Why America Sucks - Page 4

On April 02 2010 03:37 Louder wrote:


Nonsense and assumptions. Who are we protecting Japan and Germany from with 100,000 troops between the two, for example? The notion that if we don't occupy the entire world nobody is safe is fallacy

On April 02 2010 03:27 7mk wrote:
Are there really 50 000 american soldiers in germany? Are you sure thats true cause that sounds really ridiculous.

On April 02 2010 03:26 Louder wrote:


Yes. I thought it was pretty obvious. It was about the numbers, not the idiot author with obvious bias.

On April 02 2010 03:48 sctechie wrote:


*sigh* I'm not even getting into it. What is the author's bias exactly, pretty sure the article started out referencing UK defense spending cuts. What exactly that has to do with bias towards the US, I'm not sure.

You're no better than the "tea party' party people. Misinformation is the same regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.

On April 02 2010 03:05 Louder wrote:


I live in Texas. So yeah, it's pretty likely. At softball games for my daughter I hear the other parents talking about arranging a local 'tea party' chapter. Not that a one of them have any idea what the actual Boston Tea Party was about, or how absurd the current 'Tea Party' movement actually is.

Did you know that in America, people who don't believe in God are considered, by the general population, to be even less trustworthy than Blacks and Homosexuals? For a country well known for racism and homophobia, that's quite a thing.

On April 02 2010 03:38 KwarK wrote:

Just because Steve Pinker said the world is getting more peaceful doesn't mean anyone who doesn't think that is uneducated.
The 20th century has seen countless genocides, mass murders and the invention of total war. It has seen biological warfare unleashed on the Chinese, nuclear warfare on the Japanese and millions dying in genocide. I personally think Steve Pinker's an idiot and I'd go so far as to say you're an idiot for linking him without in any way adding thoughts or analysis of your own.

On April 02 2010 03:56 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

I don't really think you can come to a conclusion that the last 100 years have been more peaceful then any other 100 year time span throughout history. In the article you linked the author for the most part only talks about a decrease in violence in regards to capital punishment, he mentions Darfur and Iraq but fails to mention WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the genocies commited by the Ottoman Empire/Turkey, and many many many other violent events.

All this article concludes is that there is a decrease in violence with regards to capital punishment. Not that there has been a decrease in violence in the last 100 years.

Edit: Also learn some fucking respect, if you don't like blogs or conversing with people who post on blogs dont fucking read it.

On April 02 2010 04:11 cursor wrote:
Lastly, I will state that the US is the worlds leading terrorist state, being responsible for more civilian deaths in each period of the last 10, 20, 30 and 40 years than any other nation or group.

On April 02 2010 03:53 agorist wrote:



I'm particularly thrilled you've identified issues with our society -- however, I've always been rather disappointed with you proposed solutions.

There's nothing wrong about the tea-party movement; it represents a rather large swathe of government dissent -- some good, some bad. It's a very "American" movement, which, I think you'd agree with. And as a segment of popular culture, sure, it's going to be filled with many buffoons.

You don't like wealth disparity -- sure, nobody likes unnatural wealth disparity. It doesn't help that our government is actively funneling money into the hands of the ultra-rich, but there was always an alternative. Ask yourself why as governments grow larger and more powerful we keep ending up with (as a world economy) an ultra rich demographic that is accruing more and more wealth.

First, in their favor -- their wealth just doesn't sit and rot in some castle. They make money by investing and placing their money in places where it will provide some return. This is only possible by offering some service or product that society deems wanted. The problem with is that in many ways their earned wealth comes from involuntary means -- government subsidy, government bailout, and/or government monopoly.

You're right about one thing -- these lucky individuals maintain their status quo by utilizing government to their advantage. But, the knee-jerk reaction to utilize government to chastise these individuals and impose some form of egalitarianism is just as flawed and immoral as their reign of manipulation and will only end up serving their benefit, or, leave us all in a less fortunate situation.

Reducing military spending (which I'm all for) should not be pursued in order to spend money elsewhere. It is time we stop spoonfeeding the parasitic class and their lackeys.

On April 02 2010 03:54 sctechie wrote:


Ehh, words are cheap on the internet. So, here's Prof. Pinker's bio from his own website:

"Steven Pinker is Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and The New Republic, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature."

Regardless of your OPINION on his work (your own research would be what?), I don't think you can call him an idiot. However, I am perfectly justified calling people on the internet who obviously don't know what they are talking about idiots. Take 30 seconds, go find me a link supporting your viewpoint and I'll be happy to read it. I like to educate myself.

So, I prefer to go with someone who actually knows what they are talking about rather than just another internet 'tough guy'. Thanks.