NationStates Jolt Archive

(*is) American values such as capitalism, selfishness, and the "at least it ain't me" mentality sure has done America good!

Less than a mile down the road from a million-dollar emblem of greater Washington's housing boom, Emma G. Howard and her son, Bishop, tote drinking water from neighbors or buy it at the Safeway eight miles away. They scrape their plates into a slop bucket on the kitchen floor and wash them in a basin of boiled water.

Isn't America great? :D

Whole story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11676210/)

America is the Best of all times. We protect almost everyone. We have won all but 1 war. Sure America can get a little greedy. And it tends more to imperealism but its not are fault its Englands doing. But America is the Best
USA! USA! USA!.:D :) :cool: :p

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:
My thoughts exactly. *cough*Corneliu*coughcough*

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:

Those poor bastards, why don't they just eat cake?

America is the Best of all times. We protect almost everyone. We have won all but 1 war. Sure America can get a little greedy. And it tends more to imperealism but its not are fault its Englands doing. But America is the Best
USA! USA! USA!.:D :) :cool: :p

War? Pfft...

I come from a nation that has seen as much war as the US has existed :P 300+ years of continuous warfare in the past 1000 years.

psst... you haven't been fighting enough to lose big time yet. Don't worry, it'll happen.

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:

What really gets me is that America (the richest and most powerful country in the world) has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba (a small third world island which has suffered from a trade embargo with the US for years).

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:
Well duh. They could have always grabbed all their stuff and spent their life-savings on moving somewhere else that was better. That is the greatness that is America - the ability to be forced to do for yourself and not give a shit about anyone but yourself.

*looking around for CIA informers*

!!!GO CUBA!!!

:cool:

Those poor bastards, why don't they just eat cake?
Because that's un-American, Fass.

America is the Best of all times. We protect almost everyone. We have won all but 1 war. Sure America can get a little greedy. And it tends more to imperealism but its not are fault its Englands doing. But America is the Best
USA! USA! USA!.:D :) :cool: :p

Oi, don't blame us. We tried to stop all this in 1776...

Because that's un-American, Fass.

With those obesity figures? ;)

My guess is the people in those mansions are probably either happy to be showing off their nice houses to their neighbors, or offended that they have to see "poor people" they are pettitioning to have a wall built around the "poor houses".
Can you sense that I have just a bit of a dislike toward rich people? =p

War? Pfft...

I come from a nation that has seen as much war as the US has existed :P 300+ years of continuous warfare in the past 1000 years.

psst... you haven't been fighting enough to lose big time yet. Don't worry, it'll happen.

Trust me it want happen were america. American is the song(nation) that never ends:D

Oi, don't blame us. We tried to stop all this in 1776... Well you brits should ashamed. Since you lost that war in 1776 it has started a rebellion against brittian and a thing called democracy it also ended English Imperailism>>
:D

(*is) American values such as capitalism, selfishness, and the "at least it ain't me" mentality sure has done America good!



Isn't America great? :D

Whole story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11676210/)

Shit. By showing that there is red-tape bureacratic troubles and even poor people, you've proven that America is not a great country. This case study conclusively proves, to me at least, that my pride in my country is totally misplaced, especially in light of the well-known fact that no other country in the world has either poor people or bureacracy. ;)

Well you brits should ashamed. Since you lost that war in 1776 it has started a rebellion against brittian and a thing called democracy it also ended English Imperailism>>
:D

Umm, democracy is thousands of years older than the US.

Shit. By showing that there is red-tape bureacratic troubles and even poor people, you've proven that America is not a great country. This case study conclusively proves, to me at least, that my pride in my country is totally misplaced, especially in light of the well-known fact that no other country in the world has either poor people or bureacracy. ;)

Few other first world countries have such a large rich-poor gap and most have a reasonably developed welfare system.

America! F*** yeah! Comin again to save the mother****ing day yeah!

Trust me it want happen were america. American is the song(nation) that never ends:D

Oh, I never said the US would end. Most countries that lose a war don't end.

However, one day, things will start going downhill and you won't be winning any wars. Case in point:

Viking raids, kick ass yeah (from a militaristic point of view)! But then christianity came in and pacified everything (with lots of blood too).

Then there was the fact that Denmark had the hugest navy. Then Britain decided to burn it all because we continued to trade with Napoleon. Ooops, no more navy. Surprise is a powerful weapon sometimes.

Then other countries became larger and more powerful. Lose Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Slesvig-Holstein... now Greenland the Faroes.

Basically, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but chances are that your military record won't be so good in 600 years time.

Few other first world countries have such a large rich-poor gap and most have a reasonably developed welfare system.

And this means what to me? Do I have a sign on my head that says I think equity of wealth means a nation is more successful?

Britain! (http://www.sterlingtimes.org/empire_map.jpg)

And this means what to me? Do I have a sign on my head that says I think equity of wealth means a nation is more successful?

I would say that if the richest country in the world allows its citizens to wallow in poverty then it cannot be deemed a success by any meaning of the word.

And this means what to me? Do I have a sign on my head that says I think equity of wealth means a nation is more successful?

Equity typically means less crime for example, less fear, less this and that.

Two people of equal status and wealth are more unlikely to rob each other than a poor person is to rob a rich person, if the poor person feels the rich person doesn't deserve his money.

See societies with large amounts of equality. Crime rate tends to be lower there. As it tends to be in countries with larger police forces and no death penalty.

Equity typically means less crime for example, less fear, less this and that.


Ah, I see. So maybe this guy didn't rape his unconscious teenage stepdaughter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm) in UK, thanks to the equity of wealth.

I mean, he was so totally going to, but then he realized that there wasn't as much of a rich-poor gap in beloved first-world United Kingdom and that therefore he wasn't gonna do it.


See societies with large amounts of equality. Crime rate tends to be lower there. As it tends to be in countries with larger police forces and no death penalty.

Correlation does not mean causation.

I would say that if the richest country in the world allows its citizens to wallow in poverty then it cannot be deemed a success by any meaning of the word.

"Allow" our citizens to wallow in poverty? Shit, we even allow them to vote for the chief of state and own firearms!

I don't measure national success by how many poor people there are. I measure it by how much influence, power, innovation the nation has on the world culturally, economically and militarily. I guess that's where you and I differ.

Ah, I see. So maybe this guy didn't rape his unconscious teenage stepdaughter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm) in UK, thanks to the equity of wealth.

I mean, he was so totally going to, but then he realized that there wasn't as much of a rich-poor gap in beloved first-world United Kingdom and that therefore he wasn't gonna do it.
Typically, there's always going to be exceptions.

Typically, there's always going to be exceptions.

True enough. Like, typically, people in the US don't live with outhouses.

Ah, I see. So maybe this guy didn't rape his unconscious teenage stepdaughter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm) in UK, thanks to the equity of wealth.

I mean, he was so totally going to, but then he realized that there wasn't as much of a rich-poor gap in beloved first-world United Kingdom and that therefore he wasn't gonna do it.



Correlation does not mean causation.



"Allow" our citizens to wallow in poverty? Shit, we even allow them to vote for the chief of state and own firearms!

I don't measure national success by how many poor people there are. I measure it by how much influence, power, innovation the nation has on the world culturally, economically and militarily. I guess that's where you and I differ.


That's hardly indicative of the entire society. I mean, freaks, jerks, and greedy assholes are everywhere. If you don't personally know any, have a look in the mirror, you're probably the one on your block.

I don't measure national success by how many poor people there are. I measure it by how much influence, power, innovation the nation has on the world culturally, economically and militarily. I guess that's where you and I differ.

So you'd say Hitler was a great leader?

That's hardly indicative of the entire society. I mean, freaks, jerks, and greedy assholes are everywhere. If you don't personally know any, have a look in the mirror, you're probably the one on your block.

Tee-hee! Very amusing.

Of course I also think this one article about this one community isn't indicative of the ENTIRE society as well, how about you?

So you'd say Hitler was a great leader?

Great never meant 'good'. Caesar was a great leader, revered even today but Octavian/Augustus did far more good.

