Why does everyone hate America?

[Kirby]

Remade version of this topic.

Carry on, I'd have moved the original topic here, but some of you morons ruined it with your horrible replies. Please keep things civil and mature here.

Feel free to quote from the previous thread, but good God keep things civil and don't use stupid retorts.

Thanks.

 

[Eszett]

I really doubt this a valid topic of discussion. If the last thread ended in flames, what's to say this one won't? Allow me to be the prophet.

Closed.

 

[Chris]

I really doubt this a valid topic of discussion. If the last thread ended in flames, what's to say this one won't? Allow me to be the prophet.

Closed.

Then actually make sure it doesn't? The debate section IS supposed to be more mature than the others. You're supposed to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

Re-opened.

Fair enough, I'll keep an eye on it. -eszett

 

[chuboy]

He is, but then again you cannot look at one year and say Bush has screwed up the Economy based on that one year, when in the last 6 he has had a amazing economy.

Has he? Was that all on purpose? The article 'I keep falling back on', which to the best of our knowledge has taken into account all factors which may have contributed to the conclusions made(it was, after all, written by a Nobel laureate), says that's what he told America.

For one thing, one event happening in one city does not equal the entire country. Second people will always be looking for another job, you cannot prove that those six thousand that showed up were all jobless. Still you have shown me nothing to prove your argument.

Come on, how bad must it be in Cleveland if 6000 dont have better jobs than working in Wal-Mart? If they were worse off before they got the job, that really comes under the umbrella of people who can't get a decent job and by continuation unemployed (or underutilized).

And no, it doesn't reflect the whole country I realise that. But if unemployment is really that low why was there such a high demand for what is really a low-class job?

By percentage they are keeping less money. Meaning they are putting in tons more money into the economy than the poor, and recieve back a percentage they put in. In other words if I were a millionaire, and say I get 5% back on my tax rebate. My 5% is going to be alot bigger than the 5% the poor guy gets in. Both are the same percentage of rebate they recieve, but since the Millionaire puts in a substantial more, his percentage will be higher.

It all makes sense like that. But the rent on your house isn't a percentage on your income. It's an actual number. Whether you're rich or poor you still pay the same amount, thus if equality is the objective then the poor should be paying less than the rich in absolute terms.

In terms of taxes they sacrifice more than any other group.

In absolute terms, yes, but if you scale the contributions, they could really give a little more. You could even put it down to being patriotic because i know American are keen on that.

People who were making 20,000 a year did not have control over keeping their job in 2002 when the market was going down becuase of the .com bubble and 9/11. People that were making 20,000 a year had no control over their company going out of buisness or not. Those that the tax cut benifited the most did at that time, and the tax cut not only helped the economy but it helped many many businesses that would have to have cut those 20,000 a year employees if they did not get it.

But, wouldn't it have made sense just to stop taking so many of the 20000/yr worker's money in the first place?

The point still remains, with unemployment numbers 4% was at a near record low, read that again. A. Near. Record. Low. That means less unemployment, counted or not, it means a substantially less unemployment than what we had in the past.
The Unemployment numbers have almost never taken that into account. It isn't as if Bush came into office and went "Okay lets change up how we count Unemployment". It has been that way, and when counted that way, Unemployment was at a incredible low, infact compared to many times in the past, it still is at 5%.

Right. The number of people who get unemployment benefits is at an 'all time low' so therefore Bush has reduced ACTUAL unemployment around the country to an all time low as well? You obviously aren't stupid, why do you say things like that? 4% of Americans are counted as being unemployed. 96% of the country could be ineligible for unemployment benefit and have no job, but the unemployment rate is still 4%.

Just because the number of people getting benefits is low, doesn't mean the rest of the country has a job. It's not even counted, as you said yourself, so how could it possibly be affected by the published number?

I know that figure is low, what I'm saying is that it doesn't reflect the current state of the country.

Yet you do not know how many people do not have decent jobs. You are just pulling numbers out of the air to help suit your point. Either put up actual numbers to support your point, or give it up.

Alright then, you pull out some hard numbers which back up your point that only 4% of Americans do not have a job which pays well enough to support themselves and any immediate family.

