If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- The email of the species is more deadly than the mail. Thanks Bev. And I really to hope to visit your country one day. Bob |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
... Krista wrote: The reason for this is because many people consider Bush to have damaged our country. If you consider voting for him to be an act calculated to damage the country you love, that precludes your considering a person who voted for him to be smart, witty, caring, or loving. You would consider such a person to have commited a destructive act against your country. Only if you did not support your own political system, since any democratic system must include the possibility (or certainty!) that sometimes the group that wins is believed by its opponents to be not merely a less good choice, but to be a completely wrong one. It's obvious to this outsider, and by what I read, to many Americans, that American society is not only profoundly divided, it is very nearly divided in half. That means neither side can really dismiss the other as a small bunch of unimportant kooks, and I think that inflames the rhetoric enormously. I also think it would be a mistake to channel political opinions into a black and white, all and none attack on those who hold them. It doesn't help to insult your friends and relatives who voted on the other side by calling into question their intelligence and morality. It's much better to channel your energy into work for the political party of your choice instead. I think the US voters made a big mistake in their choice of leader, but it's their choice, not mine. And I am sure that President Bush's supporters believe they made the right choice. Only time will tell who is right, and exchanging insults will neither make the final assessment of his record come faster nor make daily life any easier. I hope this is not taken as US-bashing. Since the US is the most powerful and influential country in the world, everything it (ie its government) says and does is of enormous interest and importance to everyone else. Sometimes these comments are negative. That's just the way things work. When a country as powerful as the US takes an action, any action, it will have both supporters and detractors, depending on how that action influences, or may be expected to influence, others. About the only reaction the US won't get is indifference. -- Cheryl This American agrees with almost everything you say here. Just remember, though - it was only 53% of the voters who made the big mistake. Don't blame those of us in the 47% minority. Joy |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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. There are obviously a number of non-Americans who delight in criticizing and complaining about anything American. I remember I met one of those when I was in college. I asked him where he was from, and he said Vancouver, British Columbia. I mentioned that I had been there once and thought the area was beautiful. He then asked where I was from. I told him I'm a native Californian and he said, "You have my sympathy." Say "some Americans"; say "your government", say "your President", but don't say "Americans" when you criticize. I doubt if there is a single statement that can accurately apply to all Americans, except for the statement that we are Americans. I know there are those who delight in criticizing what others hold dear. I am not one of them, and I resent being lumped with them. Joy |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message ... Krista wrote: The reason for this is because many people consider Bush to have damaged our country. If you consider voting for him to be an act calculated to damage the country you love, that precludes your considering a person who voted for him to be smart, witty, caring, or loving. You would consider such a person to have commited a destructive act against your country. Only if you did not support your own political system, since any democratic system must include the possibility (or certainty!) that sometimes the group that wins is believed by its opponents to be not merely a less good choice, but to be a completely wrong one. It's obvious to this outsider, and by what I read, to many Americans, that American society is not only profoundly divided, it is very nearly divided in half. That means neither side can really dismiss the other as a small bunch of unimportant kooks, and I think that inflames the rhetoric enormously. I also think it would be a mistake to channel political opinions into a black and white, all and none attack on those who hold them. It doesn't help to insult your friends and relatives who voted on the other side by calling into question their intelligence and morality. It's much better to channel your energy into work for the political party of your choice instead. I think the US voters made a big mistake in their choice of leader, but it's their choice, not mine. And I am sure that President Bush's supporters believe they made the right choice. Only time will tell who is right, and exchanging insults will neither make the final assessment of his record come faster nor make daily life any easier. I hope this is not taken as US-bashing. Since the US is the most powerful and influential country in the world, everything it (ie its government) says and does is of enormous interest and importance to everyone else. Sometimes these comments are negative. That's just the way things work. When a country as powerful as the US takes an action, any action, it will have both supporters and detractors, depending on how that action influences, or may be expected to influence, others. About the only reaction the US won't get is indifference. -- Cheryl Thank you for a sane response. Jo |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
CatNipped wrote:
"Bob M" wrote in message ... The biggest problem that I have with Bush is the fact that he wants to make gay and lesbian Americans less of a citizen than straight Americans. A constitutional amendment to make gays and lesbians second class citizens. That is totally wrong. Gays and lesbians are not looking for extra treatment, just equal treatment. And there is nothing wrong with that! And yes I'm gay so this hits close to home. I'm not lesbian, but I don't see where I should have any more rights than a lesbian. If I were lesbian, I would feel just as strongly about wanting to see my loved one in critical care, wanting to have my insurance cover my loved one, wanting to make a life-long commitment to my loved one, or any of the other things that straight people take for granted. I remember so many people at my former workplace being utterly *shocked* when our insurance renewal information for the year 2004 came out. It included being able to get health insurance for same sex partners who shared a residence! What's wrong with that?! 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. Okay, that's my opinion, but I know for a fact one woman who said she wanted to slim down to a size 4 (WHY?!) who literally gained 30 lbs because she didn't qualify the first time. She endangered her health in order to have an automatic weight loss solution. (She never did stop shoving cookies down her throat, even after the surgery.) And the other guy who, while waiting for his surgery, would literally order two meals of fried fish, fried shrimp, french fries and double the fried hush puppies because (direct quote from him) "I'm gonna eat all I can, as long as I can!" Give me a break. Someone like this isn't serious about losing weight. And, he didn't lose much. And wound up back in the hospital 2 weeks after surgery for trying to chow down on burgers when he still should have been eating soft foods. At $40,000 USD a pop, with 8 people having had the surgery in a single year, just imagine the insurance premium increases for everyone else. Oh, I didn't have to imagine in, I lived it in 2003. Only 2 people I worked with followed the doctors orders and the surgery was very successful for them. And they weren't overeaters (nor unhealthy eaters) to begin with. They'd had a predisposition to being overwheight since childhood and problems with blood pressure, knee joint issues, etc. That's who it's for. More power to them! Jill |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Christina Websell" wrote: If you have seen me bash America/Americans on this group, as a Brit I apologise, but we would sure like you all to sign up to the emissions thing. No offence intended. None taken I wish we would too. Purrs your wood situation. Suz Macmoosette =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= "People that hate cats will come back as mice in their next life." --Faith Resnick |\__/| (=':'=) (")_(") |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
... 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. David, I fully support *everyone* having the right to say whatever they feel - even to the point of America-bashing. What *I'm* asking is that, if you are corresponding with *me*, and want to stay on friendly terms, then please don't blanket criticize my entire nation because you don't like the actions of a few of my fellow countrymen. I am fully in agreement with most of the objections people from other nations have about my government. But, just because you don't like the fact that my *government* (*NOT* me) is opposed to the Kyoto Treaty, please don't say that "Americans" (which includes me, my family, and my friends) are stupid, backwards, evil, etc., etc., etc. Am I not making that distinction clear? Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction? Again "Americans tend to promote themselves"... *I'M* an American and *I'M* not promoting myself - neither are my family or my friends. If I said (and please note that this is just an example in a frustrated attempt to make my point - *not* an effort to give offense) "English people tend to be buggerers", because I know for a fact that *some* English people are buggerers, would you not be equally as offended by being called something you are not and accused of doing something you do not???? This is as bad as saying, "Black people are lazy", or "Jewish people are cheap" - stereotypes my seem harmless to the people who are not being stereotyped, but the harm in stereotyping people is not just their hurt feelings, but also causes inaccurate preconceptions that damages human relations, leads to misunderstandings, and often to hatred, warfare and death. When someone feels like *all* Americans are soul-less, evil, stupid, war-mongers then it makes it quite all right to dive-bomb a plane into a building of innocent American people because, weren't they evil and deserved it??? David, I truly did not mean to give offense and I apologize if I've done so - I'm really just frustrated about being misunderstood at this point. Hugs, CatNipped -- David Stevenson Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC- |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 Storypage: http://blakjak.com/sty_menu.htm Liverpool, England, UK Emails welcome Nanki Poo: SI O+W B 11 Y L+ W++ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q P+ B+ PA+ PL SC Minke: SI W+Cp B 2 Y L W+ C++ I T A- E H++ V++ F- Q- P B PA+ PL+ SC- |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. I'm not criticizing your post, David, but I am simply bumfuzzled by it. What do you mean? What kind of talk "winds people up"? I just don't see anyone bashing the English, or any other country for that matter to the extent that the Americans are the brunt of criticism. I would say never on this group. Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than other nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction? There you go again. If you would just use the word "some" Americans, I don't think it would sound like so much like you are tarring an entire nation with the same brush. Sherry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|