Poll: What's wrong with America?

[Cerebreus]

Not all people at the town hall meetings are part of "the Anti-Obama faction". Some are legitmately concerned. When several members of congress support a single-payer system (along with the president himself), and several supporters of that kind of system saying a public option is the best way to achieve it (such as Barney Frank), I'm not sure they'll do enough to prevent that kind of thing from happening and getting what they want.

 

[Richard Kain]

As with most issues, the "problem" lies in perception, not in the thing itself.

People will point to politics, or big business, or profiteers as a major problem with the U.S., and it's mindset. But that is silly. Corrupt or incompetent politicians are a worldwide problem. So are greedy corporations and self-centered individuals. Not only are all of these factors a part of the U.S.'s past, but they are found in every country on the globe.

The reason for the rampant criticism of the U.S. in recent years is simply that there are no other targets remaining. The empires of the past have fallen, and now the U.S. is the largest, undisputed superpower. The U.S. dominates the world's economy, its military tactics and technology, and its media. There are no real potential threats to fight against, no enemy to revile. In this climate, it is only natural for the populace to begin blaming people closer at hand for their problems.

There is also the current economic climate to consider. Times are hard, and people are looking for someone that they can shake their fists at. The U.S. is an easy target. It is essentially "The Man," and its constitutional policy of free speech prevents it from acting against anyone with a complaint. (including its own citizens)

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Um, we did have that whole 'revolutionary war' thing which kinda happened on American soil.

Which you only make point to remember when it helps you pumping up your chest with pride.

And then there was the War of 1812 where the British burned down the White House.

Tragic.

It's far from the entire country being occupied and its citizens slaughtered.

Besides, what about England? England proudly proclaims that they haven't been invaded since 1066! The last foreign people to 'rape and murder' the English were the Normans!

England was crippled after the second World War, which pretty much severed the cultural peak they had reached at the time.

Besides, they're not exactly shy about pulling that trigger either.

And Japan--they're not very trigger-happy and they've...never actually been invaded, right?

No. They just had two atomic bombs dropped on their heads. Hmm.

And Australians and New Zealanders where the last people to invade...are now the majority.

The countries with the biggest bandwagon issues? If their officials' stand to the Iraq War is anything to go by, the only reason they're not trigger happy is because they can't afford to, unless they have a someone to hold the leash and lead.

And there's always the Canadians, the *least* trigger-happy people on earth and their biggest brush with invasion was an American invasion during with War of 1812.

True. So, I guess I can always just assume that violence is hard-coded into your DNA.

 

[Gashad]

You're also said that in contrast to "China has always been concerned with its own borders and maintaining absolute peace and stability within those borders."

I never said that (your confusing me with someone else now)

In that case, U.S. interventionism isn't really in contrast to China--it's simply a different way of being concerned with affairs beyond one's own borders and isn't just about maintaining absolute peace and stability within those borders, but rather is about projecting economic power abroad.

I beg to differ. There is a large difference between making a deal with a nation for the mining of its resources and either invading a nation or instituting a coup.

What, like the U.N. where two permanent members of the Security Council aren't even democracies?

I would be the first to agree that the UN has its flaws(though I would say the veto system is the great flaw not that it works with non-democracies). Yet I was referring more to other institutions like the ICC and ICJ(the latter which presents a very good way to settle conflicts without bombing countries to dust)

How was the invasion of Afghanistan illegal?

UN charter article 2.4:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".

I am fairly certain that the US used force in the case of afghanistan and that it was not with the permission of the UN.

You know, the whole WWII thing?

Oh well then its hardly West Germany but Germany(I mean its not like they helped West Germany against the rest of the world, but rather helped the rest of the world against Germany and Japan). Anyway I have already conceded that the US intervention in WWII was one of its "good interventions"

Then why aren't you including Afghanistan in that list?

I am not saying that Afghanistan was a bad intervention-the way it was conducted was bad. Had the US acted legally and with and international mindset by going to the UN and got the UN to intervene(which considering the sympathy it got in the aftermath of 9/11 it most likely would have succeeded in) it would have had a much easier time. Firstly because of legitimacy- Soldiers fighting under a UN banner seem a lot less like conquerors then soldiers fighting under US banners(especially considered the anti-Americanism of the middle east). Indeed when the Afghan population has been asked, in all the polls I have seen, they want the US troops out, but the international peace keeping troops placed by the UN to stay. Moreover nation building is an extremely difficult task, but the institution most experienced in it is the UN hence it would most likely have done a much better job at it then the US has done.

No, it's failure, not hypocrisy. There's a difference.