The people that are rolling in cash are the ones that support those low class families. You can look at the unemployment numbers and the rebound in the economy and cannot deny that the tax cuts helped the economy, that they helped create more jobs for Americans. And with out them we would have even more low class families struggling with food.

Hahaha, you know if the tax cut for the low-class was anything like what the upperclass got there wouldn't many struggling families at all.

And all this ******** about the upperclass 'supporting' the lower class...the upperclass also includes people who don't run multinational companies. Doctors, lawyers, senior airline pilots, etc etc. Do those people create jobs for the lower class?

Nope, but they still got lots of money back so they could buy nice things.

The Burden of the funding of this country has always fallen on the shoulders of the rich. 80% of the funding for this country, of Bush's spending, come from the top 20% of this country. So who is the burden on? The 80% that pay only 20% of the taxes of this country. Or the 80% that the top 20% of this country pays?

Yeah, that $140,000 rebate is a HUGE burden.

That article still does not account for the growth of companies, and the expanding of new jobs, which helped thrive the economy. Instead they place all the blame on Bush for people who were too stupid to read the fine print on their morgages. What do you expect? Bush to stand over the shoulder of each one that signed a morgage and say "Read the fine print, read the fine print."

No, but because of Bush's actions in power, Americans who would otherwise not have taken out mortgages decided to. This happened while 'his great effect on the economy' was taking place. Now, all those mortgages are defaulting. Nicely done.

Many of those respectable countries were making great money through the Oil for Food Program also.

Yep, all 241 countries that don't have active troops in Iraq were benefiting from the Oil for Food program.

I would say Bush saw 9/11, saw the threat posed by the most misbehaving dictator in that region, and saw the reports about Saddam trying to contact Al Qaeda, giving aid to some Al Qaeda terrorist, torturing his own people, trying to obtain nukes, and hiding WMDs from inspectors. And he realized that any inaction against Saddam, would lead to the possibility of another terrorist attack in our country happening in the future becuase of Saddam. And that he had a chance to prevent it.

LOOOL you believed that? Those WMDs must have been well hidden, because I don't remember us ever finding them now did we? In fact, there is absolutely NO proof that any of those things actually happened, other than 9/11 which was for all intents and purposes unrelated to what Saddam was doing, and torturing his own people.

But then again, the USA tortures people too. :/

And if he didn't where would we be now? How high would Unemployment be? 10%? 11%? 12%? How many buisnesses would be out? Obviously the airline industry would be in shambles as well as many others.

How on Earth would the airline industry be in shambles? I hope you aren't suggesting that if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq then there would have been countless terrorist attacks on aircraft. Because that is just ludicrous. Saddam isn't the only terrorist in the world, and if I recall correctly al Qaeda is still around.

So really Bush hasn't stopped sky terrorism at all, other than by implementing ridiculous and ineffective restrictions at airports.

You also forget another basic rule of economics. When faced with a huge depression, the last thing you do is keep high taxes and remain fiscally conservative.

Well then why is Bush taking all the poor people's money? You can say what you want about equal tax distribution, the fact is these families have next to NO money, and the upper class is getting more money from the government. They already have money. They don't need more. How many of these so called upperclass saints do you think will spend their rebate on creating jobs for the lower class?

And your 'pre written responce" as you seem to fall back to, as if you cannot come up with one on your own. Fails to take into account other economic factors that have effected the world.

Such as? And the only reason I don't 'come up' with my own responses is that article already concisely says exactly what I would tell you myself.

How about posting a image in which people can actually see...

Picture link.

 

[qwerqwer]

aww, and i likes seeing kirby admin speared.

oh well. lets see.
America: fat, lazy, spoiled, too big, too powerful, world police

why else would they hate america?
honestly people don't really hate it, it's a misconception. plenty of people like it except it''s not reported. Newspaper's have pictured of flag burnings because it is a. interesting news, b. riles up patriotism.

am i a patriot? hell no. i myself, even though i live here, don't like the american system of democracy.

