Why do you hate the United States? Love it or leave it, conservative!!
In a very retarded way, the argument you’re making here proves my point exactly. Liberals preference for certain European policies doesn’t mean they have to like everything that happens in Europe; just like America Firsters can love the ol’ Red, White and Blue and still not approve of murders, gay people, or minorities, which the US has plenty of.
Oh, “Firsters”! With an “r”! Boy, did I read that wrong!
I’m about to get busy and will have to leave the thread for a while, but take a look at the kinds of things we hear about Europe from people who have visited or live there. We hear about how things are admittedly worse but not for poor people. Well, poor people are very much in the minority here and even most of them have larger living areas and greater comfort in terms of heat and air and automobiles than do many of the average citizens of Europe, so I see little common sense incentive for dragging everyone else down so this small minority can be supported by the government…especially when you consider that in this country most of those who are poor are so because of bad lifestyle choices and/or are the result of the huge number of single family homes that are the consequence of the destruction of the family unit since the fifties which has been brought about by liberal activism anyway.
And then you have these people talking about how, yeah, they have to wait for health care and/or be told what kind of care they can have, and yeah, they will tell you the government gets in their face over so-called “hate crimes” and how these governments have effecively outlawed speaking un-PC truths.
And they do all this with an air of indifference and they then trot out some way in which they think things are better in their country so as to offset whatever negative is being discussed.
So, yeah, common sense tells me that most people would like immediate health care and the ability to choose their treatment, and they would like to be able to speak truth to power or to simply speak their mind, and that they’d like to live in a country with a thriving economy. But few people in Europe have these luxuries so I don’t see how it flies in the face of common sense to attribute their indifference to the lack of them to having simply gotten used to their own way of life.
Seriously?! I thought the sales taxes alone were obscene by U.S. standards.
So why are they living in the US?
The poor are, by definition, a large group in any country. The median income is always significantly lower than the average, because the rich and mega-rich drag the average upwards. How exactly are we defining ‘poor’? Technically, it’s the number of people living at the breadline, where all of their monthly income gets spent out of necessity. In the UK, that’s something like 25% of the population. Being poor in the UK has no relation to being poor in, say, Somalia. Most poor here have their own cars and TV.
Individual in this group always have the option of making a better life for themselves, but it’s naive to think this group will go away. There will always be a large number of minimum wage jobs that need to be filled.
I don’t, but I do hate what it’s becoming. And what it’s becoming is more like Europe, and to become more like Europe is what liberals agitating for for decades. So given that they don’t seem to draw any distinctions between what is good about Europe and what’s bad about it, how are we know which ways we are to become like Europe and which ways we aren’t? (And frankly, there isn’t much about Europe that I’ve seen in terms of a way of life that I would want to emulate anyway, nor do I see much in what liberals point to as Europe’s positives that I regard as positive myself.)
Why are Europeans living in the U.S.?
For better lives. I could name several people (a couple in my own extended family) who have come over here for that very reason, leaving family, friends and belongings behind in order to do so. They love the opportunites that exist here for people who are willing to work, and because working hard and exercising discipline in spending is what they do, they often wind up with a better standard of living after five or six years than people who’ve lived here all their lives but and think the odds are stacked against them by a society that punishes or doesn’t care about poor people.
And now I’m out for a while.
I stood up at my desk and slow-clapped this for a solid 2 minutes. My wife and dogs just stared and stared.
U.S. property taxes are often amazingly high as compared to ours, though. You can pick on this or that tax all you want.
It depends a lot on where you live, however. I would pay far more tax in Quebec than I do here in Ontario. It also depends on your situation - are you buying a house? Selling a house? Making capital gains income? The two countries tax different things in very different ways.
Taxes are also often indirect; the USA has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. You might think “hey, great, big corporations pay tax instead of me!” but you’re just paying the taxes indirectly, as is everyone; corporations don’t exist in a vacuum and taxing them heavily has distorting effects on economic behaviour and caosts the average person money down the line.
I’m British, so I tend to hear from such people rather a lot. 
One thing I would tend to say is that, presumably, if you’re listening to people who visited or lived there, they are people who didn’t want to live there or didn’t want to live there any more. It seems to be rather biasing the results when the people you’re listening to are the ones who obviously didn’t like it very much. If I asked about America solely from expatriots or people who’ve been there to visit (of which i’m one of the latter), I suspect overall you would expect a considerably more negative portrayal than if you spoke to people who continue to live there. Common sense, and all that!
So far as heat goes, I don’t really think that we can pin the blame for poor weather on a political point of view. I’m sure that if you asked 10 Britons, at least, about the weather, 9 at least would complain about it, but that’s because that’s what we do. I don’t see how weather comes into this. Automobiles, i’d very much disagree with you on - i’d vastly consider the comfort of cars over here to be greater than that of American cars. Air-wise, i’m not so certain what you mean, so i’ll have to ask you to specify for me.
Well, I suspect asking for a cite on those things generally won’t get me one.
Again, as a European, I vastly prefer the system in Britain to the American one. I’ll certainly gripe about it, because it’s imperfect, and i’ll complain about waiting times (the big one, really, over here), but that doesn’t mean i’d vastly prefer a different way - nor does it mean that I am so used to the system here that my critical thinking has been overridden. I’m generally more on the “freer speech” side of that issue, but in general I wouldn’t say government have effectively outlawed speaking un-PC truths. Again, I think that may be more of a matter of you hearing from people who’ve left.
Why is this unreasonable? When posters have brought up what they consider to be negatives about the U.S. to you before, i’ve seen you disagree with an air of indifference and then trot out a counter. That doesn’t say to me they’ve been inured to their way of life, that says they disagree. There’s a vast difference between “they think differently” and “they have been rendered passive and made to think that”.
