Sun Sets on the American Century

Originally posted by smw6869
I quess that means we were somewhat great at one time?

Absolutely. And it can still be a great nation. You just need to relax with your
armies a little. It's like that bully whose only means of impressing girls is
beating up on the little kids. It works for some, but then those girls are not
really worth having, are they?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
But do any of those one percent lack a "decent living" as you defined it earlier?

Obviously.

Originally posted by stocken
Hm, Sweden's done nothing these past fifty years, eh? I think this post
should be recommended as an example of what I've been talking about.
I couldn't have done a better job myself.

Having said that, I need to know if you realise that there are
other ways of dealing with problems than to send your army to kick-ass
parties (with the ...[text shortened]... S gov. I mean. I'm
sure you're not the hot-headed buffoon I just described. 🙄

The Jews tried talking with Hitler.

G

Originally posted by kmax87
True but only because it also exported more than just industrialized values and consumerism. What does America export besides self interest?

Consumerism does not export loyalty and selfless service to a higher ideal, or the preservation of an established civil order. These values tend to have a way of being cherished and upheld by people independent of a r ...[text shortened]... alue that transcends pure commerce and they are not subject to the mere whims of fashion or fad.

The US "exports" the values of free speech, free economy, equality of gender and race, government without nobles and kings, a military that is far more accountable than most for atrocities and the like but which still kicks butt, a Constitution which overrides Presidential power, etc.

Since you want to talk about what values are being "exported" by the USA.

Originally posted by smw6869
The Jews tried talking with Hitler.

G

And the native Americans once tried talking to the founding fathers. Then
they tried war.

It's true what you say, that some people are beyond rational reach, and then
it's a good idea to defend yourself. But if such people jump into every
excuse for a fight doesn't quite resemble the case, does it?

Originally posted by stocken
Obviously.

That is not true. You defined "a decent living" as dodging death on a daily basis. Please, tell me, who exactly in the US has to fight for their life every day? There's free food and shelter available here, free medical care, etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That is not true. You defined "a decent living" as dodging death on a daily basis. Please, tell me, who exactly in the US has to fight for their life every day? There's free food and shelter available here, free medical care, etc.

I'm guessing you, like we, have homeless people who has to struggle every
day to stay alive. True, there are kitchens of volunteers and there are
organisations dedicated to trying to help these people, but the gov. is doing
next to nothing for them, and the result is a matter of status quo; that every
day for these people is about staying warm, getting the soup and enduring
insanely wise remarks from people like: "Get a job!"

I think that goes well below decent living.

Originally posted by stocken
I'm guessing you, like we, have homeless people who has to struggle every
day to stay alive. True, there are kitchens of volunteers and there are
organisations dedicated to trying to help these people, but the gov. is doing
next to nothing for them, and the result is a matter of status quo; that every
day for these people is about staying warm, getti ...[text shortened]... ly wise remarks from people like: "Get a job!"

I think that goes well below decent living.

What the homeless in the US go through is not a daily struggle for survival. If you know details I do not, please share them. Nobody I am aware of in the US lacks for a "decent living" as you defined it.

You might want to use a definition that is less emotionally charged and dramatic sounding. I don't think you meant what you said about the definition of a "decent living".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What the homeless in the US go through is not a daily struggle for survival. If you know details I do not, please share them. Nobody I am aware of in the US lacks for a "decent living" as you defined it.

You might want to use a definition that is less emotionally charged and dramatic sounding. I don't think you meant what you said about the definition of a "decent living".

If you really don't have homeless sleeping under bridges and constantly
having to beg for everything, then yes, you're right. You don't have people
lacking of what I call "decent living".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-10-homeless_x.htm

Originally posted by stocken
If you really don't have homeless sleeping under bridges and constantly
having to beg for everything, then yes, you're right. You don't have people
lacking of what I call "decent living".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-10-homeless_x.htm

That's not how you defined a "decent living".

People don't have to beg. They choose to beg rather than (or in addition to) going to charity or getting a job.

