The economy isn't Bush's fault, expanding social security and medicare is fiscally [developmentally delayed]ed, and expecting unemployment to not exist is utopianist, especially when it's low.

 

 

 

Next?

 

 

 

[seems I passed over education, but there's no need to edit it in- you're right, at least on that point.]

An example would be American diplomats basically bullying Iran into disarming any nuclear associated projects they had, while also trying to get the UN to sanction them. I don't see why America should be allowed possess it's own Nuclear weapons while it wont allow other countries.

 

I agree its a tad odd, but considering the threats Iran has made against the West, as well as Israel, it isn't particularly the smartest idea to give such a potentially hostile state nuclear capabilities, is it? While I doubt they would use it, due to MGD, it still isn't the brightest idea.

 

 

 

You might have been isolationist for quite a while, but for more than half a century you've been the most involved country in Modern warfare and for the last quarter of a century you've seemed to adopt the attitude that you police the world.

 

We do, thought, in a good number of areas. Our peace corps deploy all around the world. I guess that's policing.

 

 

 

Ended a genocide? Not really, there's still the ongoing sectarian war with Shiites and Sunnis trying to wipe each other off through shootings, kidnappings and suicide bombings. You stopped Saddam killing people yet gave way to those who wanted to kill themselves. George Bush pushed forward the idea of Iraq repeatedly, he could of shown fierce opposition to it but instead showed full support and when he was denied permission by the UN he still went ahead with it, it was his sole decision and he still went ahead with it.

 

Considering Saddam killed approximately 720,000 people, I'd believe that a genocide was ended. Considering the war in Gaza, where I believe under a thousand people total have been killed, is being called a genocide...

 

And the "sectarian war" is nowhere near the proportions it was this summer. There's relative peace.

 

 

 

WW2, the basic footsoliders weren't done for war crimes, people with power were. Even if George Bush never shot a rifle at an Iraqi, the blood is still on his hands to a certain degree.

 

True, I suppose that is true. But I don't necessarily believe every innocent life lost has to be traced all the way up. Men die in training missions in the military all the time. And, unless it is a commander's fault completely, he doesn't resign and go into a depression. The weight of the world is demanded to be held on that one man's shoulders. Sounds kinda though to be.

 

 

 

And that's why we picked Obama over Mccain. Mccain just wants to bomb everything that's not us.

 

If we all bought into common stereotypes the world wouldn't be such a good place, now would it? Considering both Obama and McCain strongly considered putting troops in Pakistan. Militarily, they both agreed on many things - McCain is just put up as a warmonger because he was a soldier, and is nowhere near as eloquent. Although he's better with foreign policy, and Obama is better domestically (I too think domestic problems are more important than other ones), I think Obama should make a good enough leader. Seems pretty capable. And for once, stereotypes and ignorance are good things - people love Obama.

The economy isn't Bush's fault, expanding social security and medicare is fiscally [developmentally delayed], and expecting unemployment to not exist is utopianist, especially when it's low.

 

 

 

Next?

 

During Bush's term =/= George W. Bush. Just during 2000-2008. And no, don't expand Social security, fix it or make a better system. And you really do like to quickly judge huh? Unemployment is higher than normal now, which should be fixed to be lowered. Naturally, a 0.0% unemployment rate can never happen, nor did I ever specifically say that.

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

The economy has peaks and troughs all the time. This time people just got scared and pulled all their money from the bank. The banks gave out loans while everything was fine, and then when people withdrew they had much less money and pulled the stocks. We can't nor shouldn't expect the government to bail us out every time; it will eventually recover. And again, what do those have to do with policing other countries? We have specialized branches that carry our their own duties. Cutting funding isn't all to great of idea, especially when something more drastic comes around. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did the government not come out and say that the housing market would suffer, as well as the stock market? This also leads to the point where America is showing continuous traits of communism. The government can only do so much.

 

Unemployment is higher than normal now, which should be fixed to be lowered. Naturally, a 0.0% unemployment rate can never happen, nor did I ever specifically say that.

 

Well of course, we're in a recession. It's not as if the government can control that either, and the war certainly has little to do with it. If anything, it's making jobs.

[hide=]

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

The economy has peaks and troughs all the time. This time people just got scared and pulled all their money from the bank. The banks gave out loans while everything was fine, and then when people withdrew they had much less money and pulled the stocks. We can't nor shouldn't expect the government to bail us out every time; it will eventually recover. And again, what do those have to do with policing other countries? We have specialized branches that carry our their own duties. Cutting funding isn't all to great of idea, especially when something more drastic comes around. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did the government not come out and say that the housing market would suffer, as well as the stock market? This also leads to the point where America is showing continuous traits of communism. The government can only do so much.