One of those greek philosiphers compared many different government types. his result for the best: a combination of a democracy, a monarch, and a aristocracy. that is what america if based on. it leans on democracy a little but the president has almost absolute power in an emergency. i have to say, the founding fathers were pretty smart.

however, i think communism is better. it's more of a people's government. by getting rid of hate and way, teh country and look forward to progress.

the trouble with congress is that they spend way too much time debating. a country needs a strong ruler capable of making quick, good decisions.

therefore: america is only as good as it's president.

of course, many think Georgie boy is bad. he pretty much is. he is the one to riled up all those middle easterns (and his father before him).

and that is know they look at america. the rebel groups there are riling up the citizens. most are friends of america but many, with extremist beliefs, make themselves heard and that's what get's reported.

so it really is partly and illusion of the press.

on the other hand, the reast of the world views America was either heaven or hell. I guess most Africans would give and arm to go there and live in peace. (not rascist to put down ou mod spear eszett). what about the developed countries? well many europeans are taking adventage of the weak dollar and spending alot of time here so i doubt they thinks america is bad.

China used to be against chinese americans but now they don't mind. China will probably be the next "America"

russians aren't happy until they're sad

australians don't give a damn simply because they're australian.

see? not too bad after all. you're just deluded.

 

[Chris]

aww, and i likes seeing kirby admin speared.

Eszett isn't an admin. Shut up and get over it.

 

[qwerqwer]

Eszett isn't an admin. Shut up and get over it.

mod speared, whatever.

also, i would like to point out that yes, people hate america, because the better parts of america make the worse show up more. thank god i live in NY, the most tolerant city anywhere

 

[The_Panda]

however, i think communism is better. it's more of a people's government. by getting rid of hate and way, teh country and look forward to progress.

Sorry. My grandparents and parents have lived under a communism. I'm extremely glad they decided to come here to Australia. Communism isn't even good in theory - the idea of making everyone equal by making them the same logically doesn't add up. And in practice? Blah. Have a look at the damage communism has caused. Mao Zedong ruined the Chinese economy in the Great Leap Forward, and then again ruined it through the Cultural Revolution. Communism is not a people's government. A true people's government is one where the people actually get to decide, that is, democracy. NOT one where a bunch of toffs called the Politburo make decisions for them. And progress? Communism is progress, but it doesn't move in the right direction.

the trouble with congress is that they spend way too much time debating. a country needs a strong ruler capable of making quick, good decisions.

The problem with that is that in 99% of all cases where there is just one ruler that one ruler becomes a corrupt, power-hungry, war-mongering dictator.

therefore: america is only as good as it's president.

I totally object to this statement. A nation isn't judged on its government, but rather its people. Judging it based on one man out of three hundred million is blatant generalisation.

 

[qwerqwer]

communism is better in theory. come out of ignorance and read some books. can you really call China ruined?

there ways to prevent that corruption

 

[The_Panda]

communism is better in theory. come out of ignorance and read some books. can you really call China ruined?

there ways to prevent that corruption

Come out of ignorance and read some books? lol, are you trying to say I don't read books? And guess what, qwerqwer? I was born in China. I go there just about every year. All my family come from China. I'm even subscribed to Renmin Ribao (which I doubt you are). Seriously, I would think that the first hand experience of my parents growing up and my grandparents would trump what you say.

China isn't ruined now, thanks to Deng Xiaoping and friends turning it into a capitalist state that is only communist by name. But it was. My parents grew up during the cultural revolution, a time when intellectuals were taken and sent to gulags, everything of the past smashed, and the general populace living in absolute fear of the Red Guards - out of control fundamentalist youths that, after being encouraged by Mao Zedong, decided to run rampant causing absolute destruction. The country was put on the brink of civil war. Then there was the time before that, the great leap forward - agriculture was totally neglected, and just about all the steel produced was of poor quality and unusable. Over thirty million people died from famine. Call that a success? No. I can't see why you can possibly think things like that wouldn't ruin a country.

Ways to prevent that corruption? In general, the people assigned to prevent the corruption are almost always the most corrupt of them all.

Explain why communism is better in theory; stop making blanket statements and start substantiating them.

