"America is not the greatest country in the world"
- Thread starter twinoaks207
- Start date
A lot of what he said makes sense, but he did not say which country is the greatest in the world.
We may be 3rd on this, 4th on that, but when you add it all up:
"We are the Greatest Country in the World".
God Bless America
Larry Gude
Strung Out
We are not the greatest county in the world anymore. However, what a towering load of crap to say people don't like 'liberals' because they lose.
Unless he is saying George W. Bush is a liberal.
And, what do they mean by 'liberal'??? Liberalism IS the Declaration of Independence. Liberalism IS our Constitution. Liberation of the mind, the spirit, the body.
Or, does he mean 'progressives' or 'leftists'? Then, he's got a point but, you can't mention Madison or Jefferson and not come, readily, to the conclusion that their genius ideas were, at core, liberal. Liberating.
That was a video that could have been great but, deteriorated into garbage pretty much right away.
Unless he is saying George W. Bush is a liberal.
And, what do they mean by 'liberal'??? Liberalism IS the Declaration of Independence. Liberalism IS our Constitution. Liberation of the mind, the spirit, the body.
Or, does he mean 'progressives' or 'leftists'? Then, he's got a point but, you can't mention Madison or Jefferson and not come, readily, to the conclusion that their genius ideas were, at core, liberal. Liberating.
That was a video that could have been great but, deteriorated into garbage pretty much right away.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
A lot of those stats are questionable as well. There's something like 180 some nations in the world - I can't believe infant mortality is that low UNLESS -
Something I know to be true - some countries count deaths differently. For instance, a lot of babies born here are born premature - and in some nations, they don't count deaths of such infants as a "death".
Most infants who die, die within the first 24 hours of birth. In Japan and Hong Kong, such infants are not considered *alive* until they survive the first 24 hours. Thus, they're not a death. In Canada, Germany and Austria a child born weighing less than a pound - 500g - is not considered alive.
Gun statistics, which I've studied a lot, are worse. In some nations - such as Japan - if a father goes home and slaughters his family and then shoots himself, in the U.S. that would be several homicides, and one suicide; there, the family is considered a suicide. Unsolved gun homicides are often termed as suicides, which would explain why in some Western nations, gun homicide rate is lower than the U.S. but gun *suicide* rate is higher, such as Northern Ireland.
They're right about things like prison population - we have more than anyone else. Prison ain't no picnic - which nation's jails would you rather be in - ours, or say, Mexico's, whose incarceration rate is a third of ours?
I'm skeptical further about things like education, especially when it comes to nations who have a vested interest in deliberately skewing the results. I fully believe that we have a problem here, in the U.S. and that is a consequence of our pop culture. But make no mistake that in some nations, whole segments of the population do not get a decent education at all, whether it is intentional due to racism and neglect, or unintentional, because the system itself channels certain persons into careers early in their lives. In the U.S., we have this idiotic idea that everyone should get an education, even if they don't speak the language or were born brain-damaged.
When I was in college, and later in my career as an IT professional, I learned both from experience and from reading on the subject, that many nations churn out IT professionals the way we churn out community college graduates - that is to say, they are conferred degrees with fewer requirements and rigor as do some of ours. I found myself disappointed by Eastern European engineers and Indian computer scientists. It's true that many of the most brilliant people I've met hail from both regions, but what I run into is bright people who learn on the job.
We're fourth in median income. While I can't speak for Norway and Switzerland - two nations higher on the list - I DO know that Luxemborurg's stats are skewed because a HUGE portion of their working population does not LIVE there. So their median income is taken from the income of everyone working there divided by the residents, even though a great deal of its working population come from France, Germany and elsewhere. And even Wikipedia cautions that income data is not captured evenly across the board.
We do spend more on defense than the next so many nations. We're also the world's largest economy and the world's third largest in population. By population and economy, the European Union is comparable. Guess what? So is their combined defense spending. Do you want to live in a world where the lone superpower - is China? Even Bill Maher - whom I usually detest - observed in one of his books that no nation has ever been the world's dominant power and has tread so *lightly* on the rest of the world as the United States. Not Egypt or Persia; not Greece or Rome; not the Mongols or the Turks or France or England. No one. All of them used their power to subjugate the rest of the world.
