Americans... you all confuse me.

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Most americans(and probably all humans) are dumb, ignorant, and are followers. People also have a superiority complex... Their political party, their country, their religion... are all the best! Everyone else MUST be wrong.


The problem in the U.S. is that the progressive states(NE, California) have to deal with the redneck(out in the boonies) states where they talk like imbeciles, live in the middle of nowhere with no human contact but the few hicks around them, are super religious as a result, are intolerant, and want things to be slow and backwards, like their life.

Your friend is from Oklahoma though.. that should have clued you in.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Indeed. To first poster, you realize there are major cities in Oklahoma, right?

I agree that many Americans tend to be ill-informed and often these Americans are living in more rural parts of the country, but that's something you just have to deal with in a country as massive as the United States. Everyone can't be on top of their politics.

With that said, I don't know why Europe and USA have to hate on each other so much. Like gas tanks on the opposite side of cars, driving on the opposite side of the road - are we intentionally trying to be different from each other?

Originally posted by: Atheus
No WE are the western world, we invented the western world and everything in it, including YOU

I consider you guys the East, actually, since all the maps I ever see has the U.S. right in the middle.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: illusion88

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: ScottFern
Because Brits have such a well adjusted view of America. Did anyone else see the latest Top Gear video? I don't think Clarkson could possibly bash the US anymore.

But I am sure I could find some uneducated Brits if I went to an economically poor section of England, tape it and say this is how all British people act.

so let me get this straight, im trying to debate the modern american political system and your trying to counter that with an example of a biggoted british TV presenter...

Originally posted by: sixone
Clinton was not impeached for cheating on his wife. Anyone who says he was is either a liar or stupid.

i never said he was impeached :/ i said they tried, i was using it as an example of a wast of time and resources and a classic example of one political side clutching at straws at the US tax payers expense to damage another.

They didn't try to impeach him because of what he did with that woman. They impeached him because he lied under oath. The difference can be measured in miles....

If clinton had lyed under oath about cheating on his wife with some chick, but had an R infront of his name instead of a D, there would have never been an impeachemnt or trial. Clinton lied about the BJ under oath, sure. He did it because repblicans were hellbent to smear hi and remove him from office. Unfortunately, it backfired a bit.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You haven't seen that Top Gear episode floating around on youtube have you? :laugh: There are a couple threads here on it. Watch that and you'll see just how tolerant people are in the deep south in this country.

Gotta love the Kahleefornia mindset when it comes to the South. :roll:

They earned it. Ever single statistic makes the south look bad: lowest sat & act scores, highest poverty rates, lowest incomes, terrible history, ugly accent, and it just keeps on going... I can't think of a good thing about the south. Period.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

unfortunately, the train is the future. and the a350/380 are only having problems because they can't build the damn things at a reasonable rate.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cougar1
To the OP:

Yeah, your friend from Oklahoma needs to get an education. Clinton was a potential disaster, but not because of Monica. Rather, because of things like an ill-conceived (at the time) National health-care plan, plans to increase taxes and expand government spending for social programs, Americorp, the Escalante National wilderness area, failure to appropriately fund the military, and a failed foreign policy. Fortunately, a well-organized Republican-held congress kept him in check, forcing him to initiate welfare reform and balance the budget, ushering in an era of economic prosperity. In the end, Clinton had a successful presidency, but much of that success can be attributed to domination by one of the most powerful Congresses in US history.

In fact, the real reason knowledgeable Republicans hate Clinton is that, as President, he was able to take credit for an era of prosperity largely architected by the Republican-led congress. To be fair, Clinton did play an important balancing role, preventing Republicans from going to far (as has been demonstrated by our current administration).

As for China, yes they are rising quickly and we must be prepared for the place they will one day demand at the global table, but that day is still a long way off. Yes, their current growth numbers are incredible, but exponential growth is unsustainable and those numbers will decline, probably well before they overtake the US, but surely before they overtake the western world. We have a lot of work to do, so that when that day comes, we can welcome them to a comfortable spot at the table. Otherwise, the conflict that results could indeed be scary...

at least you aren't one of the ideas that still tries to give al the credit for everything good in the world to reagan

 

[First]

Originally posted by: locutus12

you can good lord all you like, even at your best growth rates of say a constant 3.2%, The US economy cant stay ahead forever.

based on a growth of 9.6% in china for the next 20 years and there is no reason for that not to be sustained given the low value of the yuan, the large work force, the huge production capacity of China and it being the number one exporter of goods in the world, couple all these facts with massive consumer spending and you have a very good recipe for a long period of sustained economic growth.

even if the US manages an optimistic sustained 3% growth of GDP for the next 25 years and even if Chinas growth slows at that 20 year mark by a full percentile, the Chinese economy will still outstrip the US by 2040, you can do the maths yourself, US GDP for feb 2007 = 13.6 Trillion chese 2007 GDP currently 2.7 Trillion. Factor in growth of 3% sustained for the us and 9.6 sustained for china (i know this is a simplistic approach but it gives you a general idea) and drop Chinese GDP by a percentile at the 20 year mark and they will still out strip the US economy by the 30 year mark.

Your assumption that China will suspain a median GDP growth rate of 9.6% is best case highly questionable and worst case utterly unrealistic. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the cyclic economic realities that every economy on the planet faces (i.e. recession, bear market periods, etc.) in addition to China's well known track record of inferior fiscal and monetary policy. Your highly questionable at best extrapolation of China's growth can quite easily be compared to the same people that were touting Japan as the next superpower as the 1990's rolled around. Of course, we all saw what happened with Japan; their monetary policy no longer had an impact on economic growth, widely believed to be the rare "liquidity trap", with interest rates plummetting to essentially zero. Japan is certainly at the very least as capable as China, and IMO moreso, of becoming a legitimate contender with the U.S.

Additionally, I'm not even going into the many flawed aspects of using GDP as a barometer for economic prowess. There are far, far more features of an economy, especially one as complicated as the U.S.'s, that are involved in its success. Unemployment numbers being one of numerous examples I could give.

As for the chinese military spending,

CLICK ME

youl see that in 1999 it was already up to 88.9 Billion. you've also conveniently forgotten the scales of economies, i.e. in china you will get more work / resources from 88 billion than you would if you spent it in America.

figures courtesy of GlobalSecurity.org

as a testiment to the advanced technologies the Chinese are working on, they recently knocked one of their old satellites out using a kinetic warhead. now that's hardly old technology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6289519.stm

Please link the actual article with the context of how those figures were derived as all I see is what looks like a made-up chart with no specifics or explanation. You don't even bother defending that $160B figure.

And I already addressed the other far superior economic realities of the U.S.'s manufacturing ability, including superior quality of weaponry and speed of rearmament capabilties. Being able to shoot down a satelite in space does not compare to the U.S.'s far superior training, air force, and especially air chaft carriers. And anti-sat ballistic missiles have been around for nearly 3 decades, hate to break it to you.

 

[WoodButcher]

Originally posted by: Aharami
i'm an American and I share the same views as you, OP

Ditto, We all spend too much time and effort fingerpointing

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: sixone
Clinton was not impeached for cheating on his wife. Anyone who says he was is either a liar or stupid.

Correct.

The real reason was Clinton was a Democrat, the House was controlled by Republicans, and it was finally the GOP's chance to avenge Watergate.

THAT is the truth.

 

[First]

^ Democrats aren't any better, but boy do the Republicans look silly for that whole mess. They'll be dead and long gone before history realizes what an utter, complete waste of time that entire impeachment was.

 

[SuperFungus]

I think you're ignoring how much China's growth depends on the American Market. We could strangle them before they overtook us.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

I would love to see affordable passenger rail in this country again. Sure it's slower than air but it's nice to ride a train and see the country as you travel. One of my fondest memories is riding a train from Ohio to New Mexico...it was amazing to sit in the observation car and watch the miles roll by.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

I would love to see affordable passenger rail in this country again. Sure it's slower than air but it's nice to ride a train and see the country as you travel. One of my fondest memories is riding a train from Ohio to New Mexico...it was amazing to sit in the observation car and watch the miles roll by.

For most of the country it is impractical and expensive, even more so if you wanted to run high speed trains. An entirely new rail network would have to be built including thousands of grade separations which become increasingly expensive/problematic as you get into developed urban areas. Amtrak's Acela high speed service runs into problem because it has to run over some of the same lines as regular passenger and freight traffic for parts of it's run.

The only way it would get built is if the government picked up the project and ran the system. If it turned out to be profitable they could then lease it out to a private operator. I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

I would love to see affordable passenger rail in this country again. Sure it's slower than air but it's nice to ride a train and see the country as you travel. One of my fondest memories is riding a train from Ohio to New Mexico...it was amazing to sit in the observation car and watch the miles roll by.

For most of the country it is impractical and expensive, even more so if you wanted to run high speed trains. An entirely new rail network would have to be built including thousands of grade separations which become increasingly expensive/problematic as you get into developed urban areas. Amtrak's Acela high speed service runs into problem because it has to run over some of the same lines as regular passenger and freight traffic for parts of it's run.

The only way it would get built is if the government picked up the project and ran the system. If it turned out to be profitable they could then lease it out to a private operator. I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

Oh, I can definately see it being impractical for short-line routes but cross-country, it'd be great. Then again, I've never looked at the economic feasability of a modern US passenger rail...more like an idle musing. I'd like to have more options than just driving or flying.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

I would love to see affordable passenger rail in this country again. Sure it's slower than air but it's nice to ride a train and see the country as you travel. One of my fondest memories is riding a train from Ohio to New Mexico...it was amazing to sit in the observation car and watch the miles roll by.

For most of the country it is impractical and expensive, even more so if you wanted to run high speed trains. An entirely new rail network would have to be built including thousands of grade separations which become increasingly expensive/problematic as you get into developed urban areas. Amtrak's Acela high speed service runs into problem because it has to run over some of the same lines as regular passenger and freight traffic for parts of it's run.

The only way it would get built is if the government picked up the project and ran the system. If it turned out to be profitable they could then lease it out to a private operator. I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

Oh, I can definately see it being impractical for short-line routes but cross-country, it'd be great. Then again, I've never looked at the economic feasability of a modern US passenger rail...more like an idle musing. I'd like to have more options than just driving or flying.

It would indeed be nice and I'd like to take such a trip myself.

Such a system could indeed be built it's just that the capital outlay is so huge.. To make it really feasable you'd likely have to tunnel under most urban areas to reach the main rail hubs. Given the time it takes to actually get through ticketing/security/boarding/flight/deboarding/luggage at the airport high speed rail starts to look a look more attractive for domestic service.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Europe has come a long way in changing the way people think about transportation while we seem to be stuck in this 50's mentality on the subject.

how? the A380? or worse, the A350? or do you mean that relic from the 1800s, the train?

I would love to see affordable passenger rail in this country again. Sure it's slower than air but it's nice to ride a train and see the country as you travel. One of my fondest memories is riding a train from Ohio to New Mexico...it was amazing to sit in the observation car and watch the miles roll by.

For most of the country it is impractical and expensive, even more so if you wanted to run high speed trains. An entirely new rail network would have to be built including thousands of grade separations which become increasingly expensive/problematic as you get into developed urban areas. Amtrak's Acela high speed service runs into problem because it has to run over some of the same lines as regular passenger and freight traffic for parts of it's run.

The only way it would get built is if the government picked up the project and ran the system. If it turned out to be profitable they could then lease it out to a private operator. I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

Oh, I can definately see it being impractical for short-line routes but cross-country, it'd be great. Then again, I've never looked at the economic feasability of a modern US passenger rail...more like an idle musing. I'd like to have more options than just driving or flying.

It would indeed be nice and I'd like to take such a trip myself.

Such a system could indeed be built it's just that the capital outlay is so huge.. To make it really feasable you'd likely have to tunnel under most urban areas to reach the main rail hubs. Given the time it takes to actually get through ticketing/security/boarding/flight/deboarding/luggage at the airport high speed rail starts to look a look more attractive for domestic service.

It is a lovely way to travel. Crossing the plains in an observation car was simply breathtaking.

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I think you're ignoring how much China's growth depends on the American Market. We could strangle them before they overtook us.

your trade deficit to china hit a record 230Bn dollars today. Id say there the ones holding the cards at the moment, unless American consumers wish to go without certain products and pay a higher price for others.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I think you're ignoring how much China's growth depends on the American Market. We could strangle them before they overtook us.

your trade deficit to china hit a record 230Bn dollars today. Id say there the ones holding the cards at the moment, unless American consumers wish to go without certain products and pay a higher price for others.

I think that there will come a point when China doesn't need our market anymore. After all, they are the most populous nation on the face of the Earth.

 

[glugglug]

Why does your profile say you are from Oklahoma?

That same <sarcasm>hotbed of sophisticated intellectualism, completely devoid of braindead religious zealots</sarcasm> that you say your friend is from?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I think you're ignoring how much China's growth depends on the American Market. We could strangle them before they overtook us.

your trade deficit to china hit a record 230Bn dollars today. Id say there the ones holding the cards at the moment, unless American consumers wish to go without certain products and pay a higher price for others.

Posting isn't your strength.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: K1052
I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

no more billions than the interstate highway system, probably.

should have built a high speed rail network down the middle of the interstates!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: K1052
I can only imagine how many billions such a system would run though.

no more billions than the interstate highway system, probably.

should have built a high speed rail network down the middle of the interstates!

True, though a high speed rail network would likely be limited to passenger/light freight service. Stretches of interstate right of way might be of use but there simply isn't the room in urban areas and accepting at grade service over existing lines it a poor idea. Tunneling through urban areas, while very expensive, keeps the system separate and is worth it in the long run.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I think you're ignoring how much China's growth depends on the American Market. We could strangle them before they overtook us.

your trade deficit to china hit a record 230Bn dollars today. Id say there the ones holding the cards at the moment, unless American consumers wish to go without certain products and pay a higher price for others.

I'm sure they don't wish to go without them, but they could and would i believe if it was necessary. I"m certainly not a financial expert by ANY means i just think it's a factor to consider.

 

[judasmachine]

I completely agree with the last paragraph, and last sentence. No one gets to sit on top forever, no one...

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: locutus12
it seems all i hear from americans these days with regards to politics is "dang bleeding heart liberals" or "stupid dumb rednecks" presumably denoting Democrats and Republicans...

i was speaking to my good friend in Oklahoma about current political affairs and he spoke about senator Clinton and Obama going for the race to the white house and he was adamant that not only would neither of them win, but it would be a disaster if a democrat got into office :/

now i put it to him that surely there were bigger issues of global importance and that clinton wasnt a bad president, not perfect but not a bad one at all from an outsiders perspective, i mean the US economy had 75Billion dollar surplus, good growth stable taxes and the best medicare provisions the US has had. To which he replied that clinton was a disater due to monica lewinsky...

now this took me back a bit, maybe its because I am not actually an american but regardless of what happens in a politicians private life surely the main argument must be "were they good professionally" and if they were, surely we can ignore private conduct providing no one has been hurt, i mean you wasted millions of dollars trying to impeach the guy for basically cheating on his wife. it was insane, stupid and looked very childish and pointless to the rest of the world, especially here in england, hell if your a politician here and your not drunk and sleeping with your secretary or a rent boy or both then your not a true member of parliament.

my point to this post is this, i get the feeling that your politicians forget that they are not actually republicans or democrats, but that you are all Americans. your all so busy trying to blame one side or the other for the political mistakes of the present that your missing out on a changing future and from what i can see, failing to prepare for it by allowing the global reputation of the USA to slide thus losing potential diplomatic and economic allies.

in 20 years the USA will no longer be the worlds economic driving power, it will no longer be the worlds richest country, and it will no longer be the most affluent country and eventually its military will be surpassed in size and technology. the Chinese, a communist country, will have successfully overtaken the USA in terms of economics, and with the massive workforce to back them up, it is doubtful anyone will be able to top them for a very long time.

Wake up America, the world is changing, the western world needs you need to change with it.

Firstly, your friend is a Republican. Clinton is a legend for what he did with Monica. In fact, I think they should have allowed to stay in the office 4 more years for being such an outstanding patriot.

Don't say that the US won't be a major power in 20 years. The only thing that would keep that promise would be to reelect Bush. These type of Religious Republicans are what's bringing the country down.

Personally, I'll support Clinton for two reasons. First, she's promising universal healthcare, which I think is needed. In New Jersey, car insurance is needed. I think health care is just as important. Second, Bill is her husband. The team did great things for us before, I wouldn't be surprised if they did great things for us now. Sure she's not perfect, but she's better than Bush.

 

[UDT89]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I completely agree with the last paragraph, and last sentence. No one gets to sit on top forever, no one...

Well considering the US has only really been a "superpower" for approx 100 years..... thats not a long time at all.

I agree no one sits on top forever, but if you look at the Roman Empire.....we're still infants in the whole dominating nation thing.