<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Oct 8 2004, 11:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Oct 8 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your economy is effective as it is completely liberated. However, this tends to hit the "underlings" in your country.
Also, you have not much in terms of welfare. If someone is not able to work or take measures for his pension, he can shoot himself on the spot.
As for the political, and civil freedom...? patriot act? anybody?
Its not actually a sign of freedom when the intelligence agencies are legally allowed to check your Internet logs, the books you read in the library, listen to your phonecalls with nothing more than "be under suspicion", or is allowed to arrest you without formal charges.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We empower our poor citizens by state welfare, however depending on your state that you live in it's only so much and for so long. ( I think it's state dependant) The welfare then allows citizens to get back on their feet and make a new living.
It doens't hit underlings as much as allows them to escape the life of crap. I can't even imagine being poor in a welfare state and being unable to make it as I have few positions to work my way up the ladder and being forced to rely on the government and not myself. Sounds like a nightmare.
Patriot Act? We get a lot of press about things that start to look bad, but in truth aren't. The patriot act won't even affect 99.9% of our citizens. And for those it does actually effect, here are the "horrible" consequences:
- You are pulled into a room. Interrogated. Released.
"Guys total injustice! I want my 3 hours of my life back!"
Rediculous.
Also, checking my internet logs? Who cares? It's used by advirtising companies to find what people like. Books you read? That's so if you commit a crime people can see what you read before you did the crime.
Listen to my phonecalls? Wow, the government hears my private conversation which has NOTHING to do with them! Like they (or I) could care.
Remember, the founders of our consititution did not consider freedom of privacy to be a right, because it's only relevent to those who wish to make up a false issue in an attempt to win votes (and therefore power).
"Guys, they are taking away your privacy. Vote for me and I'll give it back." I look at that and give a hearty "lol" because I know I'm not dumb enough to fall into the guise of something that looks like an important issue but in reality is worthless.
Arrest you without formal charges? Big deal, what are they going to do, hold you in a room and sit there with you? These cops have lives too, you know, and they don't want to waste them sitting next to a random dude. They can't actually do anything to you untill they find out something to prosecute you on. Just because they can bring in people that fit the racial and ethic requirements for a possible terrorist isn't that bad at all.
It's only a matter of time before the law is removed, and the patriot act is far less of a reaction by our government then say:
- The red scare prosectutions (1910) - McCarty presectutions (1950) - Alien and Sedition Acts (1795) <These ones were funny, you could tossed out of the country> - Draft (1917-1960ish) - etc. etc. etc.
And nation master isn't a site that takes things lightly. Everything they say is factual, and for their democracy ratings i believe they apply general standards to what makes a country free or not and the USA got a 6 out of 6. I'm not surprised, why are you?
wow i started this thread and i hardly speak in it, i didn't think it would last this long and i have nothing to add to the conversation but please do keep it up <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I really cba reading this thread since the topic makes no sence
England has its of monarchy? Cool where have you been hiding them? Cause the only royal family I could find anything about was these lot
<img src='http://www.thegordonsworld.co.uk/PHOTO_IMAGES/LONDON/ROYAL_FAMILY_1.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> (yes they are wax works, google image search)
^^ As I belive these are the UK royal family not englands royals.
Anyways I think they should be removed, they play no major part in the nations syke any more. We only see the queen at christmas when all we want to watch is another 'Christmas carol' performed by muppets <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 8 2004, 09:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 8 2004, 09:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, the thing about gross generalisations was a god-damn joke. Look at it again. I said "<i>everyone</i> stop generalising". It was pointed at cannon_fodder anyway, since he was the one saying "I hate conservatives".
Second, that link you gave shows that both Canada and Australia are ranked above the US, so I don't know how that was supposed to support your point; unless you were trying to be funny too (just as successfully as me, it would seem).
and anyway, since when have US citizens had more civil and political freedoms than Canada and Australia? That is... ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, there is no standard means of ranking countries in terms of civil and political freedoms anyway: but if you can show me, definitively, that US citizens have more civil and political freedoms than Australian and Canadian citizens, I will be the first too apologise. Unless you post it while I'm asleep, or at work, in which case I might be one or two down from the first. However so far the only proof you have given us to that effect is in fact not to that effect at all.
I already said that america had more power; if I didn't, I also meant to say that, of course, america has a lot more money and economic power. Maybe I should have been more specific.
<!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 8 2004, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 8 2004, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 8 2004, 09:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 8 2004, 09:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, the thing about gross generalisations was a god-damn joke. Look at it again. I said "<i>everyone</i> stop generalising". It was pointed at cannon_fodder anyway, since he was the one saying "I hate conservatives".
Second, that link you gave shows that both Canada and Australia are ranked above the US, so I don't know how that was supposed to support your point; unless you were trying to be funny too (just as successfully as me, it would seem).
and anyway, since when have US citizens had more civil and political freedoms than Canada and Australia? That is... ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, there is no standard means of ranking countries in terms of civil and political freedoms anyway: but if you can show me, definitively, that US citizens have more civil and political freedoms than Australian and Canadian citizens, I will be the first too apologise. Unless you post it while I'm asleep, or at work, in which case I might be one or two down from the first. However so far the only proof you have given us to that effect is in fact not to that effect at all.
I already said that america had more power; if I didn't, I also meant to say that, of course, america has a lot more money and economic power. Maybe I should have been more specific.
EDIT: removed pointless pdf of UN-HDI <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They aren't listed in any particular order buddy
They are all ranked 6 out of 6... does it look like it's in any order?
If nationmaster wanted to specifiy even further I'm sure they would have had the originality of coming up with a <b>7, or 8, or even a 9!</b> to further differentiate between the nations in terms of civil liberties.
They did come up with a 7... they're ranked 6 out of 7. Gawd knows what that means, but read the text at the bottom of the page:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Definition: Civil and political liberties Units: Index Ranging from 7 (High Levels of Liberties) to 1 (Low Units: This is the average of two indicators - civil liberties and political liberties.
Source: Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2000-2001, New York: Freedom House, 2001,http://www.freedomhouse.org/, accessed 26 October 2001. via ciesin.org<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how could you have thought it wasn't a ranking? It's not exactly in alphabetical order. It is a ranking, and a ranking that clearly shows that Australia and Canada have more civil and political lliberties. Which wasn't even my point: my point was that cannon_fodder was merely expressing his preference for quality of life (not civil liberties...) over "power".
<!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 9 2004, 02:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 9 2004, 02:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and lower still it says:
"Table shows international ranking by country"...
how could you have thought it wasn't a ranking? It's not exactly in alphabetical order. It is a ranking, and a ranking that clearly shows that Australia and Canada have more civil and political lliberties. Which wasn't even my point: my point was that cannon_fodder was merely expressing his preference for quality of life (not civil liberties...) over "power". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I still don't think it means crap. They all have a 6 man, and that's the bottom line. It's ranked all the same but a bit higher?
EDIT/Elaboration: You were the one who supplied this set of rankings as evidence for your point and now you turn around and say that it's "insignificant"? Interesting...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They all have a 6 man, and that's the bottom line. It's ranked all the same but a bit higher?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so what you are saying here is that because the rankings are close on a larger scale, then the fact that one is definitively ranked ahead of the other isn't the point? Interesting...
Scale is important as it shows us relative distances (in the rankings) between the two. If you were looking at only USA, Canada and Australia as a ranking thing or a scale of 1 to 10 (or 1 to 7?) then you would find a distinct difference, but this is a ranking of the top 100 countries. One Hