[OT] [PW] [Long] America Bashing

In article , "Yowie"
wrote:

"Mathew Kagis" wrote in message
news:ZL8Ad.33338$dv1.25241@edtnps89...



"Yoj" wrote in message
...
"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly:

"Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t
sandwhich?"

Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not
think
the
person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact
they
way
well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of
the
two
choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was
only
just
slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was.

Yowie

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted
against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of
two
evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*!

Joy

Joy: What about Nader?

The joys of a preferential system is that you can vote for your most
preferred party, knowing that your vote still counts in the two party
preferred system. In a preferential system, a vote for a minor party is
not
a "wasted vote" - in fact it can send a strong message to both of the
major
parties that many people aren't particular happy with either of them. I
gather, however, that the US election system does not employ the
preferential voting system.

What I understand to be the "preferential" system, in which one lists
ones choices in order of preference. and the totals for all candidates
in order of preference are published, the single candidate getting the
most votes winning, is not used in the US to the best of my knowledge.

There are, however, some variations on "winner take all". One method
pertains only to Presidential primaries and general elections, and has
to do with the peculiarities of the Electoral College. In the system of
most states, the majority winner in a state gets, in practice, all the
electoral votes of the state. Two states have a different system --
there is no Constitutional requirement for the individual states to
allocate their electors in any specific way.

Under the US Constitution, each state has two Senate seats (intended to
protect the interest of small states) and one or more Congressional
district seats (allocated by population). In this alternate method,
there is an elector for each Congressional district, who is pledged to
the majority winner in that district alone. The two remaining electors
are pledged to the winner of the statewide vote.

Another system, probably similar to preferential voting, is used in
certain local elections, and in some countries outside the US. In
general, it is only practical when voting for multiple seats (e.g., on
some local council) rather than a single candidate. Assume there are 10
seats on a county council. In proportional voting, a voter would have 10
votes. These could be assigned to ten candidates, one candidate, or any
combination. Proportional voting tends to protect minority rights by
allowing a relatively small group to cast all their votes for a single
candidate. Obviously, it also has the potential of electing some
extremist candidates with a small base of very loyal supporters.

"Sherry " wrote in message
...
To sum up my page of complaints, it is generally related to the the
assumption by some individual Americans that its "obvious that All things
American are the best, and that given a choice, the rest of the world
would
all like to be like America" type of thing that us non-Americans

I think I can explain that. And I'll be the first to admit some people are
*exactly* like that. The assumptions that you've listed are what we cut
our
teeth on. We are drilled from kindergarten that the United States is the
best
country in the whole world; the largest, most powerful, most charitable,
blah
blah blah. Unfortunately, at the time and place I was early-educated, we
were
hardly taught other places even existed. World history and world social
studies
were a couple of semesters in high school and usually taught by somebody
named
"Coach" who spent more time talking about the wishbone formation than
other
cultures.
The people that have the attitudes you're talking about also usually
aren't
well-traveled at all. If it weren't for the internet, I'd probably be more
like
that myself.
Don't get me wrong, I am very patriotic and love my country. But I kind of
cringe when I read how well-versed other people are on our history, our
politics, and our culture, when I myself hardly can even find *their*
countries
on a map.

Eh, what I know about the USA, I was taught by your TV shows. We start with
Sesame Street (darn fine show, but its "Zed" not "Zee" here) and go throught
he children's shows, teenage shows and the adult sitcoms, and we've pretty
much studied most of your highschool curriculum by default. Compare that to
what I know about Bhutan, for example, and I'm just as clueless as anyone
else. I think perhaps our news outlets have more global content (although I
may be biased, I have access to all Australian media outlets - print and
TV(and tend to go for the less tabloid variety) - but not all American media
outlets), but my global knowledge really only extends towards other rich
English speaking countries, and countries that have significant ties to
Australia. I'm totally ignorant about almost all of Africa, the less
developed nations of Europe and Asia, and about Central and Southern
America. And thats just laziness on my part, the information is there if I
wanted to find out, but really ca'nt be botehred spending time on it.

The USA is on my TV, on my computer, in the newspapers and magazines. I
couldn't escape it without becoming a complete hermit. Its no wonder I (and
other non-Americans) seem to know so much about it, we cut our teeth on it
as well. And perhaps thats part of the problem too.

Since I'm in my 40's, I can't still blame my high school teacher
though. But I do try to be open-minded. I just think everybody should be
mindful of the "individual" on the newsgroup, the one that purrs for you,
calls
you in the middle of the night, sends you cards, and offers a sypathetic
"ear"
(eye?) in the middle of the night before we go making a foolish or
thoughtless
remark about the country they happen to be born in.
Just my .02.

Yes, agree 100%.

Yowie


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/04

"Yoj" wrote in message
. ..
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to
stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans.
Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of
speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or
otherwise,
by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans
not
to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical
remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or
actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either
you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the
results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than
other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

--
David Stevenson

So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor
suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they
want,
but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent
it
when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only
*some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people
who
are
criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do
not
commit whatever offense is currently being criticized.

I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding
others up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other people
up the more the average American must expect a reaction.

--
David Stevenson

Okay, first I don't know what you mean by "winding others up". Maybe you
could explain that term. Second, your next statement is the same as if I
said, "The more some English bash America, the more the average Englishman
should expect an angry reaction." Do you think it is right that I, and
other Americans should blame you for what some other English person says?
I
don't. I also don't think the reverse is true.

"wind up" means roughly "to bait", whether intentionally or otherwise. To
annoy; to tease; to press another's "hot buttons"; to provoke.

HTH

Yowie


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/04

In article Ag0Ad.15831$nN6.4258@edtnps84, "Mathew Kagis"
wrote:

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

With "trackless" electronic voting, we'll never know, will
we? (I'm of your opinion, I just didn't want to drag in
another red herring.)

OTOH, most cats probably like herring.

ROTFLMAO! Thanks Howard, it's about time we got this back on topic!!
;

Hugs,

CatNipped
My cats don't care for herring... Salmon on the other hand....


But...but...I don't like salmon. I do like herring. I will buy salmon
canned cat food.

Bev wrote:
I hate American bashing too and unfortunately I hear plenty of it here
in New Zealand. I think it is just plain jealousy -
I have made several trips to the US, loved the country and its
wonderful hospitable people.

Bev

So far I've only made one trip to the USA, I'd love to go again someday.
As with all countries the majority of people are wonderful, there will
always be a minority, anywhere, that you wouldn't want to meet. I've
never been to New Zealand, Australia, Canada or South Africa. I'd love
to see all these places, but I want to end my days in England, where I
was born.
--
Adrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera)
A house is not a home, without a cat.

CatNipped wrote:
snip
Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a
plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the
Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international
lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on
earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
snip

I have no wish to bash America. Britain invented the jet engine. Airbus
Industries, a european consortium is currenty outselling Boeing. Britain
built the first jet airliner, the Comet.
--
Adrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera)
Also proud of my countries achievements

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Yoj wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message ...


jmcquown wrote:



What bugged me the most was these same people had no problem with
our insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for a number of
people who really didn't need it.

I can't IMAGINE having any "elective" surgery at all - let
alone anything so invasive and yes, life-threatening! I put
off simple (nowadays) cataract surgery as long as I could,
and that is "elective" only in the sense that you CAN opt
for blindness instead, but who would do so voluntarily?


Cataract surgery is worth it! For one thing, it can be done on an
outpatient basis, so you don't have to be in the hospital. For
another, the results are outstanding!

Joy (I had mine two years ago)

Yeah, me too - but it wasn't until I realized it was either
that, or give up driving (a sheer necessity in Southern
California).

My late Aunt Jean was legally blind (and almost completely blind) for 40
years. She'd had eye surgeries several times. She did NOT want the
cataract surgery. But (this was in 1997) the doctor said, without making
any kind of promise, trust me, I can help you. She called me up - Jill, I
can SEE! What?? Yep, he removed her cataracts and I gather through lasic
surgery also corrected her vision. Can you imagine not having seen yourself
in a mirror for 40 years?! She was thrilled and I was thrilled for her!

Jill

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 01:35:38 GMT, "Yoj"
wrote:

"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly:

"Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t
sandwhich?"

Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not think the
person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they way
well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the two
choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was only just
slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was.

Yowie

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted
against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two
evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*!

Joy


I'd vote for Bill Clinton again if it was a possibility. (and not
just because he has a cat )

-bonbon

We start with
Sesame Street (darn fine show, but its "Zed" not "Zee" here) and go throught

LOL, then you'll know what I'm talking about here....when Biskit runs, she is a
dead-ringer for Snuffleupugus. She has a long petticoat and that belly-sway
thing going. DH Calls her "Snuffy" when she runs to the food bowl.
I watched as much Sesame Street as my kids did. :-)
Sherry

In article , "Yoj"
wrote:

What about celebrities who
have been married 7 or 8 times? *They* are the ones who cheapen marriage.

I must observe of my former mother-in-law, who was married 7 times that
we know about, may or may not have cheapened marriage. She did,
however, manage to make it an impressive spectator sport -- perhaps a
new venue for gambling -- the time she got to the altar, fully gowned,
responded "I don't" to the key question, raised her train, and walked
back out.