I can't take this any more!

Forums
General Discussion
Rebel Cafe
I can't take this any more!

Posts: 122

No offence, but am I the only one seeing America go backwards?

Obviously, Dolash, there are millions of Americans who either want to go "baclwards" or see things going too far forward .

Everytime you make a post about politics, you push a liberal agenda. That's wonderful. You can belive and state whatever opinions you want to. However, there are a lot of Americans (I am one of them, and I think Joren is too to some extent) who are more conservative. We support "conservative policies". You say its wrong to change the fillibuster rule. I agree. What I don't agree with is the blocking of all of Bush's judical nominees.

You say that Bush is trying to change the American judiciary- and I don't doubt it. He's doing so because a lot of Americans support his ideas (or at least the general theme of his ideals... that is to say, a lot of Americans are conservative. Bush himself isn't particuarly well liked even among conservatives.) There are a lot of Americans who don't: but obviously there weren't enough to get a liberal elected.

All of the most advanced and civilized nations are far and away ahead of where America is now in regards to, say, gay rights or 'moral issues.

See- you see a welfare, socialistic (not socialist, socialistic) state as advanced. Cheap healthcare for everyone, high taxes and almost complete secularism as "modern and civillized". A majority of Europe, and to some extent Canda fit your model. As great as that might be for you, I'd like to inform you that a good many Americans find that model "appaling."

I personally see that model as a poor one to follow. Europe is in decline: its population is dropping and its economies are falling behind developing Asian powers. The US economy is vastly superior to any individual European nation, even in its current, broken state.

Also, moral values in the US don't lag behin in the opinion of many Americans. America is a nation founded by religious people, and many believe religion is an important aspect of life. They want to live in a society whose moral values reflect the basic tenents of their religious beliefs. No one wants a fundamentalist state: but in general religon is good for a country and it's people. any form of extremism can be bad and religous extremism is common in some areas of the world, but in moderation religon strengthen's a nation.

Anyway, I know that my views are not the majority on TRF, and I'm likely to be ridiculed for them- but 've wanted to express them for a while :P

milkshake

Posts: 1913

I'd mention that I am a preacher's kid and hate Bush with a flaming passion, but for the sake of the continuum, I won't.

Seth Vinda

Posts: 3599

See- you see a welfare, socialistic (not socialist, socialistic) state as advanced. Cheap healthcare for everyone, high taxes and almost complete secularism as "modern and civillized". A majority of Europe, and to some extent Canda fit your model. As great as that might be for you, I'd like to inform you that a good many Americans find that model "appaling."

That is an extremely broad statement, a majority of Europe?...who?... what countries?, I want specifics.

As a matter of fact, almost complete secularism is really not true at all, at least not from my experience.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to provide people with cheap healthcare?? How is that appalling?

As for taxes, its all relative at the end of the day, is America's taxes cheaper than the rest of Europe? I don't have a clue.

I personally see that model as a poor one to follow. Europe is in decline:

eh?...I think thats clearly a matter of opinion, rather than fact, (unless you actually have some?)

its population is dropping

That, I would love to know about.

and its economies are falling behind developing Asian powers.

I take it you mean China?... As most of the other Asian markets aren't fairing so well, (funnilly enough probably because of China).

They can't compete, cheap labour means cheap goods, which is one reason why everything gets made in China these days.

'Outsourcing'

Europe can't possibly hope to compete against a state which doesn't have any unions or practially no legislation to look after its workers.

China has always been a superpower, its just been sleeping, with its entrance into the WTO (the actual reason behind its 'developing' power). China is to all intents and purposes a facist state practically , It has no unions to worry about curbing its huge industrial boom, but as a result its workers get pittance for they do. Exploited?... I think you could make a case there, strange for a state which is supposed to be communist.

The US economy is vastly superior to any individual European nation, even in its current, broken state.

Thats odd. Throughout you've been talking about Europe as 'Europe' , but when it comes down to comparing the US economy you talk about 'individual' European nations.

And if by superior you mean bigger and more profitable, you are probably right.
America is the only superpower , yes, and its economic power is a reflection of this, or perhaps its the reverse? Don't forget though, America is huge, so comparing it to any single European country is kinda silly really.

I have to admit, it makes me smile , because I see the subtle feeling of mistrust you obviously have about Europe, and its something else both the US and Britain have in common, heh

Anyway, the sun did not set on the British Empire and at its peak, it was too a superpower, with the economic might to match.

