Why Do People Hate America?

[gregm]

's know no boundries.

[Fence_Sitter]

trask said:

j_b said:

trask said:

JoshK said:

Do you guys realize something like 40% of the new posts to this thread are now being made by MtnGoat? That's a pretty good indicator that the thread has gone down the toilet and isn't worth your time anymore.

Mtn. Pig and j_b the Fool should be limited to like 2 pages of their bullshit and then have the threads locked down. It's not even funny and a total waste of bandwidth. Both of those idiots are total fucking Tools. You 2 suck ass

 

and instead we should be treated to your countless pages of drivel? and to boot you think you are funny

at least some of my shit is entertaining. your shit makes us want to kill ourselves. you're one bigassed boring mudafukka

 

nah his shit just makes me wanna kill him ...

[j_b]

Fence_Sitter said:

nah his shit just makes me wanna kill him ...

 

hey look! another 'freedom' lover

[Fence_Sitter]

eat me puss

[EWolfe]

Peter_Puget said:

That goes for the new rock climbing forum too. This thread has opened my eyes.

 

What about THE NEW TREE CLIMBING FORUM , with weekly editorials by AlpineK?

[AlpineK]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

 

When was it that Barney started pushing for the dropping of bombs, the wholesale dismissal of public opinion, and a Kremlin-meets-McCarthy-style program of Constitutional subversion and rights removal in the name of "national security"?

 

America could be so great; instead, the coldhearted, bloodthirsty businessmen who've appointed themselves to "lead" us insist on shamelessly making a complete mockery of everything that could be good about the place. When these brutes insist on using fear, false choices, propaganda and lies to destroy the fabric of our freedom, it makes it pretty easy to hate the place.

 

If you lived in a beautiful home in the woods, and suddenly someone put an airport, a WalMart, a truckstop, and a strip mall directly adjacent to your property and surrounded it with stadium lights, would you still want to live there?

 

 

That's what ya call tough love pal.

[AlpineK]

MisterE said:

Peter_Puget said:

That goes for the new rock climbing forum too. This thread has opened my eyes.

 

What about THE NEW TREE CLIMBING FORUM , with weekly editorials by AlpineK?

 

Yeah, fuck Puget I demand THE NEW TREE CLIMBING FORUM

[Fairweather]

Greg_W said:

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now (granted this idealogue is fading). They say, "see, they don't like us, we should change to be like them. Give up your freedoms."

 

GregW,

 

You're right about that! But how far would you be willing to go to prevent it? You obviously understand the deal, but do your kids? Will they be willing to stand up for individual liberty someday?

 

Creeping socialism. I'm glad we have a pres. that is (mostly) willing to stand up and say "no". No to Kyoto. No to the international "court". No to the ideals of the left.

[Fairweather]

JGowans said:

RuMR said:I have 2 questions for you: "What exactly would you change about the US system (of course recognizing that there will always be the inherent problems w/ large beaurocracies) and why?" And my second question is this: "Who else on this entire planet is doing a better job of it?"

 

Good points by you and RobBob. I've lived here most of my adult life, but probably won't ever quite understand the desire by most Americans to nuke other nations as a way to exact revenge. That's neither here nor there though. I do understand the well of emotion.

 

What would I change and why?

- For one, the mass media. Clear Channel communication owns most of the airwaves in this country. This conglomerate is actually run by a few guys from Texas that happen to be good buddies of GW. I'd introduce some real competition into that industry. Currently, it seems that the only source for news is NPR which is quite a sad state of affairs given that so few people bother to listen to that station. Same principles apply to TV. When was the last time we actually saw a news piece about foreign countries that wasn't about us helping them, or bombing them? No, they'd rather talk about the latest Sony camcorder (I saw this yesterday) or talk about two cute little kittens born in Seattle. Where's the news? Fuck the entertainment aspect, and give us the news. Local, national, international, unbiased, objective news where we are free to filter it ourselves.

 

- I would reduce the amount of aid we give to Israel. Currently it stands at $4Billion a year. Surely with that level of aid, we hold enough leverage to put an end to the troubles there.

 

- I would make an honest and sincere attempt to bridge the gulf between blacks and whites in this country. Britain has just as much of a guilty history as the U.S., yet blacks are much more integrated into society there than here. If it takes raising taxes to give them decent housing and education then so be it.

 

- I'd implement some very stringent gun laws. Currently, the U.S. experiences some 11,000 gun deaths every year. Canada has about 60.

 

- I'd like to see us approach foreign nations with a view to establishing partnerships versus one way highways that allow our corporations to reap their natural resources for a pittance.

 

- I'd like us to review how we operate within the international sphere of politics. Ratifying the Kyoto treaty, signing the U.N.s Child's Bills of Rights (only Iraq and the U.S. have not signed it), signing the anti-landmine bills (again, only the U.S. and I think Iran have not signed this). I could go on, but the basic point I'm making is that we only sign bills pertaining to free trade and mock every other bill that comes our way regarding human rights, torture, executing children etc.

 

- I could think of a few more things, but let's keep the debate going...

 

JGowans,

 

Even as a non-citizen you are free to express your opinions in this country, but I think the "laundry list" you aired above is a bit over the top....considering you can't even vote here. In many other countries you could find yourself deported for injecting yourself (directly) into the local politics. (Mexico for instance has strict laws regarding this practice. In China, you might find yourself in prison.) When I visit Canada for instance, I live by and appreciate the system of government the citizenry there has voted upon themselves even though it doesn't fit my ideals. I am a guest, and it would be arrogant in the extreme for me to begin spouting off about a governmental system that I can't even participate in. It's called respect. It's called courtesy.

 

Don't get me wrong! I love the debate and the fact that we are free to share our opinions. I just wish you were a little more appreciative of our system.

 

Why don't you tell us about the things you would like to change in Scotland?

 

Flame away.

 

[JoshK]

Fairweather said:

Greg_W said:

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now (granted this idealogue is fading). They say, "see, they don't like us, we should change to be like them. Give up your freedoms."

 

GregW,

 

You're right about that! But how far would you be willing to go to prevent it? You obviously understand the deal, but do your kids? Will they be willing to stand up for individual liberty someday?

 

Creeping socialism. I'm glad we have a pres. that is (mostly) willing to stand up and say "no". No to Kyoto. No to the international "court". No to the ideals of the left.

 

No to Kyoto? Give me a fucking break. It's yet another pathetic example of the shit GWB and his chronies will do to the environment in order to appease his corporate buddies.

[MtnGoat]

Do you guys realize something like 40% of the new posts to this thread are now being made by MtnGoat?

 

Gee, what percentage is being made by people crying big fat tears about who posts? Seems pretty high. Even my opponents j_b and J Gowans more or less stick to content instead of whining about who posts.

[MtnGoat]

and ineffective relative to what?

 

ineffective relevant to their functionality, that's what. From Rwanda to Srebrenica, Sierra Leone, and anyplace else they go, the UN is either backed by the US to provide some semblance of functionality or it gets it's ass wiped. When your deployed "peacekeepers" stand by as civilians are slaughtered instead of getting in there and fighting back, when they're nearly overrun and captured by ragtag rebels (Sierra Leone), when they're indicted in sex trafficking (Balkans), that's not real great evidence of effectiveness. UN forces have one of the worst records of any supposedly coherent fighting forces.

 

the colonial administration we installed in iraq?

 

You mean Iraq will be a colony?

 

every day we see how effective it is at keeping peace and finding the WMD's.

 

Nothing happens overnight. It will probably take years to get the situation stable.

 

[Fence_Sitter]

Quote:

the colonial administration we installed in iraq?

 

 

 

You mean Iraq will be a colony?

 

i think that was past tense...

[Dave_Schuldt]

gmoney said:

People are not dying to get into Scotland (or any other "old world" socialist european state) to work and live. 'Nuff said!

 

BULLSHIT, PEOPLE TRY TO GET INTO EUROPE ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE MANY ILEGAL IMAGRANTS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

[j_b]

MtnGoat said:

ineffective relevant to their functionality, that's what. From Rwanda to Srebrenica, Sierra Leone, and anyplace else they go, the UN is either backed by the US to provide some semblance of functionality or it gets it's ass wiped. When your deployed "peacekeepers" stand by as civilians are slaughtered instead of getting in there and fighting back, when they're nearly overrun and captured by ragtag rebels (Sierra Leone), when they're indicted in sex trafficking (Balkans), that's not real great evidence of effectiveness. UN forces have one of the worst records of any supposedly coherent fighting forces.

 

 

do i need to cite a counter-example for every one you mentioned or can you figure it out by yourself. in case you don't, just pick a reasonable newsite and look at the news coming out of iraq over the past month (how many dead civilians, how many coalitions soldiers dead), or do you want to talk about somalia? (you know, blackhawk down). i won't discuss the sex trafficking until you provide a reference (but i do know of trafficking done by civilians working for a us security firm).

 

You mean Iraq will be a colony?

 

you'd rather if i used imperial?

 

Nothing happens overnight. It will probably take years to get the situation stable.

 

funny how a few month ago we were refusing the UN more time and all this show was supposed to be over in 6 months.

[MtnGoat]

you'd rather if i used imperial?

 

Can you show US law for the requirements for Iraq to pay tribute, for Iraq to permanently have a US governor of it's territory, and other such attributes of imperial control?

funny how a few month ago we were refusing the UN more time and all this show was supposed to be over in 6 months.