One needs to understand there is a subculture among many of the homeless that promotes the freedom, tax free income, etc as virtues or benefits. Many of these people are ghetto trash; petty thieves, muggers, haters of the police and society...they cannot get on their feet because of their attitude in many cases. You get hippy types like one guy I know who choose "voluntary poverty" and write long profound essays about it. Then there's another I guy knew, dead now, who lived in a house he inherited and begged to finance his meth fuelled gay lifestyle. He claimed to make 8 bucks an hour, tax free.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not how you defined a "decent living".

People don't have to beg. They choose to beg rather than (or in addition to) going to charity or getting a job.

Going to charity is begging, and getting a job is next to impossible
if you're on the streets. Well, unless you're a pretty girl or boy and not
really fuzzy about your job assignments, that is. But even then, not a
decent life. Not a decent life at all.

The cold harsh truth is that there are people who for one reason or the
other can't make a good living without help, and they're left out in the
cold when money rules, because you just can't make money off them. Do
you realise that your examples about where they can get help are based
on social ideas, and not capitalism? If you're a capitalist, you're more
likely to say something like: "They brought it on themselves. If they
won't work, why should I help them?"

You're not saying that, so I'm a bit confused now to be honest.

No wait, now you're saying it. I understand where you come from now.
Though, I think the link I posted clearly shows that not all homeless are
there by some political or individual choice. Hence, the problem still exist.

We have a greek guy (at least I think he's of greek origin) here in
Stockholm who's become somewhat a celebrity for always wearing nothing
but shorts. It's true. In the coldest winter you can see him wear those
shorts and nothing else. He has a choice, and he's chosen to go
half naked even when his nuts must be cracking in the cold, so I don't
really pity him. If anything, I admire him for the strength. Now, someone
who's not chosen that destiny I pity. And there are those around as well.

Originally posted by stocken
Going to charity is begging, and getting a job is next to impossible
if you're on the streets. Well, unless you're a pretty girl or boy and not
really fuzzy about your job assignments, that is. But even then, not a
decent life. Not a decent life at all.

The cold harsh truth is that there are people who for one reason or the
other can't make uld I help them?"

You're not saying that, so I'm a bit confused now to be honest.

Going to charity is begging

Then so is getting government support. If you now think the US is a socialist state, what are we discussing?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Going to charity is begging

Then so is getting government support. If you now think the US is a socialist state, what are we discussing?[/b]

When I say everyone should be guaranteed a decent living, I mean no one
should be left out in the cold without choice. That's the government's
function to protect it's citizens. And if some have a problem functioning in
society such that they're useful, then there are better ways of dealing with
that than to simply leave 'em out in the cold.

I don't think the US is a socialist state, and I can hardly say Sweden is
anymore, so I'm not debating that. You're debating my choice of words as
for decent living, that's all.

Originally posted by stocken
Hm, Sweden's done nothing these past fifty years, eh? I think this post
should be recommended as an example of what I've been talking about.
I couldn't have done a better job myself.

Having said that, I need to know if you realise that there are
other ways of dealing with problems than to send your army to kick-ass
parties (with the S gov. I mean. I'm
sure you're not the hot-headed buffoon I just described. 🙄

Not that I can think of. Only Abba comes to mind.

There are many ways of dealing with problems. Armies are just one of them. I don't recommend rape and murder as a solution to anything.

I'm sorry you have a problem with violence. That leaves you vulnerable to people that don't, unless you stay in a safe location with an active police force.

Thinking before acting is good. Thinking (and talking) but never acting is characteristic of many European governments because such behavior is deemed virtuous and prudent by a large segment of the European populace.

Originally posted by stocken
My big post? You know, the one that debunks your post about all the great
things your country has done through great military actions? That post shows
clearly that it's a pretence. 🙄

I listed countries Americans have fought to liberate from oppressive regimes. You replied that these actions could all be explained away as simply furthering American interests. But since I claim that spreading freedom and democracy IS in America's interest (as it is in the interest of most human beings around the world), I find that you haven't debunked much.