Empires rise and fall, such is the way, no exceptions, and out of the ashes something new arises. In a way America is the prodigal son, and although we hate to admit it, secretly we're very proud.

You learned well, you learned from the best, and I'm pretty sure you surpassed all our original expectations.

:p

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

The US economy is vastly superior to any individual European nation, even in its current, broken state.

While you're right, your argument lacks any substance. The United States is far larger in terms of population and geography than any one European nation. On that basis alone it is entirely logical that an individual European nation has nowhere near the USA's economic standing.

Too, the USA is incredibly diverse geographically: it has oil and trees and manufacturing, and on and on. Whereas most Eurpoean countries don't have the same level of diversity in their industry. Add to that the fact that Europe has been 'civilized' for far longer than the USA, which means that their stocks of natrual resources may be more depleted than those of the US, which is comparatively young.

Comparing a single Eurpoean nation to the USA is like comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison would be the European Union to the USA. And, guess what, the EU is a very strong power bloc. In fact, the EU is often touted as the balance, or closest thing too a balance, to the USA.

Also, moral values in the US don't lag behin in the opinion of many Americans.

Tell that to people being denied their rights based on sex or race. I'm sure people were saying the exact same things you are when black people weren't allowed to vote. That doesn't make it right.

America is a nation founded by religious people, and many believe religion is an important aspect of life.

True enough. But the constitution also makes it very clear that the government is not supposed to be influenced by said religion.

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."

So while religion is an important part of life, to pass laws (or fail to take action) based upon religious beliefs is contrary to what the founding fathers wanted done. State and religion are supposed to be seperate.

They want to live in a society whose moral values reflect the basic tenents of their religious beliefs.

That's all well and good. But it does not justify the denial of rights based on religious grounds. What happens if a large Muslim group begins lobbying for their religious tenents to be made law? Do we allow for that?

The Catholic and Christian religions are lucky in that the majority of their principles fall in line with that we consider to be basic human rights. But arguing for law based on religion is ludacious, because then you're obliged to also defend the idea of inhuman laws based on religion.

Or find yourself a hypocrit.

// End inane rambling

Brutus Nogoth

Posts: 383

Actually Seth, I must say I overall have a high opinion of the UK. Of course they are a European nation, but something about the English channel seems to divide them from the countries I was referring to as "Europe".

Anyway:

Population Decline:
http://www.popco.org/press/articles/2004-1-myers.html
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001283.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-626184,00.html

Europe In Decline:
More of a generalized statement and definitly an opinion. I think Europe's political and military influence has gone down significantly from its peak. If its members work together, the EU can be a powerful economic block: but the fact that each nation remains a soverign nation means that certain tensions may hamper their ability to present a united front.

Moral Values:
No reputable, mainstream Christian entity is going to deny blacks the right to vote. On the issue of gay rights, I support extending the civil benefits of a marriage (i.e acknowledgement of being a spouse, pension etc) but not the religious benediction of calling such a union a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and the distinction shouldn't be too important to homosexuals as long as they are not denied the legal rights they are seeking.

Muslims:

What happens if a large Muslim group begins lobbying for their religious tenents to be made law? Do we allow for that?

Ah. A valid point: if it were applicable. The United States does not contain such a group that could constitute doing so. If the US was 65 percent or higher muslim on the other hand, then it would be reasonable.

Iraq is preparing to include elements of Islamic law into its new government, and I though I can't say I know it as a fact I would be willing to bet India respects certain hindu tenents due to its huge portion of hindu residents.

I understand that you must try to avoid infringing upon the rights of a minority, but treating a minority as if they were the majority is unrealistic. I'm not saying minorities are of lesser importance than majorities- simply that the needs nad wants of the majority affect a larger number of people.

China:

Europe can't possibly hope to compete against a state which doesn't have any unions or practially no legislation to look after its workers.

Neither can the US. You noted that I said the US economy was also in a terrible state- and this is a major reason. But I disagree that China is the only major Asian market. India is becoming strong economically, as is South Korea and Taiwan.

US/British Relations:

We love you too!! ;)

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

Ah. A valid point: if it were applicable.

I didn't ask if it were applicable. It's an entirely hypothetical question. And you figure of 65% seems rather high. I imagine if the US were even 30% Muslim you would see huge allowances made to cater to them. They may be a minority, but a minority in those numbers can easily swing an election.

The question remains, though: if there was a Muslim majority that demanded that, say, public execution by stoning by made legal, you would be obliged to defend that position. But would you?

I'm not saying minorities are of lesser importance than majorities- simply that the needs nad wants of the majority affect a larger number of people.

