NationStates Jolt Archive

It's kind of sad that America is supposedly so "ignorence" compared to the rest of the world...and yet, it is still an extremely powerful nation if not the most powerful. What does that say about the other countries?

1. That they are not greedy like america.
2. most countrys are a lot smaller than america, so to gain power they would have to make weapons of mass destruction, then america would go to war with them for having weapons of mass destruction and if america was losing they would use their weapons of mass destruction to subdue the other country, because america is the only country that is aloud to have weapons of mass destruction.
3. If america is so powerfull, why did it have to call on other countrys to help it destroy afganistain and steal iraqs oil?

It is hard to ignore the country that is trying to rule the world and fuck it at the same time.
For example, america says "No Isreal you can not attack those who have been attacking you for years with sucicide bombs and the like, but it is ok for us to destroy a country that might have had a person who attacked us once"

I agree with your arguement although the example you use is not the best. Israel is the number 1 recipient of U.S. military aid in the world and if it wasn't for U.S. intervention in the Middle East the Arab states would have reclaimed the land occupied by the Israelies long ago.

It's kind of sad that America is supposedly so "ignorence" compared to the rest of the world...and yet, it is still an extremely powerful nation if not the most powerful. What does that say about the other countries?

Are there not strong men who are dull minded. Are there not weak men who are perceptive?

I agree with your arguement although the example you use is not the best. Israel is the number 1 recipient of U.S. military aid in the world and if it wasn't for U.S. intervention in the Middle East the Arab states would have reclaimed the land occupied by the Israelies long ago.

Understood, but that still does not give america to say "do as we say, not as we do"

1. That they are not greedy like america.
2. most countrys are a lot smaller than america, so to gain power they would have to make weapons of mass destruction, then america would go to war with them for having weapons of mass destruction and if america was losing they would use their weapons of mass destruction to subdue the other country, because america is the only country that is aloud to have weapons of mass destruction.
3. If america is so powerfull, why did it have to call on other countrys to help it destroy afganistain and steal iraqs oil?
1. American isn't "greedier" than any other country. Everyone loves money. Thinking anything else is "ignorence."
2. America isn't the only country with weapons of mass destruction.
3. America could of dropped a bomb on both countries and saved itself a lot of time. If America didn't care about things like "civilian casualties" we wouldn't of needed help. Thinking that America isn't a powerful country is just wrong.

I'm done with this debate anyway because
1. It's an extreme waste of time
2. It's not interesting
3. It's full of bias

Are there not strong men who are dull minded. Are there not weak men who are perceptive?

Well put. :)

Is it ture that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters (AKA the craft knife), have you seen those things so small and how many of those strong americans on the planes were to scared to do anything? If someone had have tried to use box cutters to hijack a plane in my country the passangers would beat the snot out of them.

Well put. :)

Is it ture that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters (AKA the craft knife), have you seen those things so small and how many of those strong americans on the planes were to scared to do anything? If someone had have tried to use box cutters to hijack a plane in my country the passangers would beat the snot out of them.
Obviously, you didn't hear about the plane that crash landed in Pennsylvania. :rolleyes:

Obviously, you didn't hear about the plane that crash landed in Pennsylvania. :rolleyes:

Yep, that was on the news, american jets shoot down a jet liner, and american missile hits pentagon.

Yep, that was on the news, american jets shoot down a jet liner, and american missile hits pentagon.


that's disgusting. Survey Says... you are a bad person.

Is this reserved for students with behavioural problems or are all students subjected to this?

Nope it's all of them. My eight year old son has weekly sessions in his school. His teacher tells me he does exceptionally well in them. It might be because I he has rules at home. Just a guess.

1. American isn't "greedier" than any other country. Everyone loves money. Thinking anything else is "ignorence."
2. America isn't the only country with weapons of mass destruction.
3. America could of dropped a bomb on both countries and saved itself a lot of time. If America didn't care about things like "civilian casualties" we wouldn't of needed help. Thinking that America isn't a powerful country is just wrong.

I'm done with this debate anyway because
1. It's an extreme waste of time
2. It's not interesting
3. It's full of bias

I realise you're done with this debate but for those who aren't I'd like to address your points.

1. Americans are not greedier or more evil or even more ignorant than people from other countries. They do, however, supply materials and personel to the largest industrial military complex in the history of the world and this is why, under a democratic government, their population must be well informed. To ensure their leaders use that power correctly.

2. How many UN inspectors are permitted to look around the Pentagon? When was the last time another nation told the U.S. to disarm themselves of nuclear warheads?

3. America could have dropped bombs on both countries and did. If you are referring to nuclear bombs. Odds were they were worried about the fall out and what damage might be done to the oil fields.

Nope it's all of them. My eight year old son has weekly sessions in his school. His teacher tells me he does exceptionally well in them. It might be because I he has rules at home. Just a guess.

Most children live with rules, it's how we enforce those rules that defines their character.

Well put. :)

Is it ture that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters (AKA the craft knife), have you seen those things so small and how many of those strong americans on the planes were to scared to do anything? If someone had have tried to use box cutters to hijack a plane in my country the passangers would beat the snot out of them.

Out of curiousity, what country are you from?

Most children live with rules, it's how we enforce those rules that defines their character.

Give you that. I'm just pissy because it's a waste of my son's time.

I think that there are very few who would disagree with me that there exists in America, a serious ignorence of the rest of the world. . This was for me highlighted by the fact that there is in the American Media very little mention of the UK general election, which is something quite monumental in world politics in general. Britain being the worlds 4th most powerful country I think the American media needs to cover it more. I have heard a great deal of reports of American 12-13 year olds being unable to sucessfully point to Canada or Mexico on a map. I have three questions here then. Is there a general ignorence in America of the rest of the world, why is there that igonrence and is that ignorence somehow dangerous to them in the long term. I belive the first and last of these questions to be yes. Of the second one, I am unsure.
I find this line ironic.

"I think that there are very few who would disagree with me that there exists in America, a serious ignorence"

And yes, we don't pay enough attention to the world outside our borders.
As for being slanted right, thats really all relative to where you are.
Taliban Afghanistans news media was slanted far right in comparison. And in comparison to ours, Europes media is slanted far left. Its a matter of simple perspective, but theres no single judge of whats equally balanced so claiming Europes media or anywhere elses isn't biased is as faulty as claiming American media is biased. (And all media is biased, I don't care where you go).

Also, be wary of those shock surveys that are carefully chosen to provide a specific answer to people. I know no one who can't point out Canada or Mexico on the map, but I will admit I know many who take some time to find it.

Are we ignorant of the rest of the world? Not really.
Are we particularly interested? Not really.
You have to remember theres a big difference in geography between the hexagon of France, bordered by Spain and Germany and all, and the US, bordered by Canada and Mexico. France you've got communication with very different cultures and your smack dab in the middle of it.

In the US, you've got communication with Canada, who generally doesn't do all that much in the world (comparatively) and Mexico, who we just know as "That dirty third world country down southwest who send us workers for burger king."

So general apathy toward the rest of the world on the average Americans part? Yes.

Ignorance? Depends what you consider important. When Blairs labor party won today it didn't really mean much to us as long as Blair was still there. But when you have changes in Europe, especially in the EU, you can have a large climate of change. But do we care really? Yes and no.
Our government does, and we pay them too, the average american doesn't and just wants the politicians to handle it.

To put it simply, today, America is the big cheese right now, and so we can sit around on our rich large, isolated ass and not worry too much about the rest of the world, we're an establishment that until recently, has been content to watch the world go by with a few sprinklings of military and diplomatic power (as in Kosovo) around the world.

Now Americans are becoming more aware of the rest of the world and becoming less apathetic toward it. After all, it was that apathy which got us hit on September 11'th. So were were ignorant? Nah, we knew you were all there, did we care? Nope.

Are we still content not to care? Not really.

I realise you're done with this debate but for those who aren't I'd like to address your points.

1. Americans are not greedier or more evil or even more ignorant than people from other countries. They do, however, supply materials and personel to the largest industrial military complex in the history of the world and this is why, under a democratic government, their population must be well informed. To ensure their leaders use that power correctly.

I can't disagree here

2. How many UN inspectors are permitted to look around the Pentagon? When was the last time another nation told the U.S. to disarm themselves of nuclear warheads?

We didn't lose desert storm and sign a cease fire that required we do so. When was the last time we went to France and said, Hey Frenchies, show us your nukes and disarm!" The US won't disarm, we have too many military points we watch in the world. Its the same reason why we didn't sign the ban on AP land mines which would frankly was a completely empty ridiculous gesture done by people who don't even use them, and not signed by the largest producers/sellers of land mines in the world. (As in Russia and China.)

3. America could have dropped bombs on both countries and did. If you are referring to nuclear bombs. Odds were they were worried about the fall out and what damage might be done to the oil fields.

Hardly, we care very much about the way we look, thats why we don't go out bombing the living crap out of civilians carelessly. Every other country is the same way.

Second, Americans are renown for our treatment of POW's in WWI and 2 as well as in Desert Storm and even IF. In fact, a story comes from an american soldier who was serving in the European theatre in WW2 said, that the enemy POW's were suprised when their first meal wasn't steak and eggs because of the legendary hospitality we have in this aspect. Soldiers are trained to treat POW's well so that they will surrender, after all, you don't surrender to people who execute POW's.

No war is without civilian casualties, its just a fact. And we make efforts to keep them to a minimum for a number of practical reasons which may well have moral backing too. I won't assume for them and you shouldn't either.

Well put. :)

Is it ture that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters (AKA the craft knife), have you seen those things so small and how many of those strong americans on the planes were to scared to do anything? If someone had have tried to use box cutters to hijack a plane in my country the passangers would beat the snot out of them.


One fact you may have missed- The passenger on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania were told that the several terrorists on board had a bomb on board and they were being hijacked. You dont have to see a bomb to fear it.
It wasnt until many of them learned from people on the ground on cel phone that the planes crashed into the World Trade Center that the passengers began to realize that this wasnt a standard hijack and its likely they were being used to crash into a target as well. This was too late unfortunately. they effectively thwarted the terrorists plans to hit whatever their target was, but all died in the process.
I like to think this will never happen again. It wasnt just the box cutters.

Give you that. I'm just pissy because it's a waste of my son's time.

Isn't there a parent/teacher commitee that allows you to address the school's curriculum?

Isn't there a parent/teacher commitee that allows you to address the school's curriculum?
That sort of thing rarely works, in my experience. If you aren't there with some political clout, i.e., a sizeable number of angry parents, the committee is going to put your complaints/suggestions in the circular file.

Well put. :)

Is it ture that the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters (AKA the craft knife), have you seen those things so small and how many of those strong americans on the planes were to scared to do anything? If someone had have tried to use box cutters to hijack a plane in my country the passangers would beat the snot out of them.

that's easy to say. but have you ever been faced with the prospect of certain death?

to exacerbate the situation they were in a passenger plane, where we are taught from a very young age to more or less not take any unnecessary risks/actions but to simply sit in our seats unless we need to use the restroom (WC).

also... did you know that most people who are witnesses to a fight/crime/injury etc... will simply stand there and stare instead of moving to help?

OMG, America has no clue and seemingly no interest in what goes on outside their borders. I moved over here 2 months ago and I so so so miss the RTE news from home, where we heard about what was going on all over the world in half an hour. The top story on the news the other day was that a bunch of plants were stolen from a nursery and the culprits were suspected to be broke, crack heads with no money to buy their poor despairing mothers a gift for Mothers Day. Meanwhile, the train crash in China? Japan?, I don't really know, wasn't mentioned until that night and only as a foot note, and how many people died? I don't know, it didn't say...depressing

"As for being slanted right, thats really all relative to where you are.
Taliban Afghanistans news media was slanted far right in comparison. And in comparison to ours, Europes media is slanted far left. Its a matter of simple perspective, but theres no single judge of whats equally balanced so claiming Europes media or anywhere elses isn't biased is as faulty as claiming American media is biased. (And all media is biased, I don't care where you go)." - Quippoth

I agree. But who is more ignorant, the person who discards other people's perspectives, or the person who considers all points of views?


"Are we ignorant of the rest of the world? Not really.
Are we particularly interested? Not really." - Quippoth

This is why you are ignorant of the rest of the world. Because you don't care. You don't care if your government, which is your representative, commits acts of attrocities in other countries. Other people see this indifference and this is why they resent you. Will this harm the U.S.? Yes.


"You have to remember theres a big difference in geography between the hexagon of France, bordered by Spain and Germany and all, and the US, bordered by Canada and Mexico. France you've got communication with very different cultures and your smack dab in the middle of it." - Quippoth

At the beginning of WW2 the French believed the Maginot Line would stop any German invasion. Because of advancements in technology the Germans went right over that line. It is foolish to think that your geographic location isolates you from the rest of the world. Did you learn nothing from Sept. 11?


"Ignorance? Depends what you consider important. When Blairs labor party won today it didn't really mean much to us as long as Blair was still there. But when you have changes in Europe, especially in the EU, you can have a large climate of change. But do we care really? Yes and no.
Our government does, and we pay them too, the average american doesn't and just wants the politicians to handle it." - Quippoth

"The price you pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato


"To put it simply, today, America is the big cheese right now, and so we can sit around on our rich large, isolated ass and not worry too much about the rest of the world, we're an establishment that until recently, has been content to watch the world go by with a few sprinklings of military and diplomatic power (as in Kosovo) around the world." - Quippoth

This quote demonstrates that not only are you ignorant about the rest of the world, but you are ignorant about your own country.


"Now Americans are becoming more aware of the rest of the world and becoming less apathetic toward it. After all, it was that apathy which got us hit on September 11'th. So were were ignorant? Nah, we knew you were all there, did we care? Nope." - Quippoth

How many more terrorist attacks have to occur before you do?


"Hardly, we care very much about the way we look, thats why we don't go out bombing the living crap out of civilians carelessly. Every other country is the same way." - Quippoth

Read your country's history. Begin with Laos and Cambodia.


"Second, Americans are renown for our treatment of POW's in WWI and 2 as well as in Desert Storm and even IF. In fact, a story comes from an american soldier who was serving in the European theatre in WW2 said, that the enemy POW's were suprised when their first meal wasn't steak and eggs because of the legendary hospitality we have in this aspect. Soldiers are trained to treat POW's well so that they will surrender, after all, you don't surrender to people who execute POW's." - Quippoth

Unfortunate this excellent treatment was not maintained in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay or in your own prison system.


"No war is without civilian casualties, its just a fact. And we make efforts to keep them to a minimum for a number of practical reasons which may well have moral backing too. I won't assume for them and you shouldn't either." - Quippoth

You wouldn't have to assume if you read a little and learn the facts.

OMG, America has no clue and seemingly no interest in what goes on outside their borders. I moved over here 2 months ago and I so so so miss the RTE news from home, where we heard about what was going on all over the world in half an hour. The top story on the news the other day was that a bunch of plants were stolen from a nursery and the culprits were suspected to be broke, crack heads with no money to buy their poor despairing mothers a gift for Mothers Day. Meanwhile, the train crash in China? Japan?, I don't really know, wasn't mentioned until that night and only as a foot note, and how many people died? I don't know, it didn't say...depressing

uh... don't watch the local news networks bub, watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like. those are national and international news stations, what you just described was local news, such as just city-wide.

OMG, America has no clue and seemingly no interest in what goes on outside their borders. I moved over here 2 months ago and I so so so miss the RTE news from home, where we heard about what was going on all over the world in half an hour. The top story on the news the other day was that a bunch of plants were stolen from a nursery and the culprits were suspected to be broke, crack heads with no money to buy their poor despairing mothers a gift for Mothers Day. Meanwhile, the train crash in China? Japan?, I don't really know, wasn't mentioned until that night and only as a foot note, and how many people died? I don't know, it didn't say...depressing


Did it ever occur to you that you were watching a local news program? We have all kinds of news here.
Good thing you werent watching the Nickelodeon or Disney channel. You'd be spouting that all we know about is puppets and cartoons.
You're the poster child for all those people who so arrogantly profess to know what Americans know.

Thanks

uh... don't watch the local news networks bub, watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like. those are national and international news stations, what you just described was local news, such as just city-wide.

I would agree that CNN provides good news coverage but FOX? You might as well be watching Entertainment Tonight.

i just threw fox in there because it's tauted(sp) as one of the major news media outlets of the US :P i don't watch it much myself, and i do admit, i was abit pissed that they were covering the runaway bride shit more than they were the no. 3 man from al-qaeda(sp) being caught.

I would agree that CNN provides good news coverage but FOX? You might as well be watching Entertainment Tonight.

CNN is the liberal-biased version of Fox. I wouldn't watch Judy Woodruff, who treats democrats with kid gloves and republicans as if they're convicted murderers

Fox IS biased, but simply because they're the ONLY TV medium biased to the right makes them stick out like a sore thumb.

Europe's media is all slanted left? Does this include the Daily Telegraph. Not to mention all those tabloids...

The media, in general, is not perfect. Whatever paper you read it's going to have some sort of bias, the best idea really is to read around a bit and find things from more independent points of view. So I'll generally listen to BBC Radio 4, read the Guardian at the weekend and also my weekly New Statesman.

Out of these, the BBC is centrist, the Guardian centre-left and the Statesman is pretty much left wing through and through (apart from Amanda Platell's bit and others now and again). But I think so long as you have a healthy awareness that there is bias involved, and you don't take everything at face value, that's ok.

But I think so long as you have a healthy awareness that there is bias involved, and you don't take everything at face value, that's ok.

Exactly. Every news source, and every reporter or editor, has some bias.
Confirm stories, and don't be afraid to read multiple sources and form your own opinions.

The days of taking a newsreader's word "just because they're Dan Rather" are OVER.

CNN is the liberal-biased version of Fox. I wouldn't watch Judy Woodruff, who treats democrats with kid gloves and republicans as if they're convicted murderers

Fox IS biased, but simply because they're the ONLY TV medium biased to the right makes them stick out like a sore thumb.

You really need to explore other mediums if you think being a democrat and watching CNN is akin to being on the left.

You really need to explore other mediums if you think being a democrat and watching CNN is akin to being on the left.
It's not being "on the left", but it certainly is anti-Republican.

There hasn't been a Left in the US in nearly 100 years. Even Democrats of some rank like Nancy Pelosi have to obscure the stories of her Communist parents in order to avoid negative perceptions.

It's not being "on the left", but it certainly is anti-Republican.

There hasn't been a Left in the US in nearly 100 years. Even Democrats of some rank like Nancy Pelosi have to obscure the stories of her Communist parents in order to avoid negative perceptions.

How many Presidential candidates were there in 2004?

At least 15 (not on the ballot in every state).

There were a great number of write-ins as well.

We used to joke about Gus Hall when I was in high school. Know who he was?

At least 15 (not on the ballot in every state).

There were a great number of write-ins as well.

We used to joke about Gus Hall when I was in high school. Know who he was?

I've never heard of Gus Hall.

How do candidates get on the ballot?

I've never heard of Gus Hall.

How do candidates get on the ballot?

Leader of the American Communist Party for decades.

Ran for President again and again.

Each state has its own rules for getting a Presidential nominee on the ballot - because there's not one national ballot - there's a Presidential ballot for each state.

And we haven't even gotten to the Electoral College yet!

Leader of the American Communist Party for decades.

Ran for President again and again.

Each state has its own rules for getting a Presidential nominee on the ballot - because there's not one national ballot - there's a Presidential ballot for each state.

And we haven't even gotten to the Electoral College yet!

This seems to be a very confusing procedure. If I support a candidate who does not get on the ballot in my state, does this mean I have to register in another state to vote?

With regards to Gus Hall, he sounds a little like Ralph Nader, who ran in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

This seems to be a very confusing procedure. If I support a candidate who does not get on the ballot in my state, does this mean I have to register in another state to vote?

With regards to Gus Hall, he sounds a little like Ralph Nader, who ran in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

You write in the candidate.

Hardly, we care very much about the way we look, thats why we don't go out bombing the living crap out of civilians carelessly

What about Iraq?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This seems to be a very confusing procedure. If I support a candidate who does not get on the ballot in my state, does this mean I have to register in another state to vote?

With regards to Gus Hall, he sounds a little like Ralph Nader, who ran in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

No, you have to get enough signatures on a petition to get your candidate on the ballot in your state (it's not enough for you to sit at home and wait for the candidate to magically appear on the ballot - you have to be an active participant in the process).

The number required depends on the state. And they will nitpick to make sure that every single signature is turned in on time, and that all of the people who signed are real and alive.

Nader was not a Communist. Not even close. Gus Hall was almost a parody of a Communist, and no one took his party seriously, except Nancy Pelosi's parents.

