Americans lazy with politics/world affairs?

[Daniel]

Is it just me or are lots of Americans lazy when it comes to politican analysis and world affairs? (I bet someone's going to call me a liberal or anti-American for this which somewhat proves my point)

I don't know if anyone's noticed but it seems to me that a high proportion of people from the US on this forum and others I post on just seem too lazy to actually analyse what someone says and actually reply to the arguments and prefer to brand someone as anti-American or liberal or whatever.

Now I've not been to the US or lived there so I can't say why that is but I'm going to make a wild guess and say it's the media there? The Bill O'reilly's and so on who don't have the intelligence to actually give a well reasoned response to any arguments and simply brand anyone whose opinion differs from theirs as being unpatriotic, anti-American, Liberal and so on and so forth.

Perhaps some of our North American buddies or people who've spent some time in the US of A can enlighten us :) I'd be really interested to know why things are the way they are because if people mouthed off in the same way in Australia or the UK someone would tear them a new orifice in their political compass :laugh:

*waits for crackpot right wing militia group card holding gun totin' cousin shagging Republican voters to reply angrily*

[Easy Drifter]

Yes, there are some US posters that are that way but there are many other who are thoughtful and post well. Some rarely post but when they do have excellent thoughts.
I disagree with your position on many items but agree on others.
There are posters from 'over there' that are just a virelent and at times absolutely silly.
Consider Steve, Tomi and especially Eki.
A case in point is the tremendous anti Bush sentiments.
As I pointed out earlier it is years before history really decides just how good any leader is.
Harry Truman was reviled almost as much as Bush is now. Most historians now consider him to be one of the better Presidents.
I wonder how Bush will be looked at in 20 or 40 years from now.
Regan was considered a joke when he won by the "chattering classes' but again is generally considered by most historians to have been an excellent President.
I do not expect to be around to see what history will say.

[BDunnell]

Yes, there are some US posters that are that way but there are many other who are thoughtful and post well. Some rarely post but when they do have excellent thoughts.

:up:

[MrJan]

You anti-American libreral :p : :D


And while I agree with Easy Drifter that sometimes people remember the past more fondly I think that George Bush has done so much wrong that we really won't consider him a decent President. I cannot actually think of anything that has happened in the last 8 (??) years that have actually been of benefit, at least not on this side of the pond.

[Drew]

IT'S BETTER TO SHOUT AND TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR than telling them what they really should know

[Tomi]

There are posters from 'over there' that are just a virelent and at times absolutely silly. Consider Tomi

Bush has had his hands in my pockets for some years now, the oil prices did go up right after he started the war + some other stupid ideas the current us goverment has done, monitoring peoples and companys swift transactions for instance, so why should I be happy with what he has done?

[Daniel]

Yes, there are some US posters that are that way but there are many other who are thoughtful and post well. Some rarely post but when they do have excellent thoughts.
I disagree with your position on many items but agree on others.
There are posters from 'over there' that are just a virelent and at times absolutely silly.
Consider Steve, Tomi and especially Eki.
A case in point is the tremendous anti Bush sentiments.
As I pointed out earlier it is years before history really decides just how good any leader is.
Harry Truman was reviled almost as much as Bush is now. Most historians now consider him to be one of the better Presidents.
I wonder how Bush will be looked at in 20 or 40 years from now.
Regan was considered a joke when he won by the "chattering classes' but again is generally considered by most historians to have been an excellent President.
I do not expect to be around to see what history will say.

I agree there are lots of people from the US who can have a proper discussion about these things :) My point was merely that there seem to be a lot who can't have a sensible discussion and just resort to branding people. It's not unique to the US but it does seem a bit more common than with other countries.

I somehow doubt we'll look back on Dubya's reign of terror and think "Ah! So that's why he did all those things which seemed so moronic at the time" but as ever I'm happy to be proven wrong :D

It just kinda annoys me when you express a negative view about GWB and suddenly you're a dumbocrat or a liberal and you're anti-gun and you support the Neville Chamberlain approach to negaotiationg with other countries and that your country is going to become an Islamic nation because you support immigration. It's this kind of one size fits all labelling that I was talking about which I find a bit strange.

Oh and for f sake lets not turn this into another lets talk about how incompetent/gloriously intelligent Dubya is thread :mark:

[Tomi]

It just kinda annoys me when you express a negative view about GWB and suddenly you're a dumbocrat or a liberal and you're anti-gun and you support the Neville Chamberlain approach to negaotiationg with other countries and that your country is going to become an Islamic nation because you support immigration. It's this kind of one size fits all labelling that I was talking about which I find a bit strange.

Thats what people doo when they run out of arguments, i find it amusing.

[anthonyvop]

Daniel

The problem is that some people (Non-Americans) cannot grasp the fact that there are people who don't agree with them.

You use President Bush and insult him and those who support him as an example.

I will use as an example that G,W,B. is the 2 term President of the United States which is the highest office a person can attain on this planet and that you are nowhere near mentally equipped to comment

Considering the the United States is the single greatest Military, Political, Cultural and Charitable country in the world it is logical to assume that it is the rest of the world that are lazy and ignorant.

So please spare us your lame attempt of pretending to be some type of intellectual moralist.

[Daniel]

Daniel

The problem is that some people (Non-Americans) cannot grasp the fact that there are people who don't agree with them.

You use President Bush and insult him and those who support him as an example.

I use as an example that G,W,B. is the 2 term President of the United States which is the highest office a person can attain on this planet and you are nowhere near equipped to comment

No Considering the the United States is the single greates Military, Political, Cultural and Charitable country in the world it is logical to assume that it is the rest of the world that are lazy and ignorant.

Whoa whoa whoa. I agree with nothing in that other than the US is a very charitable country and also has a powerful military. The rest of that is absolute rubbish.

[TOgoFASTER]

I knew the "intellectual" card would be paid here someday. LOL
Too smart n' stuff to understand them common folk.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You anti-American libreral :p : :D


And while I agree with Easy Drifter that sometimes people remember the past more fondly I think that George Bush has done so much wrong that we really won't consider him a decent President. I cannot actually think of anything that has happened in the last 8 (??) years that have actually been of benefit, at least not on this side of the pond.

Jan. You miss the point entirely. George W. Bush was NEVER your president. You didn't vote for him....you are not in the USA and his job isn't to make YOU happy. Nor me for that matter. He treated Canada rather casually and almost ignored us. Tradtionally the first trip any US leader takes is to Canada but Dubya went to Mexico. Canadians hated the guy right from there because he snubbed us. The fact is though, George was on good relations with the Mexicans and his job isn't to impress us Canucks.

George's goal after 9/11 was to protect America. Say what you want about the stupidity of Iraq, but he talked a pretty rational guy into going along with him in Tony Blair for the full ride and he must have had something going for him besides being full of BS. The real point is though no terror attacks have happened on American soil. The beating he was taking in the aftermath of 9/11 for letting THAT happen (when it was clear by a bi-partisan panel of Congress that he has no more idea than anyone else what was to happen.) galvanized the man into putting up a "wall" around the US and to his credit, Al-Quaida hasn't hit on North American soil since that day. No real cells have even been able to do much more than think about something and they were knocked off.

So to criticize Bush from afar is ignoring the reality that what the US president does or doesn't do isn't for YOUR benefit. HE DOESN'T need your approval to feel good Jan.

I have always seen Americans as naive on what is going on right next door, much less in Europe, but that said, that doesn't make them bad, evil, or stupid. On the contrary, in my travels in the US, once we get talking about the differences between Canada and the US they have their opinions, I have mine and we have a really good discussion and they are GOOD people. Yes..even the ones that voted for George Bush. I find the most "enlightened" Americans some of the most naive and arrogant people ont he planet for anyone of the ones that tells me how much they are "enlightened" are usually spouting the same libreal talking points that ignore the realities of what is overseas in the same manner Bush is accused of not understanding.

America is still the greatest free nation on earth and while it has its warts, its citizens don't have to prove anything to anyone overseas. In return...they wont hold those of you outside the country accountable for anything if you leave THEM alone. They aint perfect...but growing up near them while being given an education that is very similar to a European one on a lot of levels has taught me both sides need to learn a little more about the other...but I am afraid most Americans would admit that. Europeans don't seem to want to....

[anthonyvop]

Whoa whoa whoa. I agree with nothing in that other than the US is a very charitable country and also has a powerful military. The rest of that is absolute rubbish.
Well, then you ARE lazy and ignorant.

Well, considering that a lot of my fellow countrymen are pig ignorant about world affairs, have absolutely no interest in anything happening on the news and are bigoted, xenophobic, borderline rascist retards, I do think it's unfair to single out Americans as having no idea about the state of the world.

[Daniel]

Well, considering that a lot of my fellow countrymen are pig ignorant about world affairs, have absolutely no interest in anything happening on the news and are bigoted, xenophobic, borderline rascist retards, I do think it's unfair to single out Americans as having no idea about the state of the world.

That's not what I meant. Tony's post is a prime example of what I meant. I said something and he doesn't disagree so instantly the insults/branding comes out and I'm lazy and ignorant. Rather than debate the issues he simply insulted me in a poor attempt to win the point.

So... now we've got a prime example of what we're talking about...... why Mr Tony did you not attempt to at the very least find some interesting links for me to read to convince me that your viewpoint was right rather than just being rude and insulting? Mark says we don't want to learn about the US well here I am wanting to learn about what makes you tick :)

[Eki]

Jan. You miss the point entirely. George W. Bush was NEVER your president. You didn't vote for him....you are not in the USA and his job isn't to make YOU happy.
Then nobody should ever call him a "world leader" but a "local leader and a global pain in the butt".

[BDunnell]

So to criticize Bush from afar is ignoring the reality that what the US president does or doesn't do isn't for YOUR benefit. HE DOESN'T need your approval to feel good Jan.

But this does not prevent people from outside the USA from voicing opinions on the man. Some of the comments on this thread and others make me wonder whether certain people realise that, in some cases, the actions of the US President have a direct influence on those of us living elsewhere, because of the power of the position.

[BDunnell]

That's not what I meant. Tony's post is a prime example of what I meant. I said something and he doesn't disagree so instantly the insults/branding comes out and I'm lazy and ignorant. Rather than debate the issues he simply insulted me in a poor attempt to win the point.

So... now we've got a prime example of what we're talking about...... why Mr Tony did you not attempt to at the very least find some interesting links for me to read to convince me that your viewpoint was right rather than just being rude and insulting? Mark says we don't want to learn about the US well here I am wanting to learn about what makes you tick :)

Because anthonyvop is a bellicose xenophobe who is unable to formulate an argument of any depth, intellect, thought or understanding. I do think tamburello has a very valid point, though.

[MrJan]

Jan. You miss the point entirely. George W. Bush was NEVER your president. You didn't vote for him....you are not in the USA and his job isn't to make YOU happy.

Right so because he wasn't supposed to be working for me I therefore have to remember his work fondly??? Am I not allowed to remember the bloke as a t*** purely because he was leading another country??

Anyway the whole Iraq thing was the wrong action for America too. Billions must have been plowed into that war, soldiers killed and the respect of the rest of the world dimininished. People will still attack the country now, maybe not countries but certainly terrorists will be more than happy to bomb the s*** out of Americans, even more so because of the attitude around Iraq.

The point about Iraq was that it was purely a case of America trying to show that it still had a big d*** (figuratively speaking). Hussein never had WMDs or Bush wouldn't have attacked, just look Korea who almost certainly have nuclear weapons but are steered clear of because they can easily launch a retaliation which will be catastrophic.

And as for Tony Blair, well he didn't even do work for the country he was supposedly Prime Minister of. Millions of people protested the war but our boys still went wading in and there have been soldiers dying ever since for absolutely no reason. Blair and Bush will both be remember (by me at least) for that monumental mistake of a war.

