Can't understand why so many Americans woted on a clown like Bush

On which discussion have I been proven wrong, Quincy? The original topic (Why people voted for Bush), NHS vs. private medicine, what countries are socialist or not, what socialism is…? Which one? I don’t know. This thread has gotten so convoluted that I don’t know which point is being argued right now (And have you noticed that for the most part, this thread isn’t pit material?).

Anyways, to sum up how I see it: European medical systems and forms of government are accepted by their people. The majority are not socialist. Higher taxes are results of NHS. Private medicine leaves some people out, but we pay less taxes, and those who get medical coverage get superb coverage. The U.S. supports private practice, and also has state-run systems to help the elderly and poor. People voted for Bush because they see him as protector of American tradition, people voted for Gore because he wants the Government to become involved to help the poor.

Is there anything I missed?

Well it’s about time a state puts the Death Penalty to use:)

I believe that many Americans voted for Bush because they were disgusted with Clinton, not because they thought he would be a great leader. They certainly didn’t vote for him because of his intelligence - this guy is so stupid he doesn’t even know that Social Security is a federal program! In any case, Gore has won the popular vote - even if Bush is declared the “winner” of this election, the whole world will know who the REAL U.S. President is.

As a Mexican-American whose maternal grandparents are from Texas, I have a different view of that state. My grandparents grew up in TX during the 1920’s and 1930’s - a time when Mexican-Americans were treated as badly as Blacks - both groups had to use “colored” restrooms, shop at “colored” stores, could only go to “colored” movie theaters, etc…naturally, these places were nowhere near as nice as those reserved for whites. Schoolchildren were hit with rulers and locked in closets for speaking Spanish. Mexican-Americans in TX are still treated like garbage. Consider the fact that Gov. Bush refused to raise the wages of that state’s farm workers (who are mostly Mexican-American) from $3.25 an hour to the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. So much for “compassionate conservatism!” This guy is a liar and a hypocrite, and will only further polarize this nation, not unite us. Bush may have a few token minority people in his corner, but the majority of us non-white folks know that this guy is bad news (yes, he tried to use his half-Mexican nephew to get the Latino vote, but it didn’t work. If the kid’s surname wasn’t Bush, he would be treated the same as the rest of us brown people). Maybe the curse of Tecumseh will kick in and he’ll be history before he has a chance to destroy this country. Or, maybe he’ll accidentally shoot himself while playing with his guns in the Oval Office.

As far as Europe is concerned, I have visited England, Ireland, and Scotland several times over the past 13 years, and have NEVER encountered prejudice there. Too bad I can’t say the same about my own country. The British and Irish are wonderful, friendly people. My father was stationed in Germany and France during his years in the U.S. Army in the early 1950’s, and was amazed at the admiration the Europeans have for us darker-skinned people -they treated him like a king. In Europe, strangers give me smiles and warm hellos; here, even in liberal southern CA, I often get rude stares and dirty looks. I barely understand Spanish, speak English with a Valley Girl accent but still get treated like a second-class citizen because of my ethnic appearance. It doesn’t matter that my family has been in this country for over 100 years - we are still treated like illegal aliens. A few years ago, I went to a polling place to vote in a local election, and was told by a white volunteer, “We don’t have any voting materials in Spanish, dear.” I hadn’t even spoken at that point! My younger brother, a businessman, was in the lobby of an Atlanta hotel waiting to meet a client - wearing a suit and tie and carrying his briefcase - and was approached by a man who tossed his car keys at him and said, “Here, boy, park my car.” Unfortunately, I would need an entire website to list all of the insults my family has endured due to racial prejudice.

No doubt this post will prompt some people to tell me to move to Europe, and I have seriously considered it, but I prefer to live close to my family, thank you. For those who think this is the greatest country in the world, the potential is there, but Bush will most certainly set us back 40 years. The future doesn’t look bright for non-white Americans, I’m sorry to say.

Sorry to bring this up again Casdave, but I feel that you won’t respond to Quincy’".

are you saying that Coldfire, London_calling, Mattuk, tomh, yojimbo, micilin, pergau, borndodgy, skinnyGuy, Spinynorman myself or any of the other Europeans cannot comment on US issues?
What about our Kiwi’s Primaflora or Guanolad?
for that matter, how about Shayna, canadian Sue, Globe trotter and all the other Canadians? does voicing their opinions on your country constitute being rude?