Here in the US, Communist has long been a dirty word. Even the Socialist parties here take great pains to distance themselves. Calling someone a leftist is as bad as if you called a right-wing person a fascist. This mostly dates from the turmoil and fear of Communism during the 1930s, and later in the 1950s.

You won't find a Democrat, for instance, who will admit that national health service is a socialist idea - because in the typical American's mind, socialism IS communism (even though it is not). Republicans will throw the words around just to see what sticks - and it usually does.

Part of the problem for the Democratic Party is that it doesn't really stand for anything - it has no ideological heart, so to speak. While the Republican Party doesn't have much of one either, at least more Americans seem to identify with it. If the Democratic Party were to actually get some balls and admit that they're socialists (or would like to be), perhaps things would be different.

Until then, Democrats are just people who wish they were Republicans.

"No, you have to get enough signatures on a petition to get your candidate on the ballot in your state (it's not enough for you to sit at home and wait for the candidate to magically appear on the ballot - you have to be an active participant in the process)." - Whispering Legs

Do you think it is important that average Americans familiarise themselves with potential political leaders and their attitudes regarding foreign and domestic policies?


"Here in the US, Communist has long been a dirty word. Even the Socialist parties here take great pains to distance themselves. Calling someone a leftist is as bad as if you called a right-wing person a fascist. This mostly dates from the turmoil and fear of Communism during the 1930s, and later in the 1950s." - Whispering Legs

Like McCarthyism?


"You won't find a Democrat, for instance, who will admit that national health service is a socialist idea - because in the typical American's mind, socialism IS communism (even though it is not). Republicans will throw the words around just to see what sticks - and it usually does." - Whispering Legs

Do you think the word "terrorist" is being used by Republican's in a similar manner?


"Part of the problem for the Democratic Party is that it doesn't really stand for anything - it has no ideological heart, so to speak. While the Republican Party doesn't have much of one either, at least more Americans seem to identify with it. If the Democratic Party were to actually get some balls and admit that they're socialists (or would like to be), perhaps things would be different." - Whispering Legs

Unfortunately politics tends to be dictated by agenda and not ideology.


"Until then, Democrats are just people who wish they were Republicans." - Whispering Legs

Do you know who financed Jim Kerry's election campaign? Do you know who financed Bush's?

What about Iraq?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
First off, if the US didn't care about civilian casualties, the civilian deathtoll would be ten times greater than what irawbodycount reports.
Second, iraqbodycount includes deaths caused by insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighters (whatever the hell you want to call them) as well as coalition caused deaths. Just look at the latest few reports here
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
A lot of them are attacks aimed at coalition troops that miss.

So someone that can't spell is crowing about ignorance.

nice work.

If basic education wasn't being denied by the liberal educational establishment that might change. But brainwashing is more important that language, social science, science, and math skills obviously. Why not educate people on how to think and in basic skills and let them decide what to think?

First off, if the US didn't care about civilian casualties, the civilian deathtoll would be ten times greater than what irawbodycount reports.
Second, iraqbodycount includes deaths caused by insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighters (whatever the hell you want to call them) as well as coalition caused deaths. Just look at the latest few reports here
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
A lot of them are attacks aimed at coalition troops that miss.


The example of Iraq was used in response to the assertion that the U.S. just doesn't bomb other countries indescriminantly. Yet the bombing missions on Laos and Cambodia have not been addressed.

Do you think it is important that average Americans familiarise themselves with potential political leaders and their attitudes regarding foreign and domestic policies?

People do try to familiarize themselves. However, considering the breadth of potential topics, and the limited time that any voter in any country has after working for a living, they tend to limit themselves to a few issues that concern them personally - like any voter in any other country. I know you would call us remiss for not having every American get a PhD in Political Science, History, and Economics, and have them constantly writing new theses while working at their normal jobs, and having large scale formal discussions about the exploitation of coffee growers by multinational corporations, but some topics are more important than others.

Besides, politicians lie, omit, and fabricate. It's a usual thing for an American to try to get a feel for how much "spinning" the politician is doing, and whether he has lied for political gain in the past.

Like McCarthyism? Your ignorance of American history is quite astonishing, and very selective. The US has been anti-Communist for a long time. We sent troops to Russia during their Revolution to fight on the side of the Whites. We used the National Guard to shoot at unarmed striking miners in West Virginia. We did a great many anti-Communist and anti-Socialist actions during the 1930s. McCarthy, by any comparison to those prior acts, was a milquetoast pansy who did virtuall nothing.

I might add that McCarthy was only a shameless self-promoter who wanted to enjoy some of the press that Nixon got for revealing Alger Hiss as an actual (proven!) Communist working for the State Department. Historically, there WERE Communists working in our government - some who actually spied on their behalf (Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs spring to mind). But McCarthy was a sensationalist idiot.

Far more drastic things occurred 20 years or more before McCarthy. Ever heard of the 336th Infantry? Or the War Veteran's march on Washington that was put down out of fears of Communist revolt by shooting at people in our nation's Capitol?

Do you think the word "terrorist" is being used by Republican's in a similar manner?
No, terrorist is being used on anyone who opposes the US with force. I don't see Republicans calling Democrats terrorists. With the exception of members of the Animal Liberation Front, who have actually set fires that killed people. So, by a rather neutral definition, they ARE terrorists.

