[OT] [PW] [Long] America Bashing

CatNipped wrote:


Evelyn, although I tend to agree with your sentiments, I have so say... if
you have some evidence that Dubya has committed an impeachable offense, the
democratic party would love to hear from you. It's all very well to say
that we should throw him out of the Whitehouse (and I agree that would be a
good thing if only there were a democrat better then Kerry to take his
place - but even that wouldn't happen, *Cheney* would take his place and how
would that be any different than what we have now?). Short of armed
rebellion which, granted, was successful for us in the past, there is
nothing we can do to change the situation for the next four years.

Try browsing through some of the matierial at
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

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.

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!

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).

In article , "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*!

Drawing from horror fiction, there's a T-shirt occasionally seen at
science fiction conventions:

"Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser of two evils?"

In article ,
wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote:



OTOH, most cats probably like herring.

You know, I thought of that, after I made the post! (Of
course the only herring we ever have around here is either
pickled or kippered, neither of which elicits much interest
from Melisande.)


I do fine with pickled, but agree with Melisande about kippered. In
Scandinavia, I was amazed how many kinds of herring they had, and my
Scandinavian friends were amazed that I seemed to like them all.

In article ,
wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

No, and there's a fairly logical defense of that. I would suggest the
"average American", or, perhaps, I should say "USAian", has neither
traveled internationally nor has extensive communications outside the
country. Given that, to whom are they promoting their country?

To other English-speaking posters on the internet? And NOT
having "traveled internationally nor had extensive
communications outside the country" (thus lacking any
reasonable basis for judgment) doesn't prevent the "my
country, right or wrong (but NEVER "wrong")" faction from
vociferously claiming America's alleged "superiority" in all
things! That allegation is so patently untrue, how can
anyone blame people of more experience for their negative
responses?


But to whom, outside the US, are these superior types presenting their
views? Is there actually a large and representative number, or is it
that there are a smaller number of especially noisy byproducts of used
cat litter? How much of this is being filtered/amplified by news and
entertainment media with agendas?

Sometimes it's not superiority as much as familiarity. When I had to
drive for about 10 days in England, the staff at the Avis car return lot
at Heathrow were very nice. I don't know if they were just saving my
feeling or being accurate, but they reassured me that they were used to
seeing Americans passionately kissing the pavement, once they were aware
they did not have to drive on what felt like the wrong side, often in
narrow lanes.

And roundabouts...

And roundabouts...

And roundabouts...

In article ,
wrote:

CatNipped wrote:


Evelyn, although I tend to agree with your sentiments, I have so say...
if
you have some evidence that Dubya has committed an impeachable offense,
the
democratic party would love to hear from you. It's all very well to
say
that we should throw him out of the Whitehouse (and I agree that would
be a
good thing if only there were a democrat better then Kerry to take his
place - but even that wouldn't happen, *Cheney* would take his place
and how
would that be any different than what we have now?). Short of armed
rebellion which, granted, was successful for us in the past, there is
nothing we can do to change the situation for the next four years.

Try browsing through some of the matierial at
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


The Constitutional reality is that there is no definition of an
impeachable offense other than "high crimes and misdemeanors." The
practical reality is that the House of Representatives has to be annoyed
enough to impeach, unlikely with a president of the same party, and the
Senate has to have the votes to remove from office.

Not without good reason, attempts to impeach the President have been
called the thermonuclear weapon of American politics. We saw the impact
on governing that the Clinton impeachment caused, and the Andrew Johnson
affair was worse. I'm of the general opinion that the risks of such
would only be warranted in cases of major treason or an attempt to usurp
power. Lying to the Congress is reprehensible, but the cure may be worse
than the disease.

"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
CatNipped wrote
"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?

You complained about *other* people "bashing" the USA. Can you not
see it is just the same? *I* did not bash the USA when you were
complaining about someone in the Middle East.

There is a big difference there, David. "Other people" doesn't mean "all
other people in the world", and nobody in their right mind would think it
does. "America" or "Americans", without any modifier, means *all*
Americans.

Joy

"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.

Joy

"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Sherry wrote
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.

I said "tend to". That's my experience. If you wish to take
generalisations to the particular, that's your choice, but there is no
reason to.

You're turning it upside down. A generalization is taking the particular to
the general. It is assuming, stating, or implying that all members of the
group spoken of do the same thing, or are the same, as those particular
examples.

Do you really believe that the average American does not promote his
country more than the average person in some other country?

--
David Stevenson

I certainly believe exactly that. It isn't my fault that the minority of
Americans who do are much louder than the majority of us who don't.

Joy

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


Howard Berkowitz wrote:

No, and there's a fairly logical defense of that. I would suggest the
"average American", or, perhaps, I should say "USAian", has neither
traveled internationally nor has extensive communications outside the
country. Given that, to whom are they promoting their country?

To other English-speaking posters on the internet? And NOT
having "traveled internationally nor had extensive
communications outside the country" (thus lacking any
reasonable basis for judgment) doesn't prevent the "my
country, right or wrong (but NEVER "wrong")" faction from
vociferously claiming America's alleged "superiority" in all
things! That allegation is so patently untrue, how can
anyone blame people of more experience for their negative
responses?

Fine, so respond negatively to those who make such stupid statements. Don't
do the same thing you are accusing them of by tarring us all with the same
brush.

Joy