Things you'd like to see changed in America
- Thread starter heyheysg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here in Canada we have 4:Seldon2639 said:
Liberals-The equivilant to the American Democrats
Conservatives-The equivilant to the American Republicans
NDP-The New Democratic Party, the third biggest party.
Bloc Quebequas-The French Canadian party, popular in Quebec
I'm pretty shure Canada is a stable democracy, despite having not 3, but 4 major parties.
I would like to for the USA to use the metric system. If most (if not all) technical measurements use the metric system wouldnt it be easyer to teach kids the metric system in the first place. I never did learn how many feet there were in mile.
Also, state issued standerdized testing. Biggest waste of time EVER. Wouldnt it be more effective to have it on a national level rather than having it on a state level. I was a nerdy little honors gifted AP kid. Learn what I needed for the FCAT actully ment I learned less.
Also, state issued standerdized testing. Biggest waste of time EVER. Wouldnt it be more effective to have it on a national level rather than having it on a state level. I was a nerdy little honors gifted AP kid. Learn what I needed for the FCAT actully ment I learned less.
Um, you do know that Gore won the popular vote right? So because Bush "won" Florida he won the election despite having less than half the country vote for him.YuheJi said:
Shut up. Just shut the fuck up you stupid wannabe intellectual.Housebroken Lunatic said:
Seriously? What the fuck is your problem man? You're honestly suggesting that in the case of genocide the rest of the world should respect that's countries soverignty and refuse to get involved? "Oh but if their sick of it they can just fight or leave." Bull. Fucking. Shit. I guess you feel like all those Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, communists, etc. were just being lazy and stupid when they didn't fight the Nazi War Machine and stopped themselves from getting slaughtered. Because it's just so fucking easy to fight an army. Sure they have great weapons, viechles, body armor, barracks, an information network, an airforce, propaganda, and lot's of money, but damnit you're sick of it! You can overcome the lack of supplies, training, weapons, allies, and every other disadvantage that comes from being a represed minority. And as for escaping, surely if they just put a little more heart into it they can sneak out of the country and into another countries' borders. Cause after all, it's not like the military is patrolling places, and that these other countries might not want the influx of refugees.
Seriously, fuck you man. You have no fucking clue how the world works. Isolationism doesn't work. Maybe you're familar with the saying "First they came for the Gypsies"; if you don't stop somebodies elses problems then eventually they'll become your problems, and there'll be nobody to help you.
The title of this thread is:JWAN said:
Things you'd like to see changed in America. Which I have reasonably taken to mean North America. Not 'The Americas".
There is a lot of dispute over whether the indigenous tribes of North America were killed by disease, deliberate well-poisoning, genocide, but I feel it is a reasonable assumption to regard those millions of deaths as easily greater than any prior inter-tribal violence. Saying that they were a bit nasty doesn't excuse what happened to them. The United States has made that territory far more globally diplomatically-interfering and belligerent than when the tribes lived there - and far, far, less Green.
The government thinking I give a shit what they think I can do in my personal life, ex. getting health insurance(Its just a scam anyway), what kind of firearms I can own, what I can put in my body(I don't do drugs, but having them illegal does more damage than if they were just legal)Suppressing my right to say what I like.
Non retarded? In spite of any problems you might see in the US government (and I feel little need to list them for the uninitated - it is an incredibly long list), that simple document has provided the basis for both our nation and that of a great many others. What it lacks in complexity and clarity it makes up for by being an absolute wonder of brevity. More than one nation (or state) has run into the problem of putting everything down in writing only to find they didn't think of everything the first time around - whereas we went the route of only writing down what seemed to be truly important. That is, the form and function of the major components of the federal government, an inclusive listing of responsibilities of the branches, a breakdown of states rights versus federal and a reasonable means for the indtroduction of changes.Daveman said:
Few documents have ever been held in the regard of the constitution. At the end of the day, most every citizen recognizes that the document represents the ultimate arbiter of law in our nation. Combine that with something short enough that everyone in the country could (but sadly don't) have a fair knowledge of what it says in it's entirety and you have the makings of a participatory form of government.
Of course, the list of things I think ought to change generaly relate to the failure of my previous point.
1) Never argue from the moral high ground. From such a position there can be no compromise or useful discourse. Worse still, as a general rule all parties involved have equal right to claim said ground.