Do you know who financed Jim Kerry's election campaign? Do you know who financed Bush's?
No, I don't know exactly. But it's probably the large corporations - perhaps even some multinational corporations. I am not of the opinion, however, that the President has as much influence on the fate of this nation as you do.

I'll give you a hint.

More money trades hands in a single day at the NYSE than the US government spends in a single year. And that isn't all of the stock exchanges in the US. A large number of US firms have far more money, assets, and power than 3 out of 4 nations on Earth. A broker for a major firm on Wall Street has more financial clout than the US government, in terms of money that can be thrown around.

The military may be impressive. The State Department may be full of talk. But our businesses and the bureaucracy run this country - not the President.

First off, if the US didn't care about civilian casualties, the civilian deathtoll would be ten times greater than what irawbodycount reports.
Second, iraqbodycount includes deaths caused by insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighters (whatever the hell you want to call them) as well as coalition caused deaths. Just look at the latest few reports here
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
A lot of them are attacks aimed at coalition troops that miss.
Civillians always do most of the dying in any war. The U.S. knew that, if anyone cared about civillians they wouldn't have gone to war just for kicks.

Why not educate people on how to think and in basic skills and let them decide what to think?

Because they would. duh

["People do try to familiarize themselves. However, considering the breadth of potential topics, and the limited time that any voter in any country has after working for a living, they tend to limit themselves to a few issues that concern them personally - like any voter in any other country. I know you would call us remiss for not having every American get a PhD in Political Science, History, and Economics, and have them constantly writing new theses while working at their normal jobs, and having large scale formal discussions about the exploitation of coffee growers by multinational corporations, but some topics are more important than others." - Whispering Legs

I don't think Americans need PhDs in political science. What I do think they need is enough humility to admit when they're wrong and to take the time to get to know a person, or a culture, before jumping to conclusions.


"Besides, politicians lie, omit, and fabricate. It's a usual thing for an American to try to get a feel for how much "spinning" the politician is doing, and whether he has lied for political gain in the past." - Whispering Legs

So where do we go to find the truth?


"Your ignorance of American history is quite astonishing, and very selective. The US has been anti-Communist for a long time. We sent troops to Russia during their Revolution to fight on the side of the Whites. We used the National Guard to shoot at unarmed striking miners in West Virginia. We did a great many anti-Communist and anti-Socialist actions during the 1930s. McCarthy, by any comparison to those prior acts, was a milquetoast pansy who did virtuall nothing." - Whispering Legs

Astonishing, perhaps. Selective, hardly. And while I might be ignorant of some details at least I try to do something about it by asking you questions about how your government works. From the way American movies portray the McCarthy hearings it seemed like a big deal. I guess I was misinformed. Should I get indignant if you make the mistake of thinking the FLQ is a major threat to Canadian democracy?


"Far more drastic things occurred 20 years or more before McCarthy. Ever heard of the 336th Infantry? Or the War Veteran's march on Washington that was put down out of fears of Communist revolt by shooting at people in our nation's Capitol?" - Whispering Legs

No I haven't heard of these things and would like to learn. Provided there's no shouting.


"No, terrorist is being used on anyone who opposes the US with force. I don't see Republicans calling Democrats terrorists. With the exception of members of the Animal Liberation Front, who have actually set fires that killed people. So, by a rather neutral definition, they ARE terrorists." - Whispering Legs

Then by definition the Japanese were terrorists, the Mexicans were terrorists, the Vietnamese were terrorists, even the Canadians opposed the U.S. with force during the War of 1812.


"More money trades hands in a single day at the NYSE than the US government spends in a single year. And that isn't all of the stock exchanges in the US. A large number of US firms have far more money, assets, and power than 3 out of 4 nations on Earth. A broker for a major firm on Wall Street has more financial clout than the US government, in terms of money that can be thrown around." - Whispering Legs

This makes me wonder exactly who the national debt is owed to.


"The military may be impressive. The State Department may be full of talk. But our businesses and the bureaucracy run this country - not the President." - Whispering Legs

Then why do people vote for him? Why is so much importance placed around him? Does he have any power, or is he simply a talking head?

Then why do people vote for him? Why is so much importance placed around him? Does he have any power, or is he simply a talking head?

Whispering Legs is right -- the President is not responsible for the US economy.

His powers are limited. His biggest powers seem to come in declaring war, but even then he needs Congress' approval (right?).

The main thing, probably, with any president is setting the agenda for the nation: coming up with health care/military/budget/tax/environmental strategies and then asking Congress to come up with bills to support those.

Probably the single biggest way any president can affect our economy is by taxes... and even then, Congress has to pass his proposals. He can't simply wave a wand and declare, "I hereby raise everyone's taxes by 2%"

the more we're taxed, the more spending we can pay for (welfare, health care, military -- federal budgets). the less we're taxed, the more we keep in our own pockets and, ultimately, the more we can pump into the economy. So really, the greatest thing any president can do to help the economy is to decrease taxes.

Example:

Let's say that you make $50,000 per year. Let's say that under Clinton you paid 35% of that in taxes.

Your taxes under clinton, then, were $17,500 per annum.

Now let's say under bush, your taxes are 30%. Now you're paying $15,000 per year.

