America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

That's different—the competition and rivalry is huge with grocery stores; it isn't with private schools. They care about a dollar, yes- but they care about reputation and prestige more, which they can preserve by charging an astronomical amount.

That's because the only private schools that are still existing are either on a mission or are the Rolls Royce of schools. Rolls Royce cares about reputation and prestige more than getting prices low because they know that's what their clients care about. The reason there aren't low-cost private schools is because there is no market for them. And the reason there is no market for them is because they have to compete with "free" schools (albeit crappy free schools).

Yes it does, quite frequently. There are something like 10 million kids who are fed through donations in America.

This seemingly purposefully ignores my point.

A bit late if one lost their job, eh?

Same deal with feeding your kids. When you have a kid, you have to provide for your kid, they're your responsibility. That's the only just way to do it.

...and since there isn't a mass quantity of private educations to choose from—nor will there be if it were instantaneously converted to a privatized system—what we're left with is religious schools, a couple hippie schools, and elitist ones.

The market will adjust to the demand. It's done so efficiently for centuries, I don't see why it would suddenly stop now.

I don't drive a car.

Again, totally ignoring my point. I don't care whether you drive a car, but the fact that you don't actually helps illustrate how you can avoid paying for the "necessity" gasoline. So gasoline is not as much a necessity as food.

Maybe not- but who's going to guarantee that level of education is provided? Government legislation?

Who does it under a socialist system? Who does it for food? I see no problem with having educationally malnourished children dealt with very similarly to actual malnourished children.

In America, yes. According to an educational survey done by the OECD, all nordic countries but Denmark (which scored below average) scored in the above average bracket (Canada being #2), with America 1 place above Denmark.

Just because they hamper their economy more than we do to prop up a doomed socialist system doesn't mean we should emulate them.

Not reason- reason and logic are based on ideals. To think that people 1- adhere to reason and logic is inherently illogical in itself; and that 2- the people running these 2 forms of business (subsidized vs. privatized)

Reason and logic are not based on ideals. Are you honestly claiming that reason and logic should be tossed out because they're not practical? Is it really your argument that socialism defies reason and logic but we should ignore that because the world isn't perfect? Seriously??

Your argument is that one (the "socialist" model) has the potential to be flawed, and in some (USA's) case, it is. My argument is that the other one ("capitalist" model) also has the potential to be flawed, and in our (Canada's) case, it is too.

Capitalism doesn't defy reason. Socialism does. It's actually that simple.

My point is that there are examples of other businesses of the same type (capitalist) that do gouge "customers" (*I wouldn't consider myself a customer if paying for education), and do exploit necessities for their own gain.

Give me these examples.

You say, "go elsewhere", "you have choices"—who's going to pay for an electric car with batteries that die in 8 years? Who's going to pay for an ethanol fuel vehicle with no ethanol service stations around? Who's going to pay for $1.10/litre gasoline? Oh wait- we all do because we have no practical choice.

Back to gasoline - an example which your own personal situation thwarts nicely. Are you really saying that there will be no practical private school choices? I know you like to pretend that there is a huge difference between 12th and 13th grade, but colleges are proving your statement above to be quite incorrect.

My final, underlying point of this all, was: Would you want to risk throwing away all subsidized options of education in favor of a privatized one?

"Risk" is not the term I'd use. I want to relish throwing away socialist education in favor of privatized education.

Or would you want both, with the option of choosing between either—after all, the government is their competition; wouldn't that be incentive enough to lower prices to become available to the less-than-middle-class?

Their competition uses a gun to get it's revenue, then gives it's product away. The only way that it's possible to compete with that is if the end product is so bad that it's not useful at all. Public schools have gotten to that stage in some parts of the US, but not enough to really spark a backlash. Still, private schools can and do compete. Just in a limited sense because of the presence of "free" institutions. Compounding the problem is that people keep thinking the answer is to throw even more tax dollars at schools in hopes of somehow making things better. That response misunderstands what's wrong in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

At what cost to the current system of education? How many teachers will be out of jobs? Furthermore, will private companies be willing to pay them enough for their otherwise underpaid services. Last time I checked, private schools pay far less than public ones, which already don't pay enough as it is...

Perhaps those crappy public school teachers are actually overpaid and under qualified - which would be why they'd lose their jobs or get a pay cut. Paying teachers more is not the answer. Ensuring that the school system actually cared about how much they pay their teachers or how qualified they are is what would actually help.

Furthermore, something that I'm not sure we've addressed, these market-based schools you continually talk about will likely require just as much government oversight as we would already have with the public education system.

Why do you think that? There is no way that requiring that children get a certain level of education would have anywhere near the required bureaucracy as actually having the government provide 100% of the education.

Beyond that, I don't think there is enough concrete evidence to prove that private schools perform better than public schools, that is, enough to justify the extra costs involved.

Private schools cost less because they're more efficient. That's the bottom line. They cost LESS (if we're comparing the same educational results obviously). Public schools are wasteful because they're removed from market forces (there's a direct correlation there). That waste INCREASES their cost. Don't bother arguing with it, it's pretty much an economic principle. Do I need to go into the 4 basic types of spending for you? Did your crappy public education completely ignore economics like mine did?

I mean fair in the sense that the schools that need and or deserve the money get it first before schools like mine (that are already swimming in money) get theirs.

What do you mean by "deserve". Do you mean "need"? "Need" and "deserve" are two different things entirely. A distinction that you've repeatedly glossed over. What you're advocating is using local tax revenues for a non-local government project (more than is done already). What you're saying is that my property taxes should go to some school that I have no intention of sending my kids to ever. And somehow you have the nerve to classify it as "fair". Or claim that these people "deserve" my tax dollars. It's bad enough I have to fund a local school that my future children might someday use but are not currently using. You're proposing that I fund a school that my non-existent children will never have any intention of using. That's my money you're talking about. My earnings. My productivity. The fruits of my hard work over my lifetime of trying to get educated and get myself into a better position. And you're telling me that some people I don't know "deserve" my productivity because they haven't produced for themselves. Appalling.

Certainly the standard rates would have to apply, but oneYSSMAN would think that it would be better for the extra cash to be given to schools that need it?

It would be better for schools that EARN it to get extra cash. They can EARN it by providing a stellar education and attracting customers.

 

[YSSMAN]

Perhaps those crappy public school teachers are actually overpaid and under qualified - which would be why they'd lose their jobs or get a pay cut.

Go ahead and thank no child left behind then... Sure, it means well, but it ends up putting a lot of people who want to help kids off.

Why do you think that? There is no way that requiring that children get a certain level of education would have anywhere near the required bureaucracy as actually having the government provide 100% of the education.

My thought process (follow me here) is that without publicly controlled curriculum, standards, etc the private organizations that are allowed to run these schools would be left to insert whatever they please into the daily tasks, goals of the school. Sure, I don't think every single school would subvert particular ideas in preference to another, but it could happen. Its an issue that unfortunately would be at a reactionary point, not something that would be easily addressed from the start.

Of course, thinking critically about the nature of business is bad and I should be punished for it...

Don't bother arguing with it, it's pretty much an economic principle. Do I need to go into the 4 basic types of spending for you? Did your crappy public education completely ignore economics like mine did?

I completely understand that their operating costs are lower... Thats why its a for-profit education system. But, it still costs the student more to attend these schools. Unless we do a CLEAN wipe of every school system at the hand of the Feds, it won't work in states like Michigan we we constitutionally guarantee a free education, where business would be happy to charge the government whatever they please for the contracts to give out their services... Its that Haliburton and Blackwater style price fixing that I'm worried about. And that kind of stuff, again, requires the type of government intervention that business always fears.

Again, it may not happen. But it could. You have to understand that as well. The free market is ideal, I do not wish to quarrel with anyone about that (because it is the absolute truth), but the sins of the market are often too large to risk something such as this.

Again, I'd love to see some hard figures on the issue, much of which I'm sure exist somewhere. I'd be happy to support it if it is truthfully economically and socially beneficial to the people, but as of right now, I see no reason to drastically alter our education system beyond the modest improvements I've suggested.

What do you mean by "deserve". Do you mean "need"? "Need" and "deserve" are two different things entirely. A distinction that you've repeatedly glossed over.

I come from a family with a bit of money, a very well-to-do area with plenty of people with so much cash it flows out of their ass. That being said, I was nowhere near the top of the food chain when it comes to the kind of money that was thrown around at the time... From my perspective, kids who would otherwise not have the same kind of opportunities in my life deserve things like extra money to fund their schools, raising education standards, making a college education that much easier to reach. They deserve that because I view them as human beings, as fellow Americans, and I'd like to have people have the same opportunities I have.

While I'm thinking about it: It may be important to note that I'm funding my own education with my own personal funds. I haven't borrowed any money from my family, and I presumably won't take it. I've worked very hard to get where I am, but like we've pointed out before (I may have even said it first?), we've gotta get that same spark ignited in the lower-class kids. It starts with a solid education, and it grows from there.

What you're advocating is using local tax revenues for a non-local government project (more than is done already). What you're saying is that my property taxes should go to some school that I have no intention of sending my kids to ever. And somehow you have the nerve to classify it as "fair". Or claim that these people "deserve" my tax dollars.

Your property taxes would still apply to the school districts you live in. What I'm suggesting is that Federal and State funds are better appropriated to schools that need the money.

It would be better for schools that EARN it to get extra cash. They can EARN it by providing a stellar education and attracting customers.

Agreed. However, as we've already seen with our current laws, its not working.

It's bad enough I have to fund a local school that my future children might someday use but are not currently using. You're proposing that I fund a school that my non-existent children will never have any intention of using. That's my money you're talking about. My earnings. My productivity. The fruits of my hard work over my lifetime of trying to get educated and get myself into a better position. And you're telling me that some people I don't know "deserve" my productivity because they haven't produced for themselves. Appalling.

Wow, thanks for being a somewhat considerate American. I donate money out of the kindness of my heart, donating my free time and my own hard work to make myself feel better, and of course, to help out other Americans.

You know, I consider myself a Republican because I do believe in a small, controlled government with modest taxes (that are used for good reason), so that I can make the most of my money that I earn. CLEARLY the difference here is that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my own work to help others who are in need... What a HORRIBLE concept. I'm sorry that you can't enjoy all that money that you have, while kids go through life without some shed of hope and dignity that they deserve as AMERICANS.

So, maybe thats why I'm voting Democrat this year. I've finally found my conscience. And if you make $75,000 or more a year, sorry about the tax increase. I get to enjoy my tax cut, you know, so I can proportionally get more of my money in the end.

===

Danoff, I really enjoy these discussions, and I look forward to future ones. I would hope that you occasionally take the time to attempt to rationalize some other ideas that are out there. Sure, I may straddle the issues on occasion, but thats because I've lived through a lot of crap that most people would prefer not to go through. I know what its like to be pretty well-off, and I know what its like to be poor (2000-present).

Now, I'm not about to advocate for a socialist system similar to what we find across the pond (because I couldn't stand that), but I think its fairly reasonable to adjust a few things here and there to make things a bit better for everyone.

 

[Danoff]

Go ahead and thank no child left behind then... Sure, it means well, but it ends up putting a lot of people who want to help kids off.

That's a dodge.

My thought process (follow me here) is that without publicly controlled curriculum, standards, etc the private organizations that are allowed to run these schools would be left to insert whatever they please into the daily tasks, goals of the school. Sure, I don't think every single school would subvert particular ideas in preference to another, but it could happen. Its an issue that unfortunately would be at a reactionary point, not something that would be easily addressed from the start.

Ok, I'm gonna need you to focus on this concept, because it's key to our conversation. So please, stay with me here. Your grocery store could sell you rotten apples, raise prices, or sell disease infected produce. They don't. The reason is because they fear going out of business. Market forces (yes, reactionary market forces) effectively prevent private institutions from abusing their customers. This is an ancient concept at this point, and it's been proven time and again. You seem to think there is something different about education that either blocks this feedback or that any damage is irrevocable and so reactionary forces are too late to solve the problem. Either way you're quite mistaken. The only irrevocable, feedback insulated system that I can think of is one in which the government is given a monopoly over our children's education from toddler to adult.

Of course, thinking critically about the nature of business is bad and I should be punished for it...

Not at all. You should be punished for advocating socialization of education.

I completely understand that their operating costs are lower... Thats why its a for-profit education system. But, it still costs the student more to attend these schools.

Actually it doesn't. Not for the same education. The only way I can see this being true is if you take into account that property taxes offset your federal income taxes (provided that you don't trigger the AMT). But that's arbitrary favoritism in the tax code that could easily be made level by providing a tax deduction for private education spending.

Unless we do a CLEAN wipe of every school system at the hand of the Feds, it won't work in states like Michigan we we constitutionally guarantee a free education,

Such nonsense was a bad idea in the first place. It should be fixed.

where business would be happy to charge the government whatever they please for the contracts to give out their services... Its that Haliburton and Blackwater style price fixing that I'm worried about. And that kind of stuff, again, requires the type of government intervention that business always fears.

We agree here.

Again, it may not happen. But it could. You have to understand that as well. The free market is ideal, I do not wish to quarrel with anyone about that (because it is the absolute truth), but the sins of the market are often too large to risk something such as this.

The potential sins of government are a much larger risk.

Again, I'd love to see some hard figures on the issue, much of which I'm sure exist somewhere. I'd be happy to support it if it is truthfully economically and socially beneficial to the people, but as of right now, I see no reason to drastically alter our education system beyond the modest improvements I've suggested.

How bad does our public education system have to get before you switch from advocating that we throw more money at it to admitting that it's failed?

From my perspective, kids who would otherwise not have the same kind of opportunities in my life deserve things like extra money to fund their schools, raising education standards, making a college education that much easier to reach. They deserve that because I view them as human beings, as fellow Americans, and I'd like to have people have the same opportunities I have.

It's a common notion, and it's one that spawns a great deal of socialist concepts - that all children deserve equal footing regardless of their parents' efforts. Such a goal is impossible, and a bad idea. It's a strong incentive to produce for parents to be able to provide more for their children. The fact that children start out on unequal grounds is actually a very important aspect of our society - and that needs to be kept in place. Parents have a right to give their children advantages.

Your property taxes would still apply to the school districts you live in. What I'm suggesting is that Federal and State funds are better appropriated to schools that need the money.

That doesn't change my argument.

Agreed. However, as we've already seen with our current laws, its not working.

Quite so.

Wow, thanks for being a somewhat considerate American. I donate money out of the kindness of my heart, donating my free time and my own hard work to make myself feel better, and of course, to help out other Americans.

I also make donations. My problem is when I'm forced to make donations at gunpoint to causes I didn't choose. Government required charity isn't charity at all, it's theft.

CLEARLY the difference here is that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my own work to help others who are in need... What a HORRIBLE concept.

It's not a horrible concept. It's a great concept. The HORRIBLE concept is that you want to sacrifice OTHER people's work for your pet cause.

I would hope that you occasionally take the time to attempt to rationalize some other ideas that are out there.

I come here to listen to other people's best attempts at rationalizing them. I am listening, but to get me to change my mind you're going to have to tackle my arguments and criticisms head on - the way I'm attempting to do with you. You're addressing my posts, but you're not always addressing the point. That's what I'm asking for.

but I think its fairly reasonable to adjust a few things here and there to make things a bit better for everyone.

Me too. That adjustment means eradicating a failed socialist system.

 

[Sage]

CLEARLY the difference here is that I'm willing to sacrifice some of my own work to help others who are in need... What a HORRIBLE concept.

Here’s the test for public education: Are you willing to walk over to your neighbor’s house, hold up a gun to his or her head, and demand that they pay for a random child’s education?

 

[Joey D]

That is not what socialism is.

 

[Sage]

How is it not?

 

[Joey D]

Because it's aggravated assault, not a form of government/economic system.

And I see no reason to have the public fund the education system. A majority of people went through the system so why not continue paying for it? Why screw this generation? I would rather have a country full of educated people.

It's just one of the reason why I dislike this country so much and plan on getting out of it as soon as I am financially able.

 

[Sage]

Because it's aggravated assault, not a form of government/economic system.

Government is just another word for force. If you stop paying for public education, you will have your money forcibly taken from you and/or be forced to go to prison.

 

[Joey D]

And you should, the public should pay for public education since, as I've said, a large majority have gone through that system already.

 

[Sage]

I’m not following you – are you saying we should do it because it’s the status quo?

 

[Omnis]

That is not what socialism is.

Actually, yes, it is.

And I see no reason to have the public fund the education system. A majority of people went through the system so why not continue paying for it? Why screw this generation? I would rather have a country full of educated people.

You contradicted your first sentence there. I'm assuming you meant "...not to have the public..."

It's just one of the reason why I dislike this country so much and plan on getting out of it as soon as I am financially able.

Ok, bye.

edit: Woah, I can't believe this:

And you should, the public should pay for public education since, as I've said, a large majority have gone through that system already.

As Sage was saying, you'd advocate people jump off a bridge to their deaths or cut their arms off if the majority did the same?

 

[Joey D]

I’m not following you – are you saying we should it because it’s the status quo?

Did you go to public school? Did your parents?

My parents went to public school, so did my grandparents, as did I. Saying I shouldn't have to pay for future generations is like saying well everyone else got an education but I think I should screw the next generation.

Actually, yes, it is.

No it's not, the government doesn't put a fire arm to your head. It's a bad example.

You contradicted your first sentence there. I'm assuming you meant "...not to have the public..."

Yes it's a typo, we all make them.

Ok, bye.

I see zero reason to stay in America, people here have it quite backwards. You have the group that thinks no one should pay for anything which would shut the government down, the group that wants the government to pay for everything which would bankrupt the nation and it's people, and the group that doesn't understand it and goes with whatever CNN/Fox News tells them to think.

I think I would be far better off in Europe, sure they pay a lot of tax, but at the same time many countries have strong economies and good social structure. I have a professor from the Netherlands and from what he has told me I think I would quite like it there.

 

[superwally]

I'm John Galt, except in today there can be no Colorado. I'm a Brakeman in the modern world. I don't know where to go, or who to lead, and I don't know a Sebastian D'Anconia. It's sad, and breaks me a little bit more every day.

I'd love to participate in this wonderful discussion, but until I can do it without having a cororary I'll have to beg off. Glad it's here though, just never saw it before.

 

[Sage]

Did you go to public school? Did your parents?

My parents went to public school, so did my grandparents, as did I. Saying I shouldn't have to pay for future generations is like saying well everyone else got an education but I think I should screw the next generation.

Have you read anything that Danoff or I or Omnis have said? I want privatized education because it will be better. Market forces are unequivocally proven to provide the best services at the best possible prices (at least in relation to any government). Like I said earlier, do you trust the government to run sandwich shops? Of course not – everything that they’d 🤬 up applies to schools, except it’s even worse because this is children we’re dealing with, not lunch.

If I wanted to screw over the next generation, I’d advocate for 100% public education.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, looks like we're back at square one... Oh well. I could honestly go either way, as I do believe that the current system (with minor adjustments) has legs (meaning I'm a dirty pinko commie who wants to pay for my neighbor's education, ha ha), but at the same time, I could very easily be swayed to privatize it should a rational government initiative be signed off in congress.

I want whats best for the kids, and of course, for the teachers (especially if I work to become one... Probably not. New laws make it take too much time).

===

New subject?



Full text of the "More Perfect Union" speech here

If you've been listening to NPR or watching any of the national news channels over the past few days, the Obama speech has been one that has a lot of people a little wound up. Whether or not you agree with his politics, you first have to give the man credit for writing the entire thing by himself. Absolutely amazing. Secondly, as some have pointed out, it very well may be the first major political speech about race that was really worth something since Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech from more than 40 years ago.

Any thoughts on what Obama had said? Does this make him seem more or less appealing? Can we actually have a meaningful discussion of race in this country? Feel free to add your own feelings/opinions as well.

 

[Omnis]

I'm in the first two-and-a-half minutes of the speech, and I can already tell Obama is a backwards idiot. His thinking is that of total collectivism, his history is bad, and his speech demonstrates his own racism. I'm also not giving him any extra credit for writing his own speech. Ron Paul writes all of his own speeches. When you strip it down, having someone else write your speeches for you might as well be plagiarism. It's pretty sad that you have to be surprised and impressed that your public figures are being honest.

Anyway, contrast Obama's opinion on race to that of James Earl Jones:



Huge difference.

 

[Swift]

I think I would be far better off in Europe, sure they pay a lot of tax, but at the same time many countries have strong economies and good social structure. I have a professor from the Netherlands and from what he has told me I think I would quite like it there.

Ok, later. But please do us ALL a favor and actually follow through with what you're saying. There are so many people that say this and then just hang around and whine about how they would leave if they "could". Well, if you want to bad enough, you can.

So again, Bon Voyage.


Omnis, you're exactly right! Go figure! just playin

 

[Omnis]

Ok, later. But please do us ALL a favor and actually follow through with what you're saying. There are so many people that say this and then just hang around and whine about how they would leave if they "could". Well, if you want to bad enough, you can.

So again, Bon Voyage.


Omnis, you're exactly right! Go figure! just playin

... Also, additionally,

No it's not, the government doesn't put a fire arm to your head. It's a bad example.

Tell that to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm in the first two-and-a-half minutes of the speech, and I can already tell Obama is a backwards idiot. His thinking is that of total collectivism, his history is bad, and his speech demonstrates his own racism.

So its obviously a negative reaction, would you care to elaborate? Is it wrong for Obama to think on the collective scale? To hope that people can work together for a better understanding?

At least from the first time I had seen it and read it, I was just happy that someone had gotten up and talked about it, rationally, like we're all adults, and can handle the conversation. Lets be frank, people don't give political leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the time of day because it is often the same ol' fire and brimstone speech about how they did this, we did that, and its time to take action. At the risk of minimizing Obama's speech, his rational approach and calm demeanor seemed to have made it far more appealing to otherwise "moderate" middle class white folks.

Then again, the big worry is that he managed to alienate a bunch of white (and black) folks for being honest about whats going on. Who knew?

I give Obama credit for going up there and doing it, being honest, and letting what happens, happen. Hillary is too focused in attack mode to be bothered to have any kind of sensible, meaningful policy stances, but is more than willing to play dirty politics to get ahead, putting Obama in this position. Across party lines, McCain is busy celebrating his nomination by doing whatever the hell it is hes doing halfway across the world, seeming to think hes won the White House already. Not to mention pissing off otherwise "moderate" Republicans by pandering to the Neo-Cons, many of whom we're sick of.

I'd like to see McCain and Hillary take an issue like this and say something about it. On anything really. The war? Healthcare? Hell, talk about potholes in Michigan and I'll listen. I give credit where credit is due, and I think Obama took a big step in the right direction. Whether or not that gets him into the White House is hard to see anywhere near focused at the moment.

Anyway, contrast Obama's opinion on race to that of James Earl Jones:

*TUBES VID*

Huge difference.

They're both right if you ask me, but then again, some kid in backwoods Michigan likely doesn't know what hes talking about. Sociologically speaking, race does not exist... Its something that was created to classify people to create order in society. Of course, that has had some pretty negative effects.

The question largely is, which view of race wins out? Do the long-standing views from the civil rights moment continue to move the people forward, or do new and more progressive views of the younger generation seek to offset it?

The arguement I most often hear is that people like to think there isn't a problem, or for that matter, choose not to identity a problem. I certainly see that being an element of current political and social thought, however, it largely depends on where you are.

Its easy to point fingers from a mostly white, well-to-do area and say "this is right, this is wrong," but until in some way its actually applied, I'm not sure people actually understand what is going on.

Do I? Not hardly. I'm white, I'm male, and I'm in a middle income family. If anything, I'm part of the problem. Would I care to do more? Of course, I'd prefer to live in a country where we don't have to discuss the race of a particular candidate as a positive or a negative, or where we have to worry about the unequal treatment of one over another as it is otherwise defined as unconstitutional.

*sigh*

Progress is progress, but more often than not, we don't get very far...

 

[Omnis]

Well the theory could certainly be that we don't get very far because it's the collectivists who always gravitate towards government. We've always been fed their mindset because the individualists look towards the private sector instead. ... Again, maybe some alternative (better) thought would stand a chance without a socialized school system.

Both have the same goal in mind but don't agree on how to get there. I'm not going to fault Obama for speaking his mind, but I guess you could say I disagree with his context and framing of the issue.

J.E. Jones, on the other hand, has the issue exactly right, and it took him a fraction of the time and none of the bull or fluff of Obama's monologue.

 

[Joey D]

Ok, later. But please do us ALL a favor and actually follow through with what you're saying. There are so many people that say this and then just hang around and whine about how they would leave if they "could". Well, if you want to bad enough, you can.

So again, Bon Voyage.


Omnis, you're exactly right! Go figure! just playin

Wrong, you can want to move really bad but sometimes you just can't. When I was in the UK I researched this a bit and in order to get the proper papers to live there you need a job, but you aren't allowed to look for a job under your 6 month visa. So the only way an American could go over there to live now would be to get hooked up with a company here that transfers your over there. I would have to imagine that other countries are like that.

On this note what is so great about America? This is an honest question, what would make someone from another country want to live here?

 

[Sage]

On this note what is so great about America? This is an honest question, what would make someone from another country want to live here?

I don’t think there’s any way to explain it to somebody who says this. Honestly. Because the First Amendment is absolutely 100% the best thing about this country, by a mile.

 

[Danoff]

Did you go to public school? Did your parents?

My parents went to public school, so did my grandparents, as did I. Saying I shouldn't have to pay for future generations is like saying well everyone else got an education but I think I should screw the next generation.

I went to both public and private school, and I will provide my future children with an education. So I'll do my part for the next generation.

No it's not, the government doesn't put a fire arm to your head.

Actually, that's exactly what government does. Try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes for the government to show up with guns. The dollars that you're talking about taking from the people who earned them and giving to people who did not earn them are collected by the government by threat of force. And that force involves officers with guns. It's nowhere near as voluntary as it appears.

I see zero reason to stay in America, people here have it quite backwards. You have the group that thinks no one should pay for anything which would shut the government down,

Who is that?

the group that wants the government to pay for everything which would bankrupt the nation and it's people,

If you really think this, I don't understand how you can say the things you do.

I think I would be far better off in Europe, sure they pay a lot of tax, but at the same time many countries have strong economies and good social structure. I have a professor from the Netherlands and from what he has told me I think I would quite like it there.

Ask him what he's doing here.

Obama to think on the collective scale? To hope that people can work together for a better understanding?

Yes. It's wrong to think on a collective scale. Human beings are not a collective. We're individuals.

Do I? Not hardly. I'm white, I'm male, and I'm in a middle income family. If anything, I'm part of the problem.

It's like you didn't listen to Obama's speech. I'm sure he wouldn't advocate such a racist statement.

On this note what is so great about America? This is an honest question, what would make someone from another country want to live here?

The list gets smaller as time passes and we attempt to make our laws and policies more like those that have failed elsewhere. But the great thing about America (which you should know, because you live here), is that we have rights, a market economy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. That's why so many immigrants come here. That's why this country is the sole superpower left in the world. Our market-based freedoms are the reason that so many other nations rely on our economy. Our freedom of speech is the reason that you can sit here and ask what's so great about America (you can't in so many other nations). Our government structure is fundamentally solid, even if so much of what has been added compromises that foundation.

 

[YSSMAN]

Both have the same goal in mind but don't agree on how to get there. I'm not going to fault Obama for speaking his mind, but I guess you could say I disagree with his context and framing of the issue.

Ah, okay. I just wasn't sure what you meant...

Yes. It's wrong to think on a collective scale. Human beings are not a collective. We're individuals.

Understandably so, especially in America. Most Europeans tend not to like our individualism. However, I don't think it should discourage us from working together on various issues...

It's like you didn't listen to Obama's speech. I'm sure he wouldn't advocate such a racist statement.

I was joking, sorry I didn't include the [sarcasm] tags.

On this note what is so great about America? This is an honest question, what would make someone from another country want to live here?

Its a complex question and I think most of us are going to give the same basic answers... Freedoms protected by the government, etc...

I personally think that the opportunity that is allowed for in America makes our country great. With a bit of hard work and determination, you can do just about anything you want in this country. Nothing is here to prevent you from becoming anything you want to be, well, with some obvious limitations (that I've discussed previously). You have a far-greater opportunity to live a wealthy and relaxed life here than you do in Europe, holding and keeping more prestigious jobs despite your meager beginnings.

Sure, you could throw other things in there, but that pretty much does it for me. We are a rich and diverse community of people who have shown the world what a proper government and economic system is, although, it obviously doesn't apply anywhere else. Yes, we are the last "superpower" (soon to be joined by the EU and China), but I don't necessarily know if that makes our country particularly great... Only when its used properly.

Come on, you know there is still plenty of good here. Yeah, Detroit is going down the tubes, but you could easily move three hours to the West and its a completely different world...

 

[Joey D]

Who is that?

True Libertarians and Anarchist it seems.

If you really think this, I don't understand how you can say the things you do.

Why? I think the government should be responsible to provide for it's citizens to some extent.

Ask him what he's doing here.

He is obviously teaching if he is a professor. The reason he came here was because he studies religious movements and wants to look into these movements in America. He's a well published academic, you can search his stuff, his name is Henri Gooren.