[/hide]

 

They have everything to do with policing other countries. And giving them aid. War is always going to cost money and the less wars we have the better. Not because of "peace", but of saving money that's not even technically ours thanks to the debt we have. While the economic situation today is bad but cannot be instantly fixed, I was referring more to the whole thing about losing value of the dollar. The euro has more worth than us...I'm sorry to say this, but screw you Europe and let us have the top economy again! :cry:

 

 

 

We were so powerful with all the exports coming from us, then now it comes from China? When did it go wrong?

[hide=]

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

The economy has peaks and troughs all the time. This time people just got scared and pulled all their money from the bank. The banks gave out loans while everything was fine, and then when people withdrew they had much less money and pulled the stocks. We can't nor shouldn't expect the government to bail us out every time; it will eventually recover. And again, what do those have to do with policing other countries? We have specialized branches that carry our their own duties. Cutting funding isn't all to great of idea, especially when something more drastic comes around. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did the government not come out and say that the housing market would suffer, as well as the stock market? This also leads to the point where America is showing continuous traits of communism. The government can only do so much.

[/hide]

 

They have everything to do with policing other countries. And giving them aid. War is always going to cost money and the less wars we have the better. Not because of "peace", but of saving money that's not even technically ours thanks to the debt we have. While the economic situation today is bad but cannot be instantly fixed, I was referring more to the whole thing about losing value of the dollar. The euro has more worth than us...I'm sorry to say this, but screw you Europe and let us have the top economy again! :cry:

 

 

 

We were so powerful with all the exports coming from us, then now it comes from China? When did it go wrong?

We didn't necessarily go wrong anywhere, as no country is free from economic turmoil. We've been in debt since Andrew Jackson took office. And the last president in office that balanced the budget was Bill Clinton, because he raised taxes (and it was during the technological boom, so he could afford to). Generally speaking though, our spending isn't that bad on a ratio of import:exports, even if we are borrowing some of it. The value of a dollar will eventually go back up, most countries have experienced this problem multiple times. Though I can't deny that the war is a bank-breaker.

And no, don't expand Social security, fix it or make a better system.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Everything else Laura covered.

Reb's on the right track, but I want to hate Canada instead. Damn mooses.

 

 

 

Ill have you know I'm offended by that. Nah, jk...We're way too steryotyped. Ill have you know Ive never even see a wild moose, I only eat syrup on my bacon once in a while. Oh, and i dont say "eh" every other word :lol:.Eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic... Yeah, America is waging war on many countries un-nessicarily.

On topic... Yeah, America is waging war on many countries un-nessicarily.

 

Really? We haven't had a declaration of war since 1941. While Afghanistan and Iraq were approved wars by Congress, they are not wars against nations. Not to mention, a coalition is fighting there.

An example would be American diplomats basically bullying Iran into disarming any nuclear associated projects they had, while also trying to get the UN to sanction them. I don't see why America should be allowed possess it's own Nuclear weapons while it wont allow other countries.

 

 

 

You might have been isolationist for quite a while, but for more than half a century you've been the most involved country in Modern warfare and for the last quarter of a century you've seemed to adopt the attitude that you police the world.

 

Well, considering the United States is the only one who ever does anything...

 

 

 

That's incredibly true. The UN is a pile of bureaucratic crap. The smurf's attitude of peaceful warfare is stupid. All they do is break up a fight by showing up and intimidate with their presence. That doesn't work. The warring factions will just continue to fight with the UN caught in the middle. The only reason way they are successful is by staying in the area for DECADES. But, according to popular belief, when the US does it, it's apparently wrong and oppressive. So hey, what the hell. Let's just leave the country in a crappy state and let them deal with it right? And it wasn't JUST the US in the various messes. The UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Germany ALL backed and supported the US over the years and have provided troops and supplies.

 

 

 

And by the way, Nick, learn some basic economics. War is GOOD for the economy. Always has been. It creates jobs, it destroys wasted surplus goods, it revitalizes the workforce, and it expedites technological advances. And the only things that the United States ever really exported were cotton and tobacco. The US has ALWAYS been dependent on imports since the very beginning because all of the stuff we make, we use on ourselves in a vain attempt to be self-reliant.

[hide=]

The economy, our education department, social security, medicare, unemployment... America can conquer half the world for all I care but the homefront has to be the best it can be...

The economy has peaks and troughs all the time. This time people just got scared and pulled all their money from the bank. The banks gave out loans while everything was fine, and then when people withdrew they had much less money and pulled the stocks. We can't nor shouldn't expect the government to bail us out every time; it will eventually recover. And again, what do those have to do with policing other countries? We have specialized branches that carry our their own duties. Cutting funding isn't all to great of idea, especially when something more drastic comes around. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did the government not come out and say that the housing market would suffer, as well as the stock market? This also leads to the point where America is showing continuous traits of communism. The government can only do so much.

[/hide]

 

They have everything to do with policing other countries. And giving them aid. War is always going to cost money and the less wars we have the better. Not because of "peace", but of saving money that's not even technically ours thanks to the debt we have. While the economic situation today is bad but cannot be instantly fixed, I was referring more to the whole thing about losing value of the dollar. The euro has more worth than us...I'm sorry to say this, but screw you Europe and let us have the top economy again! :cry:

 

 

 

We were so powerful with all the exports coming from us, then now it comes from China? When did it go wrong?

We didn't necessarily go wrong anywhere, as no country is free from economic turmoil. We've been in debt since Andrew Jackson took office. And the last president in office that balanced the budget was Bill Clinton, because he raised taxes (and it was during the technological boom, so he could afford to). Generally speaking though, our spending isn't that bad on a ratio of import:exports, even if we are borrowing some of it. The value of a dollar will eventually go back up, most countries have experienced this problem multiple times. Though I can't deny that the war is a bank-breaker.

 

 

 

Very true. And the shifting of products to Chinese markets is hardly the government's fault. Businesses themselves are hemorrhaging money due to bad spending (or private jets, whatever) and therefore have to cut costs. In this case, by exporting work to China. This not only is bad for American workers who no longer have jobs in the US, but the US economy does not get tax dollars off this work.

And by the way, Nick, learn some basic economics. War is GOOD for the economy. Always has been. It creates jobs, it destroys wasted surplus goods, it revitalizes the workforce, and it expedites technological advances. And the only things that the United States ever really exported were cotton and tobacco. The US has ALWAYS been dependent on imports since the very beginning because all of the stuff we make, we use on ourselves in a vain attempt to be self-reliant.

 

 

 

Not anymore, you have the old way of thinking. War on terrorism pretty much ruined you. Then us Canadians had our economy ruined by our own government in an atempt to help the companies, since most of the exports are to the U.S.

America, home of the fat (and greedy)

OH MY GOD YOU'RE FUNNY. NAME CALLING. HA. HA.

 

 

 

You do realize Australia is the fattest nation in the world, correct?

On topic... Yeah, America is waging war on many countries un-nessicarily.

 

Really? We haven't had a declaration of war since 1941. While Afghanistan and Iraq were approved wars by Congress, they are not wars against nations. Not to mention, a coalition is fighting there.

 

 

 

Just because there has been no declarations of war since 1941 doesn't mean that they don't count. If it looks like a war, it tends to be a war.

free? who are you kidding? you have more restrictions than most countries and your government is ran by corporate agenda.

 

 

 

freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

OH MY GOD YOU'RE FUNNY. NAME CALLING. HA. HA.

 

 

 

You do realize Australia is the fattest nation in the world, correct?

 

I think you're right. I'll find something:

 

 

 

EDIT: Found it.

 

 

 

In any case, let's avoid name calling when we're talking about diseases.

For some reason, I learned in math today that Chile is one of the freest countries in the world.

 

I don't know where America places.

 

 

 

"Treebeard: This is not our war.

 

Merry: But you're part of this world, aren't you? You must help...Please."

 

America is part of this world. Anything that happens will probably affect us. What's wrong with trying to affect those changes so they benefit us?

 

(Note: I'm not a huge fan of America, the education is crap to be honest and that means a lot to me because I'm nerdy and Asian. I much prefer Taiwan and prefer being Taiwanese, but I don't go around constantly bashing America, and those who do get rather annoying...)

Land of the free?Whoever told you that is your enemy.

When Americans say "land of the free" what they actually mean is "land of the freer than a lot, but still not free".

 

 

 

I mean, drugs aren't legal. So, you aren't free to do what you want to your OWN body. The same goes for most nations obviously, if not all of them, but still, America is responsible for a lot of the propaganda surrounding them. Yes, it could be worse (Saudi Arabia), but just because it isn't the worst situation imaginable doesn't mean that every complaint should just be ignored.

 

 

 

I do not understand the mentality behind telling someone what they can and cannot do to themselves. Really, I just don't understand it.

When Americans say "land of the free" what they actually mean is "land of the freer than a lot, but still not free".

 

 

 

I mean, drugs aren't legal. So, you aren't free to do what you want to your OWN body. The same goes for most nations obviously, if not all of them, but still, America is responsible for a lot of the propaganda surrounding them. Yes, it could be worse (Saudi Arabia), but just because it isn't the worst situation imaginable doesn't mean that every complaint should just be ignored.

 

 

 

I do not understand the mentality behind telling someone what they can and cannot do to themselves. Really, I just don't understand it.

 

 

 

It's been said by dozens of people before to you over and over again. Addictive drugs just can't be controlled, are dangerous and do much worse to society than what good they do, nothing more than a release for a couple of hours.

 

 

 

There's a reason why many prostitutes, burglars and criminals are drug addicts, because it is the quickest and quite often easiest way for them to feed their habit before they go into withdrawal. I'm all for legalizing recreational drugs governmently controlled like Marijuana, MDMA, LSD etc but I'll always be extremely against Cocaine, Heroine and Amphetamines or other forms of highly addictive drugs. They do nothing positive for society, just lead to high crime rates.

Just because there has been no declarations of war since 1941 doesn't mean that they don't count. If it looks like a war, it tends to be a war.

 

While that's true, I just felt like being a smartass. It's obvious he didn't seem that into the debate, but I reckoned it should be said. We're only "waging war" in two major areas, with a bunch of groups there. Although, with our presence across the world, I suppose you could technically argue we're "waging war" all across the globe.

I've been to plenty of countries, from a totally objective viewpoint I can say the Netherlands, and all nordic countries (except Denmark which is slightly more close-minded) are the freest countries on the entire planet.

 

 

 

There are next to no social taboos, high level of prosperity, generally high standard of living, very effective social policies & support for poor people, etc.

 

 

 

America isn't even close to real freedom as experienced in Europe and some other parts of the world, although it has a nice social structure for financially well-off people.

 

 

 

USA is a paradise if you have lots of money. In any other case it's a mediocre country.. Sure, the strong army is a deterrent which will ensure foreign nations wont destroy your home, but the level of crime and social inequality inside the country is pretty high.

When Americans say "land of the free" what they actually mean is "land of the freer than a lot, but still not free".

 

 

 

I mean, drugs aren't legal. So, you aren't free to do what you want to your OWN body. The same goes for most nations obviously, if not all of them, but still, America is responsible for a lot of the propaganda surrounding them. Yes, it could be worse (Saudi Arabia), but just because it isn't the worst situation imaginable doesn't mean that every complaint should just be ignored.

 

 

 

I do not understand the mentality behind telling someone what they can and cannot do to themselves. Really, I just don't understand it.

 

 

 

It's been said by dozens of people before to you over and over again. Addictive drugs just can't be controlled, are dangerous and do much worse to society than what good they do, nothing more than a release for a couple of hours.

 

 

 

There's a reason why many prostitutes, burglars and criminals are drug addicts, because it is the quickest and quite often easiest way for them to feed their habit before they go into withdrawal. I'm all for legalizing recreational drugs governmently controlled like Marijuana, MDMA, LSD etc but I'll always be extremely against Cocaine, Heroine and Amphetamines or other forms of highly addictive drugs. They do nothing positive for society, just lead to high crime rates.

 

 

 

So you think it is okay for the government (something which I was born into, and didn't consent to) to use coercion and force against people for putting a drug into their OWN body? Madness. Why do you want to be able to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves? I own my body, not the government, and if one day I want to put heroin into my body, then I should have that right. If someone steals a car, then they get punished for stealing a car. It doesn't mean that just because they did it for heroin money that every single person who takes heroin should be branded a criminal.

 

 

 

Plus, you're completely ignoring the fact that making drugs illegal makes it HARDER to solve the problems that they cause. In a regulated system for example, 1) drugs wouldn't be laced, 2) the illegal drug trade would cease to exist causing 3) there to be no need to go to drug dealers/other shady people.

 

 

 

Making drugs illegal just doesn't work. Ignore the freedom standpoint all you like, but the fact is, the problems you are aiming to solve are either a) caused by drugs being illegal in the first place or B) made harder to solve with drugs being illegal.

America is not the home of the free. We have a higher percentage of our population in jail & on parole than anywhere else.

 

We rock.