In Defense of The U.S.A.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You may want to brush up on history a bit. The US isn't number 1 economically due to individualism. The US became number 1 during a period of VERY high Socialism, a 90% progressive tax rate, and the social safety net was higher than it ever was. During this time was the Civil Rights era along with second wave feminism. The era that Trump tends to look back as "Great" was actually a Socialist golden era.

But I'm not going to sit here and say that increased liberalism was the only thing that propelled us to economic greatness. It was mostly the power vacuum left behind after WWII that really helped us. Since the rest of the world was torn up due to war and our infrastructure was still intact it was an easy switch to switch us to domestic manufacturing and export to the world. Eventually the rest of the world recovered and started doing well, but the gap created from the post-WWII economy is rather substantial. It has survived many political maneuverings and a HUGE rightward lurch by our government over the last 30 - 40 years or so. I will say that Trump and co are doing a remarkable job trying to squander it with their idiotic idea to have a trade war all because we aren't "winning" as great as we used to be.

Though it should be obvious that a collective has a much easier time achieving far greater results than any individual. Collectives can cover weaknesses easier by shifting manpower as needed or have people who excel at certain tasks specialize in them. Individuals have to do everything and thus end up having to spread resources (notably time) thin doing this. I'm really not sure what is with this fascination with individualism these days. You don't have to become the Borg, but collectives are almost always preferably better than individuals.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A great reason to support the US is that it is the last vestige of freedom, even if sometimes it doesn’t live up to it. Its core ideals, its constitution, its free speech, the entire American experiment, all of it has been a boon to the world in one way or another.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You may want to brush up on history a bit. The US isn't number 1 economically due to individualism. The US became number 1 during a period of VERY high Socialism

You may want to double check your history, because socialism has never been implemented in the US.

a reply to: Words

Ah. I see. According to you the social safety net was never implemented in this country. Would you mind linking me to whatever history book you read that told you that?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Ah. I see. According to you the social safety net was never implemented in this country. Would you mind linking me to whatever history book you read that told you that?

No, according to me socialism hasn’t been implemented. According to you it has.

a reply to: Words

Yes. I understood the words you wrote already the first time you wrote them. Now, I'm asking you to elaborate with some facts to support that supposition you just claimed. Just saying "Nope you are wrong" doesn't magically make it so. Welfare is a Socialist policy so yes Socialism has been implemented in our country. Of course, the country isn't 100% Socialist, but to say that it wasn't implemented in the country is the height of history revisionism and nonsense.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Yes. I understood the words you wrote already the first time you wrote them. Now, I'm asking you to elaborate with some facts to support that supposition you just claimed. Just saying "Nope you are wrong" doesn't magically make it so. Welfare is a type of Socialism so yes Socialism has been implemented in our country. Of course, the country isn't 100% Socialist, but to say that it wasn't implemented in the country is the height of history revisionism and nonsense.

You understood the words yet you misrepresented them, pretending I was talking about a social safety net, when I clearly said socialism.

Welfare is not a type of socialism. You ask me to elaborate with facts, yet you have shown none.

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Yes. I understood the words you wrote already the first time you wrote them. Now, I'm asking you to elaborate with some facts to support that supposition you just claimed. Just saying "Nope you are wrong" doesn't magically make it so. Welfare is a type of Socialism so yes Socialism has been implemented in our country. Of course, the country isn't 100% Socialist, but to say that it wasn't implemented in the country is the height of history revisionism and nonsense.

You understood the words yet you misrepresented them, pretending I was talking about a social safety net, when I clearly said socialism.

Welfare is not a type of socialism. You ask me to elaborate with facts, yet you have shown none.

Ok so I'm going to just stop here. You clearly see Socialism as a partisan buzzword and don't understand what it is or represents. Furthermore, your argument is semantics compared to my original point. Regardless if you want to call those policies Socialist or not (they were), they are still the height of liberal policies and the era in question was an era of increased liberalism in our country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

Yes. I understood the words you wrote already the first time you wrote them. Now, I'm asking you to elaborate with some facts to support that supposition you just claimed. Just saying "Nope you are wrong" doesn't magically make it so. Welfare is a type of Socialism so yes Socialism has been implemented in our country. Of course, the country isn't 100% Socialist, but to say that it wasn't implemented in the country is the height of history revisionism and nonsense.

You understood the words yet you misrepresented them, pretending I was talking about a social safety net, when I clearly said socialism.

Welfare is not a type of socialism. You ask me to elaborate with facts, yet you have shown none.

Ok so I'm going to just stop here. You clearly see Socialism as a partisan buzzword and don't understand what it is or represents. Furthermore, your argument is semantics compared to my original point. Regardless if you want to call those policies Socialist or not (they were), they are still the height of liberal policies and the era in question was an era of increased liberalism in our country.

You’re obviously stopping because you can’t back up any of your assertions. I see socialism as an economic system, one that has not been implemented in the US. Your argument lacks simple semantic understanding, and is therefor near meaningless.

Liberalism is one thing, socialism is quite another.

The US came to have the biggest GDP in the late 19th century, far before any “socialism”.

a reply to: Words

I did back up my points. You just argued by saying, "nope you are wrong". I'm not playing that playground tit-for-tat so I said I'm done.

The simple fact is that welfare is Socialism. As I said already, Socialism isn't 100% implemented in the country, but Socialist policies have. So the fact you are arguing this point is just a semantics one. It doesn't refute anything I said.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

I did back up my points. You just argued by saying, "nope you are wrong". I'm not playing that playground tit-for-tat so I said I'm done.

The simple fact is that welfare is Socialism. As I said already, Socialism isn't 100% implemented in the country, but Socialist policies have. So the fact you are arguing this point is just a semantics one. It doesn't refute anything I said.

That’s not a fact. That’s a lie. By any standard definition of socialism, no socialism has been implemented in the United States.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Why would anyone like such uncivilized freedom loving people?

Because so many of them are blinkered, egotistical, insular people who have little or no knowledge of anything or anywhere else yet feel the need to impose their over inflated opinion on others.
Americans like that also tend to be over bearing, loud, brash and support foreign policies that have so little regard for the wishes and interests of people from other countries.

But, I am fortunate to know that those type of people are not representative of all Americans, they are just the most vocal and loudest.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Most western nations are controlled by the Cabal.

Give it time ... we all need to break free of their control.

MAGA ... Make Australia Great Again.

MABA ... Make Britain Great Again.

As for Canada ... Sorry

P

No worries mate. We're already great.

As to the topic I really don't know what it is.

I think a lot of people commenting in this thread have missed the tone and point of the thread.

Or else I have read sarcasm where sarcasm doesn't exist, but I'm pretty sure that the OP was complimenting the US and pointing out generalizations by other nations that are wrong about the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I think a lot of people commenting in this thread have missed the tone and point of the thread.

Or else I have read sarcasm where sarcasm doesn't exist, but I'm pretty sure that the OP was complimenting the US and pointing out generalizations by other nations that are wrong about the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right. There is indeed a snobbish attitude towards the United States and her people throughout the world. We can see some of it in this very thread.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I remembered that, though after I'd posted... Oops.

Doesn't change the fact that, using myself as an example, for the most part, I don't care what someone who has never been here, and most likely will never be here, says about my country.

I've traveled widely in this country, places like Seattle, Chicago, and places like Echo Cove, AK, or little widespots on the back roads of Nevada, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, along with a dozen other states, where, if you're lucky, there's a diner with a few of the locals to talk to--or be talked at by--about anything and everything under the sun.

In other words, they're just folks. Much like you'd find in the Outback of Australia, or a small village along the Seine in France.

Too many people, even in our neighbor to the north Canada, have this mistaken view that America is the movies they see, or the 30 second sound bites on their news programs. Our cities are ultra violent, always... Certainly some areas can be, even are, but most are not--but the "are not" doesn't sell advertising space, or get clicks.

To truly know America? You have to travel her roads, not the interstates, but the back roads, the county highways-the ol' two lane blacktop with the faded center lines that twist and turn going twenty miles to go five straight, and you'll never know what you'll find around one of those bends. An onion/veggie/fruit stand, with the old mechanical cash register, with the old dog layin' in the shade--hey, that's still a thing in many places. My very first job was working at an onion/veggie/fruit stand, with that mechanical cash register and the old dog, his name was "Hey, mutt". If we did fifty dollars a day, that was a good day.

What people see, and hear, about America on their local news, or even national news, is only a very small part of what we are.

We're brash. We're out spoken. We can be exceedingly rude. But we're also kind, many of us will give our last dime to a friend in need--I've done so more than once, and likely will again, without asking a thing in return, save that you cast a bit of bread upon the waters when you can.

But, as I said, that doesn't sell newspapers, or generate clicks and ad revenue. So it's not commonly portrayed.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: chr0naut

Strawman nonsense. I didn't say anything about any nation being 'advanced.'

No, you didn't, but it seems that there is an opinion among Americans that "we did it first/best", an attitude reflected in that of your post, an attitude which, in most cases, is entirely untrue.