Yes, the majority of the Posters are from the US. but few feel that this is an “American Board”. So please, don’t dismiss an opinion about your country becase it is from a foreigner. Of course, if it is built on Dodgy logic, feel free to demolish it at will.

Hey, Twisty? I’ll have you know that Shayna is a Missourri girl, currently residing in sunny California. I’m sure she doesn’t hate Canucks, but I don’t think she likes to be considered one :wink:

**What’s wrong with this casdave person. Is he/she so supercilious as he/she seems or is it just my imagination ?

Coldy, you’re right. Where did I get Shayna as a Canuck from? Its probably that Canadian women are so much nicer than Yank Skanks.

Kidding!! just Kidding!!! you know I love you all! Stop hitting me!
Quincy, you might as well just drop this. your just digging another hole for yourself. I don’t have a problem with Casdave, I just wanted to clarify his statement. in other words, Chill, Winston (Kudos to whoever guesses the quote)

I’m thinking Lock, Stoick and Two Smoking Barrels. Am I right?

I think this tells us everything we need to know about Monster’s grasp of comparative government.

TomH, kudos.

Monster, repeat after me, “A National Healthcare Service does not a Socialist Government make”.

It is ridiculous that you get rude stares and looks in CA. Where the fu** are you shopping? More than 1/2 the people are minorities there. The only reason why you’d get rude stares are if you went to a Latino area of town, look Hispanic but try to speak in English.

I’ve lived in CA, and in some places there are more Latinos than Anglos. In some places there are no Anglos at all. If you go to a football game everyone rubs shoulder to shoulder and elbow to elbow. I have never seen a person treated rudely because they were Latino there. I dunno about Texas. And I can believe that’s what happened in the 50s, but not now.

And I just can’t believe the episode where some guy tosses your brother the keys. For one thing, no one says “Boy” anymore, even to a servant.

I live in the Pacific Northwest now, where people are a lot less used to the situation in CA, but Latinos are treated no different than any others. People who are bi-lingual will speak to Latinos in Spanish first, but if they don’t speak Spanish, they’ll speak in English. Latinos immigrants will always speak to other Latinos in Spanish first.

TwistofFate: You’re absolutely correct that NHS doesn’t necessarily make a government socialist, but how in how many European nations is NHS the only socialist program?

Here’s a few definitions of terms:

Democracy: Rule by many persons

Republic: A government in which voters hold sovereign power; Elected representatives who are responsible to the people to exercise that power

Socialism: An economic system in which the government owns the basic means of production, determines the use of resources, distributes products and wages, and provides social services such as education, health care, and welfare

Democratic socialism: An economic system in which people have basic human rights and some control over government officials through free elections and multiparty systems, but the government owns the basic means of production and makes most economic decisions

Those were all definitions in my U.S. Government textbook from school. I checked all the definitions with Webster’s Third College Edition dictionary, and all of the definitions are the same (Of course, with slightly different wordings, but I expected that). So, therefore, according to these definitions European countries (And any that use NHS, national school systems, etc.) have socialist properties and are therefore Socialist Democracies.

Describing any government just as Democratic is too vague, because democracy can be applied to a lot of different things. The U.S. is a Democratic Republic, most European countries are Democratic socialist republics.

Are you serious? Have you ever been in one of our “socialist” republics? Let me quote you some government types, taken from the CIA World Factbook. You do know the CIA, don’t you? And you do agree, that if there is any organisation in the world who looks out for “socialism” or communism, it’s the good old CIA.
[list=1]
[li]Democracy, emerging: Albania, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Macedonia[/li][li]Democracy, parliamentary: Andorra (under a coprincipality), Belgium (federal, under a constitutional monarch), Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia[/li][li]Federation: Russia[/li][li]Monarchy, constitutional: Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, The United Kingdom[/li][li]Monarchy, parliamentary: Spain[/li][li]Republic: France, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, San Marino, Ukraine[/li][li]Republic, constitutional: Iceland[/li][li]Republic, federal: Austria, Germany, Switzerland[/li][li]Republic, parliamentary: Greece (monarchy rejected by referendum), Slovenia (parliamentary democratic)[/li][/list=1]
There are no other forms of government in Europe. According to the CIA, that is. And what do they know, huh?

And for your reference:

China & Cuba: communist states
Libya: military dictatorship
The United States: federal republic

In my country I have the freedom to vote socialist, or even communist, if I want to. As a matter of fact, I have voted socialist in the past. My vote WAS and WILL be heard. (No electoral college here.) How about your country?

In my country it is illegal - by LAW - to have fascist organisations; organisations that spread hate and bigotry. How’s the KKK doing?

Denmark and Greece have referenda: direct control of the people over an issue. Greece invented the democracy, for fuck’s sake.

Don’t mistake your dislike for (or ignorance of) a country’s political system for socialism. Different is not automatically inferior.

If any country, that is governed by a representation of the people, chosen in a free election, CHOOSES to have socialised services of one kind or another, that is still democratic. It is the will of the people of that country. European countries CHOOSE to care for their less fortunate citizens. Europeans CHOOSE to pay all them fucking taxes to establish this. European countries CHOOSE to be caring states.

Socialism is a political view where somebody actually gives a fuck about what happens to someone else. That’s what the word “social” means.

And thank you for simplifying that intricate system known as politics. How’s the vote count?

Democratic socialist republics my hairy narrow ass.

And to think I’m actually in a good mood today. Sheesh.

Since the governments of most European countries own jack shit, this invalidates your entire argument.

“Basic” human rights? You’re suggesting I live in a country where I have just “basic” human rights?

Pretty please, with sugar on top: go fuck yourself.

Fuck you too, asshole. I was giving definitions of terms used so far in this thread, taken directly from two sources. If you notice, all your definitions pertain to how those governments function (Free elections, etc.), which does make them republics, democracies, parliamentary, whatever the hell you want to call them. My definitions pertain to how the economy functions.

Maybe you should read through your own source a little more carefully you. I did for a lot of those countries, and guess what I found? Several countries that utilze partial-government ownership of economic areas:

France: “France’s economy combines modern capitalistic methods with extensive, but declining, government intervention.”

Ireland: “Over the past decade, the Irish government has implemented a series of national economic programs designed to curb inflation, reduce government spending, and promote foreign investment”

Norway: “The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector (through large-scale state enterprises), and extensively subsidizes agriculture, fishing, and areas with sparse resources.”

And some countries that are in the process of privatization (Or are planning to):

Romania: “The government’s priorities include: obtaining renewed IMF lending, tightening fiscal policy, accelerating privatization, and restructuring unprofitable firms.”

Greece: “The government plans to privatize some leading state enterprises.”

And also countries that have successfully increased privatization:

Poland: “The privatization of small and medium state-owned companies and a liberal law on establishing new firms marked the rapid development of a private sector now responsible for 70% of economic activity”

United Kingdom: “Over the past two decades the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs”

Maybe you should also learn how to quote properly as well. The United States (Again, using your own source) is a “federal republic; strong democratic tradition”.

You so far have shown the most ignorance of the United States in this thread. You have shown ignorance of the topics being discussed in this thread. You have brought up a source, but only giving a biased presentation of the information provided in that source. You have tried to put words in my mouth, tried to make it seem that I am biased against other countries other than the U.S., tried to make it seem I am against things that I am not against. You have disgraced this board through your ignorance of what you are talking about. You know jack shit about the U.S. You apparently don’t know all that much about anything.

Before you post something, maybe you should check what other people have posted previously, and then maybe you should accurately present your sources. Then you can extend your left fist, stick up your thumb, shove it straight up your “hairy narrow ass”, and fuck off.

The underlinings are mine.

You based your opinion on this definition of democratic socialism. So according to you most European countries just have basic human rights. Not a great deal of freedom and rights, just basic human rights. We’re allowed to live, have a home, maybe some food, and for the rest we’re out of luck. Poor Europeans. Also, the government owns the basic means of production. Basic means of productions would mean factories, plants, refineries, etc. Do you really think that currently most European countries have government-owned basic means of production?

European governments do have a say (in varying degrees in different countries) in how the economy is run, and how certain economic resources are being used. But since these governments have been chosen democratically, doesn’t this mean that indirectly they do the people’s bidding? And again, the definition of “democratic socialist” you go by is so ridiculously right-wing holier-than-thou that it just cannot pertain to any western European country, and with difficulties to the rest of Europe.

In the first three examples you give, only Norway mentions state-owned production. France and Ireland have government intervention. Are you saying that when a government intervenes on behalf of its economy, which benefits all citizens of that country, this is a “socialist” thing? That this is a bad thing, because some people in that country might want to harm their economy, and that they should be free to do so? Subsidizing agriculture (which nearly every country in the world does) is a bad thing? And again, you said most European countries. One country with extensive state-owned economic resources, out of 30+. That is definitely not most countries.

The other examples, of increasing privatisation, would (and does) mean that the government does not own those economic resources anymore. So how can they still be considered democratic socialist by the definition you give? You were talking present tense.

Correct. But I was quoting government types, not how those specific types were implemented. And I cannot feel but a little exasparated at this piece of chauvenism from the CIA. As if none of the other countries of the world have a “strong democratic tradition”.
I gave China, Cuba and Libya as examples of other types of government the CIA recognises, and the USA for the CIA’s definition of its own government.

Now let’s break down my favourite paragraph. :slight_smile:

This is my fifth post in this thread. Only in the third have I mentioned the USA. I gave the USA’s government type (according to the CIA) as a reference for the information on the European countries. Then I told you some things about my country, and asked you how those subjects were in yours. I made no statements about the USA, I asked you for information on the USA. (Admitted, I know the answers, or assume I know them; these are called rhetoric questions.)

Ignorance on the topics being discussed in this thread? First of all, this thread started about why anyone would want to vote for Bush. Second, I reacted to your claim that “most European countries are Democratic socialist republics”, combined with the definition you based this statement on.

My quoting of the CIA data was not biased. I did not leave out the “strong democratic tradition” because I thought it would disprove my point. The fact that the USA have a strong democratic tradition changes nothing about the way any European country governs itself.
I’m not prejudiced against the USA in any way either. (I dare you to find anything anti-USA in the 80-odd posts I have made so far.) There are a lot of things about the USA I like. There are a lot of things about my own country that I do not like. I’ve have visited some of the USA and had great times. I will visit more of the USA in the future and - hopefully - have great times then as well.
And I like the way you refer to the CIA as “a source” or “my (as in: SG’s) source”. The CIA is not just a source. No watter what your stance on the USA is, the CIA has pretty good information. “Pretty good” as in: who gave them God’s phone number?

I did not put words into your mouth. I gave reasons why I thought your calling most European countries Democratic socialist republics (I’m getting tired of this particular sequence of words) was bullshit. I didn’t call you biased either. I said you were wrong. I wondered in print whether this was from dislike (“socialist” is a very ‘heavy’ word in US culture) or from unfamiliarity. I was blunt, yeah. If this had been GQ or GD I wouldn’t have been so blunt. Or I would have tried not to be.

Disgraced. Ri-ight. Since I never made any statements about the USA I can’t be ignorant of that. You’re calling me ignorant on European issues? Certainly not about Dutch issues? I said that a democratic country necessarily makes its governmental decisions as indirect decisions of the people. That’s why the government is called the representation of the people. (The jibe I gave about the electoral college was because in the Netherlands - save for the senate - elections are always by popular vote. We have a direct representation of the voters.) Your definition (or rather: the definition you went by) of democratic socialism excludes most, if not all, European countries.

I don’t know jack shit about the USA? How would you know? I never made any statements about the USA here. Correction: I hinted at the existence of an electoral college in the USA, and something called the “KKK”. I also might have given the impression that the organisation known as “CIA” is known in the USA, and that is has a good reputation when it comes to gathering data on other countries. And I naturally assumed that English is the official language for the USA. Was I wrong in any of these statements and assumptions? (And my english ain’t too bad. Or so I am told. So there is something I do know about something.)

I was only replying to your combination of a definition and a statement based on that definition in the same post. They were clearly in contradiction. No need to check anything else.

As I already said: I was not discussing any country outside Europe. I gave that reference merely as an indication of how the CIA sees the different government types. I’m not interested in a “who’s better / who’s best” discussion. Such threads have been done, and they are boring.

Sorry. No can do. I’m right-handed.

Look, no matter how you twist or turn it, by the definition you first presented for democratic socialism and then saying that (here come those words again) “most European countries are Democratic socialist republics”, you got it wrong. Not just basic human rights, not state-owned basic means of production.
Most European countries have a wide range of human rights and civil liberties, comparable to those of for instance the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. At certain points rights and liberties will differ between the countries. Who’s to say what’s better?
Some countries still own some basic means of production, controlled by their governments. But those governments are direct representations of the people, and not just subject to “some” control. If they fuck up, they’re out by the next election. And don’t forget: government-subsidized (as national health care and national schooling are) does NOT necessarily mean government-controlled.

And again, in this post I have NOT presumed to give opinions on the USA. I even gave a compliment to one of their government agencies.

I only swore twice in this post. In the Pit! I must be getting old.