 

[BigLutz]

Has he? Was that all on purpose? The article 'I keep falling back on', which to the best of our knowledge has taken into account all factors which may have contributed to the conclusions made(it was, after all, written by a Nobel laureate), says that's what he told America.

What exactly does that have to do with the reply in that you are taking one year and trying to use it to refute 6 years of positive economic growth.

Come on, how bad must it be in Cleveland if 6000 dont have better jobs than working in Wal-Mart? If they were worse off before they got the job, that really comes under the umbrella of people who can't get a decent job and by continuation unemployed (or underutilized).

You assume that the people there were all unemployed. How many of those were part time teenagers looking for a job? How many of those were stay at home mothers looking for a quick job?

Not only that but you are trying to apply what is happening in one event, in one city, to the entire Union.

And no, it doesn't reflect the whole country I realise that. But if unemployment is really that low why was there such a high demand for what is really a low-class job?

As long as there are highschoolers out there there will be a demand for low class part time jobs like the ones offered at Wal Mart.

It all makes sense like that. But the rent on your house isn't a percentage on your income. It's an actual number. Whether you're rich or poor you still pay the same amount, thus if equality is the objective then the poor should be paying less than the rich in absolute terms.

In terms of taxes the poor are paying a substantial less part than the rich. So much so that the rich carry a majority of the burden of this country. Yet you seem to want to tax them to the point of running them off.

In absolute terms, yes, but if you scale the contributions, they could really give a little more. You could even put it down to being patriotic because i know American are keen on that.

Of course they can give alittle more, we seem to always ask them to give a little more, no matter if it is Federal or State taxes, we seem to always ask them to give a little more. Yet when it comes to tax cuts we seem to deny them that reward even though they give more than anybody else.

But, wouldn't it have made sense just to stop taking so many of the 20000/yr worker's money in the first place?

Such as say dropping the tax rate of those that make 16,000 a year from 6.7% down to 5.2%. Which is what the Bush tax cuts did.

Right. The number of people who get unemployment benefits is at an 'all time low' so therefore Bush has reduced ACTUAL unemployment around the country to an all time low as well? You obviously aren't stupid, why do you say things like that? 4% of Americans are counted as being unemployed. 96% of the country could be ineligible for unemployment benefit and have no job, but the unemployment rate is still 4%.

We measure our Unemployment by those recieving benifits, that is where the comparison between the Unemployment rate now and those in the past come from. If you have numbers to bring up for the rate of those not recieving unemployment between now and in the past then please do so. Yet I bet you, you will see the same dip in unemployment as shown by the numbers of those reciving benifits.

Just because the number of people getting benefits is low, doesn't mean the rest of the country has a job. It's not even counted, as you said yourself, so how could it possibly be affected by the published number?

And again we are going by what is published and what has been published in the past in that Unemployment is at 4%. Please, truely if you have numbers for those not recieving benifits. POST THEM.

I know that figure is low, what I'm saying is that it doesn't reflect the current state of the country.

Not the current one, it reflects the one of the past six years, as well as the number showing continued expanded creation of jobs. At this point, we only have the Unemployment percentage to show a benchmark as to how many people are unemployed, and by that benchmark we are doing pretty well.

Hahaha, you know if the tax cut for the low-class was anything like what the upperclass got there wouldn't many struggling families at all.

And if the Low Class had to pay anything like the tax percentage the upper class has to pay, they would never be able to get themselves out.

And all this ******** about the upperclass 'supporting' the lower class...the upperclass also includes people who don't run multinational companies. Doctors, lawyers, senior airline pilots, etc etc. Do those people create jobs for the lower class?

Doctors have to hire staff if they plan to own a office, Lawyers have to hire a firm if they wish to be a high powered lawyer. And even then they create jobs for the lower class by doing other things, from construction and maintanance on their house, to buying expensive things which turns around and translates to money for those that work at those stores those things are bought.

Yeah, that $140,000 rebate is a HUGE burden.

Considering they pay more than that in just local taxes, it probably is a pretty nice relief, so they go and spend and there by help the economy by circulating money.

No, but because of Bush's actions in power, Americans who would otherwise not have taken out mortgages decided to.

Bush's actions forced them to sign their name on the paper?