But, with regards to gay marriage, the allowance of gay marriage is not deterimental to heterosexuals. Whereas the disallowance is detrimental to homosexuals. Where do we draw a line? A majority may not support something because they don't like it or it goes against their beliefs... but where is the line between the minority's right and the majority's feelings?

Marriage is between a man and a woman and the distinction shouldn't be too important to homosexuals as long as they are not denied the legal rights they are seeking.

But if the distinction is unimportant why do you want to keep it? If every aspect of the situation is the same under law, why label it with a different word? It makes little sense from a legal perspective. And while respect for the Church is all well and good, the constitution does not allow for laws being tailored to the what religion says.

Marriage is only a word. Let them have it.

Titus

Posts: 7745

Seth Vinda

There is nothing wrong with wanting to provide people with cheap healthcare?? How is that appalling?

As for taxes, its all relative at the end of the day, is America's taxes cheaper than the rest of Europe? I don't have a clue.

I think the average middle class fellow here in the US ends up shelling out about 30% to the government. From my reading on other boards I gather your average citizen of an EU state is going to be coughing up 40% or more. I don't know specifics, that's just a generalization based on reading the several topics that have spawned, now that it's tax time in the US.

I don't like the idea of government run healthcare for the simple reason that our government sucks at running anything well. As it is the government is bloated, I personally think it could run just as well as it is now on a third of the budget. A government run healthcare system would be the perfect system in which the people who really needed it would be screwed, and those savvy enough would use it even if they didn't qualify.

 <o =""></o>

Demos

True enough. But the constitution also makes it very clear that the government is not supposed to be influenced by said religion.

I have to disagree. The constitution makes it clear that the government shall not touch religion, not vice versa. The people that wrote the constitution and signed it, the people that came to America originally, and everyone in-between intended that people be allowed to worship and live in peace without government intervention. Because religion becomes an inseparable part of you, it would not make sense to say that no religion was allowed within the government. It's not like someone says, "Oh, I have a government job, better leave my entire thought pattern at home."

 <o =""></o>

I think that's something a lot of non-religious people just don't understand. Take a true Christian. He's a Christian. He's not a Man, then a Christian, he's a Christian. His entire method of thought is based around his faith. He Is A Christian, it is an inseparable part of him. It is who he is. He doesn't remove it when he steps to the bench, because he cannot. It is him, and he is it.

Seth Vinda

Posts: 3599

Actually Seth, I must say I overall have a high opinion of the UK. Of course they are a European nation, but something about the English channel seems to divide them from the countries I was referring to as "Europe"

lol...thats exactly how the average Brit see's it, heh

Heard about the 'new European constitution'? Its interesting because I can tell you now without a shadow of a doubt, that if we had a referundum on it, we'd vote 'No'
Tony Blair , and Labour in general have dodged the issue so far, specifically for this reason alone I'm sure. Political suicide.

They won't be able to dodge it forever, heh.

France are just about to have their referundum , and shockingly enough, that most European of European nations is starting to look like it may actually reject the consitution too! Which would leave Jaques Chirac in deep shit, since his administration are one of the primary champions of it.

All the current polls indicate a slim lead for those French citizens who wish to say: 'Non!'

If that happens that would be a real blow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4395025.stm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050323/wl_nm/economy_eu_summit_dc

I still find it funny, that we probably have a lot more in common with the USA than France, which is odd when you think about it, seeing as they are our neighbours, heh.

Entente Cordiale!

But I disagree that China is the only major Asian market. India is becoming strong economically, as is South Korea and Taiwan.

I agree with you in regards to India, but both South Korea and Taiwan,ESPECIALLY Taiwan, (in more ways than one, heh) are finding themselves overshadowed by China.

US/British Relations:

We love you too!! ;)

heh!

Demosthenes X

Posts: 2462

Kas, that's not the issue. Obviously it's impossible to try and make religious thought in government disappear. What I said is that the goverrnment is not supposed to be influenced into making laws soley for religion.

Like I said, with Christianity it works out well because your basis thouhgts are in line with what we consider to be basic human rights, etc. But if a radical Muslim were elected to office, do you think for a second people would support him bringing his thinking into the government?

No. There would be cries for the seperation of religion and state from every side. So why do we make an exception for Christians? Why are your values expected to be passed into law? If we make same sex marriage illegal because that's a Christian thought, why not legalize beating of woman. That is, after all, a Muslim thought.

Titus

Posts: 7745

Because then we wouldn't get any sex.