Oh good grief!!

FYI yes it may seem I have an over-inflated ego but I would have though that maybe one or two posters would have worked out that I am from the UK and consequently regard myself as a guest.

If you want to have lots of arguments and show yourself up as a boorish lout Quincy then fell free to continue insulting the US rather than reading and learning from those who know about their own country. BTW did you look up supercilious or did you hear it once and hold it up for a special occasion ? Well you wasted it!

You flatter yourself that you think you have any sort of imagination at all - numbskull!
Since this is the internet and there are no borders I would have thought that politeness and consideration were all the more important, even if it were only to avoid cultural misunderstandings.
You certainly have the right to your own privacy and I, for one, admire the fact that by not revealing your national identity you are saving other posters from your land from feeling embarassed and maybe even apologising.
If you would like to get in a bitch fight then this is certainly the right forum but what is the point in me kicking a helpless puppy - no fun in that so maybe I’ll just leave you to your own devices.

Monster

Have you been to the UK and experienced our dangerous and decrepit healthcare system ? my goodness if you did I suppose you can consider yourself lucky to have made it out alive.If you haven’t been here then maybe you should.
In the UK you have the choice of using the NHS or going through private insurance plans that’s at least one more choice than you currently have.
I also notice that virtually all of our private healthcare proffesionals were trained in the NHS, apparently the insurance companies and private hospitals love the money they make but are not prepared to invest in training - bloody leeches.

I also note that very many of our former NHS healthcare proffessionals work in the US, I wonder what percentage of medical staff in the US are from overseas and Canada, if you have any information on this it would be appreciated.
I will also add that to fill in the gaps left by them we recruit from other nations especially India, Pakistan etc which leaves them with less medical cover and is not something I’m too proud of.

I would like to see a few posts from people who have had to jump through the hoops to get Medicair and find out how it works in practice, so far we have had folk tell us about what ‘poor people’ can get, but little word from the ‘poor people’ themselves.

Major Feelgood
…, many buy private health care because NHS sucks. So you pay for health care twice. Once for NHS and once when you really need to see a doctor. Please tell both sides of the story. That’s why we don’t want NHS here

If private medicine is so much better then why do private hospitals pay to make use of NHS facilities and staff ?
— Because everyone wants private medicine, so much in fact that they don’t have room for them, so they have to make use of NHS facilities. That’s ironic.
Tosh, tosh and thrice tosh, the number of people who take out private healthcare plans is incredibly small, certainly less than 10% and likely lower than 5%.Actually under the Thatcher administration people who took out private health plans did not pay twice as they and their companies got a tax break - some of your conferance colleagues forgot to tell you that, never mind we’ll clear this thing up eh?

Private health plans were seen in the UK as a class thing more than anything, if you were succesful in the 80’s you had to prove it by having all the acoutrements of success and this was one of them.

You might not know that Thatcher was elected on a ticket of tax cuts as was her successor John Major, as a result there was less revenue what do you think got cut ?
We spend less than 6% of our GDP on healthcare and yet cover everyone, you spend around 16% , rising and covering about 2/3 of your population with treatment centres of choice.One less than desirable result of Thatcher’s embrace of all things US was the rise in the UK of litigation, US healthcare litigation adds significantly to your healthcare costs.

Notice that I did say that when funds were available that US medical care is the best there is, I just wish you would see fit to extend this to all your citizens.

Why do private hospitals use NHS facilities and staff ?

Easy because they do not wish to make an investment in such expensive facilities as this would put the price of insurance up and they would have even fewer clients

Thundering bedpans! you surely don’t use decades old material by a 4th rate comic as the basis for your take on how the rest of the world runs - this is as embarrasing for me to answer as it must be for you to reread!!

Lets clear up a couple of other things for you - some have argued that the US system allows choice of medical practioners, I wonder how many US citizens are well informed enough to make a meaningful decision, if it’s anything like the UK then there is going to be a goodly number of folk would not be capable of understanding the information even if it were presented to them.
I can choose who to sign up as my family practioner and I can change if I wish, same as I can express a preferance for the hospital I go to but likely as not I would trust my own doctor’s advice.