[Daniel]

Because anthonyvop is a bellicose xenophobe who is unable to formulate an argument of any depth, intellect, thought or understanding. I do think tamburello has a very valid point, though.

:D

I agree there are a lot of people here who are pig ignorant but I don't think the newspapers are as far along with radicalising people as the media in the US is. I do admit they seem to be gaining traction but

There is the whole political correctness gone mad, the EU sucks, Britain's not as great as it used to be sort of movement but I still don't think it's gone as far as it has in the US by the looks of things.

[BDunnell]

Hussein never had WMDs or Bush wouldn't have attacked

I don't think there is any evidence for this assertion, no matter whether they really believed there were WMDs there or not.



And as for Tony Blair, well he didn't even do work for the country he was supposedly Prime Minister of.

While I am no supporter of the man, the rest of Government didn't grind to a halt just because Blair was a vocal supporter of the Iraq war. Admittedly, its policies in many other areas were failures, but other work was still being done, just as it was in the US.

This is not to say that I don't feel very strongly that Iraq was a horribly misguided adventure that showed modern-day Government at its very worst.

[harsha]

i think it's the case with every country...majority of the population in India are ignorant/lazy with politics/world affairs..the US is just being pointed out more................

[steve_spackman]

America is still the greatest free nation on earth and while it has its warts, its citizens don't have to prove anything to anyone overseas

explain why they are the greatest frre nation on earth..

also they do have this notion that they are the best at everything and that people from other countries are not worthy...come on thats being VERY ignorant.

im thinking you should become a US citizen from what i am hearing Mark LOL

[Mark in Oshawa]

Steve. You are missing my point entirely.

They are the greatest FREE nation on earth because they are the greatest democracy in terms of power, influence and the rather restrained way they have used that power ( I say restrained only in that despite Iraq, the people of the US for the most part don't want to conquer any place ).

As for my pro-American stance. I can speak to this from the fact I spend a lot of time in the US. I talk to ordinary people in day. I don't talk to politicians. I don't get my news from just the BBC, I get it from American Sources and Canadian sources. I have grown up in the shadow of America. Most Canadians live within 200 miles of the border so I am a damn sight more acquainted with the US than anyone in Europe who has gone to Disney World on a holiday once in his life.

America is a screwy big mess of people with as many opinions as you can find anywhere. They are many things and some live up to the stereotypes you guys love to hate so much but here is my point:

Most AMERICANS dont' know their nation that well so how the hell would they know what goes on in Europe, and what is more important, why would they care? God knows in Canada we get tired of the US not understanding us, but if they did, it would somehow validate our opinions? I know it wouldn't but the libreal chattering classes in Canada despise being seen as American while holding a lot of similar values as many Democrats in the US.

America does what it does. Love them or hate them, they really in the end don't give a rat's behind what you think and I think THAT is why most people who knock the US get mad. They don't care......because they ceased worrying about what other nations think of them generations ago. The US maybe should care and to a an extent on a macro level does care, but the people in the US who hear of the Europeans knocking them also remember being dragged into Europe twice to help clean up a couple of messes the Germans started and keeping the Russians out, so they just shrug their shoulders and figure you guys are ungrateful. Maddening when they have a point aint it?

I take up for the US side more often than not but I am a libertarian with conservative leanings so I suppose that will happen. That said, growing up in Canada means the US is a friendly rival. Believe me, there is much about Canada I wouldn't give up to live in the US and I love Canada probably 2 times as much as the US. That doesn't mean however I am going to spend most of my time knocking it using poor stereotypes to justify my reasoning....

[Mark in Oshawa]

i think it's the case with every country...majority of the population in India are ignorant/lazy with politics/world affairs..the US is just being pointed out more................


Harsha, your nation probably in many ways is the best example of a large democracy that could be compared on any level to the USA. You are a lot larger population wise and have more subcultures, but the princple is the same. A huge complicated country with a large growing economy is more or less very introverted in its outlook by the man on the street.

Canada has taken a lot of Indian immigrants in the last few decades and I have worked with many and all say they knew of the part of the country they grew up in and some common threads but India to them was their own town or area, and they didn't really see India as ONE big country in the same way until they lived here. Americans really are not much different when you start peeling away the common threads they all have...they are all Texans or Midwesteners or whatever.

[MrJan]

Most of you want to make the world your Utopia.....I know better...

I don't want to do anything to the world, I'm an idle-ist ;) The thing is that I'm generally a fairly relaxed sort of person and so wars, 'the right to bear arms' and all of that stuff sort of needless. I mean what kind of person takes a line that was written for protection hundreds of years ago and turns that into some sort of God given right to have a modern firearm which is completely out of context?

As Daniel says in the OP this attitude is often greated with a complete lack of consideration, or some type of insult. This only ever inhances my view that these people are ignorant. If someone can return with a reasoned argument, or explanation for their view then I'll give them time, but if they basically refuse to say anything then I'll take a pretty dim view of them :)

[airshifter]

Is it just me or are lots of Americans lazy when it comes to politican analysis and world affairs? (I bet someone's going to call me a liberal or anti-American for this which somewhat proves my point)

I don't know if anyone's noticed but it seems to me that a high proportion of people from the US on this forum and others I post on just seem too lazy to actually analyse what someone says and actually reply to the arguments and prefer to brand someone as anti-American or liberal or whatever.

Now I've not been to the US or lived there so I can't say why that is but I'm going to make a wild guess and say it's the media there? The Bill O'reilly's and so on who don't have the intelligence to actually give a well reasoned response to any arguments and simply brand anyone whose opinion differs from theirs as being unpatriotic, anti-American, Liberal and so on and so forth.

Perhaps some of our North American buddies or people who've spent some time in the US of A can enlighten us :) I'd be really interested to know why things are the way they are because if people mouthed off in the same way in Australia or the UK someone would tear them a new orifice in their political compass :laugh:

*waits for crackpot right wing militia group card holding gun totin' cousin shagging Republican voters to reply angrily*

If not for the branding and stereotypes you have applied to Americans, you might get a reasoned response from some of those less radical in their views.

As much as it might seem perplexing to you, your obviously biased view is no different from those you condemn for doing the same. You are simply using less caustic language to express a view based on little if any personal information. Tony almost word for word expressed the same attitude you branded "lots" of Americans have, and you seem to think he is in the wrong for responding with the same attitude you branded Americans in general as having.

That's a pot, kettle, black situation if I've ever seen one!

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't want to do anything to the world, I'm an idle-ist ;) The thing is that I'm generally a fairly relaxed sort of person and so wars, 'the right to bear arms' and all of that stuff sort of needless. I mean what kind of person takes a line that was written for protection hundreds of years ago and turns that into some sort of God given right to have a modern firearm which is completely out of context?

As Daniel says in the OP this attitude is often greated with a complete lack of consideration, or some type of insult. This only ever inhances my view that these people are ignorant. If someone can return with a reasoned argument, or explanation for their view then I'll give them time, but if they basically refuse to say anything then I'll take a pretty dim view of them :)


Jan, let me explain this bear arms business to you. You are right on the money in that it wasn't designed for the modern assault weapon. That said, a RIGHT in the US Consititution is just that. A RIGHT. You cant modify a law and then still say it means the same thing. So therefore that RIGHT is either a RIGHT or it isn't. Since Americans grew up with firearms usage and ownership as part of their frontier culture, it is pretty hard to modify that feeling. Most Americans think as you and I do that there should be some restriction on types of arms...but then we are starting to argue about being a bit pregnant. You either are or your not.

The concept of America is you are free to own a weapon, or worship your god or whatever and NO government can take that away. That means NO politician is going to use the fact you own a pistol legally as a way of getting votes without resistance. It is not a law...it is a RIGHT. The only way to outlaw it is to amend the Constitution and that hasn't even been attempted.

It should be noted tho that countries who have increased gun control such as Australia, the UK and Canada have increasing crime rates with guns while states in the US where the right to carry a concealed gun have had a decline in assaults, break ins and violent crime.

It is my view that US gun laws are a tad too lax, but to change things now would be a waste of time. The guns are out there, the criminals aren't going to give them back because you pass some law saying they are illegal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Airshifter...isn't America one giant mass of gun toting rednecks? Oh my.....I shouldn't give them ideas.....

[Camelopard]

It should be noted tho that countries who have increased gun control such as Australia, the UK and Canada have increasing crime rates with guns while states in the US where the right to carry a concealed gun have had a decline in assaults, break ins and violent crime.


Here we go again with your rash generalisations, how about some facts, if you can't do some simple research and post links you could at least say "in my opinion"........

[airshifter]

Airshifter...isn't America one giant mass of gun toting rednecks? Oh my.....I shouldn't give them ideas.....

Sorry for the delay in my response. It's hard to type on this keyboard with a .50 caliber Barrett hung on my shoulder. :laugh:

Thanks for beating me to the punch in response to the gun question. I might add that this was just tried in exhaustive form by the US Supreme Court, and they have determined it to be a Constitutional right regardless of what you, me, or Mr Jan Yeo think on the matter. Personally though I own guns I would rather see more in depth checks and stricter laws on accoutability of gun owners, but the radical views of both the pro and anti gun lobbies will ensure that the NRA will fight for any fool to be able to buy a gun quickly with fewer checks.

[airshifter]

Here we go again with your rash generalisations, how about some facts, if you can't do some simple research and post links you could at least say "in my opinion"........

This is a great example of the double standards many take in there views as it pertains to Daniels original statements concerning civil debates and discussions rather than arguments that grow out of control.

Why should Mark in Oshawa be required to provide evidence to support his view, yet you can't be bothered to provide evidence to dispute his view?

I've seen enough evidence to know that his opinion is fact based and not a "rash generalisation", but if I was in doubt I would research it myself rather than accuse him of stating a mistruth.

[Camelopard]

This is a great example of the double standards many take in there views as it pertains to Daniels original statements concerning civil debates and discussions rather than arguments that grow out of control.

Why should Mark in Oshawa be required to provide evidence to support his view, yet you can't be bothered to provide evidence to dispute his view?

I've seen enough evidence to know that his opinion is fact based and not a "rash generalisation", but if I was in doubt I would research it myself rather than accuse him of stating a mistruth.

Because everytime he posts something it is posted as the 'truth' and he has been caught out before, I'm not disputing his point, what I'm against is his lazyness in posting comments as if they are the "truth" without ever backing these claims up with facts........... I don't ever recall him using the phrase "in my opinion" which is applicable as most of his comments are just that, "his" opinion.

[BDunnell]

Because everytime he posts something it is posted as the 'truth' and he has been caught out before, I'm not disputing his point, what I'm against is his lazyness in posting comments as if they are the "truth" without ever backing these claims up with facts........... I don't ever recall him using the phrase "in my opinion" which is applicable as most of his comments are just that, "his" opinion.

I must say that while I may disagree with him on many things, I think Mark is always a very reasonable debater who doesn't always portray his opinions as fact, unlike some one could care to mention.

[steve_spackman]

Steve. You are missing my point entirely.

They are the greatest FREE nation on earth because they are the greatest democracy in terms of power, influence and the rather restrained way they have used that power ( I say restrained only in that despite Iraq, the people of the US for the most part don't want to conquer any place ).

As for my pro-American stance. I can speak to this from the fact I spend a lot of time in the US. I talk to ordinary people in day. I don't talk to politicians. I don't get my news from just the BBC, I get it from American Sources and Canadian sources. I have grown up in the shadow of America. Most Canadians live within 200 miles of the border so I am a damn sight more acquainted with the US than anyone in Europe who has gone to Disney World on a holiday once in his life.

America is a screwy big mess of people with as many opinions as you can find anywhere. They are many things and some live up to the stereotypes you guys love to hate so much but here is my point:

Most AMERICANS dont' know their nation that well so how the hell would they know what goes on in Europe, and what is more important, why would they care? God knows in Canada we get tired of the US not understanding us, but if they did, it would somehow validate our opinions? I know it wouldn't but the libreal chattering classes in Canada despise being seen as American while holding a lot of similar values as many Democrats in the US.