Quite a lot of us do, actually. A majority, I would say. Really, “few people in Europe have these luxuries”? I don’t know if you consider me one of these inured people, but if you have any respect for my opinion I* really *have to call hyperbole on that one.
Because it’s using the tool to prove the tool is broken. You’re saying that people can have their common sense, their mental ideas of what they deserve, what they should expect, and what role the government should play in that, are all affected so strongly by their cirumstances that oftentimes they can be essentially made to accept things that they shouldn’t. But you’re using your own common sense and so on to come to that conclusion. If common sense is breakable - if it’s something that can be so strongly affected by circumstances - then the logical question to ask is “Well, hang on, what about me?”. If you think a compass is broken, you can’t test it by using the compass as a standard to judge against. You can’t use a tool to test the validity of a tool, because the results are biased by the test.
Schools that don’t engage in daily prayer, while common in practice, are breaking the law in theory. The fact that anyone would attempt to apologize for that or rationalize it is sickening.
So it’s OK that the children recite a prayer, because it isn’t that religious. No. Just no. Not to mention the faith schools that are funded with public money in the UK. And let’s not even get into the idea of a monarchy still existing in modern times.
This is more arguable IMO, then the freedom from religion that I consider essential. That being said, seeing as my country of origin was founded through a violent rebellion and that our founding fathers guaranteed us access to arms so that we could do likewise if we ever had to, I’d say it’s very significant in my nation.
AClockworkMelon, can we get a cite for the law about school directed daily prayer?
I’ve seen your initial claim, another posters negation of said claim, and now you make the claim again. Can you just provide a cite so that point of contention can be done with?
It’s the School Standards and Framework Act of 1998.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights
There is quite a bit of evidence indicating that a considerable amount of schools don’t conform with this law, but under the statute they are criminal.
What’s wrong with any of this? It is what it is, it works fine, it’s evolved over a very long time to fit the nature of the country, and it will evolve again if need be. I know that you can’t accept anything that isn’t a facsimile of the USA as any good, but who the fuck else cares? Why do you care?
Here’s a handy guide for you: England (but not Scotland) has an established Church, the Head of State of the entire UK is the head of that Church. The Bishops of that Church have a minor role in the legislature, and the head of Government is the arbiter of who gets a bishopric. Guess what? The role of religion in public life is miniscule, not an issue, a private matter. Can you say the same for the USA?
What’s wrong with a lack of separation between church and state? Do I really have to get into this? And it has nothing to do with their not resembling the United States. As you’ll see in a moment when I get back to it, I won’t spare the US from criticism. Who the fuck cares? You should. Why do I care? I don’t care as much as you seem to think I do. I’m not on the streets protesting, I’m not sending money to British militants. I’m having a discussion on the internet.
The glorious US of A is afflicted with a cancer that is its shockingly high amount of religious fundamentalists. However, in this one regard, the US actually has something to be proud of. We have a legal separation promised to us by our constitution. As of now, our laws are guided by the religious convictions of our lawmakers, unfortunately. But at least with that separation outlined in the constitution, we have an instrument with which to eventually compel change.
Enlightenment values also include rationalism and empiricism being preferred over ideology or dogma. The problems in Paris, which are ongoing, are a clear example of misplaced ideology (assuming poorly educated North African and muslim migrants would simply assimilate), rather than rational thought. So the problems are due to an abandonment of enlightenment values in preference for blank slate ideology.
Generally I would argue the difference is desire. The U.S. certainly has much stronger barriers between religion and government, but then it seems as though it really needs those barriers, since there’s considerable lobbying to push against them. Whereas over here in the UK, Church and State are, in theory, very much conjoined, but there’s really considerably less public support for any form of practical religious takeover. Essentially for us it’s a polite fiction, much as with the monarchy; if the Queen decided one day that she wasn’t doing enough as the Defender of the Faith and tried to takeover, these are laws that would be changed pretty damn quickly.
The problematic aspect of our system, of course, is that perhaps one day there will be public support for returning to the letter of the law in many cases, rather than ignoring it. In the U.S., there may be constant pushing against the wall, but there is an effective wall. Here there is little such pushing - but if there was demand for it, the wall would quickly topple.
Even if technically true, I seriously doubt any school has been prosecuted over this. I’m not apologising, I’m just explaining the reality as I experienced it. Why on earth do you find that sickening? Personally, I consider it to be of trivial importance.
It is a religious prayer, but I find it pretty inoffensive. At school we had to recite all sorts of things, in music class we once sang “Fling it here, fling it there”:
http://www.lyricsbay.com/fling_it_here_fling_it_there_lyrics-unknown.html
They still have to meet educational standards.
The monarchy is pretty absurd, but it’s also pretty much an irrelevance. If we got rid of them we’d have to elect some sort of ceremonial president, and it’s just not worth the hassle. Elizabeth II is not just the queen of the UK, but also of 15 other countries.
In the UK, religion has very little influence government policy, far, far less than in the US. Seperation between church and state is a de-facto, if not de-jure, reality. We both live in democracies, so have the option of voting out any government.
These are well made points. The monarchy are effectively neutered right now, but it’s not out of the question they could wield a lot of influence in some future crisis.
“Prayer is legally required in schools.”
“It’s not so bad, it’s pretty inoffensive.”
“There is a monarchy!”
“It doesn’t have much power at all.”
“Taxpayers are paying for religious education at segregated faith schools.”
“Those schools still have to meet standards.”
These responses are pretty typical, but they’re apologist and don’t answer the question of why? These things shouldn’t be tolerated at all. Just because it’s “not so bad” doesn’t excuse it.