Things you'd like to see changed in America

[Legion]

There needs to be less of a divide in relation to politics and in general. There is too much divide and segregation:

Politics with the whole Liberals and Conservatives - I don't mean the politicians but the followers, it shouldn't matter what someone's political views are as badly as it seems to.

Cliques - In schools it seems to be encouraged for there to be the Jocks, Cheerleaders, Goths, Preps and so on, it just further separates people when being in a 'group' is encouraged.

More world conscious - Everyone in the UK knows about 9/11, how many US people know about 7/7?

Get rid of (or at least reduce) the religious influence on your politics. Seriously.

I agree. Religion should be respected, but has no place in government or politics.

 

[Lord George]

The UK has 3, Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats, with power switching around every so often, there's also about 20 minor parties that hold the odd bit of power (like the green party or the BNP). It all works out well and we function as a democracy.

I accept the existence of different parties (with a small p), but I question the existence of three major "Parties" (big p) in any country. Even in England, the reality of the situation is the formation of ruling coalitions of at least fairly like-minded individuals. It's more fluid, which can be both good and bad, but from what I've seen it works like this:

One party gains power in an election, the out parties then rally together to form a coalition government and topple the previous regime. The new regime becomes part and parcel of the major party that led it, before itself falling to another coalitional government. Japan is experiencing the same thing with the fall of the LDP

Well at the moment, all the parties dislike each other too much to form any alliances (well mostly no-one likes the conservatives, due to David Cameron being a slimly bastard) and the power does shift from each of them, the main advantage to it really is the choice it offers the public, unlike in America where it seems to be either far left or far right (Well thats how it appears to an outsider), also our system does offer more chance for minor political parties to gain power and rise up if there good enough with there having been quite a lot of changing around of power in the last 100 years or so (parties meld, fall apart, split ect), whereas I get the impression from the American media and shows that politics is pretty closed off if your not for either of the two big parties which appear to be either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Mostly the reason we couldn't have two big parties is the British mindset, we don't have this whole fiery devotion to a party and are quite ambivalent as to who we vote for, usually voting for whoever will give the most funding here or the least tax hike there. Its not quite as big or as emotional affair as it is in America.

 

[ItsMelvin85]

No more fucking Christians...There I said it.

 

[JimmerDunda]

Get rid of their nukes so that they can use that money and feed the world.

Sir I wish not to question your intellect but who on earth might you suggest is gonna buy all these nukes?

A more proper strategy would be, stop spending the yearly budget on the military and take all that money and feed and clothe the poor.

You already have the right to bear arms, no country is going to try invading you because it would be impossible to pacify a population where pretty much everyone is packing heat.

Quite simply, America doesn't really need a military force. All that money being spent on stealth bombers, Nimitz class carriers, nukes, firerarms humvees etc. etc. is money wasted...

Ok you are asking a country to give up its military superpower to help the poor, we already provide the most aid out of any country in the world.

If you are gonna point fingers lets not forget France, UK, and Russia. These three countries have a very large stock pile of nukes. Russia has more nukes than anyone and alot of their people are suffering.

But hey lets be jealous and pick on the stronger country that tries to get things accomplished.

USA is a very powerful country but just like any other country, they have to keep their interests first.

Also do I own a gun? no. My dad owns some hunting rifles, and I believe very few to little people in my neighborhood own an assault rifle or pistol. Stop stereotyping to countries you don't know anything about.

 

[Eleuthera]

That's still my question, though. Three smaller groups formed together in order to create a coalition and win control of parliament. If that union remains, eventually those elements within the coalition will be "interest groups" part of the "party". I see the line as fuzzy, honestly. We think of America as having "two parties" while ignoring the plethora (and I do mean overabundance) of influencing parties within the big tent of "Democrat" and "Republican".

As things stand now in the Netherlands though, the chance of those three forming a greater party are pretty much nil. We used to have 3 large parties and a spattering of smaller ones, the last few years (10-15 years) more and more smaller parties are showing up.

The last few coalitions didn't pull those parties any closer together, more likely enhanced the differences. Now it's 2 christian and a socialist party, before this it was christian and liberal and before that liberal and socialist (liberal in the economic context). The current third party is actually the Socialist Party, but the ruling "socialists" refuse to work with them (we could have had a red-green coalition forcing me to emigrate, luckily the socialists (social democrats) don't like the socialists (formerly communist party)).

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Ok you are asking a country to give up its military superpower to help the poor, we already provide the most aid out of any country in the world.

If you are gonna point fingers lets not forget France, UK, and Russia. These three countries have a very large stock pile of nukes. Russia has more nukes than anyone and alot of their people are suffering.

But hey lets be jealous and pick on the stronger country that tries to get things accomplished.

USA is a very powerful country but just like any other country, they have to keep their interests first.

You have poor people in your own country already! How about taking care of them first before spending yet another gazillion dollars on building the next superweapon?

And also, im not jealous. In fact my country is pretty much doing the same thing im saying that the U.S could do. We don't have an offensive military force over here, in fact our military might is a joke, most people over here consider giving it up altogether mainly because we don't have the need for one.

And frankly, how the hell are you "keeping to your interests" by sending armed troops to countries that have nothing to do with you in the first place?

Im not saying that anyone should put a stop to giving aid if that's what they want to do, what im saying is that the military forces of the U.S don't serve a "defence" purpose at all. You're not "defending" your borders by intervening in military conflicts of other countries, you're butting in where nobody wants you to be in the first place.

If it's not your fight, how about staying the fuck out rather than butting in? The rest of the world hates you for butting in. Not because they are jealous, or because Bush is the devil, but because you butt in where nobody wants you. Now the Russians aren't innocent of those crimes either, but really if you just for once waved the white flag, pulled all the troops out and kept to your own borders, why would anyone have a reason for attacking your homeland?

If you just learned to keep to yourselves, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If your idiot government had learned not to send it's military might to bomb the hell out of countries where "all them brown people live" who don't even present a real threat to you, then you wouldn't have to deal with terrorists and their bullshit.

If your government just pulled out, and said: "Sorry lads, but we're out. We don't want anything to do with your military conflicts anymore. You're on your own. We can trade with you or provide a safe haven for some civilian refugees, but we're not gonna use any military unless you threaten our home borders. Good day, and excuse the mess." to all american allies and enemies alike, things would change. Sure some nations would carry a grudge because the memory of american bombers destroying civilian homes would still be a bit fresh, but overall the anti-american feelings would pass.

And frankly what would you prefer to be looked upon as?

Possibly callous and indifferent towards the rest of the world and it's conflicts, but a land that keeps to itself.

Or

That fucktard who always shows up in conflicts no one really wanted him to show up in in the first place.

It's blatantly obvious. Neutrality and military isolationism is the way to go.

And no, the existence of nukes does not warrant this gross intrusion. Yes other countries have nukes, but anyone can understand that if one of those nukes are fired we're all dead, so no one's going to do it anyway...

 

[Booze Zombie]

The demonization of Communism?

 

[Seldon2639]

Well at the moment, all the parties dislike each other too much to form any alliances (well mostly no-one likes the conservatives, due to David Cameron being a slimly bastard) and the power does shift from each of them, the main advantage to it really is the choice it offers the public, unlike in America where it seems to be either far left or far right (Well thats how it appears to an outsider), also our system does offer more chance for minor political parties to gain power and rise up if there good enough with there having been quite a lot of changing around of power in the last 100 years or so (parties meld, fall apart, split ect), whereas I get the impression from the American media and shows that politics is pretty closed off if your not for either of the two big parties which appear to be either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Mostly the reason we couldn't have two big parties is the British mindset, we don't have this whole fiery devotion to a party and are quite ambivalent as to who we vote for, usually voting for whoever will give the most funding here or the least tax hike there. Its not quite as big or as emotional affair as it is in America.

While there have been fewer major party shifts (at least in name) in the last hundred years, the groups within those parties have changed dramatically. The Democratic party in the early 20th century was the party of the south, of states' rights, of federal non-intrusion. Then FDR came along, and Democrats became champions of the poor, of minorities, and supporters of government influence in our lives. Republicans (under Teddy Roosevelt) were the first big proponents of conservationism, of getting rid of monopolies.

The difference, I believe, is that we shift parties without shifting names, rather than the reverse.

 

[ace_of_something]

I would like to change it so there's more sandy beaches.... somehow.

 

[Bediz]

Americans don't like change! That's part of what makes us American! We don't take kindly to changes to our country...

[http://img267.imageshack.us/i/300pxbanditkeith.png/]

...IN AMERICA!

(/s)

 

[Legion]

*snip*

Very well said. I would say the UK should do the same but the only reason the UK got involved is because Tony Blair was sucking up to George Bush at the time.

 

[TheMatt]

crazy fascist baptist whatevers running your country.

Jesus this, Jesus that.... leave Jesus alone, he's busy preparing for the rapture.

For the record, the world is not 5000 years old...

 

[ace_of_something]

2) Football uses feet, American Football uses hands and is similar to rugby, therefore American Rugby.

I'll be honest here and say I'm not 100% understanding with how Rugby works. But

Have you ever seen a field goal in american football? You kick the ball a very far distance. Or a punt? Where the ball is kicked?

If all games followed that naming convention basketball would also be handball. Hell baseball could be hand, glove, or bat ball. It's just a coincidence that the two sports are named the same. Also, I have no idea where 'soccer' comes from that's for sure.

Though I do like the name "hand egg"

 

[JimmerDunda]

Ok you are asking a country to give up its military superpower to help the poor, we already provide the most aid out of any country in the world.

If you are gonna point fingers lets not forget France, UK, and Russia. These three countries have a very large stock pile of nukes. Russia has more nukes than anyone and alot of their people are suffering.

But hey lets be jealous and pick on the stronger country that tries to get things accomplished.

USA is a very powerful country but just like any other country, they have to keep their interests first.

You have poor people in your own country already! How about taking care of them first before spending yet another gazillion dollars on building the next superweapon?

And also, im not jealous. In fact my country is pretty much doing the same thing im saying that the U.S could do. We don't have an offensive military force over here, in fact our military might is a joke, most people over here consider giving it up altogether mainly because we don't have the need for one.

And frankly, how the hell are you "keeping to your interests" by sending armed troops to countries that have nothing to do with you in the first place?

Im not saying that anyone should put a stop to giving aid if that's what they want to do, what im saying is that the military forces of the U.S don't serve a "defence" purpose at all. You're not "defending" your borders by intervening in military conflicts of other countries, you're butting in where nobody wants you to be in the first place.

If it's not your fight, how about staying the fuck out rather than butting in? The rest of the world hates you for butting in. Not because they are jealous, or because Bush is the devil, but because you butt in where nobody wants you. Now the Russians aren't innocent of those crimes either, but really if you just for once waved the white flag, pulled all the troops out and kept to your own borders, why would anyone have a reason for attacking your homeland?

If you just learned to keep to yourselves, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If your idiot government had learned not to send it's military might to bomb the hell out of countries where "all them brown people live" who don't even present a real threat to you, then you wouldn't have to deal with terrorists and their bullshit.

If your government just pulled out, and said: "Sorry lads, but we're out. We don't want anything to do with your military conflicts anymore. You're on your own. We can trade with you or provide a safe haven for some civilian refugees, but we're not gonna use any military unless you threaten our home borders. Good day, and excuse the mess." to all american allies and enemies alike, things would change. Sure some nations would carry a grudge because the memory of american bombers destroying civilian homes would still be a bit fresh, but overall the anti-american feelings would pass.

And frankly what would you prefer to be looked upon as?

Possibly callous and indifferent towards the rest of the world and it's conflicts, but a land that keeps to itself.

Or

That fucktard who always shows up in conflicts no one really wanted him to show up in in the first place.

It's blatantly obvious. Neutrality and military isolationism is the way to go.

And no, the existence of nukes does not warrant this gross intrusion. Yes other countries have nukes, but anyone can understand that if one of those nukes are fired we're all dead, so no one's going to do it anyway...

With a military that is always as strong as ours, we will always be in conflict because everyone wants our God damn help. Countries in the middle east like Kuwait and more west like Israel always need our help and support. Just packing it up and defending our own borders isn't exactly an option that will flow well with those countries, in which we send aid and military support. Especially to kuwait who needs our support the most.

Also who do think you think joins the military? Also alot of the lower income people join the military and in return gain a large amount of paid school and finance stability for their service. Stop bashing the large super power just because we are.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Very well said. I would say the UK should do the same but the only reason the UK got involved is because Tony Blair was sucking up to George Bush at the time.

Yeah, most countries have done some serious sucking up at one time or another, even my own. But nowadays, the only real military efforts made by my country is peacekeeping efforts with the U.N (like sending troops who safeguard refugee camps in conflict ridden countries and providing safety for international doctors and medics to practice medicine and such).

My country has been at peace with the rest of the world for nearly 200 years now, and how? Why through neutrality and refusing to take part in conflicts that didn't involve them directly of course!

Of course, this have meant that the government had to bend a little to the will of other dominating super powers. Like giving german troops safe passage into norway during WW2. Not the proudest moment, but it kept us out of war. But the thing is, no country would have to bend to another if all countries just remained neutral and isolated themselves as much as possible, instead of constantly fucking with eachother and trying to conquer one another...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

With a military that is always as strong as ours, we will always be in conflict because everyone wants our God damn help. Countries in the middle east like Kuwait and more west like Israel always need our help and support. Just packing it up and defending our own borders isn't exactly an option that will flow well with those countries, in which we send aid and military support. Especially to kuwait who needs our support the most.

But really, what are Israel or Kuwait gonna do about it? If you just packed up and left them to the mess they dragged upon themselves, what are they gonna do? Declare war on the U.S?

-"Oh we're already involved in quite a mess here, and those bastard americans refuse to help us. I think we should go to war with them as well, because they refuse to help us. That will solve the problem!"

Not bloody likely. If they're so busy fighting another enemy, they haven't got the resources to fight the U.S simply for leaving them to their own demise. Let them sort their own problems out. If you want to help them for real, then send doctors, food and give safe passage to refugees and non-combatants. You can't solve their military issues, no matter how many troops you send. It just draws you into a conflict that nobody really wants you to be in in the first place.

It's so embarassingly obvious but your government is simply too retarded to get that.

Also who do think you think joins the military? Also alot of the lower income people join the military and in return gain a large amount of paid school and finance stability for their service. Stop bashing the large super power just because we are.

So what you're saying is that the military is worth supporting because it can provide income and education to some people, but at the cost of killing people just to serve some sort of purpose? How about just take all those ridiculously large amounts of resources spent on the military and perhaps expand the quality of public education? Or why not create more governmental employment opportunities?

I don't have to "bash" your so called super-power. It takes barely any effort at all pointing out the flawed logic which it uses. Quite simply: it makes itself look stupid. There's no need for real bashing.

Or perhaps presenting pure facts constitutes as bashing nowadays? : )

 

[Uncompetative]

Get rid of all the Americans.

The Sioux, Blackfoot, Cherokee, Comanche, Apache, Navajo, Mohawk, Hopi, etc. can all stay...

Better for the Global Economy, World Peace and the Environment.