America does what it does. Love them or hate them, they really in the end don't give a rat's behind what you think and I think THAT is why most people who knock the US get mad. They don't care......because they ceased worrying about what other nations think of them generations ago. The US maybe should care and to a an extent on a macro level does care, but the people in the US who hear of the Europeans knocking them also remember being dragged into Europe twice to help clean up a couple of messes the Germans started and keeping the Russians out, so they just shrug their shoulders and figure you guys are ungrateful. Maddening when they have a point aint it?

I take up for the US side more often than not but I am a libertarian with conservative leanings so I suppose that will happen. That said, growing up in Canada means the US is a friendly rival. Believe me, there is much about Canada I wouldn't give up to live in the US and I love Canada probably 2 times as much as the US. That doesn't mean however I am going to spend most of my time knocking it using poor stereotypes to justify my reasoning....


i dont get all of my news from the BBC. I like youself spend alot of time in the US, as i am sometimes based there for the company i work for, plus part of my family is american

Also i have met some really nice people there too, so i am not anti american, its just the majority of people from the US that we are talking about

we are ungrateful for the help we got in both world wars?? Not at all, besides they would not of got involved in ww2 if pearl harbour did not happen and i must say that the USAs role in ww1 was very very small indeed

its just the fact that nearly every american i have come into contact with is so ignorant and so big headed..thats what is the problem here. They go abroad thinking they can do what they want and expect to be treated like royalty...

You will find that ALOT of people who come to the US find that too, so its not just a small % of people who have that view..

I think that we should all leave the US alone..if they want to be ignorant, arrogant, big headed and clumsy then let them be..all we can do is laugh at them

[Camelopard]

Talking about Vietnam this was posted as a FACT:

One should also know that the North used their arms to fund Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge.


My response back then


Another wrong, totally INCORRECT FACT that you have presented to us.

I watched with horror John Pilger's film "Year Zero"in London in 1979 or 1980, reviews of the film in the papers the next day stated that it was only 'Vietnamese propaganda' and nothing bad had happened at all. The Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia as a start to colonising all of South East Asia.
The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot had been supported and funded by the Chinese who had had a major falling out with the Vietnamese at that time even fighting a border war.
After the end of the Vietnam War the Chinese saw the rise of Vietnam as a threat to their traditional spheres of influence.

Pilger was demonised in the west as being a stooge of the Vietnamese....
Please do some simple research before bombarding us with any more of your 'undenaiable facts'.

US support for Pol Pot from just one article.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

The Khmer Rouge held a seat at the United Nations years with the support of the west for years after Vietnam liberated Cambodia. read this, it may enlighten you:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html

I don't normally get quite so angry with your postings, I quite often take what you say with a grain of salt, however in this case I'll make an exception.
In fact believe it or not I do sometimes agree with you (in particular your postings on China and the Olympics/Tibet).
I just wonder sometimes how much research of your own do you do before replying to others postings, or does everything you sprout come from US talk shows and rabid right wing shock jocks?



Another fact, after fleeing Cambodia, Pol Pot fled to Thailand where he lived for the next six years under the protection of the Thai Military Dictatorship. His headquarters was a plantation villa near Trat. He was guarded by Thai Special Unit 838.
The Thai Military Dictatorship also made money from selling arms to the Khmer Rouge. Eventually Pol Pot was able to rebuild a small military force in the west of the country with the help of China.

His reply:


Cossie, my apolgies...my "sources" were a little off, and my memory of their arguements may of lost some steam.

OK this was from over a year ago, but you have to remember he didn't grace us with his presence for about 12 months of that time.

[steve_spackman]

Steve. You are missing my point entirely.

They are the greatest FREE nation on earth because they are the greatest democracy in terms of power, influence and the rather restrained way they have used that power ( I say restrained only in that despite Iraq, the people of the US for the most part don't want to conquer any place ).

As for my pro-American stance. I can speak to this from the fact I spend a lot of time in the US. I talk to ordinary people in day. I don't talk to politicians. I don't get my news from just the BBC, I get it from American Sources and Canadian sources. I have grown up in the shadow of America. Most Canadians live within 200 miles of the border so I am a damn sight more acquainted with the US than anyone in Europe who has gone to Disney World on a holiday once in his life.

America is a screwy big mess of people with as many opinions as you can find anywhere. They are many things and some live up to the stereotypes you guys love to hate so much but here is my point:

Most AMERICANS dont' know their nation that well so how the hell would they know what goes on in Europe, and what is more important, why would they care? God knows in Canada we get tired of the US not understanding us, but if they did, it would somehow validate our opinions? I know it wouldn't but the libreal chattering classes in Canada despise being seen as American while holding a lot of similar values as many Democrats in the US.

America does what it does. Love them or hate them, they really in the end don't give a rat's behind what you think and I think THAT is why most people who knock the US get mad. They don't care......because they ceased worrying about what other nations think of them generations ago. The US maybe should care and to a an extent on a macro level does care, but the people in the US who hear of the Europeans knocking them also remember being dragged into Europe twice to help clean up a couple of messes the Germans started and keeping the Russians out, so they just shrug their shoulders and figure you guys are ungrateful. Maddening when they have a point aint it?

I take up for the US side more often than not but I am a libertarian with conservative leanings so I suppose that will happen. That said, growing up in Canada means the US is a friendly rival. Believe me, there is much about Canada I wouldn't give up to live in the US and I love Canada probably 2 times as much as the US. That doesn't mean however I am going to spend most of my time knocking it using poor stereotypes to justify my reasoning....
i dont get all of my news from the BBC. I like youself spend alot of time in the US, as i am sometimes based there for the company i work for, plus part of my family is american

Also i have met some really nice people there too, so i am not anti american, its just the majority of people from the US that we are talking about

we are ungrateful for the help we got in both world wars?? Not at all, besides they would not of got involved in ww2 if pearl harbour did not happen and i must say that the USAs role in ww1 was very very small indeed

its just the fact that nearly every american i have come into contact with is so ignorant and so big headed, dont know there arse from their elbow. They suport a war, yet have no clue where Iraq is. They hate Iran but have no clue about the country, only what their leaders have told them. They hate the Russians, North Korea and the french but most of em could not point it out on a world map. also one thing that gets me is that only around 6% of em can drive a manual transmission HA HA.. They go abroad thinking they can do what they want and expect to be treated like royalty..thats what is the problem here.

You will find that ALOT of people who come to the US find that too, so its not just a small % of people who have that view..

I think that we should all leave the US alone..if they want to be ignorant, arrogant, big headed and clumsy then let them be..all we can do is laugh at them

[Mark in Oshawa]

Steve...if Americans said all Brits were a bunch of drunk soccer loving louts who cant figure out what side of the road to drive on and they have warm beer because they are too stupid to put it in the fridge...etc...you get the jist...would you not be offended?

You mate have been talking to a lot of people who just don't care what is going on elsewhere because America is so busy they don't have time to look. That doesn't mean they cant learn fast if they have to.

Ya...they suck at Geography that isn't American. Ya...they cant drive sticks but if you had grown up driving 400hp muscle cars you wouldn't need to either.

They are DIFFERENT...not better nor worse. This constant theme I get from people from Europe on this thread is that Americans are somehow dim. Hardly any more than English are football hooligans or Finn's are constantly drunk laying about in Saunas.

AS for WW1 the fact they showed up in the numbers they did kind of put the Kaiser on the retreat. Consider that and consider that about 3 times as many troops were trying to get overseas when the war ended. Like it or not (and god knows I hate how Hollywood makes it look like they were the only ones fighting) they did turn the tide in both wars. You think You are telling me anything I don't know? Us poor Canadians have put up with this braggadocio for years...but when you educate Americans to what they have missed, they turn out to have very good points of view and in no way are they somehow dim. They just are not taught because they live where they do. It doesn't occur to anyone I guess in the US that they should care. So when something outside their borders does draw them in, they have no basis or idea on what to know.

As for dimwits not knowing Geography, I think they are everywhere.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just object to people getting mad at Americans for the faults most average people have in a lot of nations. Most Canadians take the same shots at the US but I can tell you most of them have little idea what is going on elsewhere either.

[Hondo]

I don't know Daniel's full background but he flies the flag of South Africa. If he and his immediate family felt they had to leave South Africa at the end of the apartheid government, I could see where he would have a natural bias against the USA and quite frankly, sympathy for the Paslestinians. Meddling by the USA and to be fair, other countries, caused (forced) South Africa into a representative government based on majority rule. South Africa is nowhere near the country it was before outside calls for human rights and equal rights. A large number of South Africans felt in order to live safely they would have to leave their homeland and did so. A goodly number that stayed are now dead.

South Africa was a good example of media bias. Every newspaper story in the US started off "The Apartheid Government of South Africa today..." Yet no newspaper story ever started off "The Atheist Communist Government of The Soviet Union, China, etc."

As far as the second amendment to the US Constitution pertaining to guns goes, a little understanding is required. More people, especially Americans should take the time to read, savor and embrace the document. The argument is frequently made that our Constitution has been made out of date by the development of technology. That's not true at all. The men that drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights all saw technology changes within their lifetimes. The document was carefully drafted to deal with the nature of human beings, human nature, which doesn't change. From that viewpoint, it is just as relevant today as it was when it was adopted as the Law of the Land. Regardless of the technology, it addresses the manner in which the government and the people may apply that technology.

The second amendment is second only to the freedom of the press, which shows how strongly the Founding Fathers viewed the importance of it's meaning. They knew, from experience, that a government that feared having it's citizens armed, was a government not to be trusted. Whether the rest of the world believes this or not, is up to them. It is our heritage, it is our right, and there is no need to apologize to others for embracing that right.

How many people on here know that in the early days of WW II, there was a program by which American civilians could and did donate privately owned arms to the British for their Home Guard?

[Easy Drifter]

There are about 330 million Americans. There are bound to be some jerks and ill informed people including the odd one posting on here. Most are pretty nice people, from my experience and I have spent quite a bit of time in the US. Sure there are a lot that do not have a clue about the world. But that applies to every country. It is just there are more Americans than there are of any other country posting on here. Yes I know, there are countries with more people, but they do not have internet access or in many cases the education and or freedom to post on here.
This forum is restricted to those who can speak and write English. There are some who do post on here, who in my opinion, have had occasionaly a problem understanding exactly the meaning of a previous post or sometimes cannot find the right words to express themselves. That is not a knock at them. I took several years of French but while I can still usually comprehend the written word cannot write, speak (except swear) or understand spoken French, let alone any other language.
I will not mention any names but I feel some of the most bigoted people on this forum are from the UK and Europe. Certainly not all.
Funnily enough I have found, in my experience, that most people involved in racing as drivers and crews are more worldly and knowledgeable than most people. That includes those who do not travel but race basically only at their home track. I have no idea why but they seem pay more attention to the world than most.
Just because something is written in a paper, magazine or book does not make it correct. When I was writing for magazines several years ago most of the publications had editors who knew what they were doing and could catch errors or if the publication had other views would make an editorial comment.
One Cdn. mag. I wrote for had nobody who knew anything about what I wrote for them. For 3 years I had articles in every issue and whatever I wrote was published. I don't think I made any mistakes but if I did they would not have known. My former wife did proof read all the articles and she knew the subjects equally well. She was an acknowledged expert on parts of the complex hobby and was a guest speaker at events in Canada and the US.
A standing joke was 'An expert is someone who is a hundred miles from home.'

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't know Daniel's full background but he flies the flag of South Africa. If he and his immediate family felt they had to leave South Africa at the end of the apartheid government, I could see where he would have a natural bias against the USA and quite frankly, sympathy for the Paslestinians. Meddling by the USA and to be fair, other countries, caused (forced) South Africa into a representative government based on majority rule. South Africa is nowhere near the country it was before outside calls for human rights and equal rights. A large number of South Africans felt in order to live safely they would have to leave their homeland and did so. A goodly number that stayed are now dead.

South Africa was a good example of media bias. Every newspaper story in the US started off "The Apartheid Government of South Africa today..." Yet no newspaper story ever started off "The Atheist Communist Government of The Soviet Union, China, etc."

As far as the second amendment to the US Constitution pertaining to guns goes, a little understanding is required. More people, especially Americans should take the time to read, savor and embrace the document. The argument is frequently made that our Constitution has been made out of date by the development of technology. That's not true at all. The men that drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights all saw technology changes within their lifetimes. The document was carefully drafted to deal with the nature of human beings, human nature, which doesn't change. From that viewpoint, it is just as relevant today as it was when it was adopted as the Law of the Land. Regardless of the technology, it addresses the manner in which the government and the people may apply that technology.

The second amendment is second only to the freedom of the press, which shows how strongly the Founding Fathers viewed the importance of it's meaning. They knew, from experience, that a government that feared having it's citizens armed, was a government not to be trusted. Whether the rest of the world believes this or not, is up to them. It is our heritage, it is our right, and there is no need to apologize to others for embracing that right.

How many people on here know that in the early days of WW II, there was a program by which American civilians could and did donate privately owned arms to the British for their Home Guard?

Fiero...it is what I have been trying to point out all along. America is different because rights that most of us embrace were first laid out in your Constitution. It isn't that I want to wave the Stars and Stripes and defend you guys, but the fact is the US Constitution was the first place it was enshrined for the average man. That frontier mentaility is as much part of Canada as it is the US but our Bill of Rights has a lot of libreal notions in it that came with our more measured approach to leaving the British nest; but none of the rights are as clear and concise.

I think the notion that "Right to Bear arms" is the hardest for non-Americans to understand. I think people don't need to own some of the weapons they own but at the same point, the concept of rights for all says as long as you don't use them in a manner infringing on another, that's ok in the US. I guess non-Americans just get a little nervous with this concept and that is because Europeans never had a frontier mentality in the culture. Canadians are closer to halfway between. We have some gun control for pistols....but basically much more open gun laws than Europe. That said....that could change tomorrow couldn't it?

[steve_spackman]

It should be noted tho that countries who have increased gun control such as Australia, the UK and Canada have increasing crime rates with guns while states in the US where the right to carry a concealed gun have had a decline in assaults, break ins and violent crime.

i tend to disagree

the amount of people in 2004 killed from gun crime

5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
37 IN SWEDEN
56 IN AUSTRALIA
73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
184 IN CANADA
AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

[Mark in Oshawa]

i tend to disagree

the amount of people in 2004 killed from gun crime

5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
37 IN SWEDEN
56 IN AUSTRALIA
73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
184 IN CANADA
AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

Steve...very good. But have you looked at where there is a decline? Also if you toss about the 10 largest cities and go to the America that most Americans deal with, you likely have a rate per 1000 that is comparable.

I wont ever deny they don't shoot each other a lot, but better than half is gang crimes in the inner city. Chicago is good for a 1000 plus deaths a year. It is also the one place where gun control in the form of permits and background checks are their most stringent. Washington DC it is ILLEGAL to carry handguns or even own them without a lot of redtape and yet the murder rate there is the highest in the US.

The point I am making is don't be so sure that gun crime goes down when you outlaw guns. The City of Toronto has banned having a shooting range within the city limits and the gun control in Canada's largest city is as stringent as anywhere in the UK and yet gun crime is up. It isn't the guns silly...it is the people USING THEM!!!

As for the right to bear arms, most of the people who have objected to this wouldn't own a gun in the first place. Seems to be lots of people who own guns responsibly who are being made to pay a price for the few that refuse to live within society's rules and I fail to understand how making the legal gun owners give up their guns makes anyone safer. Of course...what would I know, I am only pointing out that people use the weapons, the guns don't shoot themselves.

Let me ask you Steve...should anyone own a gun? Be realistic and know that the criminals are not going to give theirs up any time soon....

[janvanvurpa]

Here we go again with your rash generalisations, how about some facts, if you can't do some simple research and post links you could at least say "in my opinion"........

Don't be silly.
The "voices" he listens too so frequently that he writes near verbatim lines he hears, and the "many people' he consorts with" in the USA who also listen to AM Radio 24/7 didn't say "In my opinion" and so how could he?

[steve_spackman]

Steve...very good. But have you looked at where there is a decline? Also if you toss about the 10 largest cities and go to the America that most Americans deal with, you likely have a rate per 1000 that is comparable.

I wont ever deny they don't shoot each other a lot, but better than half is gang crimes in the inner city. Chicago is good for a 1000 plus deaths a year. It is also the one place where gun control in the form of permits and background checks are their most stringent. Washington DC it is ILLEGAL to carry handguns or even own them without a lot of redtape and yet the murder rate there is the highest in the US.

The point I am making is don't be so sure that gun crime goes down when you outlaw guns. The City of Toronto has banned having a shooting range within the city limits and the gun control in Canada's largest city is as stringent as anywhere in the UK and yet gun crime is up. It isn't the guns silly...it is the people USING THEM!!!

As for the right to bear arms, most of the people who have objected to this wouldn't own a gun in the first place. Seems to be lots of people who own guns responsibly who are being made to pay a price for the few that refuse to live within society's rules and I fail to understand how making the legal gun owners give up their guns makes anyone safer. Of course...what would I know, I am only pointing out that people use the weapons, the guns don't shoot themselves.

Let me ask you Steve...should anyone own a gun? Be realistic and know that the criminals are not going to give theirs up any time soon....

The Bill of rights and constitution was made up by a bunch of old, racist, sexist slave drivers who were so paranoid they should of been locked up in a mental hospital.

the bill of rights or constitution dont seem to be doing anyone any good these days anyway

[Mark in Oshawa]

i tend to disagree

the amount of people in 2004 killed from gun crime

5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
37 IN SWEDEN
56 IN AUSTRALIA
73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
184 IN CANADA
AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

5 people in a country of 4.28 million .00117 deaths per 1000
37 in Sweden with 12 million .00308 deaths per 1000
56 in Australia with 21.468 million .00261 deaths per 1000
73 in England and Wales with 54.092 million .00135 deaths per 1000
184 in Canada with 33.525 million .00549 deaths per 1000
11344 in the USA with 306.5 million .03701 deaths per 1000

Statistically it looks ugly for the ole US. I wont deny that. Still doesn't tell you though if the rates are up or down for any of those nations.

I do know that in Canada crime rates are statistically lower than 10 years ago but violent crime is up and more crimes are unreported. So what does it all mean? First off the Yanks like shooting each other and 2) it still doesn't change the fact that if you look up the FBI crime stats by city, some of the most dangerous cities are in places where people have no right to carry weapons and some of the safer ones are in states where there is no law stopping them. The best examples are in the cities of Texas, where despite a lot of ethnic mixing, the murder rates per 1000 are pretty close or lower than some places I know in Canada.

It isn't a recipe for everyone...all I am pointing out that is gun control is a panacea in a society where guns already exist. Canada has always had some form of gun control but it hasn't made us any safer. Gun control didn't stop some nut from killing all those kids in Scotland or that loon down in Tasmania killing 29 people.

All of my stats per 1000 people are based on my calculations using your numbers and the Wikipedia entry of population. All the US crime stats are listed on the FBI table from this page: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08_dd.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Bill of rights and constitution was made up by a bunch of old, racist, sexist slave drivers who were so paranoid they should of been locked up in a mental hospital.

the bill of rights or constitution dont seem to be doing anyone any good these days anyway


And the Magna Carta is rubbish too eh?

Steve...you are so cynical you just might hurt something...

[Dave B]

This thread appears to proven Daniel's point perfectly.

But not just about Americans... :erm:

And the Magna Carta is rubbish too eh?


How dare you, damn colonial swine!!!!!

The Magna Carta has enshrined my rights to feed my sheep on common pastures!

What more could a man possibly want?

[Mark in Oshawa]

How dare you, damn colonial swine!!!!!

The Magna Carta has enshrined my rights to feed my sheep on common pastures!

What more could a man possibly want?

If you are spending too much time with the sheep, evidently women?

[BDunnell]

How dare you, damn colonial swine!!!!!

The Magna Carta has enshrined my rights to feed my sheep on common pastures!

What more could a man possibly want?

Better still, if you were to become a member of the House of Lords, you would then have the right to take those sheep from the common land and drive them across Westminster Bridge. Is there any finer justification for maintaining the traditions of the unelected upper house?

[MrJan]

Steve...if Americans said all Brits were a bunch of drunk soccer loving louts who cant figure out what side of the road to drive on and they have warm beer because they are too stupid to put it in the fridge...etc...you get the jist...would you not be offended?

Most likely that I'd laugh because that's like saying that gay people are stealing all the women ;) The people drinking warm beer will be smoking pipes and talking about engineering, the soccer hooligans like the drink copious amounts of lager before they go and have a fight.

And your comments about the Constitution Mark is exactly the point I was making. The complete blind belief that a right of 200 years ago can still apply to this day. It's a very arrogant attitude to take, that no one can tell you what to do because 'this is America goddamn it, I got rights' and it's the sort of attitude that would make a lot of the world laugh if it was so bloody depressing.

Incidentally Poirot actor David Suchet has now been given the key to the city of London and can drive sheep across one of the bridges and is able to carry a sword about :D

[Tomi]

Incidentally Poirot actor David Suchet has now been given the key to the city of London and can drive sheep across one of the bridges and is able to carry a sword about :D

A little off topic but, a bloody good actor he is, else too it amazes me how good quality of actors and actresses there is in Brittish TV series.

[SOD]

Considering the the United States is the single greatest Military, Political, Cultural and Charitable country in the world it is logical to assume that it is the rest of the world that are lazy and ignorant.

So please spare us your lame attempt of pretending to be some type of intellectual moralist.

OK intellectual moralist, back all that up with something.

[Jag_Warrior]

I wonder how Bush will be looked at in 20 or 40 years from now.

Excellent question. Will he be able to overcome his current low ratings and be more like Truman, or will he be branded by historians as a failure, like Hoover?

[steve_spackman]

And the Magna Carta is rubbish too eh?

Steve...you are so cynical you just might hurt something...


Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy.

well from the way i see it us brits dont go around shouting of about the magna carta do we, which i must say that alot of americans have no clue that the US B of R and constitution is based from the magna carta

You always here of the US gobbing off about they rights and so forth, yet their rights are always being walked over, so for the US to be the free nation is a bit of a over tone i believe.

and whats this "we are the leaders of the free world about?

im just really interested to see where they get these ideas from.

[Daniel]

This thread appears to proven Daniel's point perfectly.

But not just about Americans... :erm:

:D

[steve_spackman]

And the Magna Carta is rubbish too eh?

Steve...you are so cynical you just might hurt something...

this is whats wrong with teh US of A

http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

[Daniel]

If not for the branding and stereotypes you have applied to Americans, you might get a reasoned response from some of those less radical in their views.

As much as it might seem perplexing to you, your obviously biased view is no different from those you condemn for doing the same. You are simply using less caustic language to express a view based on little if any personal information. Tony almost word for word expressed the same attitude you branded "lots" of Americans have, and you seem to think he is in the wrong for responding with the same attitude you branded Americans in general as having.

That's a pot, kettle, black situation if I've ever seen one!

Of course, but the last sentence in my post was merely there for dramatic effect. If someone had called me a beer swilling, knife brandishing, crocodile wrestling and Kangaroo shagging Australian it might have clicked with me that it was a bit of a joke.

I'm somewhat confused at the wording in your middle paragraph though :crazy:

I think some have missed the point of my thread, it's not about what views you hold but how you express them and how you treat those whose views differ from yours.

