America - The Official Thread

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian,

Your post boils down to a few things


1) The misunderstanding (yet again) that I would want to get rid of ALL taxes, that I think ALL taxes are somehow theft.
2) That rich people are less entitled to their earnings simply because of the contents of their bank account.
3) That citizens of America have a moral obligation to support each other.
4) The misunderstanding the sales tax is regressive
5) That people choose to live in America and so they voluntarily submit to redistribution of wealth.
6) A misunderstanding about what rights are.


Almost all of the rest of your post (which actually isn’t much after you take those 5 things) is constructed simply to try to retort rather than to further the discussion. I’ll give you an example:



What kind of a response is this? Honestly. Are you really trying to advance the conversation here? Or are you just looking for a quick “out” to make it appear that you’ve answered the question.

That's right...

The above does not address my question, it doesn’t even pretend to address my question. It simply brushes the question aside as though it is inconsequential or nonsensical.

That's because I believe it to be (to use your own words) a nonsensical question. Why would anyone stop to ask "why should someone be helped?" Do you really believe assistance is just a veiled form of coercion?

Here’s another example:



…as though I wasn’t speaking philosophically, you simply brush the notion aside. “Let us all be slaves, working for what I consider the greater good” you say. I say America is free.

Nice try twisting my words. I never said, "What I consider the greater good" (that would be arrogant)... I said "what IS considered the greater good."

Also, of course America is free -- though, apparently not free enough for you since you consider yourself a slave. As I said before, this is just a matter of irreconcilable differences and there's nothing wrong with that.

Anyway I’m not going to respond to all of that – since you didn’t really respond to me in the first place.

Fair enough.

Now on to the 6 points above.
1) Quite simple here. I have told you many times (yet you continue to forget, perhaps on purpose) that I do not consider all taxes to be theft.

I know you are not opposed to ALL forms of taxation.

I say “Redistribution of wealth is bad.”

You say “Government programs are bad?? Do you think the military is bad?”

I say “ that’s not what I said.”

Here’s an example of this misunderstanding.

You know very well I’m talking about the redistribution of wealth, not the military or the police or the roads.

Moving on…

Fine. I'll stick to ROW.

Your argument seems to stem from the notion that if we eliminate ROW policies private charity will become increasingly available, and though the poor will be forced to pull their own weight in the economy, new jobs will be created since corporations are no longer forced to provide a minimum wage etc. etc. Fine. Let's start with that.

My argument: That could be true to some extent. Some people will benefit from private charity... some people, under pressure, will pull their own weight in the economy... some people will find jobs... and many people will be worse off than they were before. At what point do the benefits outweight the costs?

2) You fundamentally think that it is right to charge someone more money if they can afford it.

Income tax. Luxury tax. Inheritence tax. Apparently I'm not alone.

I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s absurd.

See above.

Just because people have more money than they “need” (which is a huge percentage of the US population) you think it is right that some of that money should be taken to provide for those who do not have what they “need”.

Welfare, social security. Apparently I'm not alone.

You know by now that money (in America) is created rather than taken from others. So you know that the rich did not take their earnings from the poor (except in your misguided sales tax concept which I’ll address later). So you wish to put need as the principle motivation behind who gets what earnings.

That is incorrect. I believe need is a factor, not the principle motivation.

To do that places need at the forefront of things that earn money. More need = more money. That’s the way to build a collapsing society. Productivity is what should be rewarded, that’s the way to build a society that grows and prospers.

I agree. You misunderstood what I was trying to say... hopefully the above cleared that up. I understand that productivity is what should be rewarded in order for an economy to grow and prosper. In my opinion, though, it should not be at the expense of those who cannot be productive (whether temporarily or permanently). I believe it is possible to reward productivity and assist those in need at the same time -- the situations are not mutually exclusive.

I don’t want ANYONE to be responsible for me. I find it unacceptable that someone might feel responsible for my well being. Leave it to me.

Well I'm glad you feel that way! Not everyone has that luxury. I probably wouldn't be in school right now if it were "left up to me".

That is America, Brian. That is freedom. The freedom to succeed or fail on your own steam. That’s what makes this country prosperous and great. That’s why our economy flourishes. To hold me responsible for someone else’s life is quite simply wrong.

3) I rambled into three as part of 2.

If people [in general] did not feel a moral obligation to support each other, then why do we still have ROW programs?