No, if you try to defend a democracy and fail-thats failure. If you like the US in Chile support a military dictator to cease power from a democratically elected leader whom you didn't like, while claiming to be the defender of democracy-that's hypocrisy.

Do you have the same grip with Britain, then, for its behavior in Northern Ireland? France's anti-terrorism magistrates?

I am against all violations to Habeus Corpus or any other human rights. I am not specifically familiar with the cases you state and when they occurred, I would appreciate if you could specify the details of the events and state when they occurred.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Actually, some of our most successful politicians and Captains of Industry were anything but heartless: think of the Roosevelts, Carnegie, and Henry Ford:

I don't remember much about Ford, and most people admit FDR at least tried to fix the economy (he didn't succeed, WW2 created the demand for big industry products), but Carnegie? He might not have been "heartless," but the amount of suffering caused by him and giants like him (Morgan, Rockafeller, etc) is nearly impossible to imagine. It wasn't just the poor working conditions, dangerous work, criminally low wages and lack of sick/off days, the trusts conspired to shaft Joe Public even when he was at home. The Ice and Coal trusts each jacked their prices way up during the respective seasons when people would need those items. Many people could not afford to pay that much, and so they froze or got heatstroke. It was already pretty unsanitary in those cities. It wasn't just those trusts, of course. ALL the trusts were jacking their prices to whatever they thought they could get. One might say that's similar to how it is today, but it really isn't nearly as bad as it was. Well, not yet. But someone needs to get in competition with General Electric.

Like most human beings, Carnegie's done his share of good and bad things. The bad definitely aren't forgiven simply because he donated some library or gave out some money. It's pretty safe to say that if you have a job, thank heaven men like Carnegie aren't allowed to have as much free reign over their workers today, or you'd be at your job RIGHT NOW, and working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day doing something that could easily kill you. Not because of any fault on your part (no major one, anyway), but because the work would be just so dangerous.

 

[Nannernade]

I've given up on the whole USA is awesome thing, it's all gone downhill, which is why if war ever breaks out (and it probably will) I will be avoiding a draft and hiding out in Australia, because nobody has ever had a war (as far as I know) with Australia.

 

[Nannernade]

I've given up on the whole USA is awesome thing, it's all gone downhill, which is why if war ever breaks out (and it probably will) I will be avoiding a draft and hiding out in Australia, because nobody has ever had a war (as far as I know) with Australia.

Actually, Australians were drafted to fight in the Vietnam War with the Americans:

http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/conscription/birthday-ballot.php

God how did I forget about that...

Ok uhm... let me see here... How about... hmm damnit there isn't anywhere else to go. >.<

 

[The Cheezy One]

whats right with it?

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Actually, some of our most successful politicians and Captains of Industry were anything but heartless: think of the Roosevelts, Carnegie, and Henry Ford:

I don't remember much about Ford,

Not many people do--Ford's interest in his workers (although ridiculously misguided and paternalistic) is basically written out of history, and conservatives seem to like it that way.

and most people admit FDR at least tried to fix the economy (he didn't succeed, WW2 created the demand for big industry products),

That's actually a question on which there is a lot of disagreement. And even then, conservatives like Milton Freedman say it wasn't WWII it was the parts of the New Deal which inadvertently implemented monetarist ideas even if it took them to the opposite extreme creating a perpetual boom-bust cycle.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#7


Again--like Ford, another piece of history the conservatives are trying to take control of through propaganda. They want to take Freedman's criticism without subscribing to his logic:

http://mises.org/story/2442


Just like they want to take Hayek's criticism of a command economy and pretend it applies to a social welfare state.

Because you know--that would mean they can no longer call Obama a socialist and would have to admit that, quite frankly, he's closer to Freedman and Hayek than Keynes and Marx.

I hope my seemingly partisan dislike of Conservatives and Republicans makes more sense: it's not because I think they are wrong and I'm incapable of tolerating those who disagree with me. One thing I don't tolerate is ignorance and stupidity, and well, Conservatives and Republicans seem to have cornered the market on that these days; not only that, people who should know better act this way; and finally, this is not just an error Conservatives and Republicans make: it is their actual strategy

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer

but Carnegie? He might not have been "heartless,"

Exactly--whatever the amount of suffering that was caused, my only point is that one does not need to be "heartless" to be successful in business or in managing an economy. I have no interest in any of these people being "forgiven": only in setting the historical record straight so it can't be manipulated as propaganda by Conservatives and Republicans.

Eh, fair enough about Carnegie. I, too, have no desire to see men who've had a great impact on history either nominated for sainthood or demonized. The men that grew out of the big industrial boom were complicated. Petty and self-serving, yes, but there was certainly more to them than that, and I don't really consider them "evil" (aside from possibly Rockafeller, who took Darwinism and applied it to social structure to try and justify the horrible way he treated his employees.)

Eh, I'm not exactly going to agree with you that Republicans are more ignorant/stupider than Democrats, or that's their strategy. You said it seems like a partisan viewpoint, and quite frankly I don't disagree. I live in a liberal town, and I can't count the number of ignorant morons I've met who think being on one political side automatically reduces one's IQ to single digits. I've seen stupidity on both sides in abundance, from Democrats who think Obama will give them everything they want on a silver platter at no cost, to Republicans who claim Obama is a Muslim (sorry for the two Obama examples, but I think he kind of inspires people to be dumb. Not because of anything about him, but because of how he's perceived). I can't objectively measure the stupid on either side. Maybe you see more Conservative stupidity because of where you're located geographically. Maybe many Conservatives are just fine, and you're just hearing the most vocal and obnoxious of them. I can't really say.

Was Ford a Democrat? I find it strange you'd say Conservatives wrote him out of history, considering how many prominent Democrats have achieved truly legendary amounts of fame, some entirely undeserved (JFK really wasn't all that great, it's just that people like to pretend the murdered had no faults.) What was there about Ford that Conservatives would find more threatening (and thus, worthy of erasing) compared to, say, FDR or Jefferson (I can't recall if Jefferson was technically a Democrat or not. The parties were very different, as were the issues.)?

Whatever one's opinions on FDR's impact on the Depression, there's no denying WW2 helped quite a bit. And yeah, FDR's affect on the economy (according to my history teacher) probably LOOKED a lot less effective than it was. Just because plenty of people were still unemployed doesn't mean they were still starving, with systems like the CCC, where young men were sending money home to the (unemployed) family. But I really do suspect it was WW2 that got factories hiring again and pulled the US out of its slump for good. War is generally pretty good for the economy.

 

[axia777]

Lots of things are wrong with America. Our Drug Policies are wacked, we have a fucked up health care system, our prisons are over flowing yet crime still continues at a healthy pace, and we seem to think the military should get the majority of our tax dollars in stead of us the people. The list goes on.

But even with all our issues the country this is one of the best damn places to live on the entire planet. Why else would all these people from all over be wanting to come and live coming here? Consider just for a moment how life is in the majority of Africa, parts of South America, Mexico, and lots of other places is. It is HORRIBLE. Sure you could be from a place like France of Japan, but those places are even harder to get into than America is. Be grateful you live here in the USA. You are LUCKY you were born a citizen!

 

[Just Joe]

In other countries, the rich often take a sort of pride in the middle class(es). In the US, the ruling class has become entirely predatory, going to any lengths to avoid losing any money, ever.

 

[twistedshadows]

I've pretty much felt that way for a decade, and it's only gotten worse. I don't think there's one main reason that the country's priorities have shifted (from what I can tell, anyway), but many that include the country's general idea of the "American dream," the want for everything to be easy and simple, and the images of what life should be and what we should want shoved down our throats every day by mega corporations and the media. People are so focused on making their own lives exorbitant and cushy that the country's focus has shifted selfishly inward and we've become very focused on the individual instead of the community.

I think the problems stem from our culture of entitlement.

That's also part of it, I agree.

 

[fulano]

I though Glenn Beck was what was right with the U.S...

I'd say their moronic capitalist economic principles that they somehow decided to translate to social policy is what's wrong right with the U.S. Suddenly capitalism means the ability to compete in an open market(shyeah, like that exists) but if the rich go broke they get a bail out from the tax payers. Yay...

The world is getting fucked over and people still cling to such things as "The government is gonna get between me and my doctor!," when the hmo bureaucrats decide what kind of care your doctor can and can't give you, and what treatment you are ellegible to receive. Lame.

For some reason it is okay to throw billions of dollars into the banker's pockets and a certain other government run organization(the army), but it is not when you want to care for people's health. It's an upside down world in there in terms of what is moral and what isn't.

 

[freakonaleash]

I have a question: Why do so many people complain so much about one country?

Probably because said country is responsible for quite a lot of horrible things in the world. The fact is, we're the biggest oil importer, and we're the biggest food importer. This leads to people rightly thinking that Americans are fat. The last I checked, the average American weighed about 300 pounds. We're gas hogs, and, for the most part, we spend gas on a commute that could be done by bike or foot.

300 Pound average American weight is a BIG fat lie.