You did cite the Moon landings, true a big thing, but a lot of the science and tech weren't actually from the US but were 'pooled in' from elsewhere. Russia was winning in space, and so Kennedy, in response, implemented the push to the Moon, and to some extent, to Mars (which Von Braun had been planning, long before the end of WW2 and any American involvement). But it is becoming clear that NASA has "lost the ball" on space, even with Trump's refreshing of funding, the heyday of NASA is, most likely, over (Not to mention that even little countries like New Zealand, with its tiny population, economy and land area, now have space industries!) The world moves on and the US looks like it will fall behind.

You also proposed in your post that 'the constitution' and 'the republic' was something that the US did better. Again, that isn't entirely the whole truth!

Constitutions have existed since ancient times (probably the earliest we know of was the "Code of Justice" of Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash (ca 2,300 BC). Definitely, they were being called "constitutions" by 594 BC, in Athens, e.g: the Solonian Constitution. The US constitution wasn't really 'a new thing' and isn't unique in the world.

A republic is also not a new or unique idea, it hearkens back to ancient Rome (the term was coined there 500 years before Christ but is a translation of an even earlier Greek word). There are those who consider Israel's system of government (from 1,450 BC to 1,047 BC), prior to them adopting monarchy, to be a type of republic. The idea that a republic is a superior form of government dates back to Plato (ca 420 BC), who was ignorant of the many forms of government possible, and is no longer true.

The Westminster system (exemplified in the UK government), was an established democratic, legally fair and widely adopted system of government. It still is used today in many democratic governments. Many of these governments also have a constitution (although it is not necessary). The US rejected the Westminster system in favor of its confederate republic.

A confederation grants autonomy to the states under its governance. A federation removes the pure autonomy of the states making them co-governal and responsibly accountable to the federation. So, it is fairly obvious that there is a governmental superiority granting superior checks and balances of a federation, over a confederation.

In some ways, the US adoption of a confederate republic was, as a theory, politically retrograde for the time and it still is.

Australia used both the best ideas of the Westminster system and of the US political system, but federated, rather than confederated its states, and has produced a bicameral democratic parliamentary system, nicknamed the "Washminster mutation". It is also protected by a constitution.

The Washminster mutation is unarguably superior to either the confederated US republic or the Westminster system,

In Australia, the same governmental structure is also utilized at a state level as well as the federal government, which in effect means that for each state there are basically four houses of legislature; upper and lower houses in state government and upper and lower houses in the federal government.

It would be impossible, for example, in Australia, for a corrupt state governor to exert absolute authority over those in the state they govern, as is possible in the US.

Not only is there governance at federal and state levels in Australia, but there are regional local governments and councils beneath the state and many are also federated to their state government.

Despite Australia and the US being founded at about the same time, slavery was NEVER legal in Australia and it never enshrined in it law. Nor was the dubious 'right' to carry weapons enshrined in law. This does not mean guns are illegal in Australia, it means that guns are not a right. This is probably reflected in the low comparative rate of gun fatalities List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Face it, the US was a brilliant and hopeful experiment in governance, but that was 200 years ago. Look at it today where the US government openly contravenes its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Even the Declaration of Independence is not applied to all of its citizens equally (there are still laws on the books in the US which are race based, despite the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and prejudice is still rife).

You have to see that the whole mindset of 'hand on heart, land of the free, home of the brave' is an outright lie.

America is, without doubt, the pinnacle in war mongering, social and racial unfairness, injustice to citizens and political instability when compared to most modern countries. Probably more so under the isolationist policies of Trump.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A great reason to support the US is that it is the last vestige of freedom, even if sometimes it doesn’t live up to it. Its core ideals, its constitution, its free speech, the entire American experiment, all of it has been a boon to the world in one way or another.

Ha, ha.

What is free in America?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A great reason to support the US is that it is the last vestige of freedom, even if sometimes it doesn’t live up to it. Its core ideals, its constitution, its free speech, the entire American experiment, all of it has been a boon to the world in one way or another.

Ha, ha.

What is free in America?

Phones, at least they were under Obama...

originally posted by: Words

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Words

I did back up my points. You just argued by saying, "nope you are wrong". I'm not playing that playground tit-for-tat so I said I'm done.

The simple fact is that welfare is Socialism. As I said already, Socialism isn't 100% implemented in the country, but Socialist policies have. So the fact you are arguing this point is just a semantics one. It doesn't refute anything I said.

That’s not a fact. That’s a lie. By any standard definition of socialism, no socialism has been implemented in the United States.

So can you show us where you got your definition of socialism, because welfare most certainly is a form of socialism...