This happened while 'his great effect on the economy' was taking place. Now, all those mortgages are defaulting. Nicely done.

The economy was helped by more than just the morgage market. Anyway it is their fault for the morgages defaulting, no one elses except for them. They are adults and thus made the adult decision when they got the morgage.

Yep, all 241 countries that don't have active troops in Iraq were benefiting from the Oil for Food program.

The major countries that opposed the war, France and Russia did have under the table deals with Saddam Hussain. And if you want to get into a pissing contest as to which country has what in Iraq, I will be more than happy to pull out the numbers for the original force of the Collution of the Willing.

LOOOL you believed that? Those WMDs must have been well hidden, because I don't remember us ever finding them now did we?

In 1994 when he last let Inspectors in he had WMDs, every single agency in the world at the time was telling us that he had WMDs, and most of all he was holding up inspectors and keeping them out. There by violating the treaty from the Gulf War.

In fact, there is absolutely NO proof that any of those things actually happened, other than 9/11 which was for all intents and purposes unrelated to what Saddam was doing, and torturing his own people.

In 2002 Saddam Hussian was attempting to meet with Al Qaeda. In 2002 Abu Musab al Zarqawi recouped in Baghdad, even in one of Saddam's son's hospitals. In 1993 Saddam provided protection and safe haven for one of the WTC bombers. As for Iraq's attempt to get Nukes. Iraqi ambassadors did travel to Niger, which by the way exports a insane amount of Yellow Cake Uranium, used to make Nuclear Weapons. Now why do you think they were there?

But then again, the USA tortures people too. :/

Yeah becuase Water Boarding the top 3 Al Qaeda terrorist is the same as Saddam Hussain burrying people alive, breaking people's limbs, and throwing them off a building.

How on Earth would the airline industry be in shambles?

After 9/11 the Tax Cuts and Government help basically got the Airline Industry out of bankrupcy, everyone was scared to death of flying, airline stocks were tanking, and companies like American Airlines were close to fileing for bankrupcy.

So really Bush hasn't stopped sky terrorism at all, other than by implementing ridiculous and ineffective restrictions at airports.

Do you seriously believe that the restrictions at the airports have not stopped another terrorist attack?

Well then why is Bush taking all the poor people's money?

Is that what you call the tax cut from 6.7% down to 5.2%, taking their money? How about the rebate checks that were sent out today?

You can say what you want about equal tax distribution, the fact is these families have next to NO money, and the upper class is getting more money from the government. They already have money. They don't need more. How many of these so called upperclass saints do you think will spend their rebate on creating jobs for the lower class?

Well lets look at the Job Growth numbers for the past 4 years since the tax cuts and see how many have used it to create jobs. Also if they have next to no money, then they are paying next to no money for taxes. And as I have shown above, the tax cuts were for everyone, not just the wealthy as you would like us to believe.

Such as? And the only reason I don't 'come up' with my own responses is that article already concisely says exactly what I would tell you myself.

The rising price of Oil in the past few years would be one factor to take in. With countries like India and China now thirsty for oil, the price is going even higher and thus the cost of goods all around the world is going up becuase it costs even more to transport those goods. Thus greatly effecting the world market.

Picture link.

[/quote]


* Squints * I think I can make out a number in that picture.... maybe a 1.... or that could be a 7. How about posting a picture that does not require people to up the magnification to 400% to see.

 

[GrizzlyB]

qwerqwer, you... are just better off ignored.

To dabble in what chuboy and BigLutz were debating though, I will say that there is a most logical reason behind tax cuts to the rich, while not so much to the poor. And it is as BigLutz said... rich people invest their money in their own companies. This allows for expansion, and, of course, more jobs. The truth of the matter is that if you aren't rich, you don't know how to spend money. Lookee here. Now, what would such people do with a bigger tax rebate? My guess is vacation, a day at the spa, something dumb like that. I don't think they'd pay off their debt. And before doctors and lawyers (who, granted, are wealthy) are mentioned again, consider how rich they are in comparison to a CEO or someone similar. Not so much. And people who already have money seem to have a penchant and addiction for acquiring it. Take Bill Gates for example. As far as I know, he's still the wealthiest person in the world. And he invests a lot of money in his company, whereas the typical American can't be bothered to invest in their own well-being. And now my sentences are becoming loosely construed, so I will leave it at that.