So you'd say Hitler was a great leader?

He was a successful one, at least while he lasted.

Ever driven or ridden in a Volkswagen?

*looking around for CIA informers*

!!!GO CUBA!!!

:cool:

You commy bastards! :D

The problem seems like government red tape more than a deficency in our values. If anything, it's a condemnation against government bureaucracy more than anything else.

The problem seems like government red tape more than a deficency in our values. If anything, it's a condemnation against government bureaucracy more than anything else.
Well to get rid or red tape, most of the time more has to be created.

Well to get rid or red tape, most of the time more has to be created.

Yeah, that's the real paradox of government. No matter what, any attempt to slim down the government leads to more government at the expense of whatever was reduced...the best thing seems to just leave it alone and only change it if absolutely necessary.

Am I the only one who just doesn't care?

Am I the only one who just doesn't care?
Well, you are located in Hell :p

What really gets me is that America (the richest and most powerful country in the world) has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba (a small third world island which has suffered from a trade embargo with the US for years).

And that's a great indicator of a country's prominence.

Cuba
purchasing power parity - $3,300 (2005 est.)


America
purchasing power parity - $41,800 (2005 est.)

Well, you are located in Hell :p

Good point.

Well, now that NATO is gone...

GLORY TO THE ALL OF THE MOTHERLAND!!

GLORY TO RUSSIA!!

:D

My guess is the people in those mansions are probably either happy to be showing off their nice houses to their neighbors, or offended that they have to see "poor people" they are pettitioning to have a wall built around the "poor houses".
Can you sense that I have just a bit of a dislike toward rich people? =p

More to the point it is NOVA people.... A class of people who accurately represent the modern America.... Appearance driven and selfish...

Trust me it want happen were america. American is the song(nation) that never ends:D

Hah. That is ridiculous. A nation's current "greatness," however it is defined, is no guarantee of it's future existence. Alexander the Great conquered all his known world in a few years - his military record was unsurpassed. There wasn't even anyone left to take it over, on their maps, and Alex himself was depressed because there were no more worlds for him to conquer. Then he drank too much one night and died, and his empire fell into four pieces, which were gobbled up by the Roman Empire. No political entity is eternal - there have been nations that trace their heritage much farther back than 200 years. I'd feel safe in saying that America as a nation will exist through the next week, and probably even through the end of the year. If pressed, I might admit that even after five years it will probably still exist, though I'd make no wagers on its state, and beyond five years, I refuse to guess at all. I'm not saying it absolutely will end in the next decade - far from it. I'm only saying it's impossible to tell.

Avoiding predicting the future might not win someone prophetic notoriety, but it sure does save a lot of embarrassment that might have happened if you're proven wrong in your lifetime. :P

Well you brits should ashamed. Since you lost that war in 1776 it has started a rebellion against brittian and a thing called democracy it also ended English Imperailism>>
:D

And it began an American educational system which does not educate anymore.

1. You cannot spell properly.
2. You cannot structure a sentence property.
3. The Revolutionary War ended on Sept. 3rd 1783, not in 1776, with the signing of the treart of Paris... 1776 marks the year in which the Declaration of Independence was signed (July 4th), which marks the BEGINNING of the revolution; not it's end.
4. A majority of Brittish Colonial holdings never rebelled, in fact but a couple did, the rest were granted self-governing capacity.
5. Democracy predates the Revolution.
6. The Brittish Empire kept on rolling.

And it began an American educational system which does not educate anymore.

1. You cannot spell properly.
2. You cannot structure a sentence property.
3. The Revolutionary War ended on Sept. 3rd 1783, not in 1776, with the signing of the treart of Paris... 1776 marks the year in which the Declaration of Independence was signed (July 4th), which marks the BEGINNING of the revolution; not it's end.
4. A majority of Brittish Colonial holdings never rebelled, in fact but a couple did, the rest were granted self-governing capacity.
5. Democracy predates the Revolution.
6. The Brittish Empire kept on rolling.

No offence, but you should probably check your own spelling before you rant on someone else's lack thereof. The apostraphe between it and s in it's is short for it is.