How would you rate the economies of the following countries:

• Denmark
• Sweden
• France
• Germany
• Belgium
• Switzerland
• Austria
• Somalia
• Finland
• Italy
• Norway
• UK

5) What if the law were to slaughter all Jewish people? What if they were given a year to leave and then all Jewish people left would be slaughtered? Does that make it ok to kill the ones who stay behind? They stayed voluntarily, we gave them a chance to leave. That makes it ok for us to commit a crime against them.

It’s preposterous.

I agree. However:

If protecting freedom is suppose to be the top priority of the government, at what costs? By telling me that redistribution of wealth is wrong and it should be eliminated in the name of freedom, you've just described a transaction (trading some socioeconomic security for some socioeconomic freedom). That's all fine and good; however, every transaction has a cost and a benefit. While you're pretty clear about the benefits of this transaction, I haven't heard any mention of the costs. Who stands to lose the most in the event any ROW programs were to suddenly be eliminated? Who gains the most?

Wow. You haven't changed one bit. Your idea of "rights", "moral obligations", "progressive", "regressive", and in fact your whole vision of a perfect society frankly terrify me.

What's so terrifying about social security in a capitalist economy? Where the market fails, the government is there to help... it's that simple. Technically, if you live in the US (or any of the aforementioned countries except Somalia for that matter), you are living in what I would consider to be a perfect society (or as close to one can get to perfect); so if the US is such a scary place, why would anyone want to live here in the first place?

 

[Danoff]

If people [in general] did not feel a moral obligation to support each other, then why do we still have ROW programs?

How would you rate the economies of the following countries:

• Denmark
• Sweden
• France
• Germany
• Belgium
• Switzerland
• Austria
• Somalia
• Finland
• Italy
• Norway
• UK

If this is your argument... that other people think it's a good idea so it must be. Then you're basically giving up. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a winning rebuttle.

But I'll tell you why everyone else is doing it. Because rich people are in the minority and it is possible for the majority to make it legal to take their money for themselves - so they do.

If protecting freedom is suppose to be the top priority of the government, at what costs? By telling me that redistribution of wealth is wrong and it should be eliminated in the name of freedom, you've just described a transaction (trading some socioeconomic security for some socioeconomic freedom). That's all fine and good; however, every transaction has a cost and a benefit. While you're pretty clear about the benefits of this transaction, I haven't heard any mention of the costs. Who stands to lose the most in the event any ROW programs were to suddenly be eliminated? Who gains the most?

That's just what I've been trying to say. There is no cost-benefits to this. It's simply wrong. The cost of keeping it as it is is immorality. The benefit of fixing it is morality and fairness. That's it. I don't care who gains and who loses, I care only about making the system moral and fair.

 

[HugeF1]

As I am new here, I feel I have to be careful (I got flamed for saying hello).
I know many of you will assume that cos, I am british, I am against the war and the US government and you'd are right, I AM against those things. A lot of people outside the US, see the government as nothing but a lot of bullies, invading countries where they will gain the most credit/least loss of life etc. Every country has a right to run itself in it's own way and although the general idea of getting rid of despotic leaders is good, the way the US seems to pick and choose who it targets is weird, but understandable. First of all you could say that every county that doesn't have a president, a constitution or a Congress, is so different from their way of giverning, then they should be stopped. This is a generalisation, but the point I'm trying to make is Why did the US attack Iraq? Was it to do with the attacks on the US? Nope, None of the hijakers came from Iraq. Was it to do with WMD's? Nope, they couldn't prove it 100% Was it to get rid of Mr Hussain? Possibly, he was a nasty man and killed a lot of his own people, However the same could be said for Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe and I don't see GWB about to invade there. Was it to do with oil? Most likely, Iraq has huge oilfields and if the US got those then it would be laughing. These are just my opinions and if you have sensible arguments against them feel free to do so.

 

[Solid Fro]

Do we have to go over this AGAIN?

We know why the US went to war, were you sleeping when it was decided? It wasn't a big secret. If it was for oil, then why am I still paying $3.00 for a gallon?

Read 1441.

 

[ledhed]

War ..rant war...get over it .

 

[Danoff]

... However the same could be said for Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe and I don't see GWB about to invade there. Was it to do with oil? Most likely, Iraq has huge oilfields and if the US got those then it would be laughing. These are just my opinions and if you have sensible arguments against them feel free to do so.

Read the thread.


Democracy in Zimbabwe wouldn't deter terrorists like one in Iraq. Zimbabwe didn't violate any terms of any cease fire agreement we had after our last war with Zimbabwe.

