Ahh but my point still stands. Your health care system was rejected by referendum in our two most liberal states.
To counter your anecdotal evidence I know of no Americans that go to Canada for health care (prescription drugs either, although I know you have cheaper drugs) but I do know Canuckians that come to the US for health care.
Give it up. Universal health care was rejected by referendum in Oregon and Massachusetts, two of our most liberal states. Why? Bottom line, 83% of the population has suitable quality health care, and we don't want to pay higher taxes for lower quality care.
Exactly. No one trades away their future. We use Indian programmers because that savings can be passed on to American consumers and American companies can take the money saved and invest in R&D all over the world (including the US).
The downside? You're now competing with the rest of the world.
why are American jobs more important than foreign jobs?
Well, because we're Americans. Ideally I suppose we should be just as concerned as people half-way around the world, but we all know that ideals and reality are two different things.
Most Americans are in debt to the US government through taxes only. Mortgages are given through government secured loan companies (the government covers the banks if you default).
By definition there are no totalitarian capitalist countries. Capitalism is an economic system in which capital is free to drive investment and is the only barrier. By limiting that capital cannot be used to create an entity that speaks out against the government, you therefor do not have pure capitalism.
On the other hand there are no purely democratically capitalist countries either, you have to draw the line somewhere afterall. But democracies are almost always invariably more capitalist than dictatorships.
Not in any Western sense are they "capitalist" nations.
Most dictatorships are put into place to favor the cronies of who is in charge of the government, therefor most new businesses require some kind of sanction from the state. In a "true" capitalist nation, all that is required of new business ventures is capital.
The key difference is that government cronies don't like competition whereas capitalism thrives on it.
Yes, occasionally existing tech can slow down new technology, especially in terms of infrastructure. The problem is that there is no easy solution to it.
The same is true for a population that is older and not as willing to embrace new technology. The problems you mentioned exist in all industrialized countries to a larger extent (the US has an aging population but it has the second youngest population among deleloped countries and the fastest growing population).
In regards to population we have approximately 5% of the population. NYC is the second or third largest city in the world if you look at metropolital areas... the US's affluence allows us to settle in a decentralized, sprawling pattern. Which is why they say that NYC has a population of 20 million.
I've always wondered about people who are so concerned about stats about adoption of this or that technology. They simply just do not understand economics.
Everything you mentioned is a problem in just about every developed country including the US.
Complaining about population is a funny thing... first off the US is the fastest growing developed country. But other than that what do you propose to do about it? I mean we could force women in some way to have children, we could grow kids in artificial wombs, or we could just nuke other countries (not to be arrogant, just proving a point).
Maybe you would like the US to develop third world population patterns where there are a few rich people and a horde of peasants who rapidly reproduce due to no birth control education or women's rights... and have our population crowd into massive cities because that's all they can afford.
Ok, so I was mistaken. On the other hand I saw polls before the election which showed President Bush blowing out Al Gore, au contraire the race was close. I guess I should go whine about vote fraud eh?
Zogby for whatever reason underpolls Republicans. Zogby consistently reports lower approval ratings for President Bush than the other major poll agencies.
The only reason you think this election was "fixed" is because your side didn't win.
You know, I'm skeptical of paper and hand-counting. It introduces human error... we had hand-counting by paper in the US until voting machines were introduced and there were still accusations of fraud.
Not to mention that counting process itself could be tampered with somehow.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you refuse to listen to bad news even if they're justified with evidence.
Well how could I know what they were saying and refuse to listen to it? My point is that the foreign news exists here in the US, it's just that no one takes it seriously. And with the recent events coming to light concerning the BBC... perhaps they shouldn't be
Yes, it perfectly reasonable to deny women/blacks the right to vote in my opinion and I'm sure public opinion would agree with me.
No, public opinion would not agree with you, seeing as women and blacks would make up both a majority and a plurality. Are you saying that women and blacks are mostly felons?
Your mainstream media, of course, probably never reported it
Either that or your mainstream media never reported that our mainstream media did report it.
Now, take a breath. Calm down. Read my next post before you post a shrill reply.
Alright I'll concede that there is no real way to determine if it's the most democratic or not.
The US is far from perfect, no one would deny that. On the other hand, the US gets *slammed* on Slashdot (unfairly a lot of the time) and some of here in the US are sick of it. So we're just as defensive of the US as you are of Australia. I think that your perception of Americans is wrong, it's just that we get attacked so much, especially recently, that we end up attacking.
And in anger we may say something like "our country is the most democratic".
It's a problem that there is no easy solution to. I don't know how they do that in Australia but you said you have an independent commission... well, ok but how do you select who runs the "independent commission"? Here in the US we have involved the courts but they have shown themselves and have at least been accused of being partisan.
I mean, sure some states in the US are having their districting drawn up by an "independent" comission but the problem is who gets to determine if they're called "independent" or not.
I dunno, what country is the most democratic is indeed subjective. I can't argue with that. I will address your criticisms:
Look at Switzerland with regular citizen-initiated referendums
Well, we certainly have regular referendums here... maybe your point is that they're not "citizen initiated"? So it's done by signatures or something? Eh, if anything we have too many referendums... I think California has 30 or so each term.
your election systems which penalises third-party candiates
Parties, parties, parties. When are people going to get over political parties? Some would argue that political parties themselves are an abuse of the democratic system... by pressuring candidates to vote in a way that they either don't want to or believe might harm citizens (party loyalty). The framers of the US Constitution saw political parties as a necessary evil at best so in our system you vote for people instead of parties, whereas the opposite seems true of proportional representation.
In response to your other (wrong) points:
Your contention that you don't need a visa to work in the US is just complete bollocks. If so, why is there an illegal immigrant problem in the US if they don't need visas? Are you lying and did I call your bluff?
And incidentally I hear Europeans and their Commonwealth ilk spout off about the lack of press freedom in America to which I say "HUH?". First off we get all the crappy foreign news like BBC World News and canadian CBC... yes I could change the channel right now and see pasty-faced foreigners with bad teeth talk about how bad the country is that i live in.
Yes it's perfectly reasonable to deny felons the right to vote in my opinion, and I'm sure public opinion would agree with me.
As for Saddam and 9/11.. I don't know where that fits in here (except as another silly attempt to denigrate Americans) but I will say that believing that Saddam was connected in some way to 9/11 isn't totally unreasonable. Mind you there's no evidence of it, but believing it in your gut isn't completely unreasonable.
Ok, obviously you just made up that statistic on the spot. 60% of the US population would be 180 million people without healthcare, yet almost all research on the subject points to 44 million people not having healthcare coverage, which is about 17% of the population.
In Oregon and Massachusetts they had referendums on universal health care and they failed. Why? Because +80% of the people already had health care and didn't want to pay higher taxes for lower-quality services.
So your style of healthcare has been (smartly) rejected here in the US outright.
Well the Guardian reported that you were 4 times as likely to die in surgery in the UK as you were in the US.
Since when were they bought out by Fox News?
Incidentally we had referendums on universal healthcare in Oregon and Massachussetts and they both failed miserably.
I think that, like most Europeans, you're mistaking your biased anecdotal evidence over statistial analysis (don't reply with that stupid "damn lies" quote either, I've heard it).
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh but my point still stands. Your health care system was rejected by referendum in our two most liberal states.
To counter your anecdotal evidence I know of no Americans that go to Canada for health care (prescription drugs either, although I know you have cheaper drugs) but I do know Canuckians that come to the US for health care.
Two different systems with different benefits.
Sigh, learn the American before you blab your crooked toothed mouth off, mmmkay?
"The UN something or other agency is bound to fail" and I thought "good". Death to the UN.
Give it up. Universal health care was rejected by referendum in Oregon and Massachusetts, two of our most liberal states. Why? Bottom line, 83% of the population has suitable quality health care, and we don't want to pay higher taxes for lower quality care.
Exactly. No one trades away their future. We use Indian programmers because that savings can be passed on to American consumers and American companies can take the money saved and invest in R&D all over the world (including the US).
The downside? You're now competing with the rest of the world.
Well, because we're Americans. Ideally I suppose we should be just as concerned as people half-way around the world, but we all know that ideals and reality are two different things.
Most Americans are in debt to the US government through taxes only. Mortgages are given through government secured loan companies (the government covers the banks if you default).
No, communism described by Marx is clearly as much of a political movement as it is an economic one. I think that you're thinking of socialism.
By definition there are no totalitarian capitalist countries. Capitalism is an economic system in which capital is free to drive investment and is the only barrier. By limiting that capital cannot be used to create an entity that speaks out against the government, you therefor do not have pure capitalism.
On the other hand there are no purely democratically capitalist countries either, you have to draw the line somewhere afterall. But democracies are almost always invariably more capitalist than dictatorships.
Didn't Chavez dissolve Parliament/Congress?
From what I read he's no benevolent democrat.
Not in any Western sense are they "capitalist" nations.
Most dictatorships are put into place to favor the cronies of who is in charge of the government, therefor most new businesses require some kind of sanction from the state. In a "true" capitalist nation, all that is required of new business ventures is capital.
The key difference is that government cronies don't like competition whereas capitalism thrives on it.
A couple of things:
Yes, occasionally existing tech can slow down new technology, especially in terms of infrastructure. The problem is that there is no easy solution to it.
The same is true for a population that is older and not as willing to embrace new technology. The problems you mentioned exist in all industrialized countries to a larger extent (the US has an aging population but it has the second youngest population among deleloped countries and the fastest growing population).
In regards to population we have approximately 5% of the population. NYC is the second or third largest city in the world if you look at metropolital areas... the US's affluence allows us to settle in a decentralized, sprawling pattern. Which is why they say that NYC has a population of 20 million.
I've always wondered about people who are so concerned about stats about adoption of this or that technology. They simply just do not understand economics.
Everything you mentioned is a problem in just about every developed country including the US.
Complaining about population is a funny thing... first off the US is the fastest growing developed country. But other than that what do you propose to do about it? I mean we could force women in some way to have children, we could grow kids in artificial wombs, or we could just nuke other countries (not to be arrogant, just proving a point).
Maybe you would like the US to develop third world population patterns where there are a few rich people and a horde of peasants who rapidly reproduce due to no birth control education or women's rights... and have our population crowd into massive cities because that's all they can afford.
Ok, so I was mistaken. On the other hand I saw polls before the election which showed President Bush blowing out Al Gore, au contraire the race was close. I guess I should go whine about vote fraud eh?
Vested interest in accuracy? Bwahahaha, I've never met anyone in politics who didn't want to win at all costs.
Wanna trade places? I live in a socialist hellhole in the Northeast. We have corruption up here that would put yours to shame.
I'll take hillbillies over a bunch of latte-drinking, volvo-driving, NPR-and-Lake-Wobegon-listening nincompoops anyday.
Your standards are *pitifully* low then. I post here for entertainment value only.
Zogby for whatever reason underpolls Republicans. Zogby consistently reports lower approval ratings for President Bush than the other major poll agencies.
The only reason you think this election was "fixed" is because your side didn't win.
You know, I'm skeptical of paper and hand-counting. It introduces human error... we had hand-counting by paper in the US until voting machines were introduced and there were still accusations of fraud.
Not to mention that counting process itself could be tampered with somehow.
Ah yes, a no-brainer. How can you be certain that the scantron machine is correctly counting the ballots cast?
For there to be a recount, there has to be reasonable suspicion of voter error.
Your flaw is in assuming that people who read slashdot know something about something other than Linux.
Well how could I know what they were saying and refuse to listen to it? My point is that the foreign news exists here in the US, it's just that no one takes it seriously. And with the recent events coming to light concerning the BBC... perhaps they shouldn't be
Yes, it perfectly reasonable to deny women/blacks the right to vote in my opinion and I'm sure public opinion would agree with me.
No, public opinion would not agree with you, seeing as women and blacks would make up both a majority and a plurality. Are you saying that women and blacks are mostly felons?
Your mainstream media, of course, probably never reported it
Either that or your mainstream media never reported that our mainstream media did report it.
Now, take a breath. Calm down. Read my next post before you post a shrill reply.
Alright I'll concede that there is no real way to determine if it's the most democratic or not.
The US is far from perfect, no one would deny that. On the other hand, the US gets *slammed* on Slashdot (unfairly a lot of the time) and some of here in the US are sick of it. So we're just as defensive of the US as you are of Australia. I think that your perception of Americans is wrong, it's just that we get attacked so much, especially recently, that we end up attacking.
And in anger we may say something like "our country is the most democratic".
It's a problem that there is no easy solution to. I don't know how they do that in Australia but you said you have an independent commission... well, ok but how do you select who runs the "independent commission"? Here in the US we have involved the courts but they have shown themselves and have at least been accused of being partisan. I mean, sure some states in the US are having their districting drawn up by an "independent" comission but the problem is who gets to determine if they're called "independent" or not. I dunno, what country is the most democratic is indeed subjective. I can't argue with that. I will address your criticisms:
Look at Switzerland with regular citizen-initiated referendums
Well, we certainly have regular referendums here... maybe your point is that they're not "citizen initiated"? So it's done by signatures or something? Eh, if anything we have too many referendums... I think California has 30 or so each term.
your election systems which penalises third-party candiates
Parties, parties, parties. When are people going to get over political parties? Some would argue that political parties themselves are an abuse of the democratic system... by pressuring candidates to vote in a way that they either don't want to or believe might harm citizens (party loyalty). The framers of the US Constitution saw political parties as a necessary evil at best so in our system you vote for people instead of parties, whereas the opposite seems true of proportional representation.
In response to your other (wrong) points:
Your contention that you don't need a visa to work in the US is just complete bollocks. If so, why is there an illegal immigrant problem in the US if they don't need visas? Are you lying and did I call your bluff?
And incidentally I hear Europeans and their Commonwealth ilk spout off about the lack of press freedom in America to which I say "HUH?". First off we get all the crappy foreign news like BBC World News and canadian CBC... yes I could change the channel right now and see pasty-faced foreigners with bad teeth talk about how bad the country is that i live in.
Yes it's perfectly reasonable to deny felons the right to vote in my opinion, and I'm sure public opinion would agree with me.
As for Saddam and 9/11.. I don't know where that fits in here (except as another silly attempt to denigrate Americans) but I will say that believing that Saddam was connected in some way to 9/11 isn't totally unreasonable. Mind you there's no evidence of it, but believing it in your gut isn't completely unreasonable.
Ok, obviously you just made up that statistic on the spot. 60% of the US population would be 180 million people without healthcare, yet almost all research on the subject points to 44 million people not having healthcare coverage, which is about 17% of the population.
In Oregon and Massachusetts they had referendums on universal health care and they failed. Why? Because +80% of the people already had health care and didn't want to pay higher taxes for lower-quality services.
So your style of healthcare has been (smartly) rejected here in the US outright.
Well the Guardian reported that you were 4 times as likely to die in surgery in the UK as you were in the US.
Since when were they bought out by Fox News?
Incidentally we had referendums on universal healthcare in Oregon and Massachussetts and they both failed miserably.
I think that, like most Europeans, you're mistaking your biased anecdotal evidence over statistial analysis (don't reply with that stupid "damn lies" quote either, I've heard it).