 

The UN needed more time after 12 years, refuses to act on a resolution passed only months before, and you're asking me why I say they're ineffective?

[mattp]

Fairweather said:

JGowans,

 

Even as a non-citizen you are free to express your opinions in this country, but I think the "laundry list" you aired above is a bit over the top....considering you can't even vote here. In many other countries you could find yourself deported for injecting yourself (directly) into the local politics. (Mexico for instance has strict laws regarding this practice. In China, you might find yourself in prison.) When I visit Canada for instance, I live by and appreciate the system of government the citizenry there has voted upon themselves even though it doesn't fit my ideals. I am a guest, and it would be arrogant in the extreme for me to begin spouting off about a governmental system that I can't even participate in. It's called respect. It's called courtesy.

 

Don't get me wrong! I love the debate and the fact that we are free to share our opinions. I just wish you were a little more appreciative of our system.

 

Why don't you tell us about the things you would like to change in Scotland?

 

Flame away.

 

 

Fairweather:

 

Although you say you like the debate and you claim to be proud of what a free society this is, you suggest that one who can't even vote here should not "inject theirself" into politics here and you don't think Gowans should be saying those things because it shows that he is rude and unappreciative. I don't know whether Gowans has injected himself into our politics (spraying on this site doesn't in my mind constitute being involved in politics), but why shouldn't he? It looks to me as if you and your pal Mountain Goat refuse to directly engage with people who disagree with you, but instead keep flinging the same old tired rhetoric that we've read here so many times before. We know you think that anybody who criticizes the Administration is unAmerican and the U.S. should not enter into cooperative relationships with any nation that won't hop to our command and that we should only maintain those relationships as long as they suit our immediate purposes -- but let's see some discussion here even if it is only for amusement's sake.

 

Newsflash: Gowans' "over the top" laundry list is really a rather mild set of ideas probably shared by nearly half of all Americans. It is not some far leftist manifesto.

[MtnGoat]

It looks to me as if you and your pal Mountain Goat refuse to directly engage with people who disagree with you,

 

What, debating back and forth with them isn't engaging those people? What fulfills "engagement" if discussing points back and forth doesn't count?

 

Seems to me what your asking for is agreement, not engagement. It strikes me as similar to the cries that no one is listening to war dissenters, when one couldn't help but listen, but listening does not necessarily manifest itself as agreement.

 

but instead keep flinging the same old tired rhetoric that we've read here so many times before.

 

Seems to me the ideas tossed out in opposition are at least as old as anything else offered up here. Do ideas lose validity because they're old? Nope. Only the content matters and if the content can be beaten, then that's what invalidates the idea, not it's age.

 

and the U.S. should not enter into cooperative relationships with any nation that won't hop to our command and that we should only maintain those relationships as long as they suit our immediate purposes

 

I don't remember anyone saying we shouldn't cooperate with nations that won't hop to, but I did say we shouldn't consider "cooperation" to be one sided, where we pay and pay and the nation getting the cash does not aid us in supporting our position. Cooperation means both sides do something for each other, not one side pays and the other just does what it wants anyway.

 

Newsflash: Gowans' "over the top" laundry list is really a rather mild set of ideas probably shared by nearly half of all Americans. It is not some far leftist manifesto.

 

This "mild set of ideas" has more in common with the far left than it doesn't. How many agree with it hardly save it from having properties and ideas espoused by the far left. If half of Americans actually agree with this list, all it shows is how many are closer to being far left than not, not that the ideas don't have a lot in common with the far left.

[Greg_W]

Fairweather said:

Greg_W said:

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now (granted this idealogue is fading). They say, "see, they don't like us, we should change to be like them. Give up your freedoms."

 

GregW,

 

You're right about that! But how far would you be willing to go to prevent it? You obviously understand the deal, but do your kids? Will they be willing to stand up for individual liberty someday?

 

Creeping socialism. I'm glad we have a pres. that is (mostly) willing to stand up and say "no". No to Kyoto. No to the international "court". No to the ideals of the left.

 

Part of the 'supplemental' education you have to provide your kids as a libertarian/constitutionalist American.

[Greg_W]

JoshK said:

Fairweather said:

Greg_W said:

Peter_Puget said:

JG – are these “elites” restrained by national boundaries? Is “hatred for America” merely amanipulated outlet provided by the elites to confuse us (non-elites)?

 

PP

 

I think it is touted by the liberal elites (especially the media) as proof that America would be better off as a socialist/collectivist nation instead of the freedom-loving, individualist country we have now (granted this idealogue is fading). They say, "see, they don't like us, we should change to be like them. Give up your freedoms."