2) Fear not what you do not understand, first investigate then make a proper accounting.
3) When someone tells you something too good to be true, or too awful to be ignored, investigate the facts. If they pan out, you can make an informed and rational argument, if they do not then you can still spread the truth.
4) The opinions and activities of the world at large are not inconsequential, no matter how distant. This does not mean "police the world", but rather simply means that when you lead, you should stop from time to time and see if the world is still following.
5) In all probability, you are not a victim of unique or tragic circumstance. Time spent seeking special consideration could be better used resolving the problem at play.
6) Exercise and physical activity need not be a burden, and they do not need to come with the advice of a personal trainer or word of a late night pitch-man. Find something you enjoy doing that doesn't involve sitting down - then do it.
7) Recognize that, in the whole history of humanity, there have been few people labeled as villians by the entire world. Never mistake apathy or ignorance for malice and hatred.
What first post said +
6a) curbstomping third-world nations. Your paranoia with the middle east I can somewhat deal with, but could you please appreachiate the fact that a oppressive dictator or 2 is better than anarchy. You have to start SOMEWHERE in order to get to a better system of goverment.
alternetivly
6b) nuke some shit. For great justice, or for the lulz. When you invade someone, actually INVADE for once. If it's not used as a tool for religious or political assimilation, invasion is used for genocide and stealing peoples shit on a large scale! Not pissing people off by sticking your nose where it doesn't really belong.
Make up your damn minds!
6a) curbstomping third-world nations. Your paranoia with the middle east I can somewhat deal with, but could you please appreachiate the fact that a oppressive dictator or 2 is better than anarchy. You have to start SOMEWHERE in order to get to a better system of goverment.
alternetivly
6b) nuke some shit. For great justice, or for the lulz. When you invade someone, actually INVADE for once. If it's not used as a tool for religious or political assimilation, invasion is used for genocide and stealing peoples shit on a large scale! Not pissing people off by sticking your nose where it doesn't really belong.
Make up your damn minds!
Seriously, guys, please read the entire conversation between me and the first two people who responded to my post.TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
Your definition of "major" is somewhat debatable, but:
In order to form a majority government (necessary in a parliamentary form of government to control the executive), I would wager that coalitional governments are frequently formed in Canada. I'll admit a lack of detailed knowledge (I know English and Japanese politics more), but it wouldn't surprise me if the pattern went like this:
1. A "major" party gains enough power to control the legislature and executive branches
2. A group of the smaller "major" parties, or even of minor parties, forms together in order to topple the current regime.
3. If the new coalition is able to maintain cohesiveness, it will be a new party, if not, it will quickly dissolve and the process begins again.
I'll accept the charge that there's less churn in American democracy, but what we forget is that the Democratic and Republican parties are actually "big tents" which, while unified on some issues, are actually made up of a bunch of smaller groups. The difference seems to be that in America, the parties can change their stances without actually changing their names. Republicans (under Teddy Roosevelt) were the party against corporate corruption, and in favor of conservationism. Sounds pretty different, eh?
Well if you say that it's "evident" that I don't have statistics or sexamples. How about providing some evidence yourself that would confirm this suspicion?Zemalac said:
The reason why I haven't presented mile long lists of historical data and analysis is because I assume anyone interested in responding to what im saying have a certain historical knowledge of the recent conflicts that the U.S have been engaged in for the last hundred years.
But if you want me to state examples, how about: World War 2, the korean war, the vietnam war, the gulf war, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
While responging to the japanese threat in WW2 can certainly be justified, the american involvement in the conflict in europe was just a case of meddling in other countries affairs. The korean war didn't solve much and it left the U.S with todays hostile tension and where america has to worry about nuclear capabilities in korea. Vietnam was again a case where the U.S stuck their nose into other peoples business and the results were just mindless slaughter with barely any benefits at all. The gulf war is yet again an example of meddling in other peoples affairs, the U.S had nothing to do with Kuwait. The list of downsides and pointlessness goes on and on.
If you want to argue that these actions where the U.S play world police HAVEN'T increased the tense relations between the U.S and the rest of the world, breeding anti-american feelings among a large group of people, then by all means, do present some arguments.
Perhaps you can produce a more intelligent analysis than the avarage: "They just hate amwerica because they're jealous."-theory which is not only plain wrong buthas been done to death already.
So you defend citizens for supporting their government when it acts in an oppressive manner against other countries? And you call my argument and cause "unintelligible". Good one...Housebroken Lunatic said:
One or several major terrorist attacks on U.S soil is what was bound to happen sooner or later. They are a direct result of american foreign policy in oppressing other countries that they america doesn't have anything to do with in the first place.Housebroken Lunatic said:
"Them towelheads" might not have felt very compelled to run airplanes into buildings if they haven't had to suffer indiscriminate bombings of U.S aircraft engaged in a conflict the U.S had nothing to do with from the beginning.
It is well motivated, it is based on analysis of very real historical facts.Housebroken Lunatic said:
As for rage, im as calm as a hindu cow. You're reading way too much into it if you believe im angry in any sort of way.
Im not angry, im just arrogant.
If that's the case, then it speaks more of you than it does of me. I guess prejudice can be a powerful motivator to make people shut their ears.Housebroken Lunatic said:
The truth is obnoxious, and I for one won't sugarcoat it for you or anyone else. Grow tougher if you can't take the "tone" of what im saying...Housebroken Lunatic said:
No, im not going to stop being arrogant when there are so many good reasons for me to be arrogant.Swollen Goat said:
Yes im telling you how bad you are for being militaristic, because there is a huge difference in rebelling against a government that abuse it's power and bullying third world countries. As the addage goes: "people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the governmetn should be afraid of it's people."
But in the U.S the government clearly has nothing to fear. In the U.S the government has the people's silent consent in whatever it does.
As for adressing Sweden:
Sweden wasn't involved in the conflict with germany, hence there was no reason to actively oppose them at the time. The Swedish government did what was best by keeping it's people out of warfare. War should always be a last resort, clearly the Swedish government at the time took this to heart.
As for burning Jews, you have to understand that this wasn't discovered until after germany had been defeated. And also if you believe that the allied forces opposed germany because they sent Jews to deathcamps then you are very naive. The extermination of Jews wasn't the main issue that other countries had with germany, and even if it was common knowledge, neither france, britain, the U.S, Sweden or any other country for that matter would have cared in the slightest. The issue with germany was that the nazi's picked fights with other countries and set itself on a path of conquest and domination.
So if you're gonna belittle Sweden for not opposing germany when they burned jews, then you can belittle all other countries in the world as well. They didn't give a shit about the jews really, it was just an awful discovery after the war had ended.
But if we're gonna talk humanitarianism here, did you know that Sweden supplied the larger part of humanitarian aid (even for the jews) after the war? Did you know that due to the fact that Sweden still had it's factories and industry intact it provided invaluable help in rebuilding the rest of war torn europe?
There, I have adressed your "issues" with Sweden. And frankly, I don't see how the Swedish government did anything bad at the time. It was not their fight and they knew to stay out of it. Unlike the U.S which actively seek out fights all the time to butt into...
haha! Im no wannabe intellectual. Intelligence comes with some severe drawbacks. Given a choice I'd rather be stupid, since it would make me less painfully aware of the state of things.Shaoken said:
Would you like some cheese with that w(h)ine? : )Shaoken said:
Ehh ya sorry I didn't see the 3 other posts until after I had quoted.Seldon2639 said:
And ya you are right, even as we speak I'm pretty shure our conservative government is in the process of being toppled by Liberals/NDP/Bloc. But still, in 2004, the vote fell roughly:
Liberal-30%
Conservative-30%
NDP-12%
Bloc-14%
Green(enviromentalist party)-4%
12/14 are legit amounts I would say
I agree. But, I would wager that if we Americans had a proportional representation, rather than a winner-take-all representation, we would have more by way of "third parties". But, given that in any conceivable system, you need a majority, you'd still find the "third" parties aligning with the "first" parties in order to get things done. It would allow people to "vote" third party and have it "count", but it wouldn't change (I assert) the makeup of the legislature itself.TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
Nader voters would vote for his whacked out party, but those legislators would end up supporting the "Democratic" party anyway. NARAL could be its own party, but those legislators would end up as part of the "Democratic" party itself. That's mostly my issue. I don't find more than a semantic difference between the American system and any "multi-party" system given that the like-minded parties will always congregate together for more power.