Democracy predates the American Revolution, true. However, it was an ancient practice that wasn't generally practiced anywhere. The 'British Empire', obviously didn't keep on rolling. That's why it's now a Commonwealth, rather reluctantly I might add.

And no, I am not American.

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:

No, someone will come along and say that, even though this is a bad situation, it is not fair to take away the fruits of someone else's labor.

Then someone will engage in a little strawman and make the same statement you just made.

Ah, I see. So maybe this guy didn't rape his unconscious teenage stepdaughter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4743354.stm) in UK, thanks to the equity of wealth.

I mean, he was so totally going to, but then he realized that there wasn't as much of a rich-poor gap in beloved first-world United Kingdom and that therefore he wasn't gonna do it.
Nobody said that all crimes were caused by inequality.

Correlation does not mean causation.
When seen in such a large number of countries, causation is likely.

And that's a great indicator of a country's prominence.

Cuba
purchasing power parity - $3,300 (2005 est.)

America
purchasing power parity - $41,800 (2005 est.)

Since everything is much cheaper in Cuba I don't see how it matters.

No, someone will come along and say that, even though this is a bad situation, it is not fair to take away the fruits of someone else's labor.
It's not like taking away the fruits of someone else's labor is never justified, nor are we certain that this rich person actually did earn their money.

russia! Long Live The Motherland!

Socializts Pwnzorz All Teh Suxorz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should thank America for being home of the corporations tha will one day run your lives.

All hail McMicroMart bitchez.

It's not like taking away the fruits of someone else's labor is never justified, nor are we certain that this rich person actually did earn their money.

The taking away of someone else's labor cannot be rationally justified.

I was not specifically talking about this situation, only the oft repeated strawman.

When seen in such a large number of countries, causation is likely.

Nope. Correlation is not causation. ESPECIALLY in something so multi-faceted, poorly understood and complex an idea as "crime." Things aren't just as simple as "gun control = lower crime" or "rich-poor divide = higher crime."

Nope. Correlation is not causation. ESPECIALLY in something so multi-faceted, poorly understood and complex an idea as "crime." Things aren't just as simple as "gun control = lower crime" or "rich-poor divide = higher crime."

Every single country with death penalty has higher crime. Every single country without has lower crime. Causation is very likely, especially when elimination of death penalties reduce crime. It's very easy for me to find evidence that countries without have lower crime rates (even US states without generally have lower crime rates). I haven't looked at any crime rates of countries before and after death penalty, yet.

Rich-poor divide is often a cause of theft and related crimes.

It's not gun control but gun availability which is the issue (fewer guns available in general would mean that gun crimes go down, simply because there wouldn't be as many to commit crimes with).

The taking away of someone else's labor cannot be rationally justified.
Maybe not rationally (rationalism is really overrated - it's not like it has to conform to that philosophy to make sense). But it can be justified. A small portion of the millionaire's money would make a great improvement to the poor person's quality of life while not disimproving the millionaire's quality of life. Thus the average quality of life has been increased by just a bit of wealth redistribution.

Behold the power of:
COMMUNISM!

Every single country with death penalty has higher crime. Every single country without has lower crime. Causation is very likely,

Oh I might agree... high crime rates require the penalty of death to deal with the problem. ;)

Oops, causation is likely only when it supports your anti-gun stance, I keep forgetting.

But let's see the statistics. And meanwhile tell me how all the sociological, economic, cultural, political and situational factors in every nation/state's crime rate can be boiled down to gun control.


Rich-poor divide is often a cause of theft and related crimes.


No, criminal action is often a cause of theft and related crimes.

People are actually individuals, you know. They don't do things because of statistical factors gleaned from leftist websites.


It's not gun control but gun availability which is the issue (fewer guns available in general would mean that gun crimes go down, simply because there wouldn't be as many to commit crimes with).

Yeah, if no one had guns there would be fewer gun crimes. And if no one had a military there'd be less war. And if there were no laws, there'd be no crimes.

Meanwhile, back to reality.