 

GregW,

 

You're right about that! But how far would you be willing to go to prevent it? You obviously understand the deal, but do your kids? Will they be willing to stand up for individual liberty someday?

 

Creeping socialism. I'm glad we have a pres. that is (mostly) willing to stand up and say "no". No to Kyoto. No to the international "court". No to the ideals of the left.

 

No to Kyoto? Give me a fucking break. It's yet another pathetic example of the shit GWB and his chronies will do to the environment in order to appease his corporate buddies.

 

Bullshit, Josh. There were many in government against the Kyoto Accords, which are highly unconstitutional as far as the power they give the UN over our domestic policy, before GWB came into office. Even Clinton wouldn't endorse them. Besides, it's Congress who approves treaties. Read the Constitution; I've got an extra copy I'll lend you. I'll bring my pocket copy to PUb Club next week, if I show.

[hakioawa]

This "mild set of ideas" has more in common with the far left than it doesn't. How many agree with it hardly save it from having properties and ideas espoused by the far left. If half of Americans actually agree with this list, all it shows is how many are closer to being far left than not, not that the ideas don't have a lot in common with the far left.

 

Or perhaps it shows how far right the media and the "leadership" of this country has gone.

 

Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying right and left are defined only by ideas not people. 70% of the population cannot be "far left". By definition. It is very concieted to call the majority anything but moderate.

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

You are basically saying right and left are defined only by ideas not people.

 

That's exactly what I am saying. Believing in socialism does not make it not socialism, no matter how many people do it, and believing in capitalism does not make it not capitalism, no matter how many people do it.

 

Left and right (to me anyway) are defined by the characteristics of the systems themselves, related to a set of ideas and morals which do not change, while the number of people adhering to them may.

 

What your position is as a "moderate" may change as people go one way or another, but on the scale between the actual fixed differences in philosophies, your position is not relative to numbers.

 

Gowans list includes many if not most tenets of a left to far left ideology. Why someone would be upset at recognizing this, I don't understand. If your beliefs are what they are, why not admit it and stand up for them?

[hakioawa]

Left and right (to me anyway) are defined by the characteristics of the systems themselves, related to a set of ideas and morals which do not change

 

At the risk of making this a deeper philosophical arguement, where do these "ideas and morals" come from? w/o falling back to religon I'd argue that these come from people. People define morals. And the views of the majority do change. 100 years ago women could not vote. That was mainstream. That was moderate. That was moral. Today even the most right wing radicals would not this on recedning the right to vote from women.

 

So if right and left are static. Then we must conclude that you, I and Rush Linbaugh are all bleeding heart liberals. While Mula Omar and Bin Laden are right wingers.

 

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

Fairweather said:

JGowans,

 

Even as a non-citizen you are free to express your opinions in this country, but I think the "laundry list" you aired above is a bit over the top....considering you can't even vote here. In many other countries you could find yourself deported for injecting yourself (directly) into the local politics. (Mexico for instance has strict laws regarding this practice. In China, you might find yourself in prison.) When I visit Canada for instance, I live by and appreciate the system of government the citizenry there has voted upon themselves even though it doesn't fit my ideals. I am a guest, and it would be arrogant in the extreme for me to begin spouting off about a governmental system that I can't even participate in. It's called respect. It's called courtesy.

 

Don't get me wrong! I love the debate and the fact that we are free to share our opinions. I just wish you were a little more appreciative of our system.

 

Why don't you tell us about the things you would like to change in Scotland?

 

Flame away.

 

 

Fairweather:

 

Although you say you like the debate and you claim to be proud of what a free society this is, you suggest that one who can't even vote here should not "inject theirself" into politics here and you don't think Gowans should be saying those things because it shows that he is rude and unappreciative. I don't know whether Gowans has injected himself into our politics (spraying on this site doesn't in my mind constitute being involved in politics), but why shouldn't he? It looks to me as if you and your pal Mountain Goat refuse to directly engage with people who disagree with you, but instead keep flinging the same old tired rhetoric that we've read here so many times before. We know you think that anybody who criticizes the Administration is unAmerican and the U.S. should not enter into cooperative relationships with any nation that won't hop to our command and that we should only maintain those relationships as long as they suit our immediate purposes -- but let's see some discussion here even if it is only for amusement's sake.

 

Newsflash: Gowans' "over the top" laundry list is really a rather mild set of ideas probably shared by nearly half of all Americans. It is not some far leftist manifesto.

 

Mattp,

 

That's why I wrote "(directly)" into local politics. I was not suggesting that JG had no business spraying here. You assumed this based on some notions/prejudices you have regarding those on the right like me and Goat. I do continue to maintain however, that JGowans should become a voting citizen....or mind his manners as I would do as a guest in another land.

[JayB]

Moderately interesting editorial on this subject by Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal