In your words, Describe the United States of America

[Croconaw]

Every city has a certain feel to it, each with its own culture and attitudes. The cities can then be broken down into hundreds of different subcultures, each of which carries its own attitudes and opinions. The suburbs are each similar but different with each one having a few of the subcultures. One suburb may be known for druggies while another may be known for being predominantly old white people, Koreans, and the emotionally unstable. Most suburbs build up a reputation over time, and one typically finds that local stereotypes are completely accurate.

You go to the south, also known as the Bible Belt. Outside the cities there's a very distinct feel of America that makes you want to blast heartland rock while speeding up a country road or drinking a watered-down beer. You pull off the road and shoot a deer for dinner. While it cooks, you toss a football back and forth with a couple friends. In the evening, you roast marshmallows over a campfire and head to bed with a 45 under your pillow just in case you see a terrorist. You sleep happy knowing that you live in the greatest country known to man. According to the Bible Belt rednecks... The stereotypical south is where freedom means everyone except LGBT, people of color, and other minority groups. What an area.

You go to the west coast, and you immediately think of Hollywood. You think of Vegas. You think of fame. People move out west for luxury and fame. Certain cities have different reputations.

Perhaps the United States is past its prime. Realistically, most great empires only last about 250 years before collapsing. We're little more than a decade from that milestone. If that collapse is imminent though, we shouldn't fear it. We should embrace it. The fall of the powerful Roman Republic wasn't the defeat of the Romans; it was the start of the Roman Empire. Likewise, the fall of the United States could be the start of something greater. America's greatest days *may* be ahead of us. Unfortunately, the United States is far from perfect.

There is discrimination in the south. There are still individuals that look down on being LGBT. There is still racism. There is still oppression. Even NFL players took a knee to protest, and it caused an outburst across the nation. The current president (I use that term very loosely) has called them sons of bitches. But who are we to be against it, or for it for that matter? This basically ruins the first amendment. Where is the freedom in being criticized and to be discriminated against by a leader?

Well, here it is. What is your opinion on the current Divided States of America? I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but as of right now, I am not proud to be an American.

[Snowfox]

Interesting really how you described your country. While I dont live there I might think where I would belong to in case did live there. Bible belt sounds kinda nice to me. I dislike big cities. Small medium size towns are more like places to me.
Maybe I would like Arkansas or Wyoming or.... Montana.

[ska8er]

In a world that's constantly changing
with terrorism-violence-greed an a
hunger for power we r still the best
country in this world. Ive been to
three different countries and once
u step down on these lands u know
how lucky u r cause all the freedoms
u know here u feel like u r an alien. I'm
not saying that the USA doesn't have
its problems-it has bad problems but
many people fought and died for these
freedoms and u cant take that away.

[PlasmaHam]

You are addressing a ton of different topics in your post, from regional stereotypes to perceived oppression to anti-Trumpism. But I'll try to stick to your main question, which is my opinion on the USA.

In my opinion, the USA is the best country on Earth. It isn't perfect, but no country is. It is founded upon principles of freedom, liberty, and trust in God. And yes, those same rights also apply to gays, blacks, women, Muslims, and every human that calls America home. Through those principles grew from a back-water group of disconnected colonies, into the supreme world superpower in less than two centuries. And while other countries around the world are constantly stripping away their citizens' rights to basic things like their own living and freedom of speech, America has stood strong. Do I believe that the USA needs to return in some ways to the past? Yes. Do I think the USA needs to be looking towards the future? Yes as well. I am proud to be an American, regardless of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office. Because America isn't one man's country, its a dream.



Lastly, just curious, have you ever been to the South? I constantly hear stories from foreigners and west-coasters about how they think the South is just an awful place with Jim Crow, lynches, and direct oppression of just about anyone who isn't a straight white male. But as someone who has lived my whole life in the Old South, I have yet to see much of any of that. I mean the most controversial thing I've seen is that HB2 debacle, which just mandated that people use the public bathroom of their birth gender.

[Croconaw]

You are addressing a ton of different topics in your post, from regional stereotypes to perceived oppression to anti-Trumpism. But I'll try to stick to your main question, which is my opinion on the USA.

In my opinion, the USA is the best country on Earth. It isn't perfect, but no country is. It is founded upon principles of freedom, liberty, and trust in God. And yes, those same rights also apply to gays, blacks, women, Muslims, and every human that calls America home. Through those principles grew from a back-water group of disconnected colonies, into the supreme world superpower in less than two centuries. And while other countries around the world are constantly stripping away their citizens' rights to basic things like their own living and freedom of speech, America has stood strong. Do I believe that the USA needs to return in some ways to the past? Yes. Do I think the USA needs to be looking towards the future? Yes as well. I am proud to be an American, regardless of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office. Because America isn't one man's country, its a dream.



Lastly, just curious, have you ever been to the South? I constantly hear stories from foreigners and west-coasters about how they think the South is just an awful place with Jim Crow, lynches, and direct oppression of just about anyone who isn't a straight white male. But as someone who has lived my whole life in the Old South, I have yet to see much of any of that. I mean the most controversial thing I've seen is that HB2 debacle, which just mandated that people use the public bathroom of their birth gender.I have been to the south. I was originally born in the north, then moved out west. I’ve only ever been to the southern states of Alabama and Tennessee. I had a few layovers Kentucky, but I wouldn’t say I have been there because I didn’t explore any of times I was out of there. :)

[Jinglebottom]

I will share my viewpoint as an outsider, if you are a very patriotic American you probably don't wanna read this.

I think America is the worst Western country out there. Or, at least, the one with the most issues. Other countries don't even compare. Your politics are truly a circus. Your healthcare is a disaster, from what I hear a lot of people avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of the bills that are awaiting them. Do you guys really regularly recite some expression of allegiance towards your flag? Cause if you do that's pretty weird. I don't understand why you think your flag is so important and inviolable, if someone wants to "offend" the American flag on American soil it shouldn't matter to you. You have bigger problems to worry about. America is literally the only country "peaceful" country with such a huge shooting issue. When such a big and powerful country can't even provide its residents with that basic security (not getting randomly shot in the face), meanwhile some small unstable country in the Middle East can, I think it says a lot. We only occasionally have to worry about formerly American-funded terror groups, and America's best ally. :)

America likes to pretend like it's their job to "secure" and "liberate" the world and bring world peace obviously! Well you may already know this, but nobody appreciates nor trusts your leaders. They're all a bunch of hypocrites anyway, how can a nation call itself the "Land of the free" while being allies with regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Ohh, but America liberated Iraq from evil Saddam! But we all saw how that turned out. America turned Iraq from an okay country with a shitty government to a mess, a wasteland, ruined and destroyed. I don't see how any nation in this world could legitimately trust the American government. You know, for a country that seems to dislike Russia so much, you're not much better overall in your foreign policies. Perhaps you should change that. How many countries have you bombed in the past few decades? Why do you act like the world police? You're not, you are a country as troubled and broken as the rest of us.

Americans are, in general, nice people, although you do have your ignorant folks. Your accents/dialects are quite varied, but I truly prefer your English to the rest of the Anglosphere. I like how America isn't as politically correct as Western Europe. And yes, your freedom of speech is a thing to be proud of indeed (unless you are insulting some important politicians I guess). I feel like a lot of Europe is limiting freedom of speech for the sake of not hurting anybody's feelings, but someone's feelings will always be hurt no matter what, so you can't do anything about it. You have beautiful cities and beautiful landscapes. I think America is one of the most geographically aesthetic countries in the world. You have such a wide array of landscapes and ecosystems. You have plains, mountains, deserts, forests, swamps, glaciers, but it must help that you are such a huge country. It's always been a dream of mine to visit New York City at least once in my life, it would be great but I need a visa lol..

I must say, thank you for your movies, your TV series, and your music, without you guys the world would be so much duller. I grew up watching and listening to everything American, so I prefer that far more than Arab or Lebanese productions. I actually dislike those, America truly is a cultural giant. Oh, and thank you for your food too. I can't even imagine having to eat nothing but local dishes my whole life, I almost can't blame America for having such a high obesity rate because your food is to die for. Whoever brought it here was a genius. But really, I don't think America is such a bad place at all, I'm sure most of it is lovely, but America needs to realize it is not the best and learn from other countries. Also stop using Fahrenheit you weirdos

[abcdeqwe]

I will share my viewpoint as an outsider, if you are a very patriotic American you probably don't wanna read this.

I think America is the worst Western country out there. Or, at least, the one with the most issues. Other countries don't even compare. Your politics are truly a circus. Your healthcare is a disaster, from what I hear a lot of people avoid going to the doctor because they are afraid of the bills that are awaiting them. Do you guys really regularly recite some expression of allegiance towards your flag? Cause if you do that's pretty weird. I don't understand why you think your flag is so important and inviolable, if someone wants to "offend" the American flag on American soil it shouldn't matter to you. You have bigger problems to worry about. America is literally the only country "peaceful" country with such a huge shooting issue. When such a big and powerful country can't even provide its residents with that basic security (not getting randomly shot in the face), meanwhile some small unstable country in the Middle East can, I think it says a lot. We only occasionally have to worry about formerly American-funded terror groups, and America's best ally. :)

America likes to pretend like it's their job to "secure" and "liberate" the world and bring world peace obviously! Well you may already know this, but nobody appreciates nor trusts your leaders. They're all a bunch of hypocrites anyway, how can a nation call itself the "Land of the free" while being allies with regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Ohh, but America liberated Iraq from evil Saddam! But we all saw how that turned out. America turned Iraq from an okay country with a shitty government to a mess, a wasteland, ruined and destroyed. I don't see how any nation in this world could legitimately trust the American government. You know, for a country that seems to dislike Russia so much, you're not much better overall in your foreign policies. Perhaps you should change that. How many countries have you bombed in the past few decades? Why do you act like the world police? You're not, you are a country as troubled and broken as the rest of us.

Americans are, in general, nice people, although you do have your ignorant folks. Your accents/dialects are quite varied, but I truly prefer your English to the rest of the Anglosphere. I like how America isn't as politically correct as Western Europe. And yes, your freedom of speech is a thing to be proud of indeed (unless you are insulting some important politicians I guess). I feel like a lot of Europe is limiting freedom of speech for the sake of not hurting anybody's feelings, but someone's feelings will always be hurt no matter what, so you can't do anything about it. You have beautiful cities and beautiful landscapes. I think America is one of the most geographically aesthetic countries in the world. You have such a wide array of landscapes and ecosystems. You have plains, mountains, deserts, forests, swamps, glaciers, but it must help that you are such a huge country. It's always been a dream of mine to visit New York City at least once in my life, it would be great but I need a visa lol..

I must say, thank you for your movies, your TV series, and your music, without you guys the world would be so much duller. I grew up watching and listening to everything American, so I prefer that far more than Arab or Lebanese productions. I actually dislike those, America truly is a cultural giant. Oh, and thank you for your food too. I can't even imagine having to eat nothing but local dishes my whole life, I almost can't blame America for having such a high obesity rate because your food is to die for. Whoever brought it here was a genius. But really, I don't think America is such a bad place at all, I'm sure most of it is lovely, but America needs to realize it is not the best and learn from other countries. Also stop using Fahrenheit you weirdos

I very much agree with this. Frankly, the United States is better at causing problems than solving them. And about what you said about America needing to realize it is not the best. I think you are spot on, the American people are very proud of their country, if you were to ask someone on the street who they thought was the best country in the world is, they would probably say America. However, once enough Americans realize that we actually suck, real change will occur. Trump supporters have the will to change our country but they're still holding on to the belief that we come first, second, third...so we are actually becoming the opposite of great. Trump said "make America great again", Clinton said "it never stopped being great", but I say "It has never been great" That's my honest opinion.

Oh, and I wish we had the metric system too. :cool:

[Croconaw]

Trump wants to divide us even more. He doesn’t support LGBT or equality. I honestly HATE him.

[BlackParadePixie]

If you want to destroy America, just do everything California does.

[Tim the Enchanter]

Thoughts and prayers.

[Croconaw]

If you want to destroy America, do everything the South does. California is actually doing things right.

It's also important to understand why white guys tend to be more conservative. Many of them hear about how privileged their lives are from people who know nothing about them, when they grew up in families that have always struggled. They start to reject everything they hear from the left and it drives them down a more right-leaning path. The conservatives are so corrupt it’s not even funny.

Conservatives believe in equality for everyone, supposedly. To them, that means if you are not straight, male, and American, they don’t want any parts of you. The Conservative party is so corrupt. It’s okay to discriminate against minorities. Don’t support equality? Conservatives all for it.

If your argument is that you support equality, then you are not a conservative. This will get me a lot of hate, but I truly despise that idiot in office.

[Tim the Enchanter]

If you want to destroy America, do everything the South does. California is actually doing things right.

It's also important to understand why white guys tend to be more conservative. Many of them hear about how privileged their lives are from people who know nothing about them, when they grew up in families that have always struggled. They start to reject everything they hear from the left and it drives them down a more right-leaning path. The conservatives are so corrupt it’s not even funny.

Conservatives believe in equality for everyone, supposedly. To them, that means if you are not straight, male, and American, they don’t want any parts of you. The Conservative party is so corrupt. It’s okay to discriminate against minorities. Don’t support equality? Conservatives all for it.

If your argument is that you support equality, then you are not a conservative. This will get me a lot of hate, but I truly despise that idiot in office.

God Save America.

[Croconaw]

Yes, America sucks. I can see why most of the world hates America.

[abcdeqwe]

...Hell

[NewLeafsFan]

Divisive. Brighter future ahead (replacement of current politicians could not be more divisive so it can't get worse in that department).

[mattsmith48]

I would call it a Banana Republic, but that would be insulting... to other banana republics.

[Stronk Serb]

If you want to destroy America, do everything the South does. California is actually doing things right.

It's also important to understand why white guys tend to be more conservative. Many of them hear about how privileged their lives are from people who know nothing about them, when they grew up in families that have always struggled. They start to reject everything they hear from the left and it drives them down a more right-leaning path. The conservatives are so corrupt it’s not even funny.

Conservatives believe in equality for everyone, supposedly. To them, that means if you are not straight, male, and American, they don’t want any parts of you. The Conservative party is so corrupt. It’s okay to discriminate against minorities. Don’t support equality? Conservatives all for it.

If your argument is that you support equality, then you are not a conservative. This will get me a lot of hate, but I truly despise that idiot in office.

Depends on the context and what you want to "conserve". I consider myself a reactionary for many social things except race, sexuality and such.

Still, the US has financed dictatorial regimes, toppled democratic ones and bombed countries to further their economic interests.

I would visit it, but the actions of the government are gut-wrenching to me.

[Sofiya02]

I’m not American but my mum’s boyfriend is American from Alabama and he took us to the states before. once to Hawaii and once across mainland America. It’s an awesome place. There’s big cities and fun places to visit like Disneyland. I live in New Zealand and cities here are nothing compared to America. He also told us a lot of stuff about the history and culture of America and the values of freedom and liberty.

In terms of the food, it’s AMAZING! Great variety plus great quality (Perhaps the reason why there’s so many very fat people). The people were very friendly and the weather was very hot in Alabama. Hawaii is just a very beautiful vacation spot.

My impression of the states is very good and it’s quite likely that my mum and i might move there with her boyfriend in the future.

[Spooky_Eli]

Trump wants to divide us even more. He doesn’t support LGBT or equality. I honestly HATE him.i had the perfect meme for this.. but your statement broke my brain before i could find it

[Chrisbm]

America could be better if we impeach Number 45 (Trump)

[Spooky_Eli]

Yes, America sucks. I can see why most of the world hates America.
i pity you, the fact of the matter is that America is the best, most free, most inclusive & least discriminatory country in the world.

[CoryW]

America could be better if we impeach Number 45 (Trump)

How would it be better. You really think Hillary would have been a good president?

[Chrisbm]

How would it be better. You really think Hillary would have been a good president?

Both of them wouldn’t make a good president.

[CoryW]

Both of them wouldn’t make a good president.

I couldn't vote I'm 15 but I watched the debates and herd the speeches. I think 45 is doing exactly what he said he would do so in my thinking he's a man of his word.

[Chrisbm]

Yes, Trump is a good guy and stuff! But he needs to remember that he’s running a country, not a business!

[mattsmith48]

America could be better if we impeach Number 45 (Trump)

Whats with referring to Trump with a number? I'm guessing 45 thats his IQ.

i pity you, the fact of the matter is that America is the best, most free, most inclusive & least discriminatory country in the world.

They lead the world in incarceration rate and gun violence, their health care system is bankrupt, voting is useless, the party in power and president are openly racist, homophobic and conspiracy theorists, corruption is legal, and Trumps anti-immigrants talk as caused a wave of people to illegally cross the border to claim refugee status here. Not so free, inclusive and least discriminatory.

How would it be better. You really think Hillary would have been a good president?

Both of them wouldn’t make a good president.

I had this discussion with someone else couple weeks ago, but this quote is still relevant so I'll ask both of you the same question.

Why do feel the need to keep bringing up Clinton to justify Trump? When Obama was president and he was bombing weddings in the middle east and trying to give people health care you didn't see people saying sure Obama is a terrible president, but at least we dodge that bullet called Mitt Romney. I don't remember earing it or seeing it. I don't remember people trying to justify him by bringing up Mitt Romney in the same way you and others use Hillary Clinton to justify their support of President Stable Genius. So I ask again why do you feel the need to constantly bring her up to justify your support of Trump?

I couldn't vote I'm 15 but I watched the debates and herd the speeches. I think 45 is doing exactly what he said he would do so in my thinking he's a man of his word.

Really? What exactly? Got any examples?

Yes, Trump is a good guy and stuff! But he needs to remember that he’s running a country, not a business!

A good guy? What kind a good guy cheat on his wife with 2 porn stars while his wife is home taking care of their newborn baby?

[Chrisbm]

Ok, fine want me to go back to that he’s the worst president?

[Spooky_Eli]

Whats with referring to Trump with a number? I'm guessing 45 thats his IQ.



They lead the world in incarceration rate and gun violence, their health care system is bankrupt, voting is useless, the party in power and president are openly racist, homophobic and conspiracy theorists, corruption is legal, and Trumps anti-immigrants talk as caused a wave of people to illegally cross the border to claim refugee status here. Not so free, inclusive and least discriminatory.





I had this discussion with someone else couple weeks ago, but this quote is still relevant so I'll ask both of you the same question.





Really? What exactly? Got any examples?



A good guy? What kind a good guy cheat on his wife with 2 porn stars while his wife is home taking care of their newborn baby?conspiracy theory's really? thats rich considering this hole statement is a load of s***

[mattsmith48]

Ok, fine want me to go back to that he’s the worst president?

Having an affair does not make you a bad politician, it can make you an hypocrite but not a bad politician.

conspiracy theory's really? thats rich considering this hole statement is a load of s***

- Mexicans are coming to take our jobs
- Muslims are coming to kill us all
- Obama is a Kenyan spy
- Climate change is a hoax from the Chinese
- Millions of illegal immigrants are voting illegally
- Obama is coming to take your guns
- Hillary is coming to take your guns
- Hillary purposely let Benghazi happen
- Hillary is running a child sex ring
- Vaccines cause autism
- Abortion and gay marriage cause droughts, earthquakes and Hurricanes

Do you need more?

Also the load of shit thing if that refers to the 45 thing I said at the start that was a joke

[Spooky_Eli]

- Mexicans are coming to take our jobs-true
- Muslims are coming to kill us all-true
- Obama is a Kenyan spy- he never said that
- Climate change is a hoax from the Chinese-he never said that
- Millions of illegal immigrants are voting illegally-true
- Obama is coming to take your guns-true
- Hillary is coming to take your guns-true
- Hillary purposely let Benghazi happen-true
- Hillary is running a child sex ring-he never said that
- Vaccines cause autism-he never said that
- Abortion and gay marriage cause droughts, earthquakes and Hurricanes-he never said that

[Croconaw]

i pity you, the fact of the matter is that America is the best, most free, most inclusive & least discriminatory country in the world.
That’s a blatant lie. America is the worst. Far from perfect.

[Spooky_Eli]

That’s a blatant lie. America is the worst. Far from perfect.A: i never said perfect. B: bullshit. C:prove it.

[Dalcourt]

That’s a blatant lie. America is the worst. Far from perfect.

A: i never said perfect. B: bullshit. C:prove it.

Hm, guess both of you would have a hard time proving it.

I personally don't think that the USA is better than any other country. There are always good things and bad things about a place.

It all depends on personal experiences and how to deal with them.
I'm colored and I'm gay and I had my share of ugly racism and homophobia here in this country. However, I wouldn't say that everyone is a racist or a homophobe here. It's just the bad things that stick more in your memory sometimes. And you just see the not so nice people out there more since they are louder than the good people.

This place is far from perfect and has some downsides for sure but I guess every place in the world is like that.
So overall the USA are an okay country not as horrible as some try to portray it but also not the great nation that others try to see in it.

Funny enough I had to do an essay on this topic not long ago.

[Dmaxd123]

I think the United States of America is a pretty damn good country.

-once you are over the age of 18 as long as you are a legal citizen and not incarcerated you have a voice in your government from the town/county, to the state, to the national level.

some people don't like our electoral system but that is ONLY in the presidential race which is ONLY 1/3 of the judicial branch of our government! electoral system actually works quite well even if it's confusing and someone always feels cheated (sometimes shows those in densely populated areas how those of us in rural areas feel on the state level)

-we are a very open/accepting country, some may moan/complain that one person is racist or sexist or against gays/bi's/transgenders/whatever elses... but honestly a majority of the people don't give a crap you are just another person and you are allowed to live as you please, hell sometimes the minority are given MORE opportunities because they are "different" (guess what we are all different... but that's a different story)

-we have guns: agree or disagree we have the 1st amendment so we can debate it and the second amendment so we can keep them even when we disagree, you asked for a description the first and second amendment are huge in the USA and part of what makes us who we are. Lots of people fought to get them for us and lots more fight to keep them even while some wish we didn't have them. yes they can be used in crimes.... but other countries are having acid attacks so is one worse than the other? nope just different means to a crazy person's agenda

-it's a pretty diverse country, Florida to Maine to kansas, California, Alaska Hawaii.... if you want to live in mountains, desert, plains, warm or cold... the US can probably accommodate


for those that think it's SOOO terrible, when you turn 18 are you going to one of the better countries? during the election of Trump many people vowed to leave including quite a few celebrities, but I don't think that many legal residents actually followed through... maybe the USA isn't soo bad after all

[Croconaw]

A: i never said perfect. B: bullshit. C:prove it.
You said it was the best. Fact is, USA sucks. The South is still in the 60s with all the discriminating conservatives.

[Dalcourt]

You said it was the best. Fact is, USA sucks. The South is still in the 60s with all the discriminating conservatives.

60s? That would be too much credit to some parts of the South. I know aother of places where they have reached the 1930s at best.
But not all of the South is bad...I'm from the deep South and can honestly say I live in a very open place. We have a huge LGBTQ community and most people are accepting.
But yeah, there are lots of backwater places but to judge everyone based on them would just be not fair. A lot of people I found are so clingy to the past because they are afraid and not because they are evil.

[Billy1212]

Yes, America sucks. I can see why most of the world hates America.

I doubt most of the world HATES america. Why would they hate it. They dont like the things that the politicians and people that shoot up innocent peopld do, npbut thats a minority, i think america is great, but my problem is the idiots that are not representing the wider population. And btw, im Aussie, but i think im pretty right. I hope

[ShineintheDark]

I like how one of the people who's most blindly supportive of the US is from Britain. Calm down honey, we already got Nigel kissing Trump's ass we don't need you too.

As fopr my own opinion, as stated before the US is a place. It's got good point and bad points, people I agree with and people I don't. I don't personally see why Americans are so convinced of their own supremacy ('FUCK YEAH 'MURICA IS #1' et al) but hey if jingoism works for you, you go Glenn Coco. I do worry abut such patriotism though as it often blinds people from the less positive aspects of their nation and government. Having lived through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I can see that blind trust and love of our nation is not nearly as popular in Britain as it is in the US. That doesn't mean we HATE our country, just that we're more likely to be critical of our government, even if we happen to like them.

[Spooky_Eli]

I like how one of the people who's most blindly supportive of the US is from Britain. Calm down honey, we already got Nigel kissing Trump's ass we don't need you too.

As fopr my own opinion, as stated before the US is a place. It's got good point and bad points, people I agree with and people I don't. I don't personally see why Americans are so convinced of their own supremacy ('FUCK YEAH 'MURICA IS #1' et al) but hey if jingoism works for you, you go Glenn Coco. I do worry abut such patriotism though as it often blinds people from the less positive aspects of their nation and government. Having lived through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I can see that blind trust and love of our nation is not nearly as popular in Britain as it is in the US. That doesn't mean we HATE our country, just that we're more likely to be critical of our government, even if we happen to like them.i was born in America and will probably end up living there so do a bit of digging before you make an ass out of you and me, also most patriots love the country and the values it was billet upon not the goverment.

[Vilnius]

The Land of the Free is dead.

[Music Lover]

America is but a shadow of what it once was and could have been still today.

[Dalcourt]

America is but a shadow of what it once was and could have been still today.

Sounds interesting... and what do you think America was once?

[mattsmith48]

- Mexicans are coming to take our jobs-true
- Muslims are coming to kill us all-true
- Obama is a Kenyan spy- he never said that
- Climate change is a hoax from the Chinese-he never said that
- Millions of illegal immigrants are voting illegally-true
- Obama is coming to take your guns-true
- Hillary is coming to take your guns-true
- Hillary purposely let Benghazi happen-true
- Hillary is running a child sex ring-he never said that
- Vaccines cause autism-he never said that
- Abortion and gay marriage cause droughts, earthquakes and Hurricanes-he never said that

Who's he?

I think the United States of America is a pretty damn good country.

-once you are over the age of 18 as long as you are a legal citizen and not incarcerated you have a voice in your government from the town/county, to the state, to the national level.

some people don't like our electoral system but that is ONLY in the presidential race which is ONLY 1/3 of the judicial branch of our government! electoral system actually works quite well even if it's confusing and someone always feels cheated (sometimes shows those in densely populated areas how those of us in rural areas feel on the state level)

No you don't. Unless you live in very specific areas, voting is basically worthless no matter what level of government you are voting for. Its all FPTP which is the same system we use here and that is use in the UK, it is one of the most unfair system out there and is fully responsible to the US' two party system, in some places even a one party system and that lead to the incredibly strong political division across the population and the country.

for those that think it's SOOO terrible, when you turn 18 are you going to one of the better countries? during the election of Trump many people vowed to leave including quite a few celebrities, but I don't think that many legal residents actually followed through... maybe the USA isn't soo bad after all

Looking at how many people cross the border illegally, a lot did. The people who come here are mostly refugees and immigrants who fear to lose their status or that it will not be renewed.

60s? That would be too much credit to some parts of the South. I know aother of places where they have reached the 1930s at best.

I think she was talking about the 1860's.

[Spooky_Eli]

Who's he? trump. duh.



No you don't. Unless you live in very specific areas, voting is basically worthless no matter what level of government you are voting for. Its all FPTP which is the same system we use here and that is use in the UK, it is one of the most unfair system out there and is fully responsible to the US' two party system, in some places even a one party system and that lead to the incredibly strong political division across the population and the country.

the us does not have a two party system. proof? you said it your self, the uk uses the same system.



I think she was talking about the 1860's.

yes, because the k.k.k are so prevalent in today's society.. oh wait..... THERE NOT!

[Dalcourt]

I think she was talking about the 1860's.

yes, because the k.k.k are so prevalent in today's society.. oh wait..... THERE NOT!

I have a step-cousin who is a KKK member he would definitely not like to hear how you underestimate them. Just because they don't set up burning crosses anymore doesn't mean they are gone. ;)

[Spooky_Eli]

I have a step-cousin who is a KKK member he would definitely not like to hear how you underestimate them. Just because they don't set up burning crosses anymore doesn't mean they are gone. ;)i guess you wouldn't exactly like to be the messenger, but seriously 2,000 wack-jobs vs. a good 359+m other people.

[Dalcourt]

i guess you wouldn't exactly like to be the messenger, but seriously 2,000 wack-jobs vs. a good 359+m other people.

Guess you underestimate the structures behind the KKK is deeply entwined up to the highest levels.
It isn't just some gang of thugs like e.g. AB.
So believe me even if we do not really see it in everyday live there are still ugly things going on in some places.
And may I ask you since you are American, where is your family from?

[Spooky_Eli]

Guess you underestimate the structures behind the KKK is deeply entwined up to the highest levels.
It isn't just some gang of thugs like e.g. AB.
So believe me even if we do not really see it in everyday live there are still ugly things going on in some places.
And may I ask you since you are American, where is your family from?the American side comes from Tennessee.. why?

[Dalcourt]

the American side comes from Tennessee.. why?

Nothing really, I was just curious since you mentioned being American.
And from your politic views I felt your family doesn't come from San Francisco or Portland.;)

Anyway, I don't wanna go off topic too much here.

[ShineintheDark]

i was born in America and will probably end up living there so do a bit of digging before you make an ass out of you and me, also most patriots love the country and the values it was built upon not the government. Firstly, I don't expect to need to do personal research on the person I'm debating if the subject matter isn't about them. I'm sorry if you're offended by my lack of knowledge of your lineage.

Secondly, patriotism still makes little sense under the definition you give. What ties certain values to a country? Most Americans believe liberty and self-determination are represented by their flag but France, Russia, Vietnam, India and even the UK have had revolutions of their own to name a few so what makes those values particularly AMERICAN? Of course, the US and its culture has components that are much more modern and agreeable than components of other cultures and there is nothing wrong with being appreciative of that but idk I just don't understand what would make you LOVE a country.

[InternetTeen]

It looks and sounds better than the UK. Does America have 'chavs'?

[Spooky_Eli]

It looks and sounds better than the UK. Does America have 'chavs'?no. there are no 'chavs' in the us, thank god

[Music Lover]

Sounds interesting... and what do you think America was once?

A beacon of liberty and freedom. I may elaborate later, but don't have the time now.

[Dalcourt]

no. there are no 'chavs' in the us, thank god

What are 'chavs'??

[Spooky_Eli]

What are 'chavs'??behold!http://media.turbosport.co.uk/2005/3/111390200503180912.gif

[Dalcourt]

A beacon of liberty and freedom. I may elaborate later, but don't have the time now.
Ah well the freedom and liberty thing.

behold!image (http://media.turbosport.co.uk/2005/3/111390200503180912.gif)

Lawd, what are they supposed to be? White thrash ghetto people?

[Spooky_Eli]

Lawd, what are they supposed to be? White thrash ghetto people?preaty much, you haven't even herd there speech *ugh*

[Music Lover]

Ah well the freedom and liberty thing.


You are not a fan?

America could be better if we impeach Number 45 (Trump)

A lot of people had similar thoughts about Obama lol :)

Both of them wouldn’t make a good president.

Trump exceeded my expectations. But it was clear Hillary was the more disastrous option.

I like how one of the people who's most blindly supportive of the US is from Britain. Calm down honey, we already got Nigel kissing Trump's ass we don't need you too.

As fopr my own opinion, as stated before the US is a place. It's got good point and bad points, people I agree with and people I don't. I don't personally see why Americans are so convinced of their own supremacy ('FUCK YEAH 'MURICA IS #1' et al) but hey if jingoism works for you, you go Glenn Coco. I do worry abut such patriotism though as it often blinds people from the less positive aspects of their nation and government. Having lived through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I can see that blind trust and love of our nation is not nearly as popular in Britain as it is in the US. That doesn't mean we HATE our country, just that we're more likely to be critical of our government, even if we happen to like them.

The partiotism in America as I understand is not about the government, but on the principles the country was founded on by the founding fathers.
If someone in America has blind faith in their government, they have got it the wrong way around. The US was founded on the idea that government should be restricted and kept in check by the people.

[mattsmith48]

trump. duh.

Never said I was only talking about Trump



the us does not have a two party system. proof? you said it your self, the uk uses the same system.

A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate the government taking turns being the party in power and the official opposition with other parties having little or no voice.


yes, because the k.k.k are so prevalent in today's society.. oh wait..... THERE NOT!

That was a joke aimed at some people who are still upset on the outcome of the civil war and that the south didn't get to keep their slaves.

[InternetTeen]

no. there are no 'chavs' in the us, thank god

Lucky, Chavs are a disease.

[Spooky_Eli]

Lucky, Chavs are a disease.oohhhh yes..

[lliam]

Of course there are Chavs in the USA. They are labeled as hillbillies, white trash and such.

Get it, Chaves are everywhere. You can't escape ... just avoid any contact and don't watch This Country too often.

[Dalcourt]

You are not a fan?

Well I would be a fan if it was true. But fact is the US have never been a "freer" country than any other one. You have the same freedom rights in any other democracy, too, so I honestly don't get why people always try to emphasis this so much.

This so called freedom and liberty they wrote about in the constitution was just true for a certain elitist male group of people as everywhere else in the world.The fact they elected a "President" was the only democratic thing.

But I don't recall females to be part of that voting process, or the indigenous people of the country they violently took it from or any colored minorities. So what about their freedom and liberty?

Those people had basically no rights back in the days in the US same as anywhere else so I don't see any special about this so called freedom.

Just do some research about when those groups finally got their freedom and liberty and compare it to England, France, Germany,Italy or whatever.
So I'm sorry but for me this whole liberty thing isn't as spectacular in reality as it sounds on paper.


I'm not saying America is bad but I feel outsiders and native patriots always emphasis the wrong things about it.

[Music Lover]

Well I would be a fan if it was true. But fact is the US have never been a "freer" country than any other one. You have the same freedom rights in any other democracy, too, so I honestly don't get why people always try to emphasis this so much.

I believe in the biggest part of 19th Century the US was the freest society on earth. Freedom from government overreach that is.
A government that respects natural rights and defends them is one of the biggest achievements in the history of mankind.

This so called freedom and liberty they wrote about in the constitution was just true for a certain elitist male group of people as everywhere else in the world.The fact they elected a "President" was the only democratic thing.

Last I checked the declaration of independence states all men to be equal. And the word man does not refer to only males, but encompasses mankind.

As to the practical applications, we can say that it was inconsistently applied and enforced. The democrats in the south got away with practicing slavery for too long.

But I don't recall females to be part of that voting process, or the indigenous people of the country they violently took it from or any colored minorities. So what about their freedom and liberty?

Who can vote is a much more minor issue in comparison to identifying, respecting and defending natural rights.
-Life
-Liberty
-Property

I'd rather live in a society where those three are defended than where I can vote, if I had to choose one over the other.

Those people had basically no rights back in the days in the US same as anywhere else so I don't see any special about this so called freedom.

They had the right to their life. Killing them was both morally and legally wrong to my knowledge.
They had the right to their freedom. It was morally wrong to enslave, and with the exception of slavery in the south, it was illegal.
They had the right to property. Taking someone's property by force was considered immoral and was illegal.

Of course, each of those is morally wrong regardless of what the law says.

As to native americans and their rights? I don't know much about that and that is a whole other topic. If they had a legitimate claim to the land and it was taken by force from them, that is obviously wrong. If the settlers initiated violence against them, that is obviously also wrong.

Just do some research about when those groups finally got their freedom and liberty and compare it to England, France, Germany,Italy or whatever.
So I'm sorry but for me this whole liberty thing isn't as spectacular in reality as it sounds on paper.

Actually it is. Liberty means that you are free from a covernment that compels its citizens into how they conduct their life and business.
The country that has gotten this the most correct is the US in the 19th century.

It is when they started violating these rights and principles "for the sake of the greater good" when things started to go downhill.

I'm not saying America is bad but I feel outsiders and native patriots always emphasis the wrong things about it.

Why do you feel that way? Are you saying liberty as an idea is good, but you don't feel it has actually happened?

[Dalcourt]

I believe in the biggest part of 19th Century the US was the freest society on earth. Freedom from government overreach that is.
A government that respects natural rights and defends them is one of the biggest achievements in the history of mankind.



Last I checked the declaration of independence states all men to be equal. And the word man does not refer to only males, but encompasses mankind.

As to the practical applications, we can say that it was inconsistently applied and enforced. The democrats in the south got away with practicing slavery for too long.



Who can vote is a much more minor issue in comparison to identifying, respecting and defending natural rights.
-Life
-Liberty
-Property

I'd rather live in a society where those three are defended than where I can vote, if I had to choose one over the other.



They had the right to their life. Killing them was both morally and legally wrong to my knowledge.
They had the right to their freedom. It was morally wrong to enslave, and with the exception of slavery in the south, it was illegal.
They had the right to property. Taking someone's property by force was considered immoral and was illegal.

Of course, each of those is morally wrong regardless of what the law says.

As to native americans and their rights? I don't know much about that and that is a whole other topic. If they had a legitimate claim to the land and it was taken by force from them, that is obviously wrong. If the settlers initiated violence against them, that is obviously also wrong.



Actually it is. Liberty means that you are free from a covernment that compels its citizens into how they conduct their life and business.
The country that has gotten this the most correct is the US in the 19th century.

It is when they started violating these rights and principles "for the sake of the greater good" when things started to go downhill.



Why do you feel that way? Are you saying liberty as an idea is good, but you don't feel it has actually happened?

Sure liberty did not happen for everyone. Back in the days when the constitution was written nobody really thought this rights applied to every single human being in the states.There was no idea about human rights or whatever uou wanna call it. It would be the same as saying the Magna Carta Libertatum gave civil rights to all people in England. It is plain wrong.

A group of people left their home countries because they couldn't do want they wanted here due to existing laws so they started a "new state" according to the right wishes in another place. Why would you think they'd cater for anybody else's need in their constitution?

So seriously the freedom and liberty idea isn't as special as people love to think.

And since I sometimes hear Europeans like you be so euphoric about this freedom and liberty. What rights do you think we have you don't have in Europe?

[Spooky_Eli]

Sure liberty did not happen for everyone. Back in the days when the constitution was written nobody really thought this rights applied to every single human being in the states.There was no idea about human rights or whatever uou wanna call it. It would be the same as saying the Magna Carta Libertatum gave civil rights to all people in England. It is plain wrong.

A group of people left their home countries because they couldn't do want they wanted here due to existing laws so they started a "new state" according to the right wishes in another place. Why would you think they'd cater for anybody else's need in their constitution?

So seriously the freedom and liberty idea isn't as special as people love to think.

And since I sometimes hear Europeans like you be so euphoric about this freedom and liberty. What rights do you think we have you don't have in Europe?
have you herd of the communications act of 2003?

[JustMyHumbleOpinion]

America.. America.
Abysmal health care, fu** tons of money chucked into warfare and the military.

Guns everywhere, heck, i remember my trip to Texas a few years back.. Guns were sold in a goddamn supermarket.. The constant gun terror and violence quite frankly isn't a surprise.

There is good in the US- California seems extremely progressive as well as a hot-spot for tourism, the country is also filled with many different natural wonders like part of Niagara Falls, The Grand Canyon, Hollywood, ect.

In Politics i think its one of the worst scenarios in the world- a semi racist narcissist verses a compulsive liar was the two fighting for the spot of the president of the damn country.. That is coming from a guy who has Theresa drab as the prime-minister in their country..

[Dalcourt]

have you herd of the communications act of 2003?

Yeah and your point is by mentioning it?

[Spooky_Eli]

Yeah and your point is by mentioning it?
it is one of the many things that separates Europe from the us

[Dalcourt]

it is one of the many things that separates Europe from the us

And in which way makes this the whole of Europe so different in terms of freedom and liberty in comparison with the US?

[Spooky_Eli]

And in which way makes this the whole of Europe so different in terms of freedom and liberty in comparison with the US?
the ways the act can be exploited to clamp down on free speech

[Dalcourt]

the ways the act can be exploited to clamp down on free speech

Can but so can many things here, too, if you look closely. I bet most British people don't even know this exists and won't even think about.
I mean if we are honest companies like Facebook,Google and maybe even Amazon could manipulate the whole world and therefore also influence our freedom of speech.
That's the perks of our times... welcome to 1984.

I talked about real open and blatant differences that affect your daily life when you life in Britain, France, Germany, Italy or whatever country.
I mean I would probably understand when someone from Russia or China would tell us we have so much more freedom than them.

[Music Lover]

Sure liberty did not happen for everyone. Back in the days when the constitution was written nobody really thought this rights applied to every single human being in the states.

Source?

From what I know, it was the complete opposite to this.

A group of people left their home countries because they couldn't do want they wanted here due to existing laws so they started a "new state" according to the right wishes in another place. Why would you think they'd cater for anybody else's need in their constitution?

Maybe because it is the right thing to do?

So seriously the freedom and liberty idea isn't as special as people love to think.

It is. You are jsut living a bit over 100 years too late to see it.

And since I sometimes hear Europeans like you be so euphoric about this freedom and liberty. What rights do you think we have you don't have in Europe?

I do not think in its current state the US is much better than Europe. Only marginallly, and of course varies state to state.

In other words I am not as euphoric about the current state of the US than I am about the foundational principles or a rights-respecting country ;)

Out of all the countries in the history of mankind, the US has been the closest to that.

[lliam]

... has been.

[Stronk Serb]

In Serbia votes count more. You don't have a bunch of traditionally blue or red areas and people do not squabble over the small states which are swing states.

[Zika]

fsdhbsfdg

[ShineintheDark]

That rich uncle/aunt that's done well for themselves but believes they have a right to be involved in everyone's business.

[mattsmith48]

Banana Republic

[kayin]

USA is a nice country, my own criticism is that people start to regard being liberal as the absolute politically correct answer.

[NoLimitGuy]

It was once a great country but now it has turned to trash thanks to liberals and socialists...

[Tim the Enchanter]

America likes to pretend like it's their job to "secure" and "liberate" the world and bring world peace obviously! Well you may already know this, but nobody appreciates nor trusts your leaders. They're all a bunch of hypocrites anyway, how can a nation call itself the "Land of the free" while being allies with regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Ohh, but America liberated Iraq from evil Saddam! But we all saw how that turned out. America turned Iraq from an okay country with a shitty government to a mess, a wasteland, ruined and destroyed. I don't see how any nation in this world could legitimately trust the American government. You know, for a country that seems to dislike Russia so much, you're not much better overall in your foreign policies. Perhaps you should change that. How many countries have you bombed in the past few decades? Why do you act like the world police? You're not, you are a country as troubled and broken as the rest of us.

In my opinion, I agree that the US has only made situations worse when it’s tried to intervene in that way. Honestly, if I was a politician, I would call for a 100% complete withdrawal of all US forces from the world. That would mean all US forces from around the world back to the US, where they will serve in the Defence of US interests in the homeland and a complete withdrawal of the US from NATO and other international military agreements.

[mattsmith48]

It was once a great country but now it has turned to trash thanks to liberals and socialists...

Blaming people with no money and no power, only gives more power and more money to the real responsible for your problem.

[NoLimitGuy]

Blaming people with no money and no power, only gives more power and more money to the real responsible for your problem.

Yes, liberal movement participiants has no money and power... I must laugh here...

[RileyX]

Beer, Guns and Football, God bless Merica

[mattsmith48]

Yes, liberal movement participiants has no money and power... I must laugh here...

I was talking more about the socialists part. Liberal that depends on what your definition of liberal.

[PlasmaHam]

America: The nation which has been the biggest promoter of peace, democracy, and prosperity across the globe for decades, yet gets constantly bashed by other nations because we don't have socialism, defend our borders, and have a well funded military. Yet those same nations will still send people to our hospitals, come here to start businesses, have stricter immigration laws than us, and will come crying to America whenever they need an actual military. I mean, you don't see Canada being pressured into providing a military response to Russian advancement in Ukraine and Syria. Then again the Canadian military probably just consists of a moose calvary and whatever they managed to beg from the US and UK.

[NoLimitGuy]

I was talking more about the socialists part. Liberal that depends on what your definition of liberal.
You know that socialists also belong to liberal flang? The left-wing, if you like...

[Stronk Serb]

Regarding government: USA! United States if Autism!
Regarding people: No idea, never been there, would like to visit every state though.

[mattsmith48]

You know that socialists also belong to liberal flang? The left-wing, if you like...

Like I said it depends on your definition of liberal. If your definition is centrist corporate asshole, they do have the power and money. If your definition is left-wing socialist then they are the ones with no power and no money.

[Spooky_Eli]

Like I said it depends on your definition of liberal. If your definition is centrist corporate asshole, they do have the power and money. If your definition is left-wing socialist then they are the ones with no power and no money.

Bernie Sanders,
Hillary Clinton,
Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez,
ETC

[mattsmith48]

Bernie Sanders,
Hillary Clinton,
Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez,
ETC

Hilary Clinton was a centre-right politician, if she was further from socialists and the left she would be called a conservative.

Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Tulsi Gabbard are the only 3 real left-wing socialists with any kind of power.

[Spooky_Eli]

Hilary Clinton was a centre-right politician, if she was further from socialists and the left she would be called a conservative.
:lol3: you can't be serious? Her very existance is an afront to right-wing political and social philosophy. The woman supported obamacare, it was going to become Hillarycare for the sake of the lord! thats nowhere near to right-wing. I know to you, living in a contery with basically no grasp of the concept of a right wing party, she might seem right wing, but she really isn't

[mattsmith48]

:lol3: you can't be serious? Her very existance is an afront to right-wing political and social philosophy. The woman supported obamacare, it was going to become Hillarycare for the sake of the lord! thats nowhere near to right-wing. I know to you, living in a contery with basically no grasp of the concept of a right wing party, she might seem right wing, but she really isn't

Her support of a right-wing plan passed by a centrist? That's your argument? Are you sure?

[Spooky_Eli]

Her support of a right-wing plan passed by a centrist? That's your argument? Are you sure?

Are you being serious? Obama-care is a socalist idea, through and through

[ShineintheDark]

Are you being serious? Obama-care is a socalist idea, through and through

It's socialist-lite at best. It's a half-baked attempt at universal healthcare that barely passed Congress as it was, let alone any idea of ACTUALLY attempting a European-style healthcare plan. It isn;t socilist since it's just an alternative version of the private system whilst rejecting complete free market capialism by attempting to reduce competition in the healthcare market. Like every neoliberal project, it tries so hard to be as centrist as possible that it just ends up being worthless.

[mattsmith48]

Are you being serious? Obama-care is a socalist idea, through and through

It was a right-wing/republican plan from the 90s.

A socialist idea would have been to have been single-payer universal healthcare. A socialist idea would have eliminated the for-profit aspects from your healthcare system. A socialist idea wouldn't lead to people getting bankrupt from healthcare cost, or die because they can't afford a treatment or to see a doctor.

[Spooky_Eli]

It was a right-wing/republican plan from the 90s.

A socialist idea would have been to have been single-payer universal healthcare. A socialist idea would have eliminated the for-profit aspects from your healthcare system. A socialist idea wouldn't lead to people getting bankrupt from healthcare cost, or die because they can't afford a treatment or to see a doctor.
Whats your point?

Free healthcare is a socalist idea. period. deal with it.

[ShineintheDark]

Whats your point?

Free healthcare is a socalist idea. period. deal with it.

It wasn't free healthcare though, was it? Just state-promoted reform of the private system to one that was marginally more preferable to some.

[xSashax]

It’s the land of the free and the greatest country ever . Period.

[mattsmith48]

It’s the land of the free and the greatest country ever . Period.

Land of the free... if you are white and rich. And the greatest country ever, Denmark may have something to say about that.

[PlasmaHam]

Land of the free... if you are white and rich.
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't the last president of the USA a black guy? And isn't the current HUD secretary a black guy who grew up in the slums of Detroit to a single mom, yet became a renown (and quite wealthy) neuro-surgeon and presidential nominee? But yeah no in America you definitely can't succeed as a black guy. You would be better off just returning to Africa. Atleast there isn't any income inequality when you are all equally poor.
And the greatest country ever, Denmark may have something to say about that.
Why? Is it because its over 90% white? Because if so you got some explaining to do...

[ska8er]

One Union under God.

[mattsmith48]

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't the last president of the USA a black guy? And isn't the current HUD secretary a black guy who grew up in the slums of Detroit to a single mom, yet became a renown (and quite wealthy) neuro-surgeon and presidential nominee? But yeah no in America you definitely can't succeed as a black guy. You would be better off just returning to Africa. Atleast there isn't any income inequality when you are all equally poor.

Sorry, I forgot racism in America died on January 20 2009. I mean its obviously not because of race that black people are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to be in jail or killed by the police while unarmed.

Why? Is it because its over 90% white? Because if so you got some explaining to do...

You know the reason, and you know it as nothing to do with race.

[mattsmith48]

One Union under God.

Nope, your constitution prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government.

[KAG2020]

The best country in the world. Where everyone has an opportunity to shine and be anything the want to be. We are the home of the free and the brave.

[Dmaxd123]

Nope, your constitution prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government.

way off topic here but the "one nation under God" isn't promotion of a religion

it is leaving that up to individual's for which God they choose



but still describing the USA in my words:

AWESOME it's a great country that has options for people to legally come here and legally leave so if you don't like it stay in your home country or leave this one, we have flaws but every country does

[mattsmith48]

The best country in the world. Where everyone has an opportunity to shine and be anything the want to be. We are the home of the free and the brave.

If it truly was the home of the brave you wouldn't have so many citizens owning guns or the biggest military in the world, larger than the next 7 countries combine.

way off topic here but the "one nation under God" isn't promotion of a religion

it is leaving that up to individual's for which God they choose


When you say ''God'' everyone knows which God you are talking about.

[ShineintheDark]

way off topic here but the "one nation under God" isn't promotion of a religion

it is leaving that up to individual's for which God they choose


Firstly, by limiting deities to a single one it excludes those who have a different number. What about the sects of Hinduism with their many or Wicca with its two or even Buddhism/atheism with their none?

Furthermore the usage of 'God' is strictly a Christian convention written by Christian figures that we all know wasn't really written to represent Elohim/Adonai/El Elyon/Allah/Brahman/Waheguru/whatever non-Christian name for God exists. The USA was founded on , in part, the belief of freedom from religious persecution from the denomination in power and therefore the initial Declaration of Independence and Constitution makes no reference to God or religion of any kind beyond the promise of freedom of religion. Over time that core belief in protecting that has become either lost or purposefully abandoned, leading to subsequent references to God whether on money, in later government documents and speeches, in the founding of states by singular religious groups (such as Mormons in Utah) etc. The Founding Fathers didn't intend on creating a Christian nation, hundreds of years of increasing Christian influence and thought in government turned it into one.

[KAG2020]

[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3818661]If it truly was the home of the brave you wouldn't have so many citizens owning guns or the biggest military in the world, larger than the next 7 countries combine.


That is just the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Unfortunately, we have people poping out of nowhere, because they want to become part of our special country and rain on our parade. Thankfully since President Trump has been in office, we haven't really had ridiculous terrorists coming out of nowhere. That is just one of the reasons. I personally as an American am insulted by that comment and think you should be ashamed of yourself. So, that is a invalid and nasty statement of yours and I don't see why you insist on creating silly arguments like this.

Our second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. One of the hallmarks of our great nation.

[mattsmith48]

[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3818661]If it truly was the home of the brave you wouldn't have so many citizens owning guns or the biggest military in the world, larger than the next 7 countries combine.


That is just the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Unfortunately, we have people poping out of nowhere, because they want to become part of our special country and rain on our parade. Thankfully since President Trump has been in office, we haven't really had ridiculous terrorists coming out of nowhere. That is just one of the reasons. I personally as an American am insulted by that comment and think you should be ashamed of yourself. So, that is a invalid and nasty statement of yours and I don't see why you insist on creating silly arguments like this.

Our second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. One of the hallmarks of our great nation.

There was a guy just 6 months ago who sent bombs to multiple members of the Democratic party and CNN. If that's not the definition of ''ridiculous terrorist coming out of nowhere'' I what is.

All you do is criticise what I said, saying you are offended by it. Your not bringing anything up to counter or disprove my argument.

[ska8er]

Nope, your constitution prohibits the promotion of a religion by the government.

To me it still is One nation under God. :rolleyes:

[mattsmith48]

To me it still is One nation under God. :rolleyes:

Just pointing out its unconstitutional to promote it that way

[KAG2020]

[QUOTE=TeslaMMIV;3818687]

There was a guy just 6 months ago who sent bombs to multiple members of the Democratic party and CNN. If that's not the definition of ''ridiculous terrorist coming out of nowhere'' I what is.

All you do is criticise what I said, saying you are offended by it. Your not bringing anything up to counter or disprove my argument.

You are the single biggest liar, you are probably worse than the fake news media. Also, no on died in those bombs sent out, they were swiftly and smartly intercepted. Can’t say that for 44 who is arguably the worst President ever.

Also, seeing as you have a short term memory, I brought up plenty of stuff in the Mueller report thread, and dismissed that with out reading it. So, once again you are poorly deflecting my questions, kind of like Crazy Bernie did at the Fox News town hall.

Also, it’s not “what I said” it is what I say. Or, you could could haven’t replaced do with did. :yes:

[mattsmith48]

You are the single biggest liar, you are probably worse than the fake news media.

You moved on to insults nice, you're just proving my point.

Also, no on died in those bombs sent out, they were swiftly and smartly intercepted. Can’t say that for 44 who is arguably the worst President ever.

Also, seeing as you have a short term memory, I brought up plenty of stuff in the Mueller report thread, and dismissed that with out reading it. So, once again you are poorly deflecting my questions, kind of like Crazy Bernie did at the Fox News town hall.

People don't have to die for ones actions to qualify as terrorism. The most accepted legal definition of terrorism is ''the use or threat of the use of violence to achieve political, religious or ideological goal.'' Sounds like that qualifies and that guy is one of the rare white guy in the west to actually get charged with terrorism.

Obama was a monster while in office, from the massive corruption to the war crimes and millions of deaths he's responsible for. The sad thing is he's the best president you guys had in the last 40 years.

[KAG2020]

You moved on to insults nice, you're just proving my point.



People don't have to die for ones actions to qualify as terrorism. The most accepted legal definition of terrorism is ''the use or threat of the use of violence to achieve political, religious or ideological goal.'' Sounds like that qualifies and that guy is one of the rare white guy in the west to actually get charged with terrorism.

Obama was a monster while in office, from the massive corruption to the war crimes and millions of deaths he's responsible for. The sad thing is he's the best president you guys had in the last 40 years.

Not insulting, stating my opinion. If you take it as an insult, I’m sorry. I tried to be nice, but you have been very nasty to me, and everyone quite frankly, so maybe be nicer to everyone. What’s that saying? Treat others as you want to be treated.

“Most Accepted”, isn’t always the best thing is it now? Also I was merely comparing Trumps skills to Obama’s mediocre ones. Obama let these things get out of hand, I said trump didn’t.

Also, I don’t think you get to decide who was a good and bad president, seeing as you don’t live in our great country. 40 years from Obama would make that Jimmy Carter who was a disaster. Ronald Regan, was certainly one of the best presidents/leaders anywhere. Bush 41 was okay, Clinton was better, and Bush 43 was a disaster.

[mattsmith48]

Not insulting, stating my opinion. If you take it as an insult, I’m sorry. I tried to be nice, but you have been very nasty to me, and everyone quite frankly, so maybe be nicer to everyone. What’s that saying? Treat others as you want to be treated.

How?

“Most Accepted”, isn’t always the best thing is it now? Also I was merely comparing Trumps skills to Obama’s mediocre ones. Obama let these things get out of hand, I said trump didn’t.

Like many things in law, the definition of terrorism varies depending on where you are.

How did Obama let things get out of hand?

Also, I don’t think you get to decide who was a good and bad president, seeing as you don’t live in our great country. 40 years from Obama would make that Jimmy Carter who was a disaster. Ronald Regan, was certainly one of the best presidents/leaders anywhere. Bush 41 was okay, Clinton was better, and Bush 43 was a disaster.

Not living there doesn't mean I can't make an informed observation on your leaders.

Not counting Trump because hes still in power and still has time to do those things, Jimmy Carter is the last US president to not commit any war crimes or start war while in power, again well see how things go for Trump he still has time, well see what happens in Iran and Venezuela.

Going from now to 1980, I don't need to explain why Trump is a shitty President its recent enough that we all know why, plus it would make this post like 12 pages long. I already talked about Obama. Bush the sequel started an illegal war over oil, didn't go after the real responsible of 9/11 (Saudi Arabia), crashed the economy with his tax cuts, refused to fight climate change. Bill Clinton was a corporate stooge, who gifted giant corporation with massive giveaways and deregulations, and passed legislation that created the giant media monopoly we see today and is the reason why Americans are so misinformed. The original Bush was another war mongering maniac who like his son also illegally invaded Iraq and started a war on a lie. Reagan was racist monster, who reinforced the war on drugs, pushed the southern strategy, pictured black people as people who abuse welfare, he started a dick measuring contest with the Soviet Union by increasing military spending and he killed off the middle class with his promotion of trickle down economics.

[LiberalTurboprop]

Ronald Regan, was certainly one of the best presidents/leaders anywhere. Bush 41 was okay, Clinton was better, and Bush 43 was a disaster.

Probably right about Bushes and Clinton but Reagan was a pretty bad President. He badly mishandled the HIV/AIDS crisis which lead to many more people getting infected and dying than should have been. The Iran-Contra scandal (the Executive branch selling weapons to Iran and then funnelling that money to the Contras - right-wing rebels in Nicaragua - when doing both of those things was against legislation from Congress) was egregiously unconstitutional and could very easily have ended up with impeachment under a different political situation. He also vetoed a bill putting sanctions on apartheid South Africa. His tax cuts went too far and the largest benefits of those went to the wealthy. Because of his defense spending increases, government spending actually increased while he cut welfare programs to the poor. The result was a massive deficit and debt more than doubling during his period. Deficits during war and recession are acceptable, if not encouraged, but for most of Reagan's term he was in neither. I do give him some credit for eventually making discussions and agreements with the Soviet Union to de-escalate the Cold War but he did do a lot of tension-increasing saber-rattling earlier in his administration and the economic pressures in the Soviet Union likely would have pushed them to the negotiating table no matter who the American President was. The War On Drugs which was intensified under Reagan (not that every President from Nixon onwards doesn't deserve some blame) has been one of the most destructive series of policies that America has enacted in the past 50 years. Also, supplying weapons to the Mujahideen (Islamic fighters waging a believed jihad) in Afghanistan probably wasn't the best idea but, to be fair, that was started under Carter and it's hard to predict where some policies might lead.

But the sad part of Reagan's Presidency is the legacy it left America politically. It normalised handing out huge tax cuts - overwhelmingly benefitting the wealthy - when you have no realistic way of affording them. And you can see history repeat with the Bush tax cuts in 2003 and now the tax cuts under Trump. These are the biggest causes of the structural deficits that the US struggles with today. While the Republican Party had already become the party of dogwhistle racism under Goldwater and Nixon (that Southern Strategy has worked oh so well), Reagan more permanently aligned the Party with evangelical Christians. Since then the Party has been shackled to a solidly socially conservative agenda which has placed them to push against the separation of church and state again and again and placed them against the rights of women and LGBTQI+ folks.

Bush the sequel started an illegal war over oil, didn't go after the real responsible of 9/11 (Saudi Arabia)

The Iraq War didn't really have to do much with oil despite common belief. It had much more with an angry US wanting to demolish someone and Iraq being a convenient place to go. Neocons for some time had wanted to demonstrate to certain countries (Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea) that being disruptive to global order and, in particular, what America wanted the global order to be would have serious consequences. And what better place to show this than Iraq? Saddam had "defied" the US after the Gulf War by remaining in power, slaughtering his own citizens and continuing to run a highly militarised state. Public opinion was pro-war at the time so it was a good time to do it. Whether the Bush administration really knew that Iraq didn't really have Weapons of Mass Destruction is up for debate - they probably lied when they said the had good reason to think so.

No-one is going to cry for Saddam. The man was a monster and maybe the creation of a democratic state would be worth a short war. But the US bungled things horrifically. They made massive mistakes and had no good idea with what to do after ousting Saddam. And a shit-show was inevitable. And what's more, the ousting of Saddam left a terrible message to the aggressive, totalitarian regimes of the world: giving up WMDs won't protect you from the US - if you want to protect yourself, you sure as hell better make some nukes. North Korea has learned.

The original Bush was another war mongering maniac who like his son also illegally invaded Iraq and started a war on a lie.
While some of the stories about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait were false, Iraq undeniably illegally invaded Kuwait. The US-led coalition was within its UN Security Council mandate to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Gulf War was more about oil than the Iraq War. Iraq had seized significant oil reserves in its invasion of Kuwait and was well-positioned to strike at Saudi Arabia's oil reserves as well. The intervention of US forces prevented this, returned Kuwaiti sovereignty and furthered ties with the oil-rich Saudis. While the Saudi regime is highly unpleasant at best, it's still better for world order to have prevented Iraq's illegal seizure of territory and prevent it from holding much of the world's oil production.

[mattsmith48]

The Iraq War didn't really have to do much with oil despite common belief. It had much more with an angry US wanting to demolish someone and Iraq being a convenient place to go. Neocons for some time had wanted to demonstrate to certain countries (Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea) that being disruptive to global order and, in particular, what America wanted the global order to be would have serious consequences. And what better place to show this than Iraq? Saddam had "defied" the US after the Gulf War by remaining in power, slaughtering his own citizens and continuing to run a highly militarised state. Public opinion was pro-war at the time so it was a good time to do it. Whether the Bush administration really knew that Iraq didn't really have Weapons of Mass Destruction is up for debate - they probably lied when they said the had good reason to think so.

No-one is going to cry for Saddam. The man was a monster and maybe the creation of a democratic state would be worth a short war. But the US bungled things horrifically. They made massive mistakes and had no good idea with what to do after ousting Saddam. And a shit-show was inevitable. And what's more, the ousting of Saddam left a terrible message to the aggressive, totalitarian regimes of the world: giving up WMDs won't protect you from the US - if you want to protect yourself, you sure as hell better make some nukes. North Korea has learned.

Its not the US or anyone else's job to overthrow dictators. The reason why North Korea has nukes, is because of what the US did to Saddam and Gaddafi, and are trying to do with Assad, and now Maduro, if you are Kim Jong-un and you see the US starting all those regime change wars its understandable he would do everything he can to protect himself.

Its well known that they decided to invade Iraq because of oil and the WMDs was just bullshit propaganda, its just like the reason they didn't go after Saudi Arabia who funded the 9/11 terrorists was because of oil. Just like oil is the reason why they want to overthrow Assad and oil is the reason why they are trying to overthrow an elected government in Venezuela.

It had nothing to do with liberating the people from a brutal dictator its no different then what the US have and are doing right now to Venezuela, they picture Maduro as this brutal dictator who is responsible for the suffering of his people, when its US sanctions that are bankrupting the country, Venezuela as more oil than anybody else in the world, but they can't sell it because of the sanctions. It created major inflation in the country to the point where people are starving. All of that because American oil companies what to make profit over all that oil.

Saudi Arabia killed a journalist with bonesaw, they are committing genocide in Yemen, they imprison women for wanting to drive, they stone people to death for being gay, they sell weapons to terrorists. Yet the US leaves them alone. Why? Because they bribe the west with their oil. The day Saudi Arabia decides to stop selling us oil with in a month the US are trying to overthrow the king in favour of their own puppet.

While some of the stories about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait were false, Iraq undeniably illegally invaded Kuwait. The US-led coalition was within its UN Security Council mandate to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Gulf War was more about oil than the Iraq War. Iraq had seized significant oil reserves in its invasion of Kuwait and was well-positioned to strike at Saudi Arabia's oil reserves as well. The intervention of US forces prevented this, returned Kuwaiti sovereignty and furthered ties with the oil-rich Saudis. While the Saudi regime is highly unpleasant at best, it's still better for world order to have prevented Iraq's illegal seizure of territory and prevent it from holding much of the world's oil production.

They told those stories to the public because the public wasn't in favour of going to war, they lied to get the public support to invade. Because just like with the 2nd Iraq war, or with Syria, or Yemen, or Venezuela, if you are openly saying you want to overthrow their dictator or invade the country to take control of their oil reserve, or because Saudi Arabia asked you to, and that it would make the military industrial complex billions in profits, it won't bring you a lot support. That's why politician and the media who received ''campaign donations'' or ad revenue from military contractors are terrified of people like Tulsi Gabbard who are speaking against regime change wars.

[ShineintheDark]

Seeing elaborated and well-thought-out responses to this debate warms my heart so much.

[xSashax]

Land of the free... if you are white and rich. And the greatest country ever, Denmark may have something to say about that.

You’re free in America doesn’t matter what race.... Would Denmark be a country if it weren’t for America? It may still be a part of Germany... Freedom has nothing to do with rich or poor. Y’all have the rights under the constitution. The 1st, 2nd and so on amendments apply to everyone...

[mattsmith48]

You’re free in America doesn’t matter what race.... Would Denmark be a country if it weren’t for America? It may still be a part of Germany... Freedom has nothing to do with rich or poor. Y’all have the rights under the constitution. The 1st, 2nd and so on amendments apply to everyone...

That was over 70 years ago, get over it.

Seeing what your government has been and is doing to people like Julian Assange for publishing something the rich and powerful didn't like. It happens constantly that rich white people get away with crimes, you go and try to run a fake university, or fraudulent charity, or grab women by the pussy. Well see how that works out for you. Spoiler alert you're going to jail. Same thing with race if you are white you are much less likely to go to jail for drug offences or get shot by the police while unarmed.

[Emilyfox]

It was once a great country but now it has turned to trash thanks to liberals and socialists...

Really? It’s more been trashed by republican sell outs and bought and paid for morons like Trump

[NoLimitGuy]

Really? It’s more been trashed by republican sell outs and bought and paid for morons like Trump
At the age 13 I too was pretty naive child who had no idea about politics in a big-picture...

[xSashax]

That was over 70 years ago, get over it.

Seeing what your government has been and is doing to people like Julian Assange for publishing something the rich and powerful didn't like. It happens constantly that rich white people get away with crimes, you go and try to run a fake university, or fraudulent charity, or grab women by the pussy. Well see how that works out for you. Spoiler alert you're going to jail. Same thing with race if you are white you are much less likely to go to jail for drug offences or get shot by the police while unarmed.

If you’re referring to Trump then you’re talking about things with proof. I’ve heard boys saying stuff that’s way more than grabbing pussies. Doesn’t mean that they actually did it.

[LiberalTurboprop]

Its not the US or anyone else's job to overthrow dictators. The reason why North Korea has nukes, is because of what the US did to Saddam and Gaddafi, and are trying to do with Assad, and now Maduro, if you are Kim Jong-un and you see the US starting all those regime change wars its understandable he would do everything he can to protect himself.

While the US shouldn't go around knocking off all the dictators in the world, doesn't the world have some moral obligation to prevent ones who go off the deep end and take actions close to genocide? Saddam was killing the absolute shit out of the Kurds. The problem is that the US made an absolute hash out of the Iraq War and it lead to incoherent foreign policy.

Its well known that they decided to invade Iraq because of oil and the WMDs was just bullshit propaganda, its just like the reason they didn't go after Saudi Arabia who funded the 9/11 terrorists was because of oil. Just like oil is the reason why they want to overthrow Assad and oil is the reason why they are trying to overthrow an elected government in Venezuela.

The Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War don't have to do with the US accessing oil. Civil wars are a moronic way to access a country's oil. War screws up oil production - Iraqi production is only now reaching pre-war levels. If the US wanted to access their oil, it would be much more efficient to simply lift trade restrictions on importing Iraqi oil. The US trades with Saudi Arabia for their oil and that regime is simply evil.

It had nothing to do with liberating the people from a brutal dictator its no different then what the US have and are doing right now to Venezuela, they picture Maduro as this brutal dictator who is responsible for the suffering of his people, when its US sanctions that are bankrupting the country, Venezuela as more oil than anybody else in the world, but they can't sell it because of the sanctions. It created major inflation in the country to the point where people are starving. All of that because American oil companies what to make profit over all that oil.

They can't sell their oil to Western markets due to sanctions which is a drag but what completely screwed them was their over-reliance on oil revenues to fund government expenditure. Lower growth in world demand and a large increase in world oil production tanked the price of oil worldwide. This has hurt countries like Russia too. The rest of the Venezuelan economy needed to be built up or reserves created to smooth out fluctuations in the price of oil which they didn't do. What's more, Venezuelan oil is particularly hard to produce which means it has a higher cost of extraction compared to countries like Saudi Arabia. This difficulty in extraction was made worse by the mismanagement of the Chavez government. Plenty of countries have government-owned oil production but the Chavez government crippled Venezuela's by firing experienced employees in favour of party loyalists and failing to invest in capital needed to maintain production.

Maduro badly mismanaged this situation. One of the results of inflation is a result of the collapse in the value of the currency which has a little to do with sanctions and a lot to do with the decline in the oil price. The bigger cause of inflation has been the persistent and poorly considered printing of money by the government. The price controls on goods and the exchange rate being fixed too high are made even worse by the rampant inflation, further worsening shortages.

The Maduro government isn't elected - it's "elected". The government has made constitutional changes, created a new pro-government legislative body when they didn't like the opposition of the old one, intimidated voters and tampered with the votes. There's a reason why they didn't let independent, international observers watch the election. Maduro can get fat with his power and the military which supports him can get rich from corrupt, importing schemes while the Venezuelan people starve from the government's greed and ineptitude. The US isn't overthrowing Maduro. It and Western Europe have recognised the opposition leader and implemented sanctions. The Maduro government's democratic mandate to lead is highly questionable at best - at least the same if not worse than the opposition - and he's leading the country into ruin.


Saudi Arabia killed a journalist with bonesaw, they are committing genocide in Yemen, they imprison women for wanting to drive, they stone people to death for being gay, they sell weapons to terrorists. Yet the US leaves them alone. Why? Because they bribe the west with their oil. The day Saudi Arabia decides to stop selling us oil with in a month the US are trying to overthrow the king in favour of their own puppet.

I'm not trying to defend Saudi Arabia. They are one of the most repressive regimes in the world and bomb hospitals in Yemen. They spread and enforce an extreme version of Islam in their country which represses the rights of their people. And the House of Saud only do this to keep the people from turning on them for their sickening displays of extreme, gaudy oil-wealth. The Trump Administration's insistence on providing them with weapons is morally disgusting. On the other hand, they do have a lot of oil and, even though the United States isn't as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as it once was, disrupting Saudi oil production through war could very well lead to a long and bad recession - see what happened in the 1970s.

They told those stories to the public because the public wasn't in favour of going to war, they lied to get the public support to invade. Because just like with the 2nd Iraq war, or with Syria, or Yemen, or Venezuela, if you are openly saying you want to overthrow their dictator or invade the country to take control of their oil reserve, or because Saudi Arabia asked you to, and that it would make the military industrial complex billions in profits, it won't bring you a lot support. That's why politician and the media who received ''campaign donations'' or ad revenue from military contractors are terrified of people like Tulsi Gabbard who are speaking against regime change wars.

I'm not going to argue that the US shouldn't be as cosy as it is with Saudi Arabia or that the Military-Industrial Complex isn't too powerful. However, the US explicitly did not storm Baghdad and kick Saddam out in the Gulf War. The US with a large coalition of other countries removed Iraq from Kuwait. This was in the interest of not just the US but the world. Iraq should not have been allowed to seize territory through military means. Allowing Iraq to annex Kuwait would have given the message that military conquest was legitimate and possible. Neither was it in the interest of the world to have Kuwaiti oil production under the control of Saddam Hussein.

Tulsi Gabbard should probably stop making excuses for Assad nerve gassing people.

[LiberalTurboprop]

You’re free in America doesn’t matter what race.... Would Denmark be a country if it weren’t for America? It may still be a part of Germany... Freedom has nothing to do with rich or poor. Y’all have the rights under the constitution. The 1st, 2nd and so on amendments apply to everyone...

And America probably wouldn't be a country or the country it is without France. That doesn't mean America always has to think what France does is right. The constitution matters as much as there is the political will to interpret it a certain way. There are limits on the 1st and 2nd Amendments after all - not that I'm saying there shouldn't be.

It depends how you define freedom. Black people and poor people are disproportionately hassled by police and imprisoned for the same offenses as other people. The United States has the largest prison population in the world. And there is a fundamental inequality within America. Poor people don't have the same opportunities as the wealthy. For example, poor people don't have the same opportunity as wealthy people do to go to college. In my country, university is partially paid for by the government and the rest is an interest-free loan that you only pay back when you're able to. Is it freedom to have to work dead-end jobs day-after-day to make ends meet and afford rent on your shitty house in the ghetto, meaning that you never have time or money to do what you want to do or get further skills training?

At the age 13 I too was pretty naive child who had no idea about politics in a big-picture...

And you said you found positive things about Hitler and his kind of nationalism. I'd call that pretty naive.

If you’re referring to Trump then you’re talking about things with proof. I’ve heard boys saying stuff that’s way more than grabbing pussies. Doesn’t mean that they actually did it.

I'm not exactly in the business to giving the benefit of the doubt to people bragging about committing sexual assault. The best-case scenario there is that they didn't do it but they still thought bragging about assaulting someone was amusing. That's horrible.

[NoLimitGuy]

And you said you found positive things about Hitler and his kind of nationalism. I'd call that pretty naive.

Yes, because believing in all equality, endless genders, that love is going to save the world, human rights, morals etc. bullshit is the most rational and right thing... Whatever you have to tell yourself to support your idiocracy of rainbow world....

[ShineintheDark]

One thing that really permeates here is the idea that the world has the USA to thank for for victory during WW2. To a certain extent, the USA did a lot: they assisted the UK in the Normandy landings, bolstered the Western Front on its march Eastwards towards Berlin, held the Pacific Front against Japan and defended British strongholds in the Pacific to allow them to instead be shipped towards the Colonial Front and -rightly or wrongly - forced the hand of japan to declare peace in 1945 rather than drag out the conflict in the East any longer. The USA was a strong and reliable ally for the Allies from 1942 onwards and the Allies will always be grateful for that.

HOWEVER the idea that the USA won the war is pure patriotic bull. The war had been raging since 1939 with France, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Czechoslovakia and Poland all falling after hard-fought and vigorous resistance campaigns. Even after they all became Nazi puppet states, thousands of freedom fighters gave their lives to disrupt Nazi control. From the Dunkirk evacuations in 1940 and Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Britain and her colonies stood alone against the onslaught of the Axis powers, with thousands of Brits giving their lives to prevent the Nazis from crossing the English Channel, endless bombing raids of British cities and some of the most intensive battles of the 20th century raging in Africa, South Asia and the Pacific thanks to the Australian, New Zealand, Egyptian and Kenyan divisions to name a few. Even after 1941, the Soviet Union held the Eastern Front by itself for the remainder of the war, recapturig not only its own lands but also Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Berlin. The Soviets liberated Aushwitz, secured the surrender of the Nazi regime, prevented to entrance of Asian nations such as Iran into the war and turned their attentions to a Japan campaign all without any men from other Allied nations. Furthermore, to imply that the USA was the only force on the Pacific front against Japan does a disservice to the men of Burma; of Cylon; of India; of Australia; of New Zealand; of any Dominion or colony, whether French of British that gave their lives in the millions to prevent Japan from expanding into the fertile and valuable lands of South Asia. Even Japan's surrender has a degree of involvement with the terrors of Soviet invasion as it had to do with nuclear bombardment. After all, the firebombing of Japanese cities caused far more casualties than both nuclear blasts combined.

VE and VJ Days were the results of many nations all fighting tooth and nail to contain the global threat of Axis expansion and it would be a disservice to millions of lives if we suddenly thank only the US for victory.

[mattsmith48]

I'm impress at how well US propaganda is working.

While the US shouldn't go around knocking off all the dictators in the world, doesn't the world have some moral obligation to prevent ones who go off the deep end and take actions close to genocide? Saddam was killing the absolute shit out of the Kurds. The problem is that the US made an absolute hash out of the Iraq War and it lead to incoherent foreign policy.

The US are helping Saudi Arabia to commit a genocide in Yemen. Should someone invade Saudi Arabia? Trump just veto the end of the support in the genocide, should someone overthrow him? No one is suggesting that. Obama was running the biggest terrorist program in the world and killed millions of civilians with drone strikes, no one was actively promoting an invasion of the US because the rest of the world had a moral obligation to stop this. What about when Bush was in power? What about is father? Israel is illegally occupying territory and committing war crimes against the Palestinian civilians, anything? What about Erdogan in Turkey? He did the exact same thing people are accusing Maduro of doing and he's not really the best friend of the Kurds, but is anyone saying that other guy who no one knew before is the new leader and we need to invade to insure the guy we like gets in power? The Spanish government sent the police and military to beat up people in Catalonia who tried to vote on independence, every western country supported Spain on this.

My point is they are a lot of horrible leaders in world and the US are being hypocritical when it comes to picking and choosing which one to overthrow and why.

The Iraq War and the Syrian Civil War don't have to do with the US accessing oil. Civil wars are a moronic way to access a country's oil. War screws up oil production - Iraqi production is only now reaching pre-war levels. If the US wanted to access their oil, it would be much more efficient to simply lift trade restrictions on importing Iraqi oil. The US trades with Saudi Arabia for their oil and that regime is simply evil.

The thing with Syria is that Saudi Arabia wants to build a pipeline through Syria to get better access to the European market, which is why Russia is actively supporting Assad because it would cut into their profit from selling oil to Europe.

They can't sell their oil to Western markets due to sanctions which is a drag but what completely screwed them was their over-reliance on oil revenues to fund government expenditure. Lower growth in world demand and a large increase in world oil production tanked the price of oil worldwide. This has hurt countries like Russia too. The rest of the Venezuelan economy needed to be built up or reserves created to smooth out fluctuations in the price of oil which they didn't do. What's more, Venezuelan oil is particularly hard to produce which means it has a higher cost of extraction compared to countries like Saudi Arabia. This difficulty in extraction was made worse by the mismanagement of the Chavez government. Plenty of countries have government-owned oil production but the Chavez government crippled Venezuela's by firing experienced employees in favour of party loyalists and failing to invest in capital needed to maintain production.

Maduro badly mismanaged this situation. One of the results of inflation is a result of the collapse in the value of the currency which has a little to do with sanctions and a lot to do with the decline in the oil price. The bigger cause of inflation has been the persistent and poorly considered printing of money by the government. The price controls on goods and the exchange rate being fixed too high are made even worse by the rampant inflation, further worsening shortages.

The Maduro government isn't elected - it's "elected". The government has made constitutional changes, created a new pro-government legislative body when they didn't like the opposition of the old one, intimidated voters and tampered with the votes. There's a reason why they didn't let independent, international observers watch the election. Maduro can get fat with his power and the military which supports him can get rich from corrupt, importing schemes while the Venezuelan people starve from the government's greed and ineptitude. The US isn't overthrowing Maduro. It and Western Europe have recognised the opposition leader and implemented sanctions. The Maduro government's democratic mandate to lead is highly questionable at best - at least the same if not worse than the opposition - and he's leading the country into ruin.

You are right that a country having its entire economy base off a dying industry like oil is a big mistake many countries are still doing today. The problem with Venezuela is that the sanctions prevent them from diversifying their economy. If the US really wanted to help the people of Venezuela they wouldn't have put sanctions in the first place. What they are really trying to do is to hurt the population enough that they would support a regime change. The real goal of all this is to gain control over Venezuela's oil reserves. Which is why Saudi Arabia purposely made the oil prices drop by increasing production, they didn't mind like western oil producers didn't mind because they knew they would see the profit later. That's where the whole overthrowing the government comes in, Guido is in favour of privatising Venezuela's oil, selling it to the highest bidder which would be western oil companies.

If all of this was truly about a brutal dictator who rigged an election, they wouldn't just name another guy president. They would call for another election. The thing about that 2018 election is the opposition where the ones who didn't want international monitoring of the election, Maduro didn't prevent people from voting for anyone else, the opposition were the ones telling their supporters not to vote because it would be easier to protest the result later. Its basically the same thing that happened in Spain with the Catalan referendum I talked about earlier. People oppose to the independence purposely didn't vote because they knew they were gonna lose, so by participating it became easier to protest the result. In Spain they argued that the referendum was illegal while in Venezuela the argue the election was rigged, the argument was different, but the idea is the same.

I'm not trying to defend Saudi Arabia. They are one of the most repressive regimes in the world and bomb hospitals in Yemen. They spread and enforce an extreme version of Islam in their country which represses the rights of their people. And the House of Saud only do this to keep the people from turning on them for their sickening displays of extreme, gaudy oil-wealth. The Trump Administration's insistence on providing them with weapons is morally disgusting. On the other hand, they do have a lot of oil and, even though the United States isn't as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as it once was, disrupting Saudi oil production through war could very well lead to a long and bad recession - see what happened in the 1970s.

More reasons to accelerate the change to renewables.

I'm not going to argue that the US shouldn't be as cosy as it is with Saudi Arabia or that the Military-Industrial Complex isn't too powerful. However, the US explicitly did not storm Baghdad and kick Saddam out in the Gulf War. The US with a large coalition of other countries removed Iraq from Kuwait. This was in the interest of not just the US but the world. Iraq should not have been allowed to seize territory through military means. Allowing Iraq to annex Kuwait would have given the message that military conquest was legitimate and possible. Neither was it in the interest of the world to have Kuwaiti oil production under the control of Saddam Hussein.

My point is not whether or not they should have helped Kuwait that is an entirely different debate. My point is that they started the war on a lie to gain public support. And also like you said it was about oil. And again the hypocrisy, when they have to lie to invade Kuwait but meanwhile Israel really illegally occupying territory and killing civilians.

Tulsi Gabbard should probably stop making excuses for Assad nerve gassing people.

Shes not making excuses, shes saying that Assad is not an enemy of the US and the US have no business deciding who the leader of Syria should be.

[LiberalTurboprop]

One thing that really permeates here is the idea that the world has the USA to thank for for victory during WW2. To a certain extent, the USA did a lot: they assisted the UK in the Normandy landings, bolstered the Western Front on its march Eastwards towards Berlin, held the Pacific Front against Japan and defended British strongholds in the Pacific to allow them to instead be shipped towards the Colonial Front and -rightly or wrongly - forced the hand of japan to declare peace in 1945 rather than drag out the conflict in the East any longer. The USA was a strong and reliable ally for the Allies from 1942 onwards and the Allies will always be grateful for that.

HOWEVER the idea that the USA won the war is pure patriotic bull. The war had been raging since 1939 with France, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Czechoslovakia and Poland all falling after hard-fought and vigorous resistance campaigns. Even after they all became Nazi puppet states, thousands of freedom fighters gave their lives to disrupt Nazi control. From the Dunkirk evacuations in 1940 and Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Britain and her colonies stood alone against the onslaught of the Axis powers, with thousands of Brits giving their lives to prevent the Nazis from crossing the English Channel, endless bombing raids of British cities and some of the most intensive battles of the 20th century raging in Africa, South Asia and the Pacific thanks to the Australian, New Zealand, Egyptian and Kenyan divisions to name a few. Even after 1941, the Soviet Union held the Eastern Front by itself for the remainder of the war, recapturig not only its own lands but also Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Berlin. The Soviets liberated Aushwitz, secured the surrender of the Nazi regime, prevented to entrance of Asian nations such as Iran into the war and turned their attentions to a Japan campaign all without any men from other Allied nations. Furthermore, to imply that the USA was the only force on the Pacific front against Japan does a disservice to the men of Burma; of Cylon; of India; of Australia; of New Zealand; of any Dominion or colony, whether French of British that gave their lives in the millions to prevent Japan from expanding into the fertile and valuable lands of South Asia. Even Japan's surrender has a degree of involvement with the terrors of Soviet invasion as it had to do with nuclear bombardment. After all, the firebombing of Japanese cities caused far more casualties than both nuclear blasts combined.

VE and VJ Days were the results of many nations all fighting tooth and nail to contain the global threat of Axis expansion and it would be a disservice to millions of lives if we suddenly thank only the US for victory.

US involvement is often overstated in the European theatre but it was important involvement that hastened the ending of the war and, given the Iron Curtain that fell over Eastern Europe, Western Europe is lucky that they were liberated by the US rather than the Soviets. Victory in the Pacific was primarily won by the US and China though. People often overlook China but they were fighting the Japanese since 1937 (why some people say that WWII really began in 1937 rather than 1939) and lost more people than anyone else but the Soviets.

[LiberalTurboprop]

The US are helping Saudi Arabia to commit a genocide in Yemen. Should someone invade Saudi Arabia? Trump just veto the end of the support in the genocide, should someone overthrow him? No one is suggesting that. Obama was running the biggest terrorist program in the world and killed millions of civilians with drone strikes, no one was actively promoting an invasion of the US because the rest of the world had a moral obligation to stop this. What about when Bush was in power? What about is father? Israel is illegally occupying territory and committing war crimes against the Palestinian civilians, anything? What about Erdogan in Turkey? He did the exact same thing people are accusing Maduro of doing and he's not really the best friend of the Kurds, but is anyone saying that other guy who no one knew before is the new leader and we need to invade to insure the guy we like gets in power? The Spanish government sent the police and military to beat up people in Catalonia who tried to vote on independence, every western country supported Spain on this.

My point is they are a lot of horrible leaders in world and the US are being hypocritical when it comes to picking and choosing which one to overthrow and why.

I don't support the Trump Administrations support for Saudi Arabia, Israeli colonisation of Palestine or the increasingly authoritarian and Islamist government of Erdogan. But I still think that the Gulf War was justified and that the US should oppose Maduro. Foreign policy is hypocritical because of competing interests and what is possible. That doesn't mean that the US shouldn't intervene when it is possible.

The thing with Syria is that Saudi Arabia wants to build a pipeline through Syria to get better access to the European market, which is why Russia is actively supporting Assad because it would cut into their profit from selling oil to Europe.

You're over-estimating the importance of oil in this and underestimating the cost of providing war support. Saudi support for Syria has a lot more to do with them trying to undermine Iran's ties with Syria. Saudi foreign policy is very focused on opposing Iran and has been for decades (hence their loans to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s). Russia wants to maintain the Assad regime because he is a strategic ally of Russia in the Middle East and they don't want to lose that.

You are right that a country having its entire economy base off a dying industry like oil is a big mistake many countries are still doing today. The problem with Venezuela is that the sanctions prevent them from diversifying their economy. If the US really wanted to help the people of Venezuela they wouldn't have put sanctions in the first place. What they are really trying to do is to hurt the population enough that they would support a regime change.

US sanctions have been focused on the assets of government officials and then targeted on Venezuelan oil production. Oil reliant countries are hit hard by drops in the oil price but Venezuela has been hit particularly hard because of the structure of the economy. Large sectors of the economy are controlled by the government and the government relied on oil revenues to fund imports of these goods, hence when the oil price collapsed shortages resulted. Venezuela would have had a hard time diversifying before when the government was so dependent on oil but it is very difficult now. It's difficult to run a business when national infrastructure is failing (power stations), inflation is rampant, the exchange rate is fixed too high choking off exports and there are shortages of basic goods.

Venezuela needs economic reform and humanitarian aid and Maduro will not provide it. And the opposition cannot provide it because Maduro will not give up power - making constitutional changes and tampering with elections.

The real goal of all this is to gain control over Venezuela's oil reserves. Which is why Saudi Arabia purposely made the oil prices drop by increasing production, they didn't mind like western oil producers didn't mind because they knew they would see the profit later. That's where the whole overthrowing the government comes in, Guido is in favour of privatising Venezuela's oil, selling it to the highest bidder which would be western oil companies.

I don't see much of a problem with licensing off production of part of Venezuela's oil reserves. Venezuela simply cannot provide the investment necessary to improve production which private capital could. This could at least provide some jobs and boost oil production. Plenty of countries do this and make money off mineral licensing fees and taxes. Even if Venezuela is desperate enough to sell off part of its reserves, at least that provides the government with money to diversify and boost the economy.

It's false to say that Saudi Arabia made the oil prices drop to get at Venezuelan oil. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the market power to increase production by that much. The decline in oil prices recently has to do with a massive boom in US oil production due to fracking. Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC have not wanted to cut back their own production because it would cede market share to US producers.

If all of this was truly about a brutal dictator who rigged an election, they wouldn't just name another guy president. They would call for another election. The thing about that 2018 election is the opposition where the ones who didn't want international monitoring of the election, Maduro didn't prevent people from voting for anyone else, the opposition were the ones telling their supporters not to vote because it would be easier to protest the result later. Its basically the same thing that happened in Spain with the Catalan referendum I talked about earlier. People oppose to the independence purposely didn't vote because they knew they were gonna lose, so by participating it became easier to protest the result. In Spain they argued that the referendum was illegal while in Venezuela the argue the election was rigged, the argument was different, but the idea is the same.

The Maduro government was the one to stop international observers. The government also engaged in tactics like bribing voters with food, preferencing supporters with other government services and instructing medical carers to say that if Maduro was not elected, they couldn't provide medical services any more. What would be the point in calling for another election when the election process is controlled by the Maduro government and he will not allow a fair election?

More reasons to accelerate the change to renewables.

Absolutely. The less power held by backwards oil kingdoms, the better it is for most of the world.

My point is not whether or not they should have helped Kuwait that is an entirely different debate. My point is that they started the war on a lie to gain public support. And also like you said it was about oil. And again the hypocrisy, when they have to lie to invade Kuwait but meanwhile Israel really illegally occupying territory and killing civilians.

The US did not only justify it's removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait to its citizens with Iraqi atrocities. The main argument was the illegality of the invasion in the first place. Which it was. And even if atrocities were the only argument it had made, hypocrisy not a good reason to have not intervened.

Like I said before, I do not support Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, nor do I support continued Israeli colonisation of the West Bank. Israel is the main party responsible for the continued Israel-Palestine conflict and the US should at the very least end their foreign aid to Israel.

But hypocrisy for allowing one bad thing to happen while stopping another is not a good reason not to stop bad things.

Shes not making excuses, shes saying that Assad is not an enemy of the US and the US have no business deciding who the leader of Syria should be.

Ending foreign support to Syrian rebel forces will ensure the victory of the Assad regime because Russia will not give up their support of the regime. The Assad regime is highly authoritarian, is guilty of the use of chemical weapons, was a haven for foreign fighters during the Iraq War and has pursued nuclear weapons.

[AussieNicholas]

Perspective of an Australian here. I think America is a country that's been pre-judged in my country by so many people over here who have never been to America in their lives. My impression has always been that America is a very varied country that you can't really make generalisations about and that one should spend a decent amount of time visiting the country and getting to know the people to really understand the place.

[lliam]

America is really diverse in every way. This impression I gained when my family traveled across the country in 2017. But of course, the impression of a tourist is also rather superficial.

But later I was able to deepen the impression in the dorm of my Canadian school a little more personally, as I became friend with some students who came from different regions of the US.

From the deeply convinced follower of the American Way of Life to the even more staunch missionary guy who preferred more likely the American Way to Socialism, fairly contrasting beliefs were represented among these dudes.

[xSashax]

It depends how you define freedom. Black people and poor people are disproportionately hassled by police and imprisoned for the same offenses as other people. The United States has the largest prison population in the world. And there is a fundamental inequality within America. Poor people don't have the same opportunities as the wealthy. For example, poor people don't have the same opportunity as wealthy people do to go to college. In my country, university is partially paid for by the government and the rest is an interest-free loan that you only pay back when you're able to. Is it freedom to have to work dead-end jobs day-after-day to make ends meet and afford rent on your shitty house in the ghetto, meaning that you never have time or money to do what you want to do or get further skills training?

I'm not exactly in the business to giving the benefit of the doubt to people bragging about committing sexual assault. The best-case scenario there is that they didn't do it but they still thought bragging about assaulting someone was amusing. That's horrible.

Freedom in our constitution has nothing to do with going to college or not working and getting paid. Freedom includes rights in the constitution that the government can’t take away from you. The constitution never said you don’t have to work or you go to college for free.... I don’t know why having a prison population means it’s not free... you go to jail if you’re a criminal, nothing to do with race. “White privilege” ain’t real. If it is , people won’t have to fake to be Native American or black to try to get in college (Elizabeth Warren)....
“I wanna grab her pussy” ain’t much different from “I wanna fuck her or him”....

[Dav1d]

capitalism run amok

[mattsmith48]

I don't support the Trump Administrations support for Saudi Arabia, Israeli colonisation of Palestine or the increasingly authoritarian and Islamist government of Erdogan. But I still think that the Gulf War was justified and that the US should oppose Maduro. Foreign policy is hypocritical because of competing interests and what is possible. That doesn't mean that the US shouldn't intervene when it is possible.


You're over-estimating the importance of oil in this and underestimating the cost of providing war support. Saudi support for Syria has a lot more to do with them trying to undermine Iran's ties with Syria. Saudi foreign policy is very focused on opposing Iran and has been for decades (hence their loans to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s). Russia wants to maintain the Assad regime because he is a strategic ally of Russia in the Middle East and they don't want to lose that.



US sanctions have been focused on the assets of government officials and then targeted on Venezuelan oil production. Oil reliant countries are hit hard by drops in the oil price but Venezuela has been hit particularly hard because of the structure of the economy. Large sectors of the economy are controlled by the government and the government relied on oil revenues to fund imports of these goods, hence when the oil price collapsed shortages resulted. Venezuela would have had a hard time diversifying before when the government was so dependent on oil but it is very difficult now. It's difficult to run a business when national infrastructure is failing (power stations), inflation is rampant, the exchange rate is fixed too high choking off exports and there are shortages of basic goods.

Venezuela needs economic reform and humanitarian aid and Maduro will not provide it. And the opposition cannot provide it because Maduro will not give up power - making constitutional changes and tampering with elections.



I don't see much of a problem with licensing off production of part of Venezuela's oil reserves. Venezuela simply cannot provide the investment necessary to improve production which private capital could. This could at least provide some jobs and boost oil production. Plenty of countries do this and make money off mineral licensing fees and taxes. Even if Venezuela is desperate enough to sell off part of its reserves, at least that provides the government with money to diversify and boost the economy.

It's false to say that Saudi Arabia made the oil prices drop to get at Venezuelan oil. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the market power to increase production by that much. The decline in oil prices recently has to do with a massive boom in US oil production due to fracking. Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC have not wanted to cut back their own production because it would cede market share to US producers.



The Maduro government was the one to stop international observers. The government also engaged in tactics like bribing voters with food, preferencing supporters with other government services and instructing medical carers to say that if Maduro was not elected, they couldn't provide medical services any more. What would be the point in calling for another election when the election process is controlled by the Maduro government and he will not allow a fair election?



Absolutely. The less power held by backwards oil kingdoms, the better it is for most of the world.



The US did not only justify it's removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait to its citizens with Iraqi atrocities. The main argument was the illegality of the invasion in the first place. Which it was. And even if atrocities were the only argument it had made, hypocrisy not a good reason to have not intervened.

Like I said before, I do not support Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, nor do I support continued Israeli colonisation of the West Bank. Israel is the main party responsible for the continued Israel-Palestine conflict and the US should at the very least end their foreign aid to Israel.

But hypocrisy for allowing one bad thing to happen while stopping another is not a good reason not to stop bad things.



Ending foreign support to Syrian rebel forces will ensure the victory of the Assad regime because Russia will not give up their support of the regime. The Assad regime is highly authoritarian, is guilty of the use of chemical weapons, was a haven for foreign fighters during the Iraq War and has pursued nuclear weapons.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to deciding which country to help or ''liberate'' and to push the narrative of how bad their leaders are when our own Western leaders and Middle East allies are doing the exact same thing or worst.

Just look at Syria for an example, when those chemical weapons attacks happened which btw they never actually investigated into who actually did it before they started blaming Assad. So after those attacks all those politicians who want to go after Assad for murdering children with chemical weapons are the same politicians responsible for poisoning children with lead in Flint and for gassing protesters at standing rock.

Continuing on the chemical weapons, there was never any investigations into the attacks of 2017 and 2018, there was an investigation into attacks from 2013 which concluded that both the Syrian government and ISIS had access to chemical weapons and had use them on previous occasions. Am not saying there is no chance Assad didn't do it, or excusing his actions, or saying he's actually a good guy, or whatever else you will accuse me of, but in the recent events in 2017 and 2018, at the moment of the attacks Syria was winning against the rebels and Assad while he might be a brutal dictator he's really smart and he knew that using chemical weapons at that moment doesn't advantage him at all because of the potential intervention of the US. The rebels on the other hand, who depending on the reports are either part of ISIS or supported by ISIS, a chemical weapons attack against civilians does advantage them a lot. I'm not saying the rebels or ISIS actually did it, I'm saying we don't know because there was never an independent investigation.

Venezuela now. The accusations of Maduro stopping observers, (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un/venezuela-opposition-asks-u-n-not-to-send-observers-to-may-vote-idUSKCN1GO2J0) or bribing voters, or anything else they say he did is either propaganda from the US government, or extremely exaggerated by corporate media. The aid that Maduro is refusing to let in the country is because he knows that aid is really to give weapons and other tools to help the formation of a rebel group. How does he know that? Because that's what the US have been doing in Middle East for last 20 years.

[mattsmith48]

Freedom in our constitution has nothing to do with going to college or not working and getting paid. Freedom includes rights in the constitution that the government can’t take away from you. The constitution never said you don’t have to work or you go to college for free.... I don’t know why having a prison population means it’s not free... you go to jail if you’re a criminal, nothing to do with race. “White privilege” ain’t real. If it is , people won’t have to fake to be Native American or black to try to get in college (Elizabeth Warren)....
“I wanna grab her pussy” ain’t much different from “I wanna fuck her or him”....

A country where owning a gun is seen as a right while access to health care and education is not doesn't really scream freedom to me.

White privilege is very much a thing. Look at any stats there is you will see white people are much more of an advantage than black people. And I'm sorry but refusing to acknowledge that is a form of racism.

[PlasmaHam]

Its well known that they decided to invade Iraq because of oil and the WMDs was just bullshit propaganda, its just like the reason they didn't go after Saudi Arabia who funded the 9/11 terrorists was because of oil. Just like oil is the reason why they want to overthrow Assad and oil is the reason why they are trying to overthrow an elected government in Venezuela.
Is everything tied to oil for you. :rolleyes: Frankly, as much as I hate to accuse people of being conspiracy theorists (unlike you) you are basically saying there is a vast secret government plot to direct US foreign policy in such a way that it maximizes oil access. That fits the definition of conspiracy theory to a key. Given that Canada has the largest oil reserves after the Middle East and Venezuela, I'm sure your pin board has the US going full 1812 on Canada within the next decade.

I'm generally against the US intervening in these situations, so I'm not going around saying we ought to invade Venezuela or Syria. However I would be against allowing Russia to exploit an absence by the US to exert its own dominance. In the case of Venezuela, we are in some ways possibly seeing the beginning of something akin to the USSR and Cuba. Far too early to tell, the Venezuelan situation could go many different ways. Again, the US probably shouldn't be liberating countries just because, but if there is a legitimate threat to US interests (not just oil)

Question: What is your response to the US liberation of Cuba? I'm sure you can point to some historical documents that pinpoint the cause to gaining access to its offshore oil.

It had nothing to do with liberating the people from a brutal dictator its no different then what the US have and are doing right now to Venezuela, they picture Maduro as this brutal dictator who is responsible for the suffering of his people, when its US sanctions that are bankrupting the country, Venezuela as more oil than anybody else in the world, but they can't sell it because of the sanctions. It created major inflation in the country to the point where people are starving. All of that because American oil companies what to make profit over all that oil.
They can't sell it because of a socialist regime came and destroyed the once thriving economy. But yeah let's blame America, that's your easy go to.

Saudi Arabia killed a journalist with bonesaw, they are committing genocide in Yemen, they imprison women for wanting to drive, they stone people to death for being gay, they sell weapons to terrorists. Yet the US leaves them alone. Why? Because they bribe the west with their oil. The day Saudi Arabia decides to stop selling us oil with in a month the US are trying to overthrow the king in favour of their own puppet.
Or it is because, despite being a virtual dictatorship, Saudi Arabia is a major regional power that helps stabilize the region? The Saudi's have long been looked up to by it's fellow Muslim nations, being the keepers of the two biggest Islamic holy places certainly helps. Being a power with limited internal instability, a somewhat capable but improving military, and a willingness to cooperate with the US (they need the US arguably more than we need them) Saudi Arabia is about as best as we can get in the Middle East. That's excluding Israel, though for obviously reasons Israel has limited capabilities to stabilize the Middle East. And about 9/11, that whole issue is clouded in hearsay and classified information. They probably did help, but who knows the exact situations regarding the US determining that.

They told those stories to the public because the public wasn't in favour of going to war, they lied to get the public support to invade. Because just like with the 2nd Iraq war, or with Syria, or Yemen, or Venezuela, if you are openly saying you want to overthrow their dictator or invade the country to take control of their oil reserve, or because Saudi Arabia asked you to, and that it would make the military industrial complex billions in profits, it won't bring you a lot support. That's why politician and the media who received ''campaign donations'' or ad revenue from military contractors are terrified of people like Tulsi Gabbard who are speaking against regime change wars.

History has shown that the American people have often been supporting of interfering in foreign affairs. Sometimes they regret that after the consequences start coming in, but you don't need a conspiracy to convince people to go to war.

A country where owning a gun is seen as a right while access to health care and education is not doesn't really scream freedom to me.

What definition of freedom are you using? I, and about every other person on the planet, define freedom is the ability to do things without the government restricting you or placing undo burden. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from taking guns, restricting speech, prosecuting unfairly, etc. The government isn't restricting me from getting a gun, from getting healthcare, or from getting an education (btw, I'm paying my own way through college with minimal debt via working part-time during the semester and working the summers, and going to a reasonably priced college. But yeah lets keep paying for kids to go to high-end colleges without earning a bit for themselves). To me, that's freedom.

But yeah being forced to pay for other people's healthcare and education, that definitely screams freedom.

White privilege is very much a thing. Look at any stats there is you will see white people are much more of an advantage than black people. And I'm sorry but refusing to acknowledge that is a form of racism.
Like these stats from the FBI? (https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/national/united-states/crime/2007/2017)
https://ibb.co/NF5XL01

Oh! Racism accusation! *Gulp*
Oh yeah, that hit the spot. Started a drinking game for accusations of racism recently, but with soda because I don't drink. Gonna have to restock soon. And yes, I'm very snarky right now, enjoy!

Man I really need to update my avatar and signature. Buttigieg is growing on me ;)

[mattsmith48]

Is everything tied to oil for you. :rolleyes: Frankly, as much as I hate to accuse people of being conspiracy theorists (unlike you) you are basically saying there is a vast secret government plot to direct US foreign policy in such a way that it maximizes oil access. That fits the definition of conspiracy theory to a key. Given that Canada has the largest oil reserves after the Middle East and Venezuela, I'm sure your pin board has the US going full 1812 on Canada within the next decade.

I'm generally against the US intervening in these situations, so I'm not going around saying we ought to invade Venezuela or Syria. However I would be against allowing Russia to exploit an absence by the US to exert its own dominance. In the case of Venezuela, we are in some ways possibly seeing the beginning of something akin to the USSR and Cuba. Far too early to tell, the Venezuelan situation could go many different ways. Again, the US probably shouldn't be liberating countries just because, but if there is a legitimate threat to US interests (not just oil)

Question: What is your response to the US liberation of Cuba? I'm sure you can point to some historical documents that pinpoint the cause to gaining access to its offshore oil.

It had nothing to do with liberating the people from a brutal dictator its no different then what the US have and are doing right now to Venezuela, they picture Maduro as this brutal dictator who is responsible for the suffering of his people, when its US sanctions that are bankrupting the country, Venezuela as more oil than anybody else in the world, but they can't sell it because of the sanctions. It created major inflation in the country to the point where people are starving. All of that because American oil companies what to make profit over all that oil.


Or it is because, despite being a virtual dictatorship, Saudi Arabia is a major regional power that helps stabilize the region? The Saudi's have long been looked up to by it's fellow Muslim nations, being the keepers of the two biggest Islamic holy places certainly helps. Being a power with limited internal instability, a somewhat capable but improving military, and a willingness to cooperate with the US (they need the US arguably more than we need them) Saudi Arabia is about as best as we can get in the Middle East. That's excluding Israel, though for obviously reasons Israel has limited capabilities to stabilize the Middle East. And about 9/11, that whole issue is clouded in hearsay and classified information. They probably did help, but who knows the exact situations regarding the US determining that.

History has shown that the American people have often been supporting of interfering in foreign affairs. Sometimes they regret that after the consequences start coming in, but you don't need a conspiracy to convince people to go to war.

From what I've read and seen from the first Gulf war is that before they started telling their stories, the public support for an invasion of Kuwait was at best 50/50 because apparently people still remembered how much of a disaster Vietnam was.

Its been proven those were lies to gain public support, just like WMDs were lie when it came time to overthrow Saddam. Like I said if it was really about going after the responsible for 9/11 they would have went after Saudi Arabia who funded the 9/11 terrorists.

When you look at the hypocrisy when it comes to picking and choosing what country to invade and who to overthrow. You easily see a pattern. Its no conspiracy theory anyone can easily see that pattern. If there were conspiracy theories it would be much harder to find out the truth like faking the Moon landing or the US government hiding aliens. You have to work really hard to find ''evidence'' for those things, evidence that can easily be debunked.

What definition of freedom are you using? I, and about every other person on the planet, define freedom is the ability to do things without the government restricting you or placing undo burden. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from taking guns, restricting speech, prosecuting unfairly, etc. The government isn't restricting me from getting a gun, from getting healthcare, or from getting an education (btw, I'm paying my own way through college with minimal debt via working part-time during the semester and working the summers, and going to a reasonably priced college. But yeah lets keep paying for kids to go to high-end colleges without earning a bit for themselves). That's freedom.

But yeah being forced to pay for other people's healthcare and education, that definitely screams freedom.


''he ability to do things without the government restricting you or placing undo burden.''

The government forcing you to pay your own health care bill and education is placing you under a burden.

''Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from taking guns, restricting speech, prosecuting unfairly''

Prosecuting unfairly and restricting speech. Weird how that sounds a lot like what the US are doing to Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

Oh! Racism accusation! *Gulp*
Oh yeah, that hit the spot. Started a drinking game for accusations of racism recently, but with soda because I don't drink. Gonna have to restock soon.

That's no fun.

[LiberalTurboprop]

Freedom in our constitution has nothing to do with going to college or not working and getting paid. Freedom includes rights in the constitution that the government can’t take away from you. The constitution never said you don’t have to work or you go to college for free.... I don’t know why having a prison population means it’s not free... you go to jail if you’re a criminal, nothing to do with race. “White privilege” ain’t real. If it is , people won’t have to fake to be Native American or black to try to get in college (Elizabeth Warren)....
“I wanna grab her pussy” ain’t much different from “I wanna fuck her or him”....

I was saying that there is more to freedom than what is defined in the Constitution. The Constitution is not the be all and end all of what is freedom. It's naive to say that going to prison has nothing to do with race. Black people are statistically more likely to be pulled over by police, more likely to be shot by police and on average get harsher sentences compared to white people convicted of the same crime. The government creates the laws and often those laws disproportionately target non-white people (for example the crack:powder cocaine sentencing ratio disproportionately targets people who use and deal crack, whereas white people are more likely than black people to use powder cocaine, even though the drugs aren't much more dangerous than each other). You also have to consider the years of generational poverty created not just by a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, but disproportionate policing and housing segregation (white housing organisations systemically have tried to prevent black people from moving into white neighbourhoods and when they do often wealthier white people leave and then this affects housing prices which is a huge component of wealth and school district funding which affects children's futures). To say white privilege doesn't exist is naive.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to deciding which country to help or ''liberate'' and to push the narrative of how bad their leaders are when our own Western leaders and Middle East allies are doing the exact same thing or worst.

Just look at Syria for an example, when those chemical weapons attacks happened which btw they never actually investigated into who actually did it before they started blaming Assad. So after those attacks all those politicians who want to go after Assad for murdering children with chemical weapons are the same politicians responsible for poisoning children with lead in Flint and for gassing protesters at standing rock.

Yeah, that isn't exactly equivalent to nerve gassing people. The chemical weapons being nerve gas, happening after government airstrikes and containing chemicals considered to be markers of Syrian chemical weapon production by the UN gives a pretty solid backing for the Assad regime being the likely culprit. Again, I do not think hypocrisy is a good reason for inaction when action can be taken and the diplomatic and economic costs are not prohibitive.

Continuing on the chemical weapons, there was never any investigations into the attacks of 2017 and 2018, there was an investigation into attacks from 2013 which concluded that both the Syrian government and ISIS had access to chemical weapons and had use them on previous occasions. Am not saying there is no chance Assad didn't do it, or excusing his actions, or saying he's actually a good guy, or whatever else you will accuse me of, but in the recent events in 2017 and 2018, at the moment of the attacks Syria was winning against the rebels and Assad while he might be a brutal dictator he's really smart and he knew that using chemical weapons at that moment doesn't advantage him at all because of the potential intervention of the US. The rebels on the other hand, who depending on the reports are either part of ISIS or supported by ISIS, a chemical weapons attack against civilians does advantage them a lot. I'm not saying the rebels or ISIS actually did it, I'm saying we don't know because there was never an independent investigation.

There was the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism. And I think the calculus makes sense for the Assad regime, they can use a weapon that inspires terror in their enemies and they will likely only either suffer no consequences or only limited airstrikes (the US strike on the airfield wasn't of particular long-term consequence). Again, compared to rebels and ISIS, the Assad regime had the greatest access to chemical weapons and the knowledge to deploy them.


Venezuela now. The accusations of Maduro stopping observers, (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un/venezuela-opposition-asks-u-n-not-to-send-observers-to-may-vote-idUSKCN1GO2J0) or bribing voters, or anything else they say he did is either propaganda from the US government, or extremely exaggerated by corporate media. The aid that Maduro is refusing to let in the country is because he knows that aid is really to give weapons and other tools to help the formation of a rebel group. How does he know that? Because that's what the US have been doing in Middle East for last 20 years.

You are just buying the line of the Maduro regime and their own propaganda. The fact of the matter is that Maduro will not give up power, has empowered a corrupt military apparatus and has horribly mismanaged the economy.

Or it is because, despite being a virtual dictatorship, Saudi Arabia is a major regional power that helps stabilize the region? The Saudi's have long been looked up to by it's fellow Muslim nations, being the keepers of the two biggest Islamic holy places certainly helps. Being a power with limited internal instability, a somewhat capable but improving military, and a willingness to cooperate with the US (they need the US arguably more than we need them) Saudi Arabia is about as best as we can get in the Middle East. That's excluding Israel, though for obviously reasons Israel has limited capabilities to stabilize the Middle East. And about 9/11, that whole issue is clouded in hearsay and classified information. They probably did help, but who knows the exact situations regarding the US determining that.

Just because Saudi Arabia is relatively strategically important, does not mean that the US should continue to sell them weapons, given their quite horrible actions in Yemen. The US should also block them from gaining nuclear assistance of any kind. Given their rivalry with Iran and the Iranian nuclear program, they might have a will now or in the near future to weaponise the technology and they are one of the last regimes which should wield those weapons.

[xSashax]

Wow....those super long responses.......
Freedom is what’s in the constitution.... Healthcare and college and being rich or poor has nothing to do with freedom. You don’t have a right to force doctors and nurses to serve you and teachers aren’t slaves who must teach you. There’s no “white privilege” today. Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren) wouldn’t have to fake to be Native American if white privilege is real..

[Adamant]

Keeping it short and simple. Not an American and never been there. Not trying to start a row but from the UK it seems big and a bully.
I know there are two sides and we should be grateful for American forces supporting us etc but just at the moment my first thoughts are what many peopel here think

[LiberalTurboprop]

Wow....those super long responses.......
Freedom is what’s in the constitution.... Healthcare and college and being rich or poor has nothing to do with freedom.

Freedom as an abstract concept exists outside the realms of what is in the Constitution, however. And like I said, even the specific freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

What I'm talking about is opportunity. There are the freedom from things but what about the freedom to do things? A lot of people feel trapped into their situation by economic circumstances.

You don’t have a right to force doctors and nurses to serve you and teachers aren’t slaves who must teach you..

I didn't say that healthcare workers and teachers should be compelled to do things by force. I do, however think that the US government could do a lot more to better fund and provide more access to healthcare and education - particularly college.

There’s no “white privilege” today. Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren) wouldn’t have to fake to be Native American if white privilege is real..

That argument simply does not make sense. Native Americans and certain other groups have faced historical and current prejudice and poverty and so get some level of assistance in education. Perhaps it wouldn't be so necessary if the United States provided greater opportunity to all youths from lower-income families.

To say there is no white privilege is to ignore that black Americans face greater sentences for the same crimes, are more likely to be pulled over and are more likely to be fatally shot by police (though, US cops should really stop killing so many unarmed people regardless of race). And it is to ignore the massive disparity in generational wealth between black and white families as a result of prejudice in housing (this is huge with white flight, a lack of loans guaranteed under past government schemes, and the barring of black people moving into white suburbs and is evident in how segregated neighbourhoods are in many American cities. it also affects school districts) and prejudice in housing.

Also calling Warren "Pocahontas" is offensive and is low even for Trump.

[mattsmith48]

Yeah, that isn't exactly equivalent to nerve gassing people. The chemical weapons being nerve gas, happening after government airstrikes and containing chemicals considered to be markers of Syrian chemical weapon production by the UN gives a pretty solid backing for the Assad regime being the likely culprit. Again, I do not think hypocrisy is a good reason for inaction when action can be taken and the diplomatic and economic costs are not prohibitive.

There was the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism. And I think the calculus makes sense for the Assad regime, they can use a weapon that inspires terror in their enemies and they will likely only either suffer no consequences or only limited airstrikes (the US strike on the airfield wasn't of particular long-term consequence). Again, compared to rebels and ISIS, the Assad regime had the greatest access to chemical weapons and the knowledge to deploy them.

All I'm saying is we don't know who actually did it. Like I said Assad is an intelligent man, he knew that using chemical weapons would bring action from the US which wouldn't advantage him at all. Maybe he didn't care, or he thought the support from Vladimir Putin would deter any action. We don't know what happened.

Again, I do not think hypocrisy is a good reason for inaction when action can be taken and the diplomatic and economic costs are not prohibitive.


All I'm asking for is consistency, if want to go after Assad for alleged war crimes, you also need to do after Saudi Arabia and Israel who we know for a fact are committing war crimes. If you go after Maduro you also have to go after Erdogan who did the exact same thing you're accusing Maduro of doing.

You are just buying the line of the Maduro regime and their own propaganda. The fact of the matter is that Maduro will not give up power, has empowered a corrupt military apparatus and has horribly mismanaged the economy.

When you look at the history, at how and why the US started wars for the past 30 years, scepticism of the US government and western media is justified. Then you ear from journalists who went there and who aren't bought buy oil companies and military contractors who will profit from if this coup is successful, then you realise this is an attempt at another oil war.

Wow....those super long responses.......
Freedom is what’s in the constitution.... Healthcare and college and being rich or poor has nothing to do with freedom. You don’t have a right to force doctors and nurses to serve you and teachers aren’t slaves who must teach you. There’s no “white privilege” today. Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren) wouldn’t have to fake to be Native American if white privilege is real..

Doctors and teachers aren't slaves forced to treat or teach you, they volunteer to do the job they have to do it. Its the same concept than with the gay wedding cakes thing, you decided of your own will to make wedding cakes as a living, so either you do your fucking job or quit and pick a different one.

What's the obsession Elizabeth Warren. Yes what she did was wrong. Get over it. Shes getting more day to day criticism than Dan Snyder.

[LiberalTurboprop]

All I'm saying is we don't know who actually did it. Like I said Assad is an intelligent man, he knew that using chemical weapons would bring action from the US which wouldn't advantage him at all. Maybe he didn't care, or he thought the support from Vladimir Putin would deter any action. We don't know what happened.

Again, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism thinks it was Assad and the Assad regime was the party with the greatest chemical weapons capability.

All I'm asking for is consistency, if want to go after Assad for alleged war crimes, you also need to do after Saudi Arabia and Israel who we know for a fact are committing war crimes. If you go after Maduro you also have to go after Erdogan who did the exact same thing you're accusing Maduro of doing.

In which case, you end up doing nothing about anything - there should be consistency in that there should be consequences for electoral tampering and war crimes but it is practically impossible for those consequences for the same. The US can't sanction and recognise an opponent to Erdogan because Turkey is a strategic ally and in NATO, is relatively stable and there is no apparent major opponent with enough legitimacy. The US should not be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia but due to their oil exports, the US couldn't really take military action against them. Saudi Arabia is also stable without an apparent opponent force to back against the House of Saud regime. You have to take opportunities where you can take them. The US is simply much more able to take action in the case of Syria and Venezuela and so should act.

[mattsmith48]

Again, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism thinks it was Assad and the Assad regime was the party with the greatest chemical weapons capability.

It doesn't mean he did it. They think he did it, because he was better equip to carry out those attacks, but ISIS and the rebels also have chemical weapons capability and could've done it. Like I said, we don't know. Probably never will.

In which case, you end up doing nothing about anything - there should be consistency in that there should be consequences for electoral tampering and war crimes but it is practically impossible for those consequences for the same. The US can't sanction and recognise an opponent to Erdogan because Turkey is a strategic ally and in NATO, is relatively stable and there is no apparent major opponent with enough legitimacy. The US should not be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia but due to their oil exports, the US couldn't really take military action against them. Saudi Arabia is also stable without an apparent opponent force to back against the House of Saud regime. You have to take opportunities where you can take them. The US is simply much more able to take action in the case of Syria and Venezuela and so should act.

Turkey, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia being allies doesn't give them the right to do anything they want. And when they see the US hypocrisy it gives them the impression they can get away with war crimes or changing the constitution to become a dictator.

[PlasmaHam]

Frankly the naivety on display here is astounding. Foreign policy isn't fair nor consistent, never has been and never will be. Countries which are friendly with your own country will generally get more leeway than countries that hate you. It's like with people, if a friend of yours does something you don't like, you might get angry for a bit, but you aren't going to let it ruin your friendship when he had done so much good for you otherwise. Meanwhile if someone you dislike came along and ticked you off, you won't exactly be in much of a forgiving mode.

You also got to consider the big picture impact. Syria is rife with internal conflict, the US going in and overthrowing the current leadership wouldn't change too much. The Saudi's have a stable government. Do we really want a repeat with Iraq, where we overthrow a dictator, only to have the country break apart into warring factions because the dictator was the only thing holding it together? No. You also got to consider their allies. Declaring war on Assad could very well mean declaring war on Russia, depending how dedicated the Russians are to his regime. The last thing we need right now is a war with Russia. I could go on, but I'm hoping you get the point. Basing foreign policy around consistency and fairness is just going to get you killed.
Also calling Warren "Pocahontas" is offensive and is low even for Trump.
Is that more offensive than the fact that Warren faked and lied about having Indian ancestry for years, and exploited fake minority status to advance her own goals?

[LiberalTurboprop]

Is that more offensive than the fact that Warren faked and lied about having Indian ancestry for years, and exploited fake minority status to advance her own goals?

That's a misleading statement at best. Warren had a DNA test which said she had some Native American heritage 6-10 generations ago. The controversy is from the perspective of Native Americans who believe cultural kinship and tribal sovereignty are the markers of being within that group rather than strict blood ties.

And that is just whataboutism and doesn't excuse what Trump said.

[mattsmith48]

Frankly the naivety on display here is astounding. Foreign policy isn't fair nor consistent, never has been and never will be. Countries which are friendly with your own country will generally get more leeway than countries that hate you. It's like with people, if a friend of yours does something you don't like, you might get angry for a bit, but you aren't going to let it ruin your friendship when he had done so much good for you otherwise. Meanwhile if someone you dislike came along and ticked you off, you won't exactly be in much of a forgiving mode.

You also got to consider the big picture impact. Syria is rife with internal conflict, the US going in and overthrowing the current leadership wouldn't change too much. The Saudi's have a stable government. Do we really want a repeat with Iraq, where we overthrow a dictator, only to have the country break apart into warring factions because the dictator was the only thing holding it together? No. You also got to consider their allies. Declaring war on Assad could very well mean declaring war on Russia, depending how dedicated the Russians are to his regime. The last thing we need right now is a war with Russia. I could go on, but I'm hoping you get the point. Basing foreign policy around consistency and fairness is just going to get you killed.

I'm not saying they should try to overthrow the Saudi government, or Israel's or anyone else. All I'm asking for is consistency. If what Erdogan does in Turkey the exact same thing you are accusing Maduro of doing in Venezuela. You need to treat both the same.

[xSashax]

Doctors and teachers aren't slaves forced to treat or teach you, they volunteer to do the job they have to do it. Its the same concept than with the gay wedding cakes thing, you decided of your own will to make wedding cakes as a living, so either you do your fucking job or quit and pick a different one.

What's the obsession Elizabeth Warren. Yes what she did was wrong. Get over it. Shes getting more day to day criticism than Dan Snyder.

Don’t know who’s Dan Snyder but Warren shows you that in America you’re chances are better at college if you’re not white. There’s no “white privilege”. She lied about her race to get in college. OJ Simpson also got away with the race card right?

And I don’t think the constitution ever said you can force people to sell you something or to serve you. I don’t have a problem with being gay etc but if someone don’t wanna make a cake, it’s their freedom. Jewish people shouldn’t be forced to make a cake with a Nazi symbol and liberals shouldn’t be forced to make pro Trump cakes as well right?

[mattsmith48]

Don’t know who’s Dan Snyder but Warren shows you that in America you’re chances are better at college if you’re not white. There’s no “white privilege”. She lied about her race to get in college. OJ Simpson also got away with the race card right?

Dan Snyder is the racist owner of the Washington NFL franchise.

How many dumb rich white kids get into college because daddy made a big ''donation'' to the university? If she did what you are accusing her off it was wrong, but if you want to criticise her do so on policies not on a bullshit controversy. That's how you end up with things like birtherism, or Benghazi, RussiaGate taking up all the attention while the corruption happening in front of your eyes gets buried

And I don’t think the constitution ever said you can force people to sell you something or to serve you. I don’t have a problem with being gay etc but if someone don’t wanna make a cake, it’s their freedom. Jewish people shouldn’t be forced to make a cake with a Nazi symbol and liberals shouldn’t be forced to make pro Trump cakes as well right?

Being a Nazi or Trump supporter is a choice, being a gay is not. That being said your constitution protects hate speech so as long as what they are asking is not illegal you should do your job and do the fucking cake.

[xSashax]

n
Being a Nazi or Trump supporter is a choice, being a gay is not. That being said your constitution protects hate speech so as long as what they are asking is not illegal you should do your job and do the fucking cake.

The constitution only says the government can’t limit speech. The 1st amendment goes like “Congress shall make no law.....” Cake stores ain’t the government and they have the freedom to do what they want. It’s like if I ask you to leave my home because I don’t like you, then I have a right to do so cuz it’s private property. But the government can’t do anything with your opinions and speech. And by the way....didn’t the cake store win in the Supreme Court?
You might be able to go to college with a big donation but it’s got nothing to do with race. I don’t think they accept donations only from a certain race.

[mattsmith48]

The constitution only says the government can’t limit speech. The 1st amendment goes like “Congress shall make no law.....” Cake stores ain’t the government and they have the freedom to do what they want. It’s like if I ask you to leave my home because I don’t like you, then I have a right to do so cuz it’s private property. But the government can’t do anything with your opinions and speech. And by the way....didn’t the cake store win in the Supreme Court?

That's not my point. My point was that since the 1st amendment prohibits any anti-hate speech laws so making a Nazi or Trump cake is not illegal. If you had anti-hate speech laws the bakery could refuse to make that cake because it would be illegal.

You might be able to go to college with a big donation but it’s got nothing to do with race. I don’t think they accept donations only from a certain race.

Because the 1% is mostly white, the people who get into college because daddy gave a big ''donation'' are primarily white.

[PlasmaHam]

That's not my point. My point was that since the 1st amendment prohibits any anti-hate speech laws so making a Nazi or Trump cake is not illegal. If you had anti-hate speech laws the bakery could refuse to make that cake because it would be illegal.

Should we repeal the First Amendment then? You seem to be advocating that.

[mattsmith48]

Should we repeal the First Amendment then? You seem to be advocating that.

Honestly your entire constitution and government needs a reboot.

[PlasmaHam]

Honestly your entire constitution and government needs a reboot.
Logical Fallacy #1 - Strawman

Should we repeal the First Amendment? Or if you are actually advocating a complete revamp of the US governmental system, should there be a First Amendment equivalent there? How would it look?

[lliam]

Land of the fees.

[HeyCameron]

A place where you have the luxury of cakes being the #1 freedom of speech issue.

[Zika]

And in this thread, mattsmith48 demonstrates he can't acknowledge a single positive thing about the USofA, demonstrating his lack of objectivity.
Nothing new to see here folks.

btw, owning guns is not in conflict with being brave.

[xSashax]

That's not my point. My point was that since the 1st amendment prohibits any anti-hate speech laws so making a Nazi or Trump cake is not illegal. If you had anti-hate speech laws the bakery could refuse to make that cake because it would be illegal.

Because the 1% is mostly white, the people who get into college because daddy gave a big ''donation'' are primarily white.

I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make.... Sometimes you wanna limit speech, or you say cake stores must be forced to make certain cakes...
And 100% of America is also mostly white? Just like the 1%..... People who eat and sleep in America are also mostly white. What’s your point? You’re making everything about race but I only see everyone as people, doesn’t matter what color.

[Zika]

[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3825012the 1st amendment prohibits any anti-hate speech laws [/QUOTE]

That is incorrect. The first amendment does not prohibit any anti-hate speech laws. Granted, the US' interpretation of free speech is more broad than most western countries, there are limits, and certain types of hate speech aren't allowed.

[LiberalTurboprop]

Don’t know who’s Dan Snyder but Warren shows you that in America you’re chances are better at college if you’re not white. There’s no “white privilege”. She lied about her race to get in college. OJ Simpson also got away with the race card right?

It doesn't because you're not accounting for generational poverty which makes poor people, particularly poor black and hispanic people, less likely to be able to afford to go to college and less likely to be in a good school district. And, of course, white privilege extends far beyond just college admissions and even if the average white person didn't have an easier time getting into college, it wouldn't mean that they wouldn't have privilege in other areas such as in criminal justice and policing.

And I don’t think the constitution ever said you can force people to sell you something or to serve you. I don’t have a problem with being gay etc but if someone don’t wanna make a cake, it’s their freedom. Jewish people shouldn’t be forced to make a cake with a Nazi symbol and liberals shouldn’t be forced to make pro Trump cakes as well right?

I don't think that someone should personally be forced to provide a cake that is offensive to them in their private life. However, when they're a business, it should be different and they should act professionally as their business. Because the alternative to anti-discrimination laws in these areas would be that a lot of businesses in a town would be able to deny service to people from a certain group which would make an area arduous or difficult for a group of people to live in. You can imagine, for instance, a white neighbourhood in which the businesses just all decide not to serve black people or gay people so the town can market itself to bigots as black-free or gay-free. And that's a far worse eventuality than someone having to make a cake that they don't want to make.

The constitution only says the government can’t limit speech. The 1st amendment goes like “Congress shall make no law.....” Cake stores ain’t the government and they have the freedom to do what they want. It’s like if I ask you to leave my home because I don’t like you, then I have a right to do so cuz it’s private property. But the government can’t do anything with your opinions and speech.

There are limits to free speech however. Inciting panic by yelling "fire" when there is no fire in a crowded cinema is the classic example. Also, you can't publish like state secrets - e.g. you can't publish the plans for one of America's thermonuclear warheads on national television or something like that.

And by the way....didn’t the cake store win in the Supreme Court?

The cake store won on the grounds that the court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn't employ religious neutrality. To quote Wikipedia, " The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality."

You might be able to go to college with a big donation but it’s got nothing to do with race. I don’t think they accept donations only from a certain race.

But that's ignoring that the wealthiest people most able to make the big donations are disproportionately white and that the average white family is wealthier than the average black family and so is able to more easily send their children to college.

You’re making everything about race but I only see everyone as people, doesn’t matter what color.

Personal racism matters less than what people think it does. What matters more is institutional racism in things like the criminal justice system, policing, voting rights and sometimes the offering of government services. And just because you think you're not personally racist, doesn't mean that you cannot ignore institutional racism or the racism of a significant segment of a significant portion of the American public.

[breaux]

Deluded.

[mattsmith48]

Logical Fallacy #1 - Strawman

Should we repeal the First Amendment? Or if you are actually advocating a complete revamp of the US governmental system, should there be a First Amendment equivalent there? How would it look?

If you're going to repeal an amendment you should start with the 2nd. Touching the 1st before a governmental and electoral reform could be dangerous.

And in this thread, mattsmith48 demonstrates he can't acknowledge a single positive thing about the USofA, demonstrating his lack of objectivity.
Nothing new to see here folks.

To be fair they make it very hard to find positive things about them.

btw, owning guns is not in conflict with being brave.

If you feel like you need to own guns to be safe, you're not brave.

I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make.... Sometimes you wanna limit speech, or you say cake stores must be forced to make certain cakes...
And 100% of America is also mostly white? Just like the 1%..... People who eat and sleep in America are also mostly white. What’s your point? You’re making everything about race but I only see everyone as people, doesn’t matter what color.

Its no secret the US has a racism problem, why do you keep denying that?

That is incorrect. The first amendment does not prohibit any anti-hate speech laws. Granted, the US' interpretation of free speech is more broad than most western countries, there are limits, and certain types of hate speech aren't allowed.

The only exception is if you are threatening to hurt someone or to overthrow the government.

[thewilddog]

A country that held some ground but is slipping and losing its first place!