. The freest countries in the world are arguably the government-free african states. Look how rich they are! Conversely, the Kingdom of Jordan, a police state, has a currency on equal footing with the GBP. The people still flourish despite their apparent lack of freedom. The problem with the wealth in the richest countries is that it is not spread evenly enough, and income inequality creates a lot of problems.
America's wealth does not come purely from their embrace of hard-line capitalism, it also comes from the immense profit gained from WWII, the lack of any real competition for decades after, and the abundant natural resources situated on US soil or within US influence.
It is absurd to advocate the removal of markets altogether. They are a fact of life and nothing new. To be generally against markets is akin to being generally against conversation. However you must realise that markets are far, far, far from perfect. Many just think they are because the real negative effects have been outsourced to far away lands due to globalisation, and they do not see them, except maybe through the lens of the 'alarmist left'.
Government intervention is and will always be necessary to prevent mass exploitation via the vehicles of free markets. Labour laws, anti-monopoly laws, trade tariffs and the like. They are responsible for minimum-wage laws, working hour laws, worker safety laws, minimum age laws and more. Not to mention they run the courts to help the workers hold their employers to account on rights violations[1]. Do you really want working conditions to return to the way they were in 18th century Britain?
Government intervention is also needed in areas where free markets will fail, that is, situations involving the distribution of public goods, or situations where the price determinant effect of markets will lead to inadequate distribution. Such a situation would be something like allowing free markets to distribute food to a disaster zone.
Government intervention is also needed to prevent the inaccurate pricing of goods, for most of the time the true cost of a good isn't represented in the price of it, and the planet and its people suffer in order to achieve that. This, coupled with globalisation and economies of scale, are why you perceive the goods to be so 'miraculously cheap'. It's not miraculous when you zoom out and see the global picture. The coffee grower earning $0.02 an hour, or the rainforest being felled by the hundreds of square kilometres every day rather than being farmed sustainably. The African small-holder being pushed out of business by uncompetitively cheap government subsidised American rice. The list goes on.
Most markets are not sustainable. Markets damage people. Markets have created the 'consumer culture' which so damages the psyche (and health) of the western world. Markets damage the Earth. In general, most markets do not account for their externalities, and this is where they fail. That is why governments are needed, to protect the people and the Earth by holding markets accountable to the true cost of their products. The markets should serve us, we should not serve the market, as we do now.[2][3][4][5]
Although they do seem to provide cheap goods in (Almost) all cases, it's true. However, money isn't everything. You need to consider what the true cost of these goods is, not just in terms of money, but in social, environmental, and human terms, too. It's not just about goods, it's about the people and the planet they live on, too.
EBass: If you're really interested I'll write a proper piece if you so request it.
Consider this a request then!
[1] In theory, at least. More often the worker can't afford effective representation. Who said money can't buy justice?
Now I hate America, knowing that this defence strategy could be seen by even one person there as being in any way decent. Also, Americans invented television? Suuuuuuuure. You're on your way, kid.
They didn't invent it, but they've certainly perfected it by making many brilliant TV shows. The good ones pale in comparison to the drivel they've produced though.
chiefohara: America Bashing took on a whole new level thanks to Dubya Bush, It'll take a lot more time before it goes back to normal levels of 'meh' America, it is getting there though... people across the board seem to be a lot less cranky now Obama is in charge
Oh we were, until your current politicians started all this "BP=Britain" bullshit. Now we have US senators casting aspersions on the Scottish Parliament about Al-Magrahi's release, and trying to tell us how to run our fucking government. Whether they're correct in those aspersions or not, it's not their fucking place to publicly accuse the leaders of a supposed ally, with a "special relationship" no less, of corruption and instruct them to have an inquiry.
A lot of people are expressing anti-American sentiments right now because, frankly, you treat us like shite. We had no national interest in Afghanistan, but it was sold to us on the basis that we had to support our most staunch ally. We had absolutely no interest in Iraq, but we were given a bunch of bullshit about WMDs, and how we had to support our staunchest ally. In the years since, as a thank you, we've been the target of terrorist attacks, and America's politicians have, in no particular order; lied to us repeatedly, tried to blame OUR intelligence services for their cockup, tortured British citizens without evidence, thrown their weight behind a country(Israel) which has done some horrifying things in Palestine and then used fake British passports to conduct an assassination, spun together a wave of anti-British sentiments in order to disguise the incompetence of their own oil regulations and enforcement, and now are trying to further discredit BP by trying to make out that their money is somehow derived from backroom deals with terrorists, which our government not just ignored but apparently conducted.
All that, and I didn't even have to mention George fucking Bush. So yeah, we're a little pissed with America's government right now.
You were able to declare independence because your Spanish, French, and Dutch allies agreed to help you out. You were also so far away that order took two months to get there. The other three empires pitched in to help you out by expanding the UK's engagement area to cover the whole world. We were fighting everywhere and so were stretched too thin. It's not like your own country was even 100% united against the UK, a big chunk were actually on their side. Your second amendment made little difference when professional armies were being marshalled anyway, on both sides. Anyway, such is history.
No. 25% for the revolution, 25% AGAINST the revolution, 50% who didn't want it to happen at all.
Warforger: Cuba has been known to lie about their statistics i.e. when the mortality rate for infants was low it was discovered that Cuba didn't count the ones that died a few hours after birth which is where the most deaths occur anyway IIRC or something like that.
Citation? I'm pretty sure the statistics from the WHO are gathered by the WHO.
I was talking about the guy who said that healthcare was worse in America.
The care is good, but the coverage is horrible. What good is the most advanced machinery in the world if you can't use it to fix your liver infection because you had a yeast infection at age 19? Or your brain tumour when the Insurance company flat-out denies you have one. Yes, I have seen sicko. Yes, I realise he is alarmist, but there is a lot of truth in there. And yes, I have been to America, twice. And yes, I have relatives there (New Jersey), and many friends there, who were able to confirm a lot of this.
Then why are the survival rates in the US the same if not higher then in other Western nations?
Warforger: its also funny how parliment members of foreign countries fly to America for transplants.
Said parliment members happen to have more money than the layman. Which is the whole point of why the US' health system is bad; the rich get treated while the poor get to suffer, and the not-as-rich get to bankrupt themselves paying for treatments only to have their treatment denied because of a pre-existing condition they didn't report because they didn't know they had it and it was completely unrelated to their treatment.
And I bet those other 36 countries above the US never had cases like that before.
Firstly, the survival and mortality rates of diseases are the same if not lower in the US then other Western countries, and secondly WHO has horrible credibility, just look at how they defend North Korea after an amnesty report saying North Korea's healthcare was horrid.
The main point of these totalitarian states is image. Also the WHO has little credibility
The national review is hardly an unbiased source itself. I'll believe the WHO before I believe...
Wikipedia page on NR:
A biweekly magazine founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
for which Sarah Palin has contributed. Find me a varied bunch of sources saying the same thing and I might believe you, but one article in one paper isn't really enough. As I say, I'll take the WHO over that.
That undermines my point as much as it undermines yours, and that was the point I was trying to make. Saying the majority of the people in your country are Democrat or Republican is a flawed claim because not only do people switch sides, but a lot of people don't even vote. It'd be interesting to see how many people voted when Obama was a candidate. How many silent democrats were there?
"We certainly have a lot of restrictions in terms of working in North Korea, but we did our best in terms of capturing the information we could verify," Zarifi said. "We don't take the WHO's statements as criticizing or rejecting Amnesty's findings."
If they don't, why the hell should you?
They don't say that Amnesty are wrong, they just question the validity of their findings, as they are expected to do. Amnesty's report was flawed: it used out-of-date figures and anecdotal evidence. It's not their fault, of course, it's because NK has closed borders.
As for Chan's April claim that "people in the country do not have to worry about a lack of financial resources to access care," Garwood said hundreds of field missions have been conducted in North Korea. "None have come back reporting the kinds of things in the Amnesty report in terms of payment for services," he said. "I'm not saying they're not credible accounts," he added. "But it's not taking into account some of the things that are happening today." Zarifi, of Amnesty, said the whole debate would be ended if North Korea's government provided access to monitors so that everyone had a better understanding of the country's health care system.
The UN is merely questioning the accuracy of Amnesty's claims, and pointing out that things have changed since the data for the report was gathered. This does nothing to undermine the WHO's credibility.
The main point of these totalitarian states is image. Also the WHO has little credibility
The national review is hardly an unbiased source itself. I'll believe the WHO before I believe...
Wikipedia page on NR:
A biweekly magazine founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
for which Sarah Palin has contributed. Find me a varied bunch of sources saying the same thing and I might believe you, but one article in one paper isn't really enough. As I say, I'll take the WHO over that.
That undermines my point as much as it undermines yours, and that was the point I was trying to make. Saying the majority of the people in your country are Democrat or Republican is a flawed claim because not only do people switch sides, but a lot of people don't even vote. It'd be interesting to see how many people voted when Obama was a candidate. How many silent democrats were there?
Few. The last election had a record turn out IIRC.
"We certainly have a lot of restrictions in terms of working in North Korea, but we did our best in terms of capturing the information we could verify," Zarifi said. "We don't take the WHO's statements as criticizing or rejecting Amnesty's findings."
If they don't, why the hell should you?
They don't say that Amnesty are wrong, they just question the validity of their findings, as they are expected to do. Amnesty's report was flawed: it used out-of-date figures and anecdotal evidence. It's not their fault, of course, it's because NK has closed borders.
As for Chan's April claim that "people in the country do not have to worry about a lack of financial resources to access care," Garwood said hundreds of field missions have been conducted in North Korea. "None have come back reporting the kinds of things in the Amnesty report in terms of payment for services," he said. "I'm not saying they're not credible accounts," he added. "But it's not taking into account some of the things that are happening today." Zarifi, of Amnesty, said the whole debate would be ended if North Korea's government provided access to monitors so that everyone had a better understanding of the country's health care system.
The UN is merely questioning the accuracy of Amnesty's claims, and pointing out that things have changed since the data for the report was gathered. This does nothing to undermine the WHO's credibility.
Yah saying things like how North Korea's healthcare is the envy of the Western world doesn't undermine credibility.
America is Effed up. COMPLETLY EFFED UP and americans let it happen to themselves. Hopefully the older people will finally start dying off and the younger, more intelligent people will take over and turn things around.
I could go on and on about healthcare, the fed, capitalism and such and how we are warmongers, we kill people to make few rich, we stage false flag attacks against our own people to get into wars, we lie about a lot of things to take liberties and rights away from our people etc.. but I won't, I will just agree that I'm american, and im ashamed at the stupidity of my fellow americans.
Digitaldreamer7: America is Effed up. COMPLETLY EFFED UP and americans let it happen to themselves. Hopefully the older people will finally start dying off and the younger, more intelligent people will take over and turn things around.
I could go on and on about healthcare, the fed, capitalism and such and how we are warmongers, we kill people to make few rich,
we stage false flag attacks against our own people to get into wars,
True in the Spanish-American war but Conspiracy theory otherwise. Even then, at least we had the decency to have a moral reason, most European countries were honest in the fact that they were fighting wars for money and power.
Government intervention is and will always be necessary to prevent mass exploitation via the vehicles of free markets. Labour laws, anti-monopoly laws, trade tariffs and the like. They are responsible for minimum-wage laws, working hour laws, worker safety laws, minimum age laws and more. Not to mention they run the courts to help the workers hold their employers to account on rights violations[1]. Do you really want working conditions to return to the way they were in 18th century Britain?
Government intervention is also needed in areas where free markets will fail, that is, situations involving the distribution of public goods, or situations where the price determinant effect of markets will lead to inadequate distribution. Such a situation would be something like allowing free markets to distribute food to a disaster zone.
Government intervention is also needed to prevent the inaccurate pricing of goods, for most of the time the true cost of a good isn't represented in the price of it, and the planet and its people suffer in order to achieve that. This, coupled with globalisation and economies of scale, are why you perceive the goods to be so 'miraculously cheap'. It's not miraculous when you zoom out and see the global picture. The coffee grower earning $0.02 an hour, or the rainforest being felled by the hundreds of square kilometres every day rather than being farmed sustainably. The African small-holder being pushed out of business by uncompetitively cheap government subsidised American rice. The list goes on.
Most markets are not sustainable. Markets damage people. Markets have created the 'consumer culture' which so damages the psyche (and health) of the western world. Markets damage the Earth. In general, most markets do not account for their externalities, and this is where they fail. That is why governments are needed, to protect the people and the Earth by holding markets accountable to the true cost of their products. The markets should serve us, we should not serve the market, as we do now.[2][3][4][5]
Although they do seem to provide cheap goods in (Almost) all cases, it's true. However, money isn't everything. You need to consider what the true cost of these goods is, not just in terms of money, but in social, environmental, and human terms, too. It's not just about goods, it's about the people and the planet they live on, too.
show me one example of a nation built off of these principles that was not destroyed by another nation using nearly the exact opposite of the principles you outlined. go ahead, i dare you
Moriarty: you pretty much summed up why people hate america, so congrats?
Indeed he did.
DJmagma: so yeah, America isn't such a bad country. it had a horrible retarded leader for 8 years but other than that, it's done pretty well. better than those pussies to the north. (sorry, but brothers are suppose to fight! don't act like you don't talk shit behind our backs canada.)
Fuck You. We don't need to talk shit behind your back, We openly insult your backwards ass country. God damn Moron.
Also this is what alot of people don't get - "Brothers" are not supposed to fight.
so yeah, America isn't such a bad country. it had a horrible retarded leader for 8 years but other than that, it's done pretty well. better than those pussies to the north. (sorry, but brothers are suppose to fight! don't act like you don't talk shit behind our backs canada
I'm a CF reservist and the American and Canadian troupes in all aspects of the military have the highest respect for eachother, why can't civilians do the same? I'd give my life to save any American solider and I know they'd do the same for me. Please try to understand that...
It actually saddens me to hear young Americans such as yourself (I don't say that as an insult, it's just what you seem to be.) speak like that, don't you watch the news? Canadians die in Afghanistan too, when you speak like that about them you are disrespecting the fact they gave their life for their country and their buddies.
Gralian: There's two things that really bug me about America. The first being that a ship of colonisers floated over and built a civilisation that pretty much came about by kicking out the natives who were already there. How the fuck can you justify that? It's not like it was even that long ago. Which leads me on to the second point; because America is so very young, most of the policies are as you would say 'asshat-backwards'. Or so it seems from the amount of people who bitch about your government. I think the problem with America is that it's gotten too big for its boots too quickly. I also refuse to acknowledge Americans as a 'people' because it is, literally, a country of immigrants. I can recognise them as people in the sense of members of a nation-state, but not really as a race. Though i suppose that calls into question the whole meaning of the word 'race', since there aren't any major biological distinctions beyond the obvious such as whites blacks asians and so on.
The biggest thing that pisses me off about America is the health care system, or lack thereof. Don't have insurance and don't have the money? Then you won't get the treatment. Even if it means you die. Wonderful.
yeah, because the brits history regarding displacement of native peoples, and settlement by the sword is so much better.
-m
you just signed a post on the internet your opinion is invalid.
Well Scotland invented the TV, Radio was not invented by America and the use of the internet as something other than business was first done by the Swiss, I think...or something like that.
Also, the reason you think these things shows a small ignorance which is why people hate America: we never get to see the smart and intelligent, kind and interesting Americans, only the ones with half-formed opinions and in it's bluntest form, delusions of Grandeur.
The former being another openly conservative site, and the other one that has been seemingly set up purely for the purpose of bashing Cuba. Both are also American. I'm still not buying it against the WHOs word. And even if it were the case that Cuba's healthcare is over-estimated, see below.
SO many 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
etc. etc.
I took a look at all the graphs from the Aussie .gov site, including the ones you decided to omit. It is not the case that the USA is the same or better than all other developed countries in all cases. Even two of the graphs you used (the second and fourth) prove this.
And even if that were the case, the equal or marginally better level of treatment doesn't tally up with the hugely[1] increased cost, and lack of universal coverage present in other developed nations:
Warforger: Yah saying things like how North Korea's healthcare is the envy of the Western world doesn't undermine credibility.
Once again...
The issue is sensitive for WHO because its director-general, Margaret Chan, praised the communist country after a visit in April and described its health care as the "envy" of most developing nations.
And you know what? Judging by the last rankings produced in 2000, NK was ahead of 24 other developing countries.[2] That is not most, of course, but considering the large amount of progress that has allegedly been made by the UN mission there from 2005 (The details of which are in that same article), it may well be ahead of most developing countries.
On top of that, they then backtrack and downplay the over-the-top praise:
Garwood and WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib insisted that Amnesty's report was complementary to their boss' observations, and sought to downplay Chan's praise for North Korea.
And even then, it was just the words of the director. It's not like she gathers and collates the data, or likely even dictates much policy. So I'll say again, this does nothing to undermine the credibility of the WHO as a whole. Perhaps her individually, but not really, because her claim is not entirely false.
show me one example of a nation built off of these principles that was not destroyed by another nation using nearly the exact opposite of the principles you outlined. go ahead, i dare you
The principals of justice, accountability, and environmental conciousness? I'm not sure any nation could be founded just on those principals, nor the opposites, for that matter. Or even at all! I can only think of one nation which was 'founded' on a blank slate, and that would be the USA. What an... odd challenge.
There are nations that espouse these views in the present day. Notably the Scandinavian states, and they've not been destroyed yet. Some nations do not even have armies, and yet have, strangely, not been destroyed. Despite all that, I am yet to discern what the point of your response was. Do you really want to go against such an obvious fact of economics as 'markets do not account for their externalities'? Do you seek to undermine my criticism of markets for ideological reasons? Or do you seek to prove that such apparently uncommon principals are no good?
Perhaps now, after millennia of stagnation and war, the world is in a position to change? Just because things have always been does not mean they shall always be. If this was the case, we'd still be in caves. Our social, political, economic, and environmental habitats have changed with new political ideas, the US constitution, Global Warming, Globalisation, the UN, Medicine, Education, the Internet, and more. Surely it's only evolution for us to change, too, no?
TL;DR: Just because they haven't been used successfully in the past to found a nation doesn't mean they can't be used successfully utilised by existing nations in the present and future. If I had to give an example, I'd remove environmental conciousness due to it only being a recent concern, and then present to you the USA, whose constitution is all about justice and accountability, even if it doesn't always provide these things in practice due to Laissez-Faire economic policy.
OT: Kill Glenn Beck. Get rid of Fox news and CNN and make it so everyone can't just sue everyone else. Then america won't be as bad. There are still plenty of problems i have but those are my main ones. Oh and capitalism.
People hate America because it is a country that is very pleasant to live in, but very unpleasant under the surface.
Most Americans don't like to peek behind the curtain (the curtain being all of our iPods and flat screen TVs and "Channel 4 News" blips), but the backside of the curtain is all that a lot of other people see.
So Americans are like that dude in the first Matrix movie who wants to be back in the illusion while most informed people of the world are like the rest of the citizen's of Zion. They both know the same thing, they just have different motivations for reacting to it.
i am currently 14. now, someone is going to say that only a stupid kid would think such non-sense, when I've thought this through and think America gets moire crap then it deserves.
I see where you are coming from here, because there are people out there with anti-American attitudes that are quick to blame America, even when it's not entirely deserved. It simplifies the picture of it all, because there are many cases where things are only partially America's fault, or it's a problem with the government, the culture, and many other things, and not America as a whole.
But you also need to look at the other side of the coin. A lot of people who criticize America get labelled unfairly as anti-American. I don't hate America, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold back criticism when I see something wrong. That also doesn't mean I'm going to hold back a compliment when our government, our culture, ect. gets something right. It's not a simple "love or hate America" thing with me and many others.
People shouldn't hate the US because it achieved what everyone else was trying to do. It played a chessgame with every other country and won. Now the losers talk as though they're weak out of choise because its 'right' or 'nice'.
the US isn't full of idiots, you'd be a fool to think so. It has generated some of the greatest things. Its a big country, with lots of differences. Get over it.
UberMore: Well Scotland invented the TV, Radio was not invented by America and the use of the internet as something other than business was first done by the Swiss, I think...or something like that.
Also, the reason you think these things shows a small ignorance which is why people hate America: we never get to see the smart and intelligent, kind and interesting Americans, only the ones with half-formed opinions and in it's bluntest form, delusions of Grandeur.
The World Wide Web was "invented" in the CERN.
And yes, seems like we only get to know here the americans that thinks the world was created in 6 days ( thanks Penn & Teller).
UberMore: Well Scotland invented the TV, Radio was not invented by America and the use of the internet as something other than business was first done by the Swiss, I think...or something like that.
Also, the reason you think these things shows a small ignorance which is why people hate America: we never get to see the smart and intelligent, kind and interesting Americans, only the ones with half-formed opinions and in it's bluntest form, delusions of Grandeur.
The World Wide Web was "invented" in the CERN.
And yes, seems like we only get to know here the americans that thinks the world was created in 6 days ( thanks Penn & Teller).
The internet- that is, a series of electrical inter-computer communication wires- was invented in the US by DARPA.
The world wide web- that is, the IP system and the structure of servers and clients- was invented by Tim Berners-Lee (A Brit), in the CERN lab in Switzerland, afaik.
Moriarty: you pretty much summed up why people hate america, so congrats?
So you hate them because they made some of the biggest things? sounds more like jealousy
And that sounds like arrogance. It's the typical thing for the guy who thinks he is better than everyone else to disregard their criticism as jealous sniping when it has some validity behind it. Sometimes a great deal, in fact. When it comes down to it, that is probably one of the most common critiques of the US around the world.
Warning: Massive Generalisations To Follow Disclaimer: I Like the US, I really do (I'm adamant that you guys make the best cookies and burgers in the world). In its foundations are an admirable set of ideals. I just can't help but wonder why they are flaunted so, when the reality is quite different.
spacerOf course, world-wide it is a mix of things that cause people to dislike the USA. In some, often poorer, parts of the world, it is the hatred of US-based/subsidised/inspired mega-corporations that make their lives so hard. It is the failure of the system the US believes in- most strongly out of all the Western Nations- to make their lives better like they frequently claim it should. In fact, it makes their lives worse. spacerIn other, war-torn, parts, it is the hatred of the Western interference. The US is perceived to be the head of the West, so people hate the US there. It's simplification of complicated situations, to be sure, sometimes it is justified, sometimes not. Often not, to be fair. spacerSome places dislike the US for ideological reasons, often they take issue with the overly-individualistic nature of the country as a whole, they wonder how far the obsession with rights and freedoms will take you down the road to destruction. The rest of the West dislikes the USA because they perceive themselves, in the non-monetary ways that really matter to them, as better than it. Meanwhile, the US views itself as better than the rest of the West in the ways that matter to itself: Money, GDP, production, military power and such. This makes them come across as arrogant and childish to Europe (Which often sees itself as having 'grown out' of all that), and misguided as to what is deemed really important by it: egalitaire, consideration, obligation over right, family, and good health, and the like. spacerMost of the time, people don't hate you, they just want you to see that your way isn't always the right way, simply because you are the most powerful. They want you to see that perhaps certain parts of your culture and systems are not as good as you say they are, and that there are alternatives, and things that can be learnt from other cultures that would benefit your country greatly, if you could just open your eyes.
People shouldn't hate the US because it achieved what everyone else was trying to do. It played a chessgame with every other country and won. Now the losers talk as though they're weak out of choise because its 'right' or 'nice'.
the US isn't full of idiots, you'd be a fool to think so. It has generated some of the greatest things. Its a big country, with lots of differences. Get over it.
Zef Otter: Europe= can never make them stop hating America..ever.
People shouldn't hate the US because it achieved what everyone else was trying to do. It played a chessgame with every other country and won. Now the losers talk as though they're weak out of choise because its 'right' or 'nice'.
the US isn't full of idiots, you'd be a fool to think so. It has generated some of the greatest things. Its a big country, with lots of differences. Get over it.
People shouldn't hate America because it stepped on lots of smaller countries to get to the top? I'd say that's a perfectly valid reason to hate America. The corporate exploitation and propping up of dictatorships are others.
Also, you're wrong. The US is full of idiots, and denying their existence is blatant ignorance. No less than any other country, granted, but to say there are none is immense stupidity.
Extra Punctuation
Experienced Points
First Person
MovieBob: Intermission
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Hexproof
Ask Dr Mark
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
The Darkness II Review
Reckoning Review
Exodus Review
Final Fantasy XIII-2 Review
Scarygirl Review
Amy Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
I did indeed word it horribly wrong. It wasn't my intention to cause offence. I think the point I was trying to make was that when Americans talk about their Left, I automatically expect it to be the Left-leaning politics of Europe rtaher than the slightly less Right-leaning politics of the Republicans. As you say, I was looking at it incorrectly.
I tried to explain that I was more laughing at my own ignorance than at your political systems, but as so often happens, my eloquence was found lacking and the point of my post was lost in the delivery.