With the extra $2500 that you have in your pocket under bush, you could buy about 50 shares of your favorite stock, or 25 pairs of shoes for your wife, or several nice suits, or even a used car. Every one of those transactions helps our economy, because you're spending it. And when you spend it, you help the business you're giving it to. Maybe your money would go towards keeping employees in their jobs; maybe it'd be used by R&D to help develop the next great mouse trap; maybe it'll go towards helping to pay for the all-employee annual feast or whatever. Whatever it is, unless that money is somehow LOST it will go towards helping a business, and if they don't completely waste it, it will help our economy.

Whispering Legs is right -- the President is not responsible for the US economy.

His powers are limited. His biggest powers seem to come in declaring war, but even then he needs Congress' approval (right?).

The main thing, probably, with any president is setting the agenda for the nation: coming up with health care/military/budget/tax/environmental strategies and then asking Congress to come up with bills to support those.

Probably the single biggest way any president can affect our economy is by taxes... and even then, Congress has to pass his proposals. He can't simply wave a wand and declare, "I hereby raise everyone's taxes by 2%"

the more we're taxed, the more spending we can pay for (welfare, health care, military -- federal budgets). the less we're taxed, the more we keep in our own pockets and, ultimately, the more we can pump into the economy. So really, the greatest thing any president can do to help the economy is to decrease taxes.

Example:

Let's say that you make $50,000 per year. Let's say that under Clinton you paid 35% of that in taxes.

Your taxes under clinton, then, were $17,500 per annum.

Now let's say under bush, your taxes are 30%. Now you're paying $15,000 per year.

With the extra $2500 that you have in your pocket under bush, you could buy about 50 shares of your favorite stock, or 25 pairs of shoes for your wife, or several nice suits, or even a used car. Every one of those transactions helps our economy, because you're spending it. And when you spend it, you help the business you're giving it to. Maybe your money would go towards keeping employees in their jobs; maybe it'd be used by R&D to help develop the next great mouse trap; maybe it'll go towards helping to pay for the all-employee annual feast or whatever. Whatever it is, unless that money is somehow LOST it will go towards helping a business, and if they don't completely waste it, it will help our economy.

What if the money is spent in the black market ie. drugs, prostitution? What if the money is spent abroad? Immigrants, in particular Ecuadorians and Phillipinos send vast amounts of money to relatives living in their homecountries.

I don't believe that any one part of the world is more or less ignorant than another. People can only know something if they have access to the information. In America, the media advertises itself as providing all necessary information, and then leaves out most of the world. When President Bush announced that Afghanistan was free and democratic, the media didn't bother to contradict him despite the fact that conditions over there are just as bad as they were under the taliban. There are still adolescent girls being gang-raped by warlords, and the UN declared it a Narco-State because it's primary income is opium/heroin production. Does America know this? No, because our media doesn't feel that it's as interesting as whether Michael Jackson touches little boys. Even the 24-hour news stations would rather cover a high profile criminal trial for 13 hours straight rather than talk about the genocide in Darfour. I don't blame the individuals in America for their lack of knowledge about the ROW. I blame our media for spoon-feeding us American Idol rather than educating us.

Whispering Legs is right -- the President is not responsible for the US economy.

His powers are limited. His biggest powers seem to come in declaring war, but even then he needs Congress' approval (right?).

The main thing, probably, with any president is setting the agenda for the nation: coming up with health care/military/budget/tax/environmental strategies and then asking Congress to come up with bills to support those.

Probably the single biggest way any president can affect our economy is by taxes... and even then, Congress has to pass his proposals. He can't simply wave a wand and declare, "I hereby raise everyone's taxes by 2%"

the more we're taxed, the more spending we can pay for (welfare, health care, military -- federal budgets). the less we're taxed, the more we keep in our own pockets and, ultimately, the more we can pump into the economy. So really, the greatest thing any president can do to help the economy is to decrease taxes.

Example:

Let's say that you make $50,000 per year. Let's say that under Clinton you paid 35% of that in taxes.

Your taxes under clinton, then, were $17,500 per annum.

Now let's say under bush, your taxes are 30%. Now you're paying $15,000 per year.

With the extra $2500 that you have in your pocket under bush, you could buy about 50 shares of your favorite stock, or 25 pairs of shoes for your wife, or several nice suits, or even a used car. Every one of those transactions helps our economy, because you're spending it. And when you spend it, you help the business you're giving it to. Maybe your money would go towards keeping employees in their jobs; maybe it'd be used by R&D to help develop the next great mouse trap; maybe it'll go towards helping to pay for the all-employee annual feast or whatever. Whatever it is, unless that money is somehow LOST it will go towards helping a business, and if they don't completely waste it, it will help our economy.

I love capitalism. in order to keep the economy running you have to buy stuff you don't need so that a company will get your money and spend some of it on to buying the resoursces they burn up, spend a whole bunch on marketing the useless goods, and pass the rest to other people who spend their time producing the goods you don't need instead of doing useful or enriching things so that they have some money to spend on things they don't need. Meanwhile useful things are discarded or sit unused when they can't be profited from and lots of energy and plasic are expended for the sake of convenience because everyone is too busy making or marketing useless goods to slice their own damn cheese. We call this waste "stimulus". We call the process the "economy" and measure its rubustness by number of times money chages hands, that is the degrees of seperation between ones work and ones needs. The more removed peoples actions are from their needs, the better the economy is. The more removed you are from essential work like construction, maintinence, farming, childcare or education; the more money you are likeley to make. If too many people are doing useful work the government spends money on things like millitary equipment used to blow up usefull thing in other countries or they build more roads that don' have sidewalks or bike paths, that way people burn gas and spend money and the cycle can continue.