Here's the deal (I'm repeating myself yet again so you don't have to go read this thread). We went to war with Iraq the first time (rightly so) and came to an agreement with Iraq for the end of hostilities. They violated that agreement, so we're justified in going right back to war with them (for whatever reasons we want). Our reason for going to war with them is just as our president has stated. I can't imagine how we would take their oil, how we would get it here, or how it makes any major difference to us.

We're there to spread democracy in a region that's hostile to us. That's it.

 

[HugeF1]

If it wasn't for oil what was it? Pride? Machismo? GWB wanted a sandpit? It was NOT becasue of WMDs, because there WEREN'T any.

Danoff, having Iraqi oil would be a HUGE benefit in saving money, and you've obvously never heard of oil tankers or pipelines.

Ledhed and Viper, you've all expressed your own opinions so why can't I?
I hope you never ever have to go through what the Iraai people have had to go through at the hands of US troops. but you don;t seem to give a monkey's about that.

 

[Swift]

If it wasn't for oil what was it? Pride? Machismo? GWB wanted a sandpit? It was NOT becasue of WMDs, because there WEREN'T any.

Danoff, having Iraqi oil would be a HUGE benefit in saving money, and you've obvously never heard of oil tankers or pipelines.

Ledhed and Viper, you've all expressed your own opinions so why can't I?
I hope you never ever have to go through what the Iraai people have had to go through at the hands of US troops. but you don;t seem to give a monkey's about that.

The point is that Iraq was in direct violation of their terms of the surrender and the US and Great Britain were the only countries with the guts to enforce it. I'm not going to claim that there is no possibility for other motives. But just like Lincoln in the civil war, his main purpose was to reunite the union. Free the slaves was a nice side effect.

 

[Danoff]

If it wasn't for oil what was it? Pride? Machismo? GWB wanted a sandpit? It was NOT becasue of WMDs, because there WEREN'T any.

Have you never heard president Bush speak? It was to bring democracy to the middle east in hopes of preventing another major terrorist attack.

Danoff, having Iraqi oil would be a HUGE benefit in saving money, and you've obvously never heard of oil tankers or pipelines.

I see, so the US government is just going to tank all that oil away huh? Or are we going to give it to a major US oil company. Which one I wonder would we give it to? Have you heard of us doing this? Do you have evidence that we have done it? Why are the US gas prices so high if we're stealing Iraqi oil?

This argument makes ZERO sense. Zero.

The truly sad part about it though is that even if it were the motivation, we'd still have been justified in going in by the violation of our cease fire.

..but I've explained the whole thing before. In this thread no less.

Ledhed and Viper, you've all expressed your own opinions so why can't I?
I hope you never ever have to go through what the Iraai people have had to go through at the hands of US troops. but you don;t seem to give a monkey's about that.

You should feel free to express your opinions here, but you'll get flamed if your opinions aren't well grounded.

I hope you never have to go through what the Iraqi people went through at the hands of Saddam.

 

[FoolKiller]

I hope you never ever have to go through what the Iraai people have had to go through at the hands of US troops. but you don;t seem to give a monkey's about that.

Yet 80% of them support the US. Perhaps they don't like Syrian, Iranian, and Jordanian extremists blowing up bombs in their streets while the US is trying to help them?

 

[ledhed]

If it wasn't for oil what was it? Pride? Machismo? GWB wanted a sandpit? It was NOT becasue of WMDs, because there WEREN'T any.

Danoff, having Iraqi oil would be a HUGE benefit in saving money, and you've obvously never heard of oil tankers or pipelines.

Ledhed and Viper, you've all expressed your own opinions so why can't I?
I hope you never ever have to go through what the Iraai people have had to go through at the hands of US troops. but you don;t seem to give a monkey's about that.

Expess yourself to death . The war is going on for two years and STILL complaints about how it started ? Whats going to happen ? Ooops didnt mean to invade Saddam here's your s***t back ? Whats the point ? were's that picture of the dead horse being bludgeoned ?

Post something new instead of the same tired arguments ...like ...and here's a funny one ...what should be done NOW . You know since a new government has been formed and the people of Iraq have actually VOTED in a government and are creating a constitution . What now ...not ...what then .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If this is your argument... that other people think it's a good idea so it must be. Then you're basically giving up. "Everyone else is doing it" is not a winning rebuttle.