Someone will be along shortly to say that they are poor and deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. :rolleyes:
The real tragedy is that government bureaucracy prevents the small town from having their sewage treatment plant. If this were truly a capitalist paradise, some entrepreneur would have found a way to profit from providing them with indoor plumbing. (And what's with the outhouses? Haven't they heard of septic tanks?)

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, though. The city will condemn the property so that a developer can build a "Motel 6" on the spot.

No offence, but you should probably check your own spelling before you rant on someone else's lack thereof. The apostraphe between it and s in it's is short for it is.

Democracy predates the American Revolution, true. However, it was an ancient practice that wasn't generally practiced anywhere. The 'British Empire', obviously didn't keep on rolling. That's why it's now a Commonwealth, rather reluctantly I might add.

And no, I am not American.


Just thought I'd toss that in.
("Offence" may be some British or Canadian spelling or something, but "apostrophe" definitely only has one "a" and Mikesburg may have wanted to get his history straight before posting it.)

Because that's un-American, Fass.
It's pure American once it has been deep fried.

Just thought I'd toss that in.
("Offence" may be some British or Canadian spelling or something, but "apostrophe" definitely only has one "a" and Mikesburg may have wanted to get his history straight before posting it.)
Offence is the British, or to give it its technical term, 'correct' way of spelling it. :p

Maybe not rationally (rationalism is really overrated - it's not like it has to conform to that philosophy to make sense).

I have a very hard time not being full-on rationalist.

But it can be justified. A small portion of the millionaire's money would make a great improvement to the poor person's quality of life while not disimproving the millionaire's quality of life. Thus the average quality of life has been increased by just a bit of wealth redistribution.

But that still doesn't change the fact that, making the assumption that they wealthy individual did earn his money, you are forcing one individual to work for the benefit of another under threat of violence.

We have a practical society that allows its sympathies to weigh in on its policies, and that is a good thing. But I cannot drop the idea that it is not a fair solution.

hey you show me a coutnry where this doesn't happen somewhere and then you can claim that america isn't the greatest country in the world.

The real American heritage - anti-populace beauracracy and pro-capital, anti-populace capitalism.

The real American heritage - anti-populace beauracracy and pro-capital, anti-populace capitalism.
Why is it people always blame capitalism for all the world's ills? :rolleyes:

Why is it people always blame capitalism for all the world's ills? :rolleyes:
That's not true at all. People blame capitalism for most of the world's ills, mainly because capitalism is what causes said ills.

That's not true at all. People blame capitalism for most of the world's ills, mainly because capitalism is what causes said ills.
And the way the states administrate it has nothing to do with it?

Why is it people always blame capitalism for all the world's ills? :rolleyes:

Same reason it was easy to blame Jews in Germany for all of Germany's troubles.

The economic system, and those who happen to do well in it, are always the easiest target of ignorant wrath. Particularly when directed by anti-capitalist special interests and propaganda.

That's not true at all. People blame capitalism for most of the world's ills, mainly because capitalism is what causes said ills.

Capitalism doesn't cause problems, it only neglects to fix problems.

Capitalism doesn't cause problems, it only neglects to fix problems.
Thank you. It's an economic system, no more, no less.

Just thought I'd toss that in.
("Offence" may be some British or Canadian spelling or something, but "apostrophe" definitely only has one "a" and Mikesburg may have wanted to get his history straight before posting it.)

Fair enough.

However, I didn't claim a whole country was illiterate and poorly educated while I was making my spelling mistake.

In regards to history; obviously Britain had a Parliament at the time, but don't kid yourself. The Monarch and the House of Lords had huge sway over the course of the British Empire. I should probably have clarified myself, and stated that Republican Democracy was not generally is use. And last I checked, nobody refers to the UK as the British Empire anymore.

Nope. Correlation is not causation. ESPECIALLY in something so multi-faceted, poorly understood and complex an idea as "crime." Things aren't just as simple as "gun control = lower crime" or "rich-poor divide = higher crime."
Gun control =/= lower crime because in some places crime has decreased after gun control was introduced, and in other places it has dramatically increased. There is not even a consistent correlation there.