Well, yes we are dumb, but we are rich and we have a big military. So I don't care as long as I get what I want. :p

I have been to the UK, Canada, Mexico for pleasure and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq for Business.

Haveing a curious personality I engaged in several conversations with the locals of each nation about the goings on in the world and what they felt about americans and why. Granted, some of the replies were bound to be scewed because in a few instances I happened to be well armed at the time.

What I found out was interresting to me. Many americans are very apathetic to the goings on of others in our own nation let alone the rest of the world. There are several problems with our education system that need to be addressed to correct this.

But I found that the most of the rest of the world simply does not understand our culture any more they we do theirs. Many people hold America at an almost biblical standard...either good or bad, depending on if our policies agree with their or not.

I think the UK election got quite a bit of coverage here in the US. I also think that our media IS very liberal leaning, not conservative. It is funny to hear people fom other nations calling the majority of our media outlets conservative, shows how liberial the rest of the world is.

Yet, in many parts of the world different factions kill each other for religious, political, or other reasons. Genocide is still being committed in several hotspots around the world. But America is still the big bad villian.

Dispite the size and number of citizens, both legal and illegal, we do not have people from the various muslim religions killing each other in the streets. Most of our people get along with each other dispite race, color, creed, or religion. Don't get me wrong, there are allways will be the bigots in the crowd such as the KKK and other radical groups.

These groups grab the attention of the media and they are made to be bigger then they are. MOst of the time these groups are either laughed at or ignored by the population at large.

In short. It has been my experiance that America is as misunderstood to the rest of the world as the world is to most Americas. But I think that is because most americans can not relate to the troubles of the rest of the world.

I have been to the UK, Canada, Mexico for pleasure and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq for Business.

Haveing a curious personality I engaged in several conversations with the locals of each nation about the goings on in the world and what they felt about americans and why. Granted, some of the replies were bound to be scewed because in a few instances I happened to be well armed at the time.

What I found out was interresting to me. Many americans are very apathetic to the goings on of others in our own nation let alone the rest of the world. There are several problems with our education system that need to be addressed to correct this.

But I found that the most of the rest of the world simply does not understand our culture any more they we do theirs. Many people hold America at an almost biblical standard...either good or bad, depending on if our policies agree with their or not.

I think the UK election got quite a bit of coverage here in the US. I also think that our media IS very liberal leaning, not conservative. It is funny to hear people fom other nations calling the majority of our media outlets conservative, shows how liberial the rest of the world is.

Yet, in many parts of the world different factions kill each other for religious, political, or other reasons. Genocide is still being committed in several hotspots around the world. But America is still the big bad villian.

Dispite the size and number of citizens, both legal and illegal, we do not have people from the various muslim religions killing each other in the streets. Most of our people get along with each other dispite race, color, creed, or religion. Don't get me wrong, there are allways will be the bigots in the crowd such as the KKK and other radical groups.

These groups grab the attention of the media and they are made to be bigger then they are. MOst of the time these groups are either laughed at or ignored by the population at large.

In short. It has been my experiance that America is as misunderstood to the rest of the world as the world is to most Americas. But I think that is because most americans can not relate to the troubles of the rest of the world.

shhhhhhhhh! Never try to counter a smuggly held belief. Just be a good, stupid guilty USian and accept what everybody tells you about yourself and the country you grew up in and most of them didn't. They country they learned about by watching USian tv and Hollywood movies that they took to heart and believed were the real US.
;)

Yes we are all so very ignorant. Of course I dont pay attention to any issues. Noone here does. I dont know where Europe is, neither does anyone else. All I care about is gettin' my hands on some Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey! See, 100% of the population voted for Bush because we dont care about anything or anybody else but ourselves. We just want a guy who sounds like an American. Thats why not one single person in the US voted for Kerry.

The U.S. is rich and has a big military and I get what I want... I travel the world and other countries have it worse than we do... shhh the rest of the world is out to get us, so let's just be condescending and hope they'll go away...

Doesn't really answer the question does it?

It's called apathy. It happens when you have a peaceful, stable, established government system. As a general statement, everything is working OK so people don't feel the need to get involved.

I for one prefer a little apathy and ignorance to radicalism and misinformation.

Your misinformation comes from the fact that your government is far from peaceful (2 wars and counting), and far from stable. (Global geopolitics)

That and apathy is a good thing. Try awareness. It's better than having the false illusion that you should not give a toss about the world because all is alright with the world and your lovely government.

Nothing is working ok.

Why do you think what happened on September 11th 2001, happened?

Because nothing is ok.


So, you have an mass murder occur on September 11th 2001. Question why, and before you even reach mid sentance of your thinking of that sickening event you should realise all is not right with the world.

Stay apathetic all you want, it's your choice, although I say your choices may become limited through future events that show your illusion to be false.

As if the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Sept 11 2001 attacks and events before then that led to them have not already.

Wake up.

Then why do people vote for him? Why is so much importance placed around him? Does he have any power, or is he simply a talking head?

Give the man a cigar! Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

Give the man a cigar! Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Three?

I would like you to try answering some of the questions from my previous postings.