That is not my argument. I was simply asking a question. Now, however, I am going to make a statement:

Though the rich are a minority, they still have the money to lobby congress, pay PACs etc... it's not as though they are underrepresented...

But I'll tell you why everyone else is doing it. Because rich people are in the minority and it is possible for the majority to make it legal to take their money for themselves - so they do.

So you would prefer it to be the other way around then...

Either make the rich the majority (by eliminating the poor) or eliminate the majority vote to make it easier for the rich to implement policies that would benefit them? Those are the only 2 ways I can see that ever reversing. Do you have any other suggestions?

That's just what I've been trying to say. There is no cost-benefits to this. It's simply wrong. The cost of keeping it as it is is immorality. The benefit of fixing it is morality and fairness. That's it. I don't care who gains and who loses, I care only about making the system moral and fair.

That, Dan (and Duke if he's reading this) is what scares me about your philosophy.

First of all, regardless of what kind of transaction it is -- there is always a cost and a benefit.

Second of all, you named the cost of keeping the status quo. What are the benefits? You named the benefits of fixing the system. What are the costs?

One cannot make an informed decision based on limited information. Don't you think it would be fair to let someone else decide whether or not fixing the system would be the right thing to do by showing them both the pros and the cons?

 

[Danoff]

Though the rich are a minority, they still have the money to lobby congress, pay PACs etc... it's not as though they are underrepresented...

YAWN. Companies are not underrepresented, I'm talking about individuals.

So you would prefer it to be the other way around then...

Would I prefer everyone to be rich? Of course! But you know what? Pretty much everyone IS rich - compared to how Americans lived 100 years ago.

Either make the rich the majority (by eliminating the poor) or eliminate the majority vote to make it easier for the rich to implement policies that would benefit them? Those are the only 2 ways I can see that ever reversing. Do you have any other suggestions?

This is my problem with your line of thinking - you think you can just jump in and decide who gets what and who deserves what. That's WRONG. That's immoral. You can't play God here. Here's my suggestion, make the system FAIR . For everyone. That means people get the money they earn.

First of all, regardless of what kind of transaction it is -- there is always a cost and a benefit.

Second of all, you named the cost of keeping the status quo. What are the benefits? You named the benefits of fixing the system. What are the costs?

One cannot make an informed decision based on limited information. Don't you think it would be fair to let someone else decide whether or not fixing the system would be the right thing to do by showing them both the pros and the cons?

It doesn't matter what the costs or the benefits are. Any cost or benefit is completely beside the issue - which is morality. If our country could get trillions and trillions of dollars overnight, and all we had to do was shoot one innocent man... it wouldn't be worth it. That's what I'm talking about.

The benefits can be HUGE.
The costs can be miniscule.
But you can't compromise your morality.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

YAWN. Companies are not underrepresented, I'm talking about individuals.

So was I.

Would I prefer everyone to be rich? Of course! But you know what? Pretty much everyone IS rich - compared to how Americans lived 100 years ago.

Thanks to the ROW.

Here's my suggestion, make the system FAIR . For everyone. That means people get the money they earn.

...minus fees for police, military, roads etc...

Anyway, how would you implement that? Is inheritance considered earned as well?

It doesn't matter what the costs or the benefits are. Any cost or benefit is completely beside the issue - which is morality.

Who's morality?

If our country could get trillions and trillions of dollars overnight, and all we had to do was shoot one innocent man... it wouldn't be worth it. That's what I'm talking about.

The benefits can be HUGE.
The costs can be miniscule.
But you can't compromise your morality.

Nice try.

What if in this situation, the benefits happen to be miniscule and the costs tremendous? Then would you compromise your morality?

 

[Danoff]

So was I.

Then you're way off base.

Thanks to the ROW.

Uh no. Thanks to capitalism. Do you honestly believe that ROW programs are responsible for the improved quality of life? Are they the reason dishwashers are cheap? Or the reason computers, internet, food, and clothing is cheap? Are they the reason we have better medicine?

You meant, "thanks to innovation".

...minus fees for police, military, roads etc... Anyway, how would you implement that? Is inheritance considered earned as well?

Fair including police, military and some roads. Inheritance is earned. It is the property of the person who wills it - they own it... and should be able to give it to whomever they wish.

Who's morality?

Objective, logical morality.

Nice try.

What if in this situation, the benefits happen to be miniscule and the costs tremendous? Then would you compromise your morality?

So you mean if everyone in America would receive a penny would I kill 5,000 innocent people? No.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Then you're way off base.

Not quite. Indivduals contribute to PACs and lobby all the time. The rich can and do influence politics.

Uh no. Thanks to capitalism. Do you honestly believe that ROW programs are responsible for the improved quality of life?

It's one factor, but I'm not naive enough to believe that capitalism alone is responsible for improved quality of life.

Are they the reason dishwashers are cheap? Or the reason computers, internet, food, and clothing is cheap? Are they the reason we have better medicine?

No, but it is the reason why more and more people are better able to afford dishwashers, computers, internet, food, clothing, and medicine.

You meant, "thanks to innovation".

Correct... and the redistribution of wealth.

Fair including police, military and some roads. Inheritance is earned. It is the property of the person who wills it - they own it... and should be able to give it to whomever they wish.

I knew you would say that. So someone who has never worked a day in their life and inherited $15 million is more deserving than someone who makes $15,000/year and needs some economic assistance?

Objective, logical morality.

Who determines what is objective and what is subjective? Who determines what is logical and what is illogical?

To me, inheritance is NOT earned because the person getting the money has done nothing to earn it.

So you mean if everyone in America would receive a penny would I kill 5,000 innocent people? No.

No, I mean if the rich got to keep all of their money but unemployment tripled, the percentage of people living below the poverty line increased 10-fold, crime increased, and in general, there was civil unrest/disorder throughout the country.

Then would you compromise your morality?????????????

 

[Danoff]

Not quite. Indivduals contribute to PACs and lobby all the time. The rich can and do influence politics.

Are we still talking about this? Is it a problem when private citizens contribute to campaigns?

It's one factor, but I'm not naive enough to believe that capitalism alone is responsible for improved quality of life.

Nice argument. Very well thought out and carefully constructed.

No, but it is the reason why more and more people are better able to afford dishwashers, computers, internet, food, clothing, and medicine.

Wrong. People are able to afford dishwashers because competition and innovation forced the prices down.

I knew you would say that. So someone who has never worked a day in their life and inherited $15 million is more deserving than someone who makes $15,000/year and needs some economic assistance?

I didn't say they were more deserving. What does that have to do with it? How does my opinion of whether they deserve the money have ANYTHING to do with it?

Who determines what is objective and what is subjective? Who determines what is logical and what is illogical?

I outlined how this works in the libertarian thread.

To me, inheritance is NOT earned because the person getting the money has done nothing to earn it.

I didn't say that it was earned by the person getting the money. It was earned by the person who MADE the money in the first place. That person then OWNS the money. You are familiar with the concept of ownership right? The person who owns property can then decide to give it to whomever he/she wants. That makes sense to you doesn't it?

No, I mean if the rich got to keep all of their money but unemployment tripled, the percentage of people living below the poverty line increased 10-fold, crime increased, and in general, there was civil unrest/disorder throughout the country.

Then would you compromise your morality?????????????

No. I thought I covered that well earlier.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Are we still talking about this? Is it a problem when private citizens contribute to campaigns?

Not at all. I'm all for it. You made sound as though "only corporations" contribute to campaigns. Never mind.

Wrong. People are able to afford dishwashers because competition and innovation forced the prices down.

Even if you could buy a brand new Compaq Presario laptop computer with a 4 GHz processor 4 GB of RAM, a 512 MB video card etc. for $200 if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

I didn't say they were more deserving. What does that have to do with it? How does my opinion of whether they deserve the money have ANYTHING to do with it?

I just want to know.

I outlined how this works in the libertarian thread.

Searching...

I didn't say that it was earned by the person getting the money. It was earned by the person who MADE the money in the first place. That person then OWNS the money. You are familiar with the concept of ownership right? The person who owns property can then decide to give it to whomever he/she wants. That makes sense to you doesn't it?

OK, then. I hereby declare that when I die, my rabbit will inherit whatever stocks/bonds I own, and whatever cash I have.

Just because it makes sense, doesn't make it right.

No. I thought I covered that well earlier.

I'm not so sure about that one. I'll look anyway.

 

[Danoff]

Even if you could buy a brand new Compaq Presario laptop computer with a 4 GHz processor 4 GB of RAM, a 512 MB video card etc. for $200 if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

What's your point? More people can afford it.

OK, then. I hereby declare that when I die, my rabbit will inherit whatever stocks/bonds I own, and whatever cash I have.

Just because it makes sense, doesn't make it right.

You should be able to do that - stupid as it is. But your rabbit has no property rights so the money won't stay with the rabbit.

