Despite USA being every leftys punching bag there is MUCH i admire about her.
Much that no other country has and they are all jealous.
Here's a list to begin .


1/ 24/7

2/ 110 %

3/ High fives

4/ Muscle cars

5/ Marilyn Munroe

6/ Louis Armstrong

7/ Statue of Liberty.

8/ Hollywood

9/ The Super Bowl

10/ George Washington

11/ Henry Ford

12/ Jesse Owens

13/ Space exploration

14/ Thomas Edison

15/ Alexander Bell

16/ George W's first presidential term

17/ George W's second presidential term (at least he won the election that time)

18/ John Moses Browning

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 4:18am:

Here's a list to begin . 1/ 24/7 2/ 110 % 3/ High fives 4/ Muscle cars 5/ Marilyn Munroe 6/ Louis Armstrong 7/ Statue of Liberty. 8/ Hollywood 9/ The Super Bowl

Your list didn't get very far, did it... just 18 suggestions after more than 3 months...  and many of these dating back decades into the past, with none that could be called current... and all this for a country that started off with a bounty of natural resources greater than any other country on Earth.  Here's a few more things you will probably be proud of:

First to use nuclear weapons in war.
World's greatest hypocrites (trying to deny to others the kind of nuclear arsenals they possess themselves)
World's greatest supporter of and donor to Israel.
World's greatest producers of gas guzzling cars
Dropped more explosive as bombs on little North Vietnam than everybody dropped anywhere in the whole of world war 2.
Started the Great Depression of the 1930's with the stock market crash of October 29
Caused the world financial crisis of 2007 - 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010
World's greatest vote manipulator at the United Nations
Most litigious country on Earth  http://www.newsweek.com/id/78822

I need to pause for a rest here. I'm starting to feel soooo jealous!

Actually, high fives would be on my list of where America has gone wrong. Them, and Adam Sandler movies.

The rest on the list is history. America was once a great innovator. Now, it seems to have lost the function to be able to act.

The lack of a clear response to the Global Financial Crisis showed how paralysed America was when it came to the crunch. England and Europe responded and acted together.

Mind you, America was paralysed during WWII. They only acted after Pearl Harbour. But when they acted, they acted.

I think the Bush years will read as an ill omen when people look back on the last days of the American empire. I think America is pretty-much spent. They certainly can't afford to do much on the foreign front - they can't even get a health insurance plan in.

The dwindling popularity of Obama seems to show how America divided really is. There seems to be a growing schism between Sarah Palin-type values and the liberals.

Mind you, this has always been around. Nixon was elected by the "moral majority" in the 60s, when this schism could not have been wider. The liberal agenda was then taken over by a more radical one, but returned to the centre after Watergate - when EVERYONE seemed to turn on the Right.

Alas, Reagan regrouped, and the zombies climbed out of their graves. The Reagan years were America's halcyon days. China then rose as the world's manufacturing centre, and America lost it's blue collar jobs.

And they now vote for Sarah Palin types.

You'd better make a thread "in support of China," becuase that's where things are heading.

The strongest military in the world that defends freedom all over the world.

The strongest military in the world that responds to natural disasters with aid anywhere in the world.

The most charitable people in the world that give far more aid that any other country.

In Haiti, after their earthquake, China gave $1 Million.  But, just the American Red Cross gave $200 Million, which the Red Cross raised from generous Amreicans.

tanshia wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 6:53am:

The strongest military in the world that defends freedom all over the world.

For that to be true, the definition of "freedom" must be something like: "the ability of the USA to do whatever it likes to whoever it likes to get whatever it is that the USA wants."

The peacekeeping and disaster relief roles of the USA military raise interesting questions. Anyone other than a USA supporter would probably prefer to have the UN providing these roles. But something seems to be preventing the UN from acting effectively. Could that something be the USA, preferring to decide everything itself rather than trusting a democratic world body to lead?

fawkes wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 7:50am:

tanshia wrote on Mar 28th, 2010 at 6:53am: The strongest military in the world that defends freedom all over the world. For that to be true, the definition of "freedom" must be something like: "the ability of the USA to do whatever it likes to whoever it likes to get whatever it is that the USA wants." The peacekeeping and disaster relief roles of the USA military raise interesting questions. Anyone other than a USA supporter would probably prefer to have the UN providing these roles. But something seems to be preventing the UN from acting effectively. Could that something be the USA, preferring to decide everything itself rather than trusting a democratic world body to lead?

The USA is the largest funder of the UN. If anything, the USA is allowing the existence of the UN as opposed to "preventing the UN from acting effectively". I don't trust the kind of democracy that the UN has anyway. I don't like the idea of "one state, one vote" where countries like Nauru (pop. 10000) have an equal vote with countries like Indonesia (pop. 230 million).

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

I don't like the idea of "one state, one vote" where countries like Nauru (pop. 10000) have an equal vote with countries like Indonesia (pop. 230 million).

Would you have Uzbekistan allocated more voting power than Australia?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 9:03am:

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 28th, 2010 at 8:53am: I don't like the idea of "one state, one vote" where countries like Nauru (pop. 10000) have an equal vote with countries like Indonesia (pop. 230 million). Would you have Uzbekistan allocated more voting power than Australia?

I'm not sure whether I would want a UN general assembly at all.

Hlysnan wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

The USA is the largest funder of the UN. If anything, the USA is allowing the existence of the UN as opposed to "preventing the UN from acting effectively". I don't trust the kind of democracy that the UN has anyway.

If you don't like the way the UN is funded or anything else about how it is structured, remember that the USA was a leading member of the 5 superpowers who designed it following the second world war.


Hlysnan wrote on Mar 28^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

I don't like the idea of "one state, one vote" where countries like Nauru (pop. 10000) have an equal vote with countries like Indonesia (pop. 230 million).

I also don't think that sounds like a good voting system. Perhaps, until a better system is devised, the UN would be best limited to actions on which all members unanimously agreed. (That would have stopped it from doing much I should think, hopefully preventing mistakes such as giving Arab homelands to Zionists).