What our NHS is exceptionally good at is emergency treatment but when it comes down to non-immediate treatment it is less than satisfactory.This is not a function of NHS v private at all, it is a lack of funds and the public desire for low taxation.
There is a determination to rectify this but the money has to come from somewhere, no party in the UK can get elected on the basis of increasing taxation for specific things - ring fencing taxation - so instead of income tax other forms of taxation are used.
The Liberal Democrats actually went to the last polls on the basis of ring fence taxation(extra spending on schools and on NHS) but did not end up in a position to influence things 'nuff said.
Even now dumb Brits complain about high fuel taxation and yet moan about poor NHS performance, ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Democracy - Since we were the first to outlaw slavery, we have never had a revolution and have been in existance as a democratic parliamentary state longer than just about anybody I would have thought that the robustness of our system against all the unpleasant ‘isms’ is well proven.
The current system in both Germany and Japan, especially in industry was set up according to models concieved in this country - pity it took us so long to do it for ourselves, and upon what is the US system based on - especially the independance of the judiciary which is seen across the world as an important and integral part of democracy.

Twisty
are you saying that Coldfire, London_calling, Mattuk, tomh, yojimbo, micilin, pergau, borndodgy, skinnyGuy, Spinynorman myself or any of the other Europeans cannot comment on US issues?

C’mon you know that is not what I’m saying, the differance is in the words ‘bitching’ and ‘comment’

The thread in GD on NHS systems dissappeared so rapidly I assumed that there was little interest in it from US dopers so there was no point in adding to it - shame really I could have enlightened one or two on its structural weaknesses and the reasons why we spend so little of our GDP on it.

IMHO having your strings pulled by right-wing scaremongering republican poiticians about the perils of social policies without taking the trouble to find out first hand from those who are subject to such systems is defeating the mission statement of this board somewhat.

Please, please add to it! I’m in the awkward position of being the OP and having little or nothing to contribute; I’m an American who is thinking of moving to Europe and I’d really like as much information as possible about the workings of various systems. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately) I don’t have a whole lot of experience with the health care system even in my own country, and therefore can’t add much to the discussion.

I will say, however, that as a poor-but-not-destitute American I haven’t experienced much in the way of “choice.” My employer pays for health insurance – and we had to fight long and hard to get them to do that – but we go to the doctors they tell us to. Period.

**
But why do you pretend to be the voice of reason when you infact are a pompous shit then.

**
I hope you have noticed that this thread now have debated more than one topic. And I do infact learn, -as you say, but maybe not on your terms.

By the way: You should think twice before you criticize my English. The way you self sometimes use this language makes me wonder if we have a retarded person here.
I’m maybe not a wizzard with languages, but I don’t think anyone here have to much problems understanding what I write.

Holland! Holland! Holland!

Go Skinny! So, Monster, what’s the score? Ready to admit you may been a little quick to jump the gun on all them Yoorpeeyan Socialist Commie Pinko Bastards?

I know you’re man enough to do so. You’re not dumb, just slightly uninformed in this case. As long as you’re willing to see that, we’ve just been fighting ignorance. That’s still a good thing, around these parts.

Casdave: I see what you’re saying about non-Americans being guests here. But let me offer a different opinion. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of American posters here are intelligent and open-minded enough to wholeheartedly welcome people from different countries and cultures. After all, we can only learn from each other, right?

The real issue is common sense. When you walk into a party where you don’t know anyone, and start cursing at all people who have chosen to wear blue shirts that evening, people may consider you a tad hostile. Ring any bells, Quincy? Glad to see you toned down a notch since.

Whereas someone (preferably NOT in his first post, admittedly) who voices a well-informed and well-structured opinion on why a particular aspect of US politics is, in his view, worse than the comparable system or aspect in his own country, will most likely be treated with respect.
Of course, there will always be posters who seek offense in ANY criticism voiced about their sacred country.

Personally, I find this extremely strange. To be proud of your country is one thing. But to be offended because a person begs to differ?

I guess us Dutchies are only patriots when it comes to football.

Coldy, do ya mean REAL football or good old soccer? :smiley:

Anyways, that’s actually quite what the problem is here. Different countries are different, like football in Europe is soccer in America. Americans have a different view of what socialism is than what Europeans do, and vice versa. We have our different theories of economies, government, languages, etc., and there is no way to say who is better, frankly because there are advantages and disadvantages in every one. I don’t believe the U.S. is perfect, but I do believe that we are following our traditions quite well. I don’t think any European thinks their nation is perfect either.

In many ways, my arguments were correct. In others, I was quite wrong and I acknowledge that. Hopefully everyone can come away from all this a little less ignorant of the world. I know I did (Especially not to come about insulting someone because I didn’t get what they were saying).