Is America the greatest country in the world?

[Unkotare]

Yes they do, for higher education above the public school level. Not so for our public schools. A degree from one of our prestigious universities apparently opens a lot of doors.

Actually, a great, great many come for high school, and increasingly jr high as well. It is difficult for an international student to be enrolled in a public school here, so they apply to private high schools; some very prestigious, but also Catholic schools or wherever they can find a fit.

That is probably correct. Most of our private and parochial schools are still quite excellent.

No "probably" about it, they come in their thousands and thousands every year.

 

[Toro]

2nd greatest!

 

[Unkotare]

Someone give Canada a lollipop.

 

[Liability]

The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now. * * * *

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube

There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.

There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.

When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.

We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty. And we have never waged wars ON poor people.

If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.

It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.

Yeah. There is some painful truth in the speech. There's also a lot of crap.

I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion. I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now. He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution. I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.

There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.

Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true. If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah. no problem. I'm good with that."

TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good. I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too. But let's be objective about it on both sides. I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems. I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.

The difference is in how we go about it. And the process matters. Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.

 

[Liability]

The four photos above that propose to explain 'what went wrong' are interesting. It is particularly notable that the first three were very intelligent. Perhaps this shows that, as the fourth was the worst, unintelligent is even more dangerous.

False.

The ones to whom you assign such high marks for intellect were probably smart. Certainly Wilson had solid academic credentials. FDR? Not as much. And LBJ? Seriously? Please.

And your assessment of W is just dopey of you. You permit your partisan political hackery to lead you to conclude bullshit which you choose to believe. In fact, W was a smart guy. LBJ for all of his political acumen was a fucking failure of a President. FDR (to his credit) got us INTO WWII (or at least is recognized as having sought that result), but he crammed socialist type programs down the collective throat of America in violation of our Constitution and more than Wilson got us going down a very wrong path.

I disagree with CrusaderFrank's judgment on W, but at least he is objective enough to include guys from both sides of the aisle, politically.

 

[Douger]

The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now. I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.

But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.

Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world? Was it ever? If so, can it be again? How?

I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it. The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.

If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.

Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)

 

[Liability]

There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.

There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.

When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.

We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty. And we have never waged wars ON poor people.

If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.

It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.

Yeah. There is some painful truth in the speech. There's also a lot of crap.

I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion. I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now. He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution. I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.

You are correct. Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal. Or a Conservative.

Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.

False.

NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people. In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.

 

[Unkotare]

The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now. I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.

But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.

Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world? Was it ever? If so, can it be again? How?

I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it. The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.

If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.

Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)

You want so badly to be anti-American, but you are too much of a fucking dim-wit to do so in any but the most block-headed, unimaginative, repetitive manner. You are too much of a fucking idiot to even be as much of an asshole as you'd like to be. Pathetic.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.

As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.

 

[Liability]

It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.

As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.

W is certainly NOT the worst President. That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.

But now, the incumbent has run away with it.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR still holds the title as worst.

 

[Foxfyre]

There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.

There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.

When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.

We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty. And we have never waged wars ON poor people.

If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.

It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.

Yeah. There is some painful truth in the speech. There's also a lot of crap.

I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion. I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now. He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution. I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.

There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.

Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true. If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah. no problem. I'm good with that."

TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good. I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too. But let's be objective about it on both sides. I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems. I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.

The difference is in how we go about it. And the process matters. Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.

Again I call on fellow USMB members to not let this dissolve into another bashing session of any political figures or political party. I am NOT including Liability's post here in that request, however, as he is absolutely debating the concept of the OP. And I will now respond to it.

Liability, you may be right re the "War on Poverty" but I just didn't get the sense that he was referring to LBJ's signature legislation because of the context in which he included it. But we can amicably agree on different perceptions there. We can all argue the various postives and negatives we see in our country and whether we think these are increasing or decreasing. But public perception certainly seems to agree with the speaker in the OP:

In 2011:
The Hill: poll shows that more than 2/.3 of voters think the U.S. is declining
Fox News: 62% think the U.S. is in decline.
Politico: 4 in 10 Americans think U.S. is in permanent decline.
CBS-NYT: 39% think U.S. is in permament decline.

And according to a late 2011 Pew polll, in a nation that was created on a concept of American exceptionalism, only about 50% of Americans now see America as exceptional.

The Hill Poll: Voters say US is in decline - TheHill.com
Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline | Fox News
httphttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/19/charles-blow-and-the-hard-lefts-addled-view-of-american-exceptionalism/://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58097.html
Poll: American Exceptionalism in Decline, RealClearWorld - The Compass Blog

So for everybody, what has changed us as a people? Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that. We choose. We the people determine what is important to us. Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country? Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?

 

[Foxfyre]

However, in rebuttal to my own previous post, this essay in "The New Republic" makes a compelling argument that the USA is not in decline. It is a pretty long read though, but attributes those polls as mostly a national funk following the economic crash of 2008.

Excerpt:

Less than a decade ago, most observers spoke not of America’s decline but of its enduring primacy. In 2002, the historian Paul Kennedy, who in the late 1980s had written a much-discussed book on “the rise and fall of the great powers,” America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great “disparity of power” as between the United States and the rest of the world. Ikenberry agreed that “no other great power” had held “such formidable advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural, or political capabilities. . . .. . . . Did the fundamentals of America’s relative power shift so dramatically in just a few short years?

The answer is no. Let’s start with the basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy. . . .

Robert Kagan: Against The Myth Of American Decline | The New Republic

 

[there4eyeM]

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

The mention of White House shrubbery was only intended as a marker for how low things got.

 

[Foxfyre]

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

But what has changed? (If anything.) And why has it changed? Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance. We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not. Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens. The traditional family was the backbone of the nation. We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.

Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say. But those of us who lived it know it was real.

 

[High_Gravity]

The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now. I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.

But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.

Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world? Was it ever? If so, can it be again? How?

I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it. The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.

If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.

Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)

What an ignorant fucking post.

 

[Synthaholic]

I disagree with CrusaderFrank's judgment on W, but at least he is objective enough to include guys from both sides of the aisle, politically.

Some of us actually have vivid memories of CrusaderFrank supporting Dubya's every move, on Hannity's cesspool of a board.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion. I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now. He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution. I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.

You are correct. Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal. Or a Conservative.

Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.

False.

NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people. In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.

Laughable.

How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?

How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?


These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.

And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs. It is well documented.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still one more appeal for civility, gentlemen???? Please???? And one more appeal to conduct partisan politics on some other thread? Please????

 

[Synthaholic]

It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.

As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.

W is certainly NOT the worst President. That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.

But now, the incumbent has run away with it.

This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.