-
-
-
If nations are measure by strict metrics - maybe we don't square up. I always examine those metrics though. If livability of a nation is measure by access to public museums, I'll pass. As much as Canada is praised so highly - their press and media are still censored to a degree. I used to point out to a prior Canadian girlfriend that when millions streamed over here to the New World, from the 1600's to the present day, they could have lived anywhere. But they didn't step off the boat on Ellis Island and think, geez, I should have picked Canada. They chose HERE. Maybe I can't explain why - she would have quickly said "P.R.". But people come HERE - not Norway, not Sweden. Here.
Something I know to be true - some countries count deaths differently. For instance, a lot of babies born here are born premature - and in some nations, they don't count deaths of such infants as a "death".
Most infants who die, die within the first 24 hours of birth. In Japan and Hong Kong, such infants are not considered *alive* until they survive the first 24 hours. Thus, they're not a death. In Canada, Germany and Austria a child born weighing less than a pound - 500g - is not considered alive.
Gun statistics, which I've studied a lot, are worse. In some nations - such as Japan - if a father goes home and slaughters his family and then shoots himself, in the U.S. that would be several homicides, and one suicide; there, the family is considered a suicide. Unsolved gun homicides are often termed as suicides, which would explain why in some Western nations, gun homicide rate is lower than the U.S. but gun *suicide* rate is higher, such as Northern Ireland.
They're right about things like prison population - we have more than anyone else. Prison ain't no picnic - which nation's jails would you rather be in - ours, or say, Mexico's, whose incarceration rate is a third of ours?
I'm skeptical further about things like education, especially when it comes to nations who have a vested interest in deliberately skewing the results. I fully believe that we have a problem here, in the U.S. and that is a consequence of our pop culture. But make no mistake that in some nations, whole segments of the population do not get a decent education at all, whether it is intentional due to racism and neglect, or unintentional, because the system itself channels certain persons into careers early in their lives. In the U.S., we have this idiotic idea that everyone should get an education, even if they don't speak the language or were born brain-damaged.
When I was in college, and later in my career as an IT professional, I learned both from experience and from reading on the subject, that many nations churn out IT professionals the way we churn out community college graduates - that is to say, they are conferred degrees with fewer requirements and rigor as do some of ours. I found myself disappointed by Eastern European engineers and Indian computer scientists. It's true that many of the most brilliant people I've met hail from both regions, but what I run into is bright people who learn on the job.
We're fourth in median income. While I can't speak for Norway and Switzerland - two nations higher on the list - I DO know that Luxemborurg's stats are skewed because a HUGE portion of their working population does not LIVE there. So their median income is taken from the income of everyone working there divided by the residents, even though a great deal of its working population come from France, Germany and elsewhere. And even Wikipedia cautions that income data is not captured evenly across the board.
We do spend more on defense than the next so many nations. We're also the world's largest economy and the world's third largest in population. By population and economy, the European Union is comparable. Guess what? So is their combined defense spending. Do you want to live in a world where the lone superpower - is China? Even Bill Maher - whom I usually detest - observed in one of his books that no nation has ever been the world's dominant power and has tread so *lightly* on the rest of the world as the United States. Not Egypt or Persia; not Greece or Rome; not the Mongols or the Turks or France or England. No one. All of them used their power to subjugate the rest of the world.
-
-
-
If nations are measure by strict metrics - maybe we don't square up. I always examine those metrics though. If livability of a nation is measure by access to public museums, I'll pass. As much as Canada is praised so highly - their press and media are still censored to a degree. I used to point out to a prior Canadian girlfriend that when millions streamed over here to the New World, from the 1600's to the present day, they could have lived anywhere. But they didn't step off the boat on Ellis Island and think, geez, I should have picked Canada. They chose HERE. Maybe I can't explain why - she would have quickly said "P.R.". But people come HERE - not Norway, not Sweden. Here.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Let's boil this down. Do you think the US is in decline?
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Are you aware of the premise of the television series that clip was taken from?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No but, it seems like a GOP promo piece. I looked for more info on the clip but found none.
Enlighten me, please.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
No but, it seems like a GOP promo piece. I looked for more info on the clip but found none.
Enlighten me, please.
It's from a series called Newsroom. The guy was a network anchor or producer (I don't watch the series myself). So the actor (Jeff Daniels of Dumb and Dumber fame) was perfectly in character not knowing facts, etc. I believe he got fired after spouting apparently conservative concepts in public. Someone who watched the series can fill us in.
frogman123
New Member
I didn't even click it, but is this from the Newsroom? (Jeff Daniels, HBO)
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I have no problem with his facts. Just the view that liberals are not liked because they lose.
GW Bush's mistake was not in going. It was in losing. So, is he a liberal?
Daniels had a great point going but, lost it.
In any event, to the point, America is, in my view, in decline. Freedom and liberty are not in ascension here anymore.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Yes, but it doesn't have to, and just because it's in decline doesn't mean it's doomed. Rome declined, but it took four hundred years to do it. It was the primary power in the world for a millenia. Egypt and Greece declined and resurfaced again as something slightly different.
I think there are people in this world who envision a future where all nations sit comfortably at the same table where "world superpower" has no meaning. England and France were once world powers, but they ain't so bad now. They see a world where all nations work equally together.
It's bull####. SOMEONE will always fight to be first. Always. That vision only works so long as everyone is happy to be equal and it ain't human nature. How do I know? Because 6000 years of human history says so.
I'm reminded of the weird premise of Brigadoon, that play about the Scottish highland town doomed to live a new day after a hundred years passes. But if so much as ONE PERSON from the town ever leaves - they all die. So what happens? Yeah, you guessed it, one suicidal jerk tries to wipe out the town. The wonderful world they live in ONLY WORKS so long as EVERY LAST PERSON is on board with it. It's why communism doesn't work. Everyone to the last person must play nice, or it breaks. Well, humans screw up. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. We can't live in a world where everyone gets alone peacefully. We have to work with what we have.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
THAT is why my hope is low. We have a wonderful document, our Constitution, and, as you say, IT only works if we follow those oh, so simple rules.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
No but, it seems like a GOP promo piece. I looked for more info on the clip but found none.
Enlighten me, please.
Really? I had the opposite reaction. It's liberals who typically trash America, and the GOP who usually praise it unreasonably. The part about liberals losing? What conservative would say that? Only a disgruntled liberal would say that - they would say dammit, why do you schmucks keep losing to these guys, anyway?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well, we need to define, as I say, what 'liberal' means.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
We have to find a way to get people away from their comfort zone and realize that good government is audience participation. They have to get involved.
You've been to PTA, or church or local events and what do you see? The same people busting their asses doing all the work, while everyone whistles by enjoying it all. Right now we have a government breaking its own laws, and sadly a very compliant press cooperating with them. It didn't start with Obama, but it's been getting worse all my life. We now have a sentiment not that government is our job, but the job of some powerful entity in Washington.
There once was a time when people decided you CAN fight city hall. Now they just hope city hall won't notice.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I'm going with the version most people mean when they say it. It wouldn't help to use words meaning something OTHER than what people think it means.
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
I know what the dictionary says - but what people understand it to mean makes more sense. I'm reminded of yet another Lewis Carroll bit -
"I said it in Hebrew—I said it in Dutch—
I said it in German and Greek:
But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)
That English is what you speak!"
You have to speak the language of your hearers.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You identify both the problem and the solution.
We HAVE to start speaking plainly. GOP can't be commonly understood as 'small government' when it, clearly, is not. We can't accept 'greenhouse gases' to mean what it is not. And we ought to take back the word 'liberal' from the statists and communists and socialists.
It's a good word, properly understood. It is, I would argue, THE American word.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
So is "progressive". It's been co-opted by Democrats, who have learned that "liberal" turns people off.
Words change their meaning due to usage - they are not carved in stone for people to aspire to learn their correct meaning. "Gay" means something different to me than it did to my grandfather. And you'd be surprised to learn what Shakespeare meant to his hearers of the 16th and 17th century, as opposed to what we think it means today.