Yes. It's wrong to think on a collective scale. Human beings are not a collective. We're individuals.

So I guess you disagree with civilisation then? Without a collective group humans never would have evolved into how we are today.

The list gets smaller as time passes and we attempt to make our laws and policies more like those that have failed elsewhere. But the great thing about America (which you should know, because you live here), is that we have rights, a market economy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. That's why so many immigrants come here. That's why this country is the sole superpower left in the world. Our market-based freedoms are the reason that so many other nations rely on our economy. Our freedom of speech is the reason that you can sit here and ask what's so great about America (you can't in so many other nations). Our government structure is fundamentally solid, even if so much of what has been added compromises that foundation.

Sort of freedom of things, think about it, if you are Atheist, Muslim, Homosexual, or any other "different" group you don't have the same freedoms as good little Christians norms.

I don’t think there’s any way to explain it to somebody who says this. Honestly. Because the First Amendment is absolutely 100% the best thing about this country, by a mile.

It would be awesome if the first amendment worked though.

 

[Denur]

I don’t think there’s any way to explain it to somebody who says this. Honestly. Because the First Amendment is absolutely 100% the best thing about this country, by a mile.

I remember home rome quite well in high school when the locals made the pledge of allegence to the flag. I also remember american civics classes, but I don´t remember that the first amendment was very much revered. It was mentioned though and it was about the most important subject during american civics, but it was not regarded as the most valuable thing in american society. Maybe being in Catholic New England might have played a role there. Maybe you can explain the first amendment to rest of the world, because I never really understood its significance on a global scale. Remember that frase about the right to bear arms. Is it something about the heat and to role up one´s sleaves, or is it about the right to have a gun and kill ******s, nowadays called african americans, but in those racist days. Don´t understand me wrong, I dispice the term ******, but in this case it makes a point. However, I don´t understand the term african american. So far as I know it used to describe people who live in america and are from african decend, but it somehow it seems to be linked to black people or negros. How do political correct americans call native africans nowadays (they may be quite dark when from central africa, or just be somewhat tinted when from the North)

edit: the fact alone that one word I used twice is being censured explains enough. You know the word, it starts with an ´n´ and ends with an ´r´. It is just sad that I cannot use the word in a discussion to explain something. Polital correctness is going too far.

 

[Danoff]

True Libertarians and Anarchist it seems.

Anarchists yes, not libertarians. There is actually a thread about libertarianism, and to many such as yourself who have socialist leanings I can see why libertarians might sound like anarchists. But I assure you anarchy is totally unacceptable to me. Human rights are absolutely paramount, and anarchy does not provide for human rights.

I think the government should be responsible to provide for it's citizens to some extent.

the group that wants the government to pay for everything which would bankrupt the nation and it's people

These two statements are somewhat at odds with each other.

So I guess you disagree with civilisation then? Without a collective group humans never would have evolved into how we are today.

Not at all. Civilization is pretty much the only thing that separates us from being animals. The nuance you're struggling with again here is the difference between someone who believes in limited government and an anarchist. The fact that I don't believe people are responsible for their neighbors has nothing to do with whether I think that human rights and rule of law is critical to humanity.

Sort of freedom of things, think about it, if you are Atheist, Muslim, Homosexual, or any other "different" group you don't have the same freedoms as good little Christians norms.

What freedoms specifically are you talking about? I can't think of any.

 

[Joey D]

These two statements are somewhat at odds with each other.

Not really, I think the government should play a role in peoples lives. There needs to be a balance between no government intervention and total government intervention.

Not at all. Civilization is pretty much the only thing that separates us from being animals. The nuance you're struggling with again here is the difference between someone who believes in limited government and an anarchist. The fact that I don't believe people are responsible for their neighbors has nothing to do with whether I think that human rights and rule of law is critical to humanity.

Civilisation separates us from animals but culture does as well, another discussion though.

What freedoms specifically are you talking about? I can't think of any.

If I was homosexual I couldn't marry my partner which is denying me a freedom others have, that's the best example I can give that isn't based on observations.

 

[Omnis]

Sort of freedom of things, think about it, if you are Atheist, Muslim, Homosexual, or any other "different" group you don't have the same freedoms as good little Christians norms.

Stop being so ridiculous. This kind of mentality perpetuates the problems of collectivism.