Basically I could do what i've done above or I can get angry and start mouthing off and telling you that you're going to be the death of us and so on. You get nothing sorted if you just tell everyone you don't agree with to eff off or that they're a Liberal socialist nazi jew hating homo loving so and so. You know I might have very well been willing to listen to Tony and his reasons for what he thought. But instead he went off like a prized fool unlike Mark in Oshawa who will at least try and go into reasoning and statistics to prove his point. So I might not agree with Mark but at least I respect Mark for attempting to put his point across rather than just making a feeble attempt at insulting me which will somehow make me agree with him :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Of course, but the last sentence in my post was merely there for dramatic effect. If someone had called me a beer swilling, knife brandishing, crocodile wrestling and Kangaroo shagging Australian it might have clicked with me that it was a bit of a joke.

I'm somewhat confused at the wording in your middle paragraph though :crazy:

I think some have missed the point of my thread, it's not about what views you hold but how you express them and how you treat those whose views differ from yours.

Basically I could do what i've done above or I can get angry and start mouthing off and telling you that you're going to be the death of us and so on. You get nothing sorted if you just tell everyone you don't agree with to eff off or that they're a Liberal socialist nazi jew hating homo loving so and so. You know I might have very well been willing to listen to Tony and his reasons for what he thought. But instead he went off like a prized fool unlike Mark in Oshawa who will at least try and go into reasoning and statistics to prove his point. So I might not agree with Mark but at least I respect Mark for attempting to put his point across rather than just making a feeble attempt at insulting me which will somehow make me agree with him :laugh:

Daniel...lol...you at least give me the argument with some intelligence. The beating I took on the Iran/China thread basically was an insult wrapped up in an argument.

I don't pretend to have all the answers really although I may come off that way. Just an opinion.

As for the US Constitution being an important document, I think for people to laugh that off is wrong. I think Jan's point is well taken but I am of the view that if a Constitution is to "grow" in meaning, then amendments MUST be made. Just don't interpret the law to mean something it didn't.

Jan's point is that something written over 200 years ago cant be taken literally. I believe that is has to be until there is an amendment clarifying or modifying that meaning. Until it has been, then it is still valid. That is my main point.

As for the Magna Carta, it is the greatest document of the last millenium when you consider when it was written and the conditions that led to it, but the US Consititution is the first modern document that said the rights of man don't come from a King or another man, they are unalienable rights. Now the US Government sometimes plays fast and loose with that but the principle still holds.

This attitude "I am an American, I have rights" is true...in America. What the Yanks always forget of course is they are not always in America and in a place like France, you are guilty until the court straightens it all out, or if you are in a place like Iraq, the rights are on who has their gun loaded.

It is still silly however to diminish anyone for demanding the right to be treated fairly, and I think in this thread, it was an attack on being American as if they were intellectually inferior because of the general attitude of the country. Whatever fault one may have with the Yanks, they are more likely to have respect for your point of view than some of the abuse I have seen them get from others outside the US. .....well ...Tony excepted. He seems quite ready to be the ugly American....

[Daniel]

I don't know Daniel's full background but he flies the flag of South Africa. If he and his immediate family felt they had to leave South Africa at the end of the apartheid government, I could see where he would have a natural bias against the USA and quite frankly, sympathy for the Paslestinians. Meddling by the USA and to be fair, other countries, caused (forced) South Africa into a representative government based on majority rule. South Africa is nowhere near the country it was before outside calls for human rights and equal rights. A large number of South Africans felt in order to live safely they would have to leave their homeland and did so. A goodly number that stayed are now dead.

South Africa was a good example of media bias. Every newspaper story in the US started off "The Apartheid Government of South Africa today..." Yet no newspaper story ever started off "The Atheist Communist Government of The Soviet Union, China, etc."

As far as the second amendment to the US Constitution pertaining to guns goes, a little understanding is required. More people, especially Americans should take the time to read, savor and embrace the document. The argument is frequently made that our Constitution has been made out of date by the development of technology. That's not true at all. The men that drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights all saw technology changes within their lifetimes. The document was carefully drafted to deal with the nature of human beings, human nature, which doesn't change. From that viewpoint, it is just as relevant today as it was when it was adopted as the Law of the Land. Regardless of the technology, it addresses the manner in which the government and the people may apply that technology.

The second amendment is second only to the freedom of the press, which shows how strongly the Founding Fathers viewed the importance of it's meaning. They knew, from experience, that a government that feared having it's citizens armed, was a government not to be trusted. Whether the rest of the world believes this or not, is up to them. It is our heritage, it is our right, and there is no need to apologize to others for embracing that right.

How many people on here know that in the early days of WW II, there was a program by which American civilians could and did donate privately owned arms to the British for their Home Guard?

:rotflmao:

Bit bit bit bit you're bleck!

Now we've got the generalisations and assumptions out of the way......

My parents left South Africa some 31 or so years ago because both of my mums parents had passed away and my dads parents lived in Australia, in fact my dad actually spend part of his childhood back in Australia. So saying that my parents are Apartheid refugees just makes me laugh because it's not true and even if it were would it matter? People have always been moving from country to country for a better life.

You seem to suggest that there is ethnic cleansing going on in South Africa and that the black people are striking back at their brutal opressors or something. Sure there's a helluva lot of violent crime in South Africa but it's far more of a class struggle than anything. A black man in South Africa with a gun wanting to kill someone and take their posessions doesn't care whether the man is black, white, asian, Muslim or Jewish! He'll kill him no problem. The main reason people move is down to things like inflation, quality/cost of living, the fact that it's not a safe place to live with all the crime and the feeling that South Africa is going backwards in terms of its economy. Funnily enough lots of people move from the UK to Australia for those same very reasons other than perhaps crime of course.

The US and the rest of the world had sod all to do with the vote and equal rights being given to the black man in SA. SA had a robust economy, a strong currency and was doing well before the vote was given to the black people of SA. South Africa didn't NEED to do what it did but it did it because it was the right thing to do, just like the US did when it gave black people equal rights with white people, just like the rest of the world did when it gave women the right to vote.

If you think that I have somehow singled out the US as my most hated country for meddling in world affairs ask me what I think of Britain stepping into South Africa to "protect miners rights" or as we Sarf Efricans call it "coming here to steal our gold and diamonds" with the Boer Wars. You'll come to realise I don't very much like the historic actions of a lot of nations and it's not just the US.

[Mark in Oshawa]

:rotflmao:

Bit bit bit bit you're bleck!

Now we've got the generalisations and assumptions out of the way......

My parents left South Africa some 31 or so years ago because both of my mums parents had passed away and my dads parents lived in Australia, in fact my dad actually spend part of his childhood back in Australia. So saying that my parents are Apartheid refugees just makes me laugh because it's not true and even if it were would it matter? People have always been moving from country to country for a better life.

You seem to suggest that there is ethnic cleansing going on in South Africa and that the black people are striking back at their brutal opressors or something. Sure there's a helluva lot of violent crime in South Africa but it's far more of a class struggle than anything. A black man in South Africa with a gun wanting to kill someone and take their posessions doesn't care whether the man is black, white, asian, Muslim or Jewish! He'll kill him no problem. The main reason people move is down to things like inflation, quality/cost of living, the fact that it's not a safe place to live with all the crime and the feeling that South Africa is going backwards in terms of its economy. Funnily enough lots of people move from the UK to Australia for those same very reasons other than perhaps crime of course.

The US and the rest of the world had sod all to do with the vote and equal rights being given to the black man in SA. SA had a robust economy, a strong currency and was doing well before the vote was given to the black people of SA. South Africa didn't NEED to do what it did but it did it because it was the right thing to do, just like the US did when it gave black people equal rights with white people, just like the rest of the world did when it gave women the right to vote.

If you think that I have somehow singled out the US as my most hated country for meddling in world affairs ask me what I think of Britain stepping into South Africa to "protect miners rights" or as we Sarf Efricans call it "coming here to steal our gold and diamonds" with the Boer Wars. You'll come to realise I don't very much like the historic actions of a lot of nations and it's not just the US.

If I remember properly, Reagan was pushed into sanctions against South Africa by people in the US and Canada's Brian Mulroney. Thatcher hung tough on having tough sanctions, but it wasn't until the US and just about every Western nation save the UK pushed hard on sanctions that the pressure on Apartheid economically started to crack.

What has happened to South Africa since isn't racial so much as just greed and despair. Shame really, the bones of a modern economy are still there but until order is restored on a higher level and crime is reduced, things wont change.

[chuck34]

Hello all. I'm jumping in a bit late here, and have only just skimmed the thread. But here goes.

Daniel to your OP. I see a lot of Europeans doing the same thing. As soon as you disagree with them, you are not "respecting their opinion". Or just being an ignorant pig-headed American. It's a two way street. Sure I've probably jumped to conclusions about people, but usually I try and reserve judgment for individuals, not whole countries. For example Steve is just down-right beligerant (sp?) and is completely unreasonable. Therefore I now ignore him, but I don't think everyone from England is that way. Tomi and Eki, are around just to wind people (Americans mostly) up, but they can be reasonable at times. But again I don't judge all Finns that way.

As for the gun control argument that is going around. That is a prime example of people (Euros and Americans) not knowing the full truth as to why that ammendment is there. Sure it's for personal protection, hunting, and what-not. But it is also for overthrowing the government. The founding fathers would be shocked that their government has lasted this long. Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". That is the real reason for the second ammendment. Not that I am suggesting the overthrow of the current government, overall it's fairly decent.

[chuck34]

Also, Daniel as for your original assumption about all Americans being ignorant because of Bill O'Reilly. You should come over here some time and you would find out that there are plenty more "media types" that are closer to Keith Olberman than O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

[Hondo]

I'm fond of Michael Savage.

[BDunnell]

If you think that I have somehow singled out the US as my most hated country for meddling in world affairs ask me what I think of Britain stepping into South Africa to "protect miners rights" or as we Sarf Efricans call it "coming here to steal our gold and diamonds" with the Boer Wars. You'll come to realise I don't very much like the historic actions of a lot of nations and it's not just the US.

I do think there is a limit to the extent to which one can actually dislike a country based on the activities of its leaders long in the past.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't know Daniel's full background but he flies the flag of South Africa. If he and his immediate family felt they had to leave South Africa at the end of the apartheid government, I could see where he would have a natural bias against the USA and quite frankly, sympathy for the Paslestinians.

If all that you say about Daniel rung true, using your logic, he would actually be a great fan of Israel. Israel and France were two of South Africa's few remaining allies and trading partners, as the rest of the world began turning against the regime. It was Israel and France that helped build South Africa into a nuclear power. There were (and are) a great many Israelis in South Africa. It's interesting that they prospered under a regime that had direct ties to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists in Germany. But despite that, with so many commonalities between the ANC and the PLO (Hamas and other Palestinian groups), how does one arrive at the conclusion that an expatriate South African, who is assumed (by you) to be pining for the "good old days" of apartheid South Africa, would have any love for the Palestinians? :confused:

[Hondo]

Unlike the Exalted Transparent One, I stated "I don't know..." and continuing on, much like the Exalted Transparent One, I stated " If he and his immediate family felt they had to leave...".

I don't recall at any time stating, as a fact, that Daniel was forced to leave because of the fall of the apartheid government.

I did state that IF (get it? IF?) that was a reason, I could understand his views.

Thank you.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yep. So I'll see your 2 "If's" and raise you 1 "But".

As in, but, that still doesn't make any sense.

[Daniel]

I do think there is a limit to the extent to which one can actually dislike a country based on the activities of its leaders long in the past.

Agreed. That's why I'm happy to live here. I do think that we shouldn't forget of course :)

[Daniel]

If all that you say about Daniel rung true, using your logic, he would actually be a great fan of Israel. Israel and France were two of South Africa's few remaining allies and trading partners, as the rest of the world began turning against the regime. It was Israel and France that helped build South Africa into a nuclear power. There were (and are) a great many Israelis in South Africa. It's interesting that they prospered under a regime that had direct ties to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists in Germany. But despite that, with so many commonalities between the ANC and the PLO (Hamas and other Palestinian groups), how does one arrive at the conclusion that an expatriate South African, who is assumed (by you) to be pining for the "good old days" of apartheid South Africa, would have any love for the Palestinians? :confused:

Which is kind of my point also. Pigeonholing people is silly.

I'm all for protecting the environment and conserving resources yet I don't believe in climate change and believe it's merely governments and scientists way of making themselves wanted.
I firmly disagree with a lot of GWB's actions over the last 8 or so years which some would mark as a common "euro" trait yet I hate the fact that the EU sues the pants of Micrsoft for merely being successful.
I could probably find a lot of other contradicitons but those are some that come to mind straight away.

I'm slightly interested where you seem (I think) to say that South Africa had ties to WW2 Germany. Back before and during WW2 South Africa had ties to Britain and South African soldiers fought alongside Brits and Australians in North Africa. Although I'm not sure if this was what you meant.

I'm not actually an expat :) I was born in Australia but I've just never felt Australian so I fly the South African flag. Identity is a funny thing isn't it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm fond of Michael Savage.

Yikes..you scare me. People think I get my talking points from the AM radio talking heads but outside of Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller, I don't really listen to any American talkshows on a regular basis (Miller more for the comedy of errors his show can be). I bounce around, but Savage...well I cant be sure if he is nuts, or for real.

Micheel Medved would be the most rational talkshow host and likely the most respectful....

[airshifter]

I'm somewhat confused at the wording in your middle paragraph though :crazy:

I think some have missed the point of my thread, it's not about what views you hold but how you express them and how you treat those whose views differ from yours.



Why mince words? Tony openly stated his feelings. You used "polite" language to accuse most Americans of being lazy, starved for unbiased media, closed minded, and easily led by the far right conservative media here.

It's no less an insult, no more true, or no less based on your stereotypes than if it had used more harsh language. If you state something which openly insults people, you should expect the same in return.

[Daniel]

Why mince words? Tony openly stated his feelings. You used "polite" language to accuse most Americans of being lazy, starved for unbiased media, closed minded, and easily led by the far right conservative media here.

It's no less an insult, no more true, or no less based on your stereotypes than if it had used more harsh language. If you state something which openly insults people, you should expect the same in return.

I didn't say most americans. I merely said a lot of americans :) Would it not be fair to say that a lot of Americans are lazy when it comes to political debate? That they're closed minded and far too easily lead by the far right media there?

[chuck34]

I didn't say most americans. I merely said a lot of americans :) Would it not be fair to say that a lot of Americans are lazy when it comes to political debate? That they're closed minded and far too easily lead by the far right media there?

Sure there are un-informed, or "lazy" Americans. Just as there are lazy and un-informed Brits, Auzzies, Finns, and South Africans. What's your point?

[donKey jote]

this is whats wrong with teh US of A

http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm


Join Operation Infinite FReep!
Free Republic has been rallying in support of our President and the war effort since shortly after the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001. Later, as the inevitable war against Iraq drew closer, more and more of the "useful idiots" of the left began crawling out of the woodwork organizing so-called "anti-war" protests. FReepers are working to ensure that these communist organized (See: INTERNATIONAL A.N.S.W.E.R.) demonstrations do not go unanswered. Patriotic Americans are countering these misguided terrorist supporting leftist groups wherever and whenever they show up. Join or form a Free Republic Chapter, grab your signs, unfurl the flag, and prepare to support your country!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I didn't say most americans. I merely said a lot of americans :) Would it not be fair to say that a lot of Americans are lazy when it comes to political debate? That they're closed minded and far too easily lead by the far right media there?

Daniel...the thing is the Mainstream media in the US is probably left of center if anything. You had people in the Democratic party saying during the primary season that Fox actually was the only "fair" media outlet going. Now a lot of that was because they were equally covering Hillary and Obama whereas MSNBC and NBC were pretty much openly working for Obama.

The Mainstream media, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune and the like have come out and supported editorally the Democratic left of center point of view. That is their right by the way and I have no issues with it. The Wall Street Journal and Washtington Times are neutral to right of center but for the most part, most major papers are left.

The networks with the exception of right leaning Fox are also left. IT is only on AM talk radio where you find a shift to the right that is obvious. The internet doesn't really count because there is so much nonsense cluttering up the scene that 80% of it one way or the other is often nonsense. New Republic example Spackman found being the most obvious example of nonsense.

I think Americans just are not tuned into everything going on around the world and I think most Canadians are not much better. I know I have been proven to be ignorant of some things on here and have admitted to it. I just resent this argument that somehow Ameircans should be as tuned in and ergo, they would agree with European sensiblities. That is something I am afraid wont happen. The want similar things but how they view the world is different because of the culture. That doesn't make them ignorant or stupid.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm slightly interested where you seem (I think) to say that South Africa had ties to WW2 Germany. Back before and during WW2 South Africa had ties to Britain and South African soldiers fought alongside Brits and Australians in North Africa. Although I'm not sure if this was what you meant.

Sorry for the confusion. Actually when I said "the regime", I meant the modern apartheid regime. P.W. Botha was a member of the Ossewabrandwag. As I recall, several higher ranking Ossewabrandwag members were jailed during WWII. Apparently, it was when faced with potentially going to jail that Botha resigned his membership, as did many other party members. But the Ossewabrandwag opposed South Africa's involvement in WWII on the side of the British and had modeled its paramilitary wing after the German SA.

Oh yeah, I wasn't sure of your origins. I was just trying to follow Fiero's logic above. Even including his "what if's", I couldn't put together how if your family had to flee South Africa because of a group like the ANC, etc., how you'd then become a fan of Palestinian groups like the PLO or whatever. Just didn't make sense to me. If I got chased out of my house by some neo-Nazi skinheads, I doubt that would turn me into a fan of the KKK. No biggie. Just one of those moments when I have to go, "huh???!!!" :confused:

[Fred Basset]

Is it just me or are lots of Americans lazy when it comes to politican analysis and world affairs? (I bet someone's going to call me a liberal or anti-American for this which somewhat proves my point)

I don't know if anyone's noticed but it seems to me that a high proportion of people from the US on this forum and others I post on just seem too lazy to actually analyse what someone says and actually reply to the arguments and prefer to brand someone as anti-American or liberal or whatever.

Now I've not been to the US or lived there so I can't say why that is but I'm going to make a wild guess and say it's the media there? The Bill O'reilly's and so on who don't have the intelligence to actually give a well reasoned response to any arguments and simply brand anyone whose opinion differs from theirs as being unpatriotic, anti-American, Liberal and so on and so forth.

Perhaps some of our North American buddies or people who've spent some time in the US of A can enlighten us :) I'd be really interested to know why things are the way they are because if people mouthed off in the same way in Australia or the UK someone would tear them a new orifice in their political compass :laugh:

*waits for crackpot right wing militia group card holding gun totin' cousin shagging Republican voters to reply angrily*


I see nothings changed with this forum and oh lookee see who the thread starter is... i think this post right here shows who the ignorant person is considering he admits he's never been to the USA

[BDunnell]

I think Americans just are not tuned into everything going on around the world and I think most Canadians are not much better.

I do not generally go in for comments bemoaning the 'modern world', but I do think that there is a lack of basic general knowledge about recent history and current affairs (not just politics), and that this can be said about more nations than just the USA and Canada. I was amazed, for instance, to once encounter someone who thought the Berlin Wall went all the way around East Germany. This person was doing a German degree with me at university.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yikes..you scare me. People think I get my talking points from the AM radio talking heads but outside of Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller, I don't really listen to any American talkshows on a regular basis (Miller more for the comedy of errors his show can be). I bounce around, but Savage...well I cant be sure if he is nuts, or for real.

Micheel Medved would be the most rational talkshow host and likely the most respectful....

I wonder what Fiero thinks of Bill Cunningham? Michael Savage seems perfectly sane compared to Cunny. I'll sometimes listen to Savage while in Ohio or Michigan (I don't know of a station in my area that carries him). I don't agree with him much of the time, but IMO he's not quite as full of it as some of the radio blowhards (left & right).

I think a lot of these radio guys play it up or go over the top on occasion to get attention or higher ratings. I listen to Limbaugh every now & again too. He's a "show man", as much as anything else. But Cunningham has seemed like a gen_u_ine, true blue wingnut everytime I've heard him - often irrational and illogical. And he seems to be full of a lot of hate and mean-spirited thinking... like he's mad at the world.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag..I have never come across Cunningham. I would probably give him about the same 5 minutes I gave Alan Colmes the other night on Fox's Satellite Talk. Alan I will listen to when he turns down his rhetoric but he is caught up in trying to be a leftwing version of Limbaugh and he isn't entertaining.

Limbaugh is a big wind bag but even people on the left like listening to his nonsense, and occasionally he is dead on the money.

The station you would get Savage on by the way would likely be 560 WIND out of Chicago. Savage comes on after Medved, who is a far more rational and measured right of center voice.

People disparage talk radio with good reason at times, but I have found some of the dreck on TV a lot more empty and meaningless....

[Rollo]

Sure it's for personal protection, hunting, and what-not. But it is also for overthrowing the government.
...
That is the real reason for the second amendment. Not that I am suggesting the overthrow of the current government, overall it's fairly decent.

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

Rollo...the US Military though wouldn't be inclined to go to war with their fellow citizens if they were willing to shoot back. That at least is the theory.

I don't disagree it sounds like a silly notion in today's world but there you have it. Amend the constitution....til then the people supporting the right to bear arms are going to have a point in that it is still the law.

[Hondo]

I wonder what Fiero thinks of Bill Cunningham? Michael Savage seems perfectly sane compared to Cunny. I'll sometimes listen to Savage while in Ohio or Michigan (I don't know of a station in my area that carries him). I don't agree with him much of the time, but IMO he's not quite as full of it as some of the radio blowhards (left & right).

I think a lot of these radio guys play it up or go over the top on occasion to get attention or higher ratings. I listen to Limbaugh every now & again too. He's a "show man", as much as anything else. But Cunningham has seemed like a gen_u_ine, true blue wingnut everytime I've heard him - often irrational and illogical. And he seems to be full of a lot of hate and mean-spirited thinking... like he's mad at the world.

If it makes anybody feel any better, I also listen to Mike McConnell, especially on the weekend.

[Hondo]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

The Shah of Iran thought the same thing about his army.

[steve_spackman]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

agreed

[Jag_Warrior]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

There was reportedly a questionaire passed out to certain members of the U.S. military over a decade ago. One of the questions was whether the soldiers would be willing to turn their arms against their fellow citizens during a time of civil strife. I don't know (remember) what the results looked like. What I found most interesting was that the question had to be asked.

But if things ever got so bad here that large numbers of American citizens felt the need to take up arms against the government, I would take it as a given that many soldiers (and commanders) would be with them. Remember, at the outset of the Civil War, many of the very best commanders headed south.

I don't think, pray to God, that it would never come to that. But yeah, that is the reason that many Americans choose the types of weapons that are being discussed here. And around the U.S., there are still private militia groups - they just weren't spoken about as much while Duhbya was President. Some of them tend to be a bit nutty. But some of them know the Constitution and Bill of Rights well enough that they could probably practice law.

Not saying that anybody is right or wrong... just saying how it is. :wave:

[Jag_Warrior]

If it makes anybody feel any better, I also listen to Mike McConnell, especially on the weekend.

Actually, I think you should.




























But I have no idea who that is. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

The only country in the world where you have the right to bear arms...or the right to arm bears?

I don't think the government will ever go to war with the American people but as you pointed out Jag, many people didn't think the Civil war was going to go down the way it did either. Of course...that war was in the end beneficial to the betterment of the country 100 or so years later. Does anyone want to think what would have happened if the CSA were allowed to stick around?

[airshifter]

I didn't say most americans. I merely said a lot of americans :) Would it not be fair to say that a lot of Americans are lazy when it comes to political debate? That they're closed minded and far too easily lead by the far right media there?

It isn't even remotely a fair assumption. It's only an assumption based on what you chose to see in the Americans on forums that you don't agree with. You're ignoring those that might agree with your view, and also ignoring the basic human trait that presented the same facts, many people will come to differing opinions on a matter.

That doesn't make them wrong, media led, ignorant, or lazy. It makes them human.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag..I have never come across Cunningham. I would probably give him about the same 5 minutes I gave Alan Colmes the other night on Fox's Satellite Talk. Alan I will listen to when he turns down his rhetoric but he is caught up in trying to be a leftwing version of Limbaugh and he isn't entertaining.

Limbaugh is a big wind bag but even people on the left like listening to his nonsense, and occasionally he is dead on the money.

The station you would get Savage on by the way would likely be 560 WIND out of Chicago. Savage comes on after Medved, who is a far more rational and measured right of center voice.

People disparage talk radio with good reason at times, but I have found some of the dreck on TV a lot more empty and meaningless....


Cunningham is a hoot. I think the guy might be mentally ill to some degree.

I find Medved interesting most of the time. I think he's sincere and pretty reasonable. And I think you're right, it is a Chicago station that I pick up just outside of Toledo.

[airshifter]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

If you would assume that every person in the US Military would not be part of such uprising, then the military might have a chance. Most likely if things were that desperate, many military people would be fighting for the same cause and not supporting the government.

[Hondo]

The Swiss seem ok with having their civilain reserves keeping their small arms in their homes while not on active duty.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't think the government will ever go to war with the American people but as you pointed out Jag, many people didn't think the Civil war was going to go down the way it did either. Of course...that war was in the end beneficial to the betterment of the country 100 or so years later. Does anyone want to think what would have happened if the CSA were allowed to stick around?

I think if the CSA had won, the economic progress of the nation would have been retarded by a generation or two. And quite possibly, another nation (England) would have found an opportunity to conduct some "unfinished business." ;)

[chuck34]

Bollocks mate.
If you honestly think that an uprising could defeat the US Military, then you're bonkers.

I may be bonkers. Although I never said that an uprising would be successfull in this day and age, nor wise or justified.

My argument, or statement, was to the reason that the second ammendment was put there. I have stated why it was put there then, and you have done nothing to refute my assertion. So until you can either find a quote from Jefferson or anyone else that says differnently, my point stands.

The second ammendment was put there so that people could protect themselves, hunt, and overthrow the government if need be.

[chuck34]

Does Rollo's comment qualify as lazyness from a Euro?

Sorry man, nothing personal, just trying to illustrate the double standard applied to Americans.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...you are guilty of being a member of a evil colonizing,imperial, fascist regime and you must be reeducated before being allowed to be a productive member of the human race ok?

Aaah....never mind...I cant even begin to argue the other side in jest.

The sad part is, I grew up in Canada which is a hotbed of bashing the Americans in a rather humourous and sorta friendly way, and notice now that most of it comes from the same ignorance of their subjects the Euro's accuse America of having. We all need to learn a lot about each other.

[Jag_Warrior]

The sad part is, I grew up in Canada which is a hotbed of bashing the Americans in a rather humourous and sorta friendly way, and notice now that most of it comes from the same ignorance of their subjects the Euro's accuse America of having. We all need to learn a lot about each other.

I fully agree. Again, that's why I prefer this forum over most any other that I still post on. First, most of us are here because we are racing fans. So at the very least, we all have something in common. But look at all the countries and nationalities represented here! Like many, over the years, I've worked with people from all over the world. But let's be honest, people you work with aren't usually going to discuss things in the kind of detail that we go into here.

That's why I thought that your thread about why people believe what they believe was one of the best that's been on here. Outside of actual fanatics, with most people I think something can be gained by understanding what forms the basis of their beliefs. I probably can't gain much from listening to a Muslim guy who believes that the only way forward is to blow up people like me, because his prophet says that people like me have to go. But I don't think that represents the average Muslim. I probably can't gain much from listening to a hardcore Zionist who believes that the only way forward is to bleed dry people like me, because his god says that he is superior to people like me. But I don't think that represents the average Jew. I still may not be on the same page with either one. But at least I'll have a better understanding of where we all stand. Apart from the extremists, I just think we can make a lot of progress by listening to reasonable, rational people, no matter their views.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I fully agree. Again, that's why I prefer this forum over most any other that I still post on. First, most of us are here because we are racing fans. So at the very least, we all have something in common. But look at all the countries and nationalities represented here! Like many, over the years, I've worked with people from all over the world. But let's be honest, people you work with aren't usually going to discuss things in the kind of detail that we go into here.

That's why I thought that your thread about why people believe what they believe was one of the best that's been on here. Outside of actual fanatics, with most people I think something can be gained by understanding what forms the basis of their beliefs. I probably can't gain much from listening to a Muslim guy who believes that the only way forward is to blow up people like me, because his prophet says that people like me have to go. But I don't think that represents the average Muslim. I probably can't gain much from listening to a hardcore Zionist who believes that the only way forward is to bleed dry people like me, because his god says that he is superior to people like me. But I don't think that represents the average Jew. I still may not be on the same page with either one. But at least I'll have a better understanding of where we all stand. Apart from the extremists, I just think we can make a lot of progress by listening to reasonable, rational people, no matter their views.

Thanks. I like to think I am that person although a certain poster on the Iran/China thread didn't like me stating my OPINION and ripped me for not agreeing with him.

I don't expect to agree with everyone but I enjoy the debate with B.Dunnell and Daniel and my favourite fencing partner Steve Spackman. Heck...I even agree with Eki on occasion. We are all race fans of some sort and I think if most of us are honest and open to learning we can learn a little from each other.

[TOgoFASTER]

I have never taken the path of what a current government does and presents to the world is the way all the people of that country feel or believe. My problem comes with the all inclusive statement. I also find the use of talking points or other propaganda parroting detestable and lazy no matter the cause. Not everyone has to gain 'self thought' from such nonsense.

The one for all, all for one, with us or against us crowd can expect me to jump in when they try to speak for everyone on such occasions. When my country is off course with actions against the common good or illegal in nature it has always been my strong thought and belief that it is my civic duty to stand up no matter. I always have.


History teaches the lessons of blind following on the basis of political affiliation, religion, patriotism, fear driven by endless propaganda or nationalism for nationlism's sake alone. That being true of those in my country as well as any country. There is always a precentage that will go down those roads without a second thought. Even with undisputable evidence within hands, eyes reach.

When the word "we" or statements such as 'the peoples of this nation think this way because' or the like are used to present one's opinions in the strongest possible way is in fact lazy and normally easily proven very wrong.
The very idea of being too busy to learn or be knowledgable of the world around them excuse that has been thrown around this forum is also a pure fallacy. In fact I find it insulting. Such appologist's words should have no meaning in the country I live in as it would not begin to speak of many in a trueful way. The more it's said doesn't ever make it right or factual nor ever an excuse.
Such examples only helps fuel the fire of superficial misinformation held in other locations as well as within the country as to the true nature of that population.

Using the fear of fear as a motivation, reasoning or justification for self serving or illegal actions is flat wrong and is the tool of totalitarianists, period.
The country I live in is at it's very best when led to embrace a new day, future vision, in a changing world that can be built in better ways by all in ways still unknown or still yet undiscovered.

But it's continued freedom and future depends on bringing those that have done wrong using the name and power of that nation in a wrongly illegal manner to justice under the law as any other citizen should expect. Without pardon. Too much has been allowed to slide in this area in my life time. My country is much lesser for that.

[Easy Drifter]

TOgoFaster: Excellent post. We may disagree on some things and probably will in the future but you are so right here.

[Mark in Oshawa]

ToGo...I think the whole point of this thread was the assetion Americans are monolithic and ignorant of world affairs. Your thread proves they are not. No matter whether I agree or disagree with someone on here from the US, usually...and I say usually they come from some point of view that I never looked at before or maybe from the opposite side.

That is all we can ask for in a nation's citizens, some variety of thought and opinion.

[TOgoFASTER]

I don't believe at all that Daniel's intention was to label a whole population as either monolithic or ignorant of world affairs.
I also feel he had some very valid points that hopefully were addressed in some useable fashion in my post.
I believe he was searching for a better understanding.

[Daniel]

Sorry for the confusion. Actually when I said "the regime", I meant the modern apartheid regime. P.W. Botha was a member of the Ossewabrandwag. As I recall, several higher ranking Ossewabrandwag members were jailed during WWII. Apparently, it was when faced with potentially going to jail that Botha resigned his membership, as did many other party members. But the Ossewabrandwag opposed South Africa's involvement in WWII on the side of the British and had modeled its paramilitary wing after the German SA.

Oh yeah, I wasn't sure of your origins. I was just trying to follow Fiero's logic above. Even including his "what if's", I couldn't put together how if your family had to flee South Africa because of a group like the ANC, etc., how you'd then become a fan of Palestinian groups like the PLO or whatever. Just didn't make sense to me. If I got chased out of my house by some neo-Nazi skinheads, I doubt that would turn me into a fan of the KKK. No biggie. Just one of those moments when I have to go, "huh???!!!" :confused:

Cheers :) Yes I'm not really surprised tbh, there are certainly groups in South Africa today who are not far removed from Nazi ideals.

These guys are absolute crazies who make any right wing paramilitaries you have in the US look soft :crazy:
http://www.awb.co.za/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging

[Daniel]

Also, Daniel as for your original assumption about all Americans being ignorant because of Bill O'Reilly. You should come over here some time and you would find out that there are plenty more "media types" that are closer to Keith Olberman than O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

I will sometime. I have a friend who lives near Lake Tahoe and he has invited me to come over and I will do one of these days :)

[Daniel]

ToGo...I think the whole point of this thread was the assetion Americans are monolithic and ignorant of world affairs. Your thread proves they are not. No matter whether I agree or disagree with someone on here from the US, usually...and I say usually they come from some point of view that I never looked at before or maybe from the opposite side.

That is all we can ask for in a nation's citizens, some variety of thought and opinion.

My point was more about how these people put their point across. Like we saw with Tony and Fred it was all about "If you're not with me you're against me" which to be fair we get here in the UK as well as back in Oz as well sometimes but just seemingly not as much. The funniest thing is when I hear people here talking about immigrants and so on and I say "Well what about me? I'm an immigrant?" :laugh: Apparently I'm alright though :D

Americans on the whole are certainly not all monolithic and ignorant of world affairs. Perhaps I should have put a some at the start of the thread title but sometimes I just don't think do I? :uhoh: TOgoFASTER kind summed it up well, I just want to understand why the people who mouth off like this do so when you'll have much more of an effect when you try to make a reasonable argument. Even if the other person still doesn't agree with you they'll respect you for trying to be intelligent about it :)

[SOD]

monolithic?

How come the russians say that they have to be beaten into adopting the same line of thought on everything, whereas the Americans just go along with it?

[Daniel]

If I remember properly, Reagan was pushed into sanctions against South Africa by people in the US and Canada's Brian Mulroney. Thatcher hung tough on having tough sanctions, but it wasn't until the US and just about every Western nation save the UK pushed hard on sanctions that the pressure on Apartheid economically started to crack.

What has happened to South Africa since isn't racial so much as just greed and despair. Shame really, the bones of a modern economy are still there but until order is restored on a higher level and crime is reduced, things wont change.

The thing is sanctions only seek to hurt the poor and in this case the black people. The sanctions never really hurt the rich in SA. My aunty and uncle lived in their nice mansion in Sandton and always had a Bimmer or a Merc in the driveway. All it did was hurt the black population and push them further into poverty and then created the silly situation we have now which was the majority electing a government that has worsened the situation and not made life any better for the people who elected them.

[Hondo]

The thing is sanctions only seek to hurt the poor and in this case the black people. The sanctions never really hurt the rich in SA. My aunty and uncle lived in their nice mansion in Sandton and always had a Bimmer or a Merc in the driveway. All it did was hurt the black population and push them further into poverty and then created the silly situation we have now which was the majority electing a government that has worsened the situation and not made life any better for the people who elected them.

That was my basic point in my thread about "if you left...". Due to public pressure here, govt & bleeding hearts, Coca-Cola closed down their SA production, putting many blacks out of work that had actually been making a pretty good living under the conditions at the time. I could sure see where they might have a bias against the USA.

The problem with assistance, aid, meddling, or what have you, it's unlikely to please everyone. Whether it's beneficial or not depends upon the viewpoint.

Would the Soviets have left Europe alone without NATO and the US being on hand? who knows?

Would oil be cheaper, less expensive, or not even available without western influence in the Middle East? Who knows?

Would Palestine even be an independant state if Israel had not been created or would it have been absorbed by another Arab state by now? Who knows?

Analysis after the fact is always so much easier, but not necessarily accurate either.

[Daniel]

I see nothings changed with this forum and oh lookee see who the thread starter is... i think this post right here shows who the ignorant person is considering he admits he's never been to the USA

....and I see nothing has changed with you :) Rather than discussing the issues at hand you just make it personal and ignore everything that's been said so far in this thread. All we're discussing here are the views that some people seem to hold and how they express them. I don't need to go to the US to see that. The context of my statement was the online world and unless I'm very much mistaken this forum is online and the same with all the other online forums I participate in.

If we used the "You've not been there so don't even attempt to discuss it" argument then I'd have shouted down Fiero and Jag Warrior a long time ago but I realise that you don't need to step foot in a country to have at least some idea about it.

You're a dinosaur Fred, if anyone here is monolithic and ignorant it's you :laugh:

[Daniel]

It isn't even remotely a fair assumption. It's only an assumption based on what you chose to see in the Americans on forums that you don't agree with. You're ignoring those that might agree with your view, and also ignoring the basic human trait that presented the same facts, many people will come to differing opinions on a matter.

That doesn't make them wrong, media led, ignorant, or lazy. It makes them human.

Why oh why do you not read my posts properly? All I'm saying is that you tend to see a lot of US people on forums mouthing off in the same way. I'm not saying all of you are like that. This thread shows there are plenty of you happy to disagree in a more constructive way. I didn't say it was all of you or even a majority.

Perhaps some people have learnt from supreme overlord O'Reilly :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aIm5Mp-mmRU

[steve_spackman]

Why oh why do you not read my posts properly? All I'm saying is that you tend to see a lot of US people on forums mouthing off in the same way. I'm not saying all of you are like that. This thread shows there are plenty of you happy to disagree in a more constructive way. I didn't say it was all of you or even a majority.

Perhaps some people have learnt from supreme overlord O'Reilly :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aIm5Mp-mmRU

O'Reilly is just a loud mouthed prat who like the rest of the FOX news team are not worth listening too.

[Daniel]

O'Reilly is just a loud mouthed prat who like the rest of the FOX news team are not worth listening too.

Yup :) But I still love watching him :D

[Fred Basset]

....and I see nothing has changed with you :) Rather than discussing the issues at hand you just make it personal and ignore everything that's been said so far in this thread. All we're discussing here are the views that some people seem to hold and how they express them. I don't need to go to the US to see that. The context of my statement was the online world and unless I'm very much mistaken this forum is online and the same with all the other online forums I participate in.

If we used the "You've not been there so don't even attempt to discuss it" argument then I'd have shouted down Fiero and Jag Warrior a long time ago but I realise that you don't need to step foot in a country to have at least some idea about it.

You're a dinosaur Fred, if anyone here is monolithic and ignorant it's you :laugh:


No. the ignorant one is someone that takes shots at people or countries or whatever and adds the :) for effect.. it shows sarcasm and ignorance Daniel. You havn't changed one bit have you... :laugh:

[Daniel]

No. the ignorant one is someone that takes shots at people or countries or whatever and adds the :) for effect.. it shows sarcasm and ignorance Daniel. You havn't changed one bit have you... :laugh:

The funny thing is the only person on this thread who's actually come out and criticised a country and not a select few people is you :) You're the one who came out and said that the UK has gone to the dogs. I've never done that. The funny thing is I'm actually happy for you if you're happy in the US if it suits you better :crazy:

The evidence your honour
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130667

Fred, don't go all Bill O'Reilly on me and attempt to cover up a silly mistake with more attacking, it doesn't look good :laugh:

[Fred Basset]

Why pull up my thread i started? Yes i think the UK has gone down the tubes and i'm very happy doing what i'm doing where i am thank you very much

Anyway.. go play your childish little games elsewhere Daniel. You can poke and prod as much as you like, but you won't get a bite no more.


Oh and of course ----> :)

[Daniel]

Why pull up my thread i started? Yes i think the UK has gone down the tubes and i'm very happy doing what i'm doing where i am thank you very much

Anyway.. go play your childish little games elsewhere Daniel. You can poke and prod as much as you like, but you won't get a bite no more.


Oh and of course ----> :)

Why pull your thread up?

Why? Because it proves my point that you're the one who takes shots at other peoples countries. Whether or not you add a :) smilie isn't the point.

You do this whole "I'm not going to reply to you" thing all the time and still you keep on replying. Why is that?


Ummm no i don't have an issue at all. I stated a fact that 1200 is a lot of people. Now Daniel, i've broken my rule twice now of not conversing with you and i'm not planning on it happening again as it appears your still crying to people on a regular basis..so talk to yourself by all means as this fish ain't biting

Fred I come here to have fun and to have a good discussion here. You seem to only want to open up old wounds and have fights. The AMERICANS who I supposedly insulted in such an ignorant way have come out and had a very intelligent and well reasoned debate with me and have made me wonder if my generalisation wasn't quite as correct as I felt it was and Tony person aside the only person coming out with silly jibes and loud talk is you. My year 5 teacher always used to say "The empty vessel makes the loudest noise" and I'm starting to see what she means.

Oh and as always..... :-)

[steve_spackman]

That was my basic point in my thread about "if you left...". Due to public pressure here, govt & bleeding hearts, Coca-Cola closed down their SA production, putting many blacks out of work that had actually been making a pretty good living under the conditions at the time. I could sure see where they might have a bias against the USA.

The problem with assistance, aid, meddling, or what have you, it's unlikely to please everyone. Whether it's beneficial or not depends upon the viewpoint.

Would the Soviets have left Europe alone without NATO and the US being on hand? who knows?

Would oil be cheaper, less expensive, or not even available without western influence in the Middle East? Who knows?

Would Palestine even be an independant state if Israel had not been created or would it have been absorbed by another Arab state by now? Who knows?

Analysis after the fact is always so much easier, but not necessarily accurate either.

george carlin quote

judging from the results of focus groups, education, their perception of the world, polls and election returns and the advertising aimed at the US population, id say that they are a lot dumber than they are given credit for.

[Rollo]

My argument, or statement, was to the reason that the second ammendment was put there. I have stated why it was put there then, and you have done nothing to refute my assertion. So until you can either find a quote from Jefferson or anyone else that says differnently, my point stands.

The second ammendment was put there so that people could protect themselves, hunt, and overthrow the government if need be.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131222&page=2
My full reply is in there.

[chuck34]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131222&page=2
My full reply is in there.

Ok sorry I'm not following that other thread. You know with work, a wife, other interests, I just don't have the time. Sorry.

First what does the Third Amendment have to do with this? "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law". I'm not seeing the connnection. If that soldier happens to live there first, then what? Maybe you can enlighten my ignorant American ways again.

And of course it is treason. Has anyone argued differently? Thomas Jefferson, or maybe it was Ben Franklin, said "We must hang together now or we will most asuradly hang seperatly" right after they signed the Declaration of Independence. What do you think that ment? They knew they were commiting treason against the Crown. And they would hang for it, unless they were victorious.

"The victors write the history".

Again I ask you to provide some proof that the Second Amendment was not written so that the people could protect themselves from the govenment, if necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"Leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment,[5] English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms,[6] that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation,[7] that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens and corrupt authorities,[8] that citizens must be able to defend themselves against rulers[9] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."

Again, I do not suggest that it would be wise or prudent at THIS time in history to rise up against the United States. I am meerly suggesting that at some point that may become a necessity, and that is why the Second Amendment is there.

But if you want to stick to your asertian that there must be a "well regulated militia" for there to be the right to arms. Then only the whack-jobs out in Montana (surely you and I can agree on them being a bit out there) can have arms? If this is the case then I would go so far as to asert that perhaps they should have everything the US Military has, M-16's, M1A1's, Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons???? Which is it, everyone can have a weapon, or only the "militias" can?

Oh wait I forgot to add
WARNING:
The following contains a well thought out but long argument.

[Rollo]

Sorry, that should have been Article 3 of the Constitution which defines Treason.


And of course it is treason. Has anyone argued differently? Thomas Jefferson, or maybe it was Ben Franklin, said "We must hang together now or we will most assuredly hang separately" right after they signed the Declaration of Independence. What do you think that meant? They knew they were committing treason against the Crown. And they would hang for it, unless they were victorious.


What would happen for instance if you were to attack the United States itself? If it was a single act it would be construed as terrorism, if it was a concerted and organized effort it would be either an act of war and/or treason.

Are you suggesting that the right gives you permission to perform an illegal act?

[chuck34]

Sorry, that should have been Article 3 of the Constitution which defines Treason.



What would happen for instance if you were to attack the United States itself? If it was a single act it would be construed as terrorism, if it was a concerted and organized effort it would be either an act of war and/or treason.

Are you suggesting that the right gives you permission to perform an illegal act?

Actually yes it does. You didn't read my post at all did you? The Founding Fathers knew they were comitting treason against the Crown.

One man's treason is another man's revolution.

Look at the Civil War. The south was in rebellion. Had they won, it would have been a war of independence. But since they lost, it was a civil war, and participants in that war (from the CSA) all comitted treason.

[Hondo]

Are you suggesting that the right gives you permission to perform an illegal act?

It's only illegal if you lose.

[chuck34]

It's only illegal if you lose.

A better, more concise, way of saying what I was trying to say. Thanks Fiero.

[Roamy]

Is it just me or are lots of Americans lazy when it comes to politican analysis and world affairs? (I bet someone's going to call me a liberal or anti-American for this which somewhat proves my point)

I don't know if anyone's noticed but it seems to me that a high proportion of people from the US on this forum and others I post on just seem too lazy to actually analyse what someone says and actually reply to the arguments and prefer to brand someone as anti-American or liberal or whatever.

Now I've not been to the US or lived there so I can't say why that is but I'm going to make a wild guess and say it's the media there? The Bill O'reilly's and so on who don't have the intelligence to actually give a well reasoned response to any arguments and simply brand anyone whose opinion differs from theirs as being unpatriotic, anti-American, Liberal and so on and so forth.

Perhaps some of our North American buddies or people who've spent some time in the US of A can enlighten us :) I'd be really interested to know why things are the way they are because if people mouthed off in the same way in Australia or the UK someone would tear them a new orifice in their political compass :laugh:

*waits for crackpot right wing militia group card holding gun totin' cousin shagging Republican voters to reply angrily*

Well actually Daniel - you are soooooooo full of sh!t that normally your comments don't warrant any in depth analysis whatsoever. Most of them are rude and unfounded!! But we can handle it just like we do everything else!!

[Daniel]

Well actually Daniel - you are soooooooo full of sh!t that normally your comments don't warrant any in depth analysis whatsoever. Most of them are rude and unfounded!! But we can handle it just like we do everything else!!

Can't you open your mapple menu and click on the compassion bar, oh please :(