I'm not so sure about that one. I'll look anyway.

Look for the trillions of dollars example.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Rich Countries are meausured by their GNP , if that's the case China will own the rest of the world in 2025.

 

[Swift]

I've noticed an increasingly hostile attitude towards America. I can live with that. But this has carried over to the actual citizens. It seems that a lot of people that aren't from America think that we're all stupid, rich, fat, ignorant and just live in this world of ignorant bliss that is completely void of work or responsibility.

First, has anyone else noticed this and second, why do you think this stereotype is gaining such popularity among our international members?

 

[JacktheHat]

I've noticed an increasingly hostile attitude towards America. I can live with that. But this has carried over to the actual citizens. It seems that a lot of people that aren't from America think that we're all stupid, rich, fat, ignorant and just live in this world of ignorant bliss that is completely void of work or responsibility.

First, has anyone else noticed this and second, why do you think this stereotype is gaining such popularity among our international members?

Firstly - It's nothing knew.

Secondly - Because you (as a nation, not personally) perpetuate it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've noticed an increasingly hostile attitude towards America. I can live with that. But this has carried over to the actual citizens. It seems that a lot of people that aren't from America think that we're all stupid, rich, fat, ignorant and just live in this world of ignorant bliss that is completely void of work or responsibility.

First, has anyone else noticed this and second, why do you think this stereotype is gaining such popularity among our international members?

I have definitely noticed this, and not just here at GTP. I believe it is happening because, as some have said, that is how their media makes it appear. To top that off much of our own media is working hard at making us look that way. When you consider that many outspoken celebrities go around talking about how bad our country is and saying that they are ashamed to be from America it is no surprise that everyone else thinks Americans are that way. The only way we could make it appear more like that would be to stand up and scream, "We are a bunch of fat, stupid, greedy rednecks!"

When I was in college we would occasionally get exchange students and every one that I met had culture shock because they were expecting something different than what they actually found. They were surprised to find that only a few people had expensive over-priced cars, that people were allowed to openly insult the government, and they had yet to see anyone carrying a gun.

 

[Duke]

Firstly - It's nothing knew.

Secondly - Because you (as a nation, not personally) perpetuate it.

And there you have it in action. [sarcasm] Thanks for such a constructive and insightful post. [/sarcasm]

In fact, I'm taking a few days off from this place because this seemingly universal and mostly unsupported attitude has seriously lit my fuse.

 

[Swift]

Jackthehat - Stereotypical unthoughtout response

Foolkiller - Thank you for a response with some actual thought and examples behind it.

Jackthehat, have you ever been to the USA?

 

[JacktheHat]

Swift,

Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers.

What I stated is true.

People disliking the US and what it stands for is nothing new - you can't dispute that fact.

Now ask yourself where does the information that these people use to form this viewpoint come from?
Answer, the media. A large majority of that media being American. Therefore America is perpuating it's own stereotype.

It may not be sugar-coated but it's true.

 

[Swift]

Swift,

Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers.

What I stated is true.

People disliking the US and what it stands for is nothing new - you can't dispute that fact.

Now ask yourself where does the information that these people use to form this viewpoint come from?
Answer, the media. A large majority of that media being American. Therefore America is perpuating it's own stereotype.

It may not be sugar-coated but it's true.

And you can't answer a very simple question, "Have you been to the USA?" All that talking and you couldn't even put a yes or no in there huh?

 

[JacktheHat]

And you can't answer a very simple question, "Have you been to the USA?" All that talking and you couldn't even put a yes or no in there huh?

What difference does it make, Swift? It seems that you need to personalise everything, even though you ask broad-sweeping, generalised questions.

Try and keep it relevant.

 

[Swift]

What difference does it make, Swift? It seems that you need to personalise everything, even though you ask broad-sweeping, generalised questions.

Try and keep it relevant.

Did you NOT read Foolkiller's post? Stating that a lot of people have the wrong preconcieved notions about our country. Then they get here and are very surprised. So it makes all the difference. I don't judge Great Britain because I'VE NEVER BEEN THERE. So how can I look at the country and the people and say, "You're this or, your that" I can, but I dont' have anything backing me up except the biased media representations.

So, it's a very simple question. You've been doing your best to bash the USA, I'm just wondering if you've ever been here. So, have you?

 

[ledhed]

I live here and I think they are all fat lazy rednecks with guns ...but thats just the ones I locked in my basement...I cant speak for the ones that got away my dog could only eat a few at a time .