However, in almost all instances, the greater the rich/poor divide, the higher the crime. I'll make a graph next week.

People are actually individuals, you know. They don't do things because of statistical factors gleaned from leftist websites.

Meanwhile, back to reality.
Speaking of reality, while people are individuals, they are also influenced mostly by the environment they come from. Not everything people do is built into their DNA, obviously.

I have a very hard time not being full-on rationalist.
I wish you a speedy recovery.

But that still doesn't change the fact that, making the assumption that they wealthy individual did earn his money, you are forcing one individual to work for the benefit of another under threat of violence.
I don't see the difference between that and laissez-faire capitalism (work or starve).

In all likelihood, the capitalist system that the wealthy individual earned their money in was biased in their favour right from the start, so it's hardly a matter of fairness on that side of things.

And the way the states administrate it has nothing to do with it?
Of course. The state is necessary for the existence of capitalism, and in the real world, capitalism is all about the collusion of state with big business.

Same reason it was easy to blame Jews in Germany for all of Germany's troubles.
Translation: Leftists = Nazis. :rolleyes:

The economic system, and those who happen to do well in it, are always the easiest target of ignorant wrath. Particularly when directed by anti-capitalist special interests and propaganda.
As a whole leftists have as much experience with capitalism as right-wingers. It has nothing to do with ignorance.

Personally, I highly dislike America. I may live there, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy. I'll be quite happy when I'm able to leave this place.

Personally, I highly dislike America. I may live there, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy. I'll be quite happy when I'm able to leave this place.

And we'll be happy to see you leave.:D We have enough emos as it is, we don't need any more bitchy America haters to compound the problem.

Gun control =/= lower crime because in some places crime has decreased after gun control was introduced, and in other places it has dramatically increased. There is not even a consistent correlation there.

However, in almost all instances, the greater the rich/poor divide, the higher the crime. I'll make a graph next week.

Yes, and I can make a graph that shows people generally eat tacos before committing a crime. What does this mean? Tacos cause crime.

I don't see the difference between that and laissez-faire capitalism (work or starve).

You obviously think that work or starve is something that is specifically caused by capitalism.

In all likelihood, the capitalist system that the wealthy individual earned their money in was biased in their favour right from the start, so it's hardly a matter of fairness on that side of things.

Do you mean inheritance or social biases?

In either case:

Social biases are going to happen no matter what system you use. They would only be amplified through collectivist controlling of resources.

Inheritance is a very important component of freedom. The concept of fee simple property rights brought us out of feudal systems.

Fair enough.

However, I didn't claim a whole country was illiterate and poorly educated while I was making my spelling mistake.

In regards to history; obviously Britain had a Parliament at the time, but don't kid yourself. The Monarch and the House of Lords had huge sway over the course of the British Empire. I should probably have clarified myself, and stated that Republican Democracy was not generally is use. And last I checked, nobody refers to the UK as the British Empire anymore.

Yes. it is not known as the Empire now, but the hight of the empire was in the 19th century, after Britain lost the American colonies. India was integrated into the epire in the 19th century, and at all those times it was known as the Empire. The Commonwealth is the name it has had since the empire fell apart after the Second World War, and so is a very new name. It was WW1 and WW2 that stopped British Imperialism, not the loss of the American colonies. They were a highly annoying blip at the time, but didnt lead to the collapse of the Empire.

Inheritance is a very important component of freedom. The concept of fee simple property rights brought us out of feudal systems.

Erm, not sure what fee simple property rights are but a couple of points.

1) Inheritance was also a very important part of the feudal system. Not sure how having inheritance brought us out of Fuedalism as it was such an important part of it.

2) If there is inheritance all that happens it that wealth gradually (or suddenly, if people are very lucky/unlucky) gets concentrated in the hands of those that have the most money already, as they have the wealth to gain the advantages and power to maintain their posistion, and in fact add to it. A degree of wealth redistribution (this of course can take many forms, including free education, probably the most important one) is is needed to level the playing field a bit, rather than it generally being a test of who had wealthy parents.