And directly relating to the thread's title, I honestly think many people hate Americans because we're so pretentiously superior, but as far as I know, many of us can't even use our own native language proficiently. But what do I know?

 

[chuboy]

Can I just ask, BigLutz, did you actually read the whole article that I suggested? Since that's going to be my main reference here and I'll just be quoting sections of that, how about you read the whole thing and actually come up with a decent rebuttal to the statements made.

Simply assuming it did not take into account the state of the global economy doesn't exactly suffice.

Besides, I'm interested to hear what you think of what Joseph Stiglitz has to say.

For your convenience, I'll provide the link again. Read all 4 pages then tell me what parts of the article are false.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

Also, for the record, the picture shows the state of the market in the years 1930, '62, '87 and 2008. The numbers aren't important, the interest is mainly in the general shape of the line.

 

[BigLutz]

Can I just ask, BigLutz, did you actually read the whole article that I suggested? Since that's going to be my main reference here and I'll just be quoting sections of that, how about you read the whole thing and actually come up with a decent rebuttal to the statements made.

Simply assuming it did not take into account the state of the global economy doesn't exactly suffice.

Besides, I'm interested to hear what you think of what Joseph Stiglitz has to say.

For your convenience, I'll provide the link again. Read all 4 pages then tell me what parts of the article are false.

Just a quick read through ( Mind you it was quick, the guy reads like a far left wing loon ). He is already wrong on the Oil Industry. He tries to lay the blame for the high price of Oil on the Iraq war, or atleast most of the blame. When in reality in the recent years the rise of Oil has been becuase of things that had nothing to do with America.

Such as Extremists in Oil Producing Countries being elected such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Hugo Chavez for example did a ton of damage to the industry by nationalizing the Oil Plants just last year, and Ahmadinejad has caused oil prices to raise with his increased retoric and actions such as trying to attack American ships, and capturing British Sailors.

And then of course there is China and India. He gleefully shrugs off the amazing rise of China and India saying that the world players would be ready to meet the demand, only for the Iraq war to throw that off. Yet the truth is, Iraq war or not, OPEC Nations have refused to raise production, not becuase of things being unstable, but becuase countries like Saudi Arabia have come out and say that they believe that the market does not require production to be raised.

I have no problem picking apart this guy's very left wing and biased article, but then again it is 1 AM.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

Also, for the record, the picture shows the state of the market in the years 1930, '62, '87 and 2008. The numbers aren't important, the interest is mainly in the general shape of the line.

Well if you are going to post a graph it would be nice to know the numbers that make up the slope as well as how the numbers were collected.

 

[chuboy]

I'll be waiting eagerly for the rest of your response when you've woken up then.

And I did note when I first posted the graph that it was not to make a point, I just found it amusing/interesting that they all seem to have a similar shape...

 

[BigLutz]

I'll be waiting eagerly for the rest of your response when you've woken up then.

And I did note when I first posted the graph that it was not to make a point, I just found it amusing/interesting that they all seem to have a similar shape...

Graphs can be changed, edited, and skewed to show anything they want. It is just amusing/interisting that not only can you not see any of the facts on the graph that would make it relevant, but there is also no information showed on how it was compiled.

 

[Conquistador]

oh well. lets see.
America: fat, lazy, spoiled, too big, too powerful, world police

why else would they hate america?
honestly people don't really hate it, it's a misconception. plenty of people like it except it''s not reported. Newspaper's have pictured of flag burnings because it is a. interesting news, b. riles up patriotism.

Way to generalise?

One of those greek philosiphers compared many different government types. his result for the best: a combination of a democracy, a monarch, and a aristocracy. that is what america if based on. it leans on democracy a little but the president has almost absolute power in an emergency. i have to say, the founding fathers were pretty smart.

You mean Plateo? Soccertees?

Leans on Democracy a little? I suppose you're right. Aside from the tinsy insignifcant thing of electing every one of their politicians, they really don't do anything do they? Well, they also elect their President, but it isn't like he does anything is it? Oh wait, that's right, the President is a bloody dictator in your eyes, as he has sooo much power.

however, i think communism is better. it's more of a people's government. by getting rid of hate and way, teh country and look forward to progress.

Communism = idealism, simple as that. But we do not live in an ideal world. That isn't the way the world works. People don't live in little gumdrop houses. The notion of everyone being equal is absurd. Why? Simply because everyone - as much as we love to think otherwise - is not equal.

There will always be those who stand out. There will always be those who are smarter, stronger, generally more capable at something. Yet, communism denies that.

Communism does the opposite of what you say it does. It halts progress rather than furthering it because it denies the oppurtunity for one to - practically - think for themselves. This stems the flow of new ideas and, I suppose a drastic one could even say, "imagination".

For instance by communism you cannot have specialist doctors, as that would in some way hint that they are "superior" to normal doctors, thus halting progress in health. I haven't seen many GPs ever make astounding scientific break throughs, have you? And this is likewise with all other fields of progress.

the trouble with congress is that they spend way too much time debating. a country needs a strong ruler capable of making quick, good decisions.

therefore: america is only as good as it's president.

You contradict yourself. You make our like you disagree with the Imperialistic nature of American Democracy but then you state that a country needs a good firm ruler (which personally I believe)...

As for "America is only as good as its president", the people elect the president, therefore America is only as good as its people.

australians don't give a damn simply because they're australian.

I fail to see how that statement works.

The problem with that is that in 99% of all cases where there is just one ruler that one ruler becomes a corrupt, power-hungry, war-mongering dictator.

And that's how they

there ways to prevent that corruption

Please, do enlighten us, and solve the world's problems.

 

[qwerqwer]

dude, you think China is capitalist. what the hell are you smoking?
China is about half communist right now. and all deng did was to stop the progress a little to give china a rest.

the way it worked is that they incited 95% of the masses against 5%

it's called patriotism.

 

[Elemental Charizam]

I believe someone asked me what I meant by cowboy diplomacy in the last thread.

I was referring to the way in which the White House does diplomacy, ignoring potential threats for years until they are threatening enough that you ca spin it so that imminent doom appears to be at hand unless you take military RIGHT NOW instead of adressing the problem early on and organising peace talks and treaties to secure lasting peace and stability. Diplomacy at the end of a bayonet, so to speak.

Of course, when you have a run-away military budget you have to spend it on something. Anyway, it's not like you're ever going to have to repay the trillions you rang up in debts.

 

[Cerulean21]

So, I don't really know, why everybody hates America, as I don't hate it (though I'm highly sceptical about their politics). Any way, I thought I coud list some of the major reasons and predjudices that you hear over here (Europe):

- The US are acting like the world police, fighting against everything that does not share the same opinion.
- It's the heart of the capitalism
- They go to war "to defend democracy and human rights" whilst they don't completely obey them in their own country. (e.g. Guantanamo)
- The presumption of innocence is often reversed
- Everything revolves around money
- They think they are the economical leaders of the world though the EU has a higher GDP
- They give a s*** about the resolutions made by the UN
- They do not accept the ICC in The Hague
- The Iraq War
- They don't have a obligatory health insurance like here, so poor people will not be treated the same as rich ones when they must go to hospital
- They pollute the air and did not sign the Kyoto Protocoll
- Religion and State are not fully seperated as it should be (e.g. the one dollar Bill says: "in God we trust")
- FBI and CIA are allowed to do everything
- The United States are the most corrupt Country of all the "Western World"
- They still have the death penalty in some States
- They have nuclear weapons, whilst going around and attaking all those who have that too.
- They're highly conservative
- They sometimes abuse their right on a Veto in the UN
- The president is far too powerful
- they barely have any public transport, so everyone's just driving around in their car polluting the air more and more
- They're arrogant and very ignorant
- My English Teacher in B'mouth told us, when we heard something an American said on the Radio: "Well, everything is just so hard to believe when it's said in such a high pitched voice and this bloody American accent.


I think, those are the major things you hear here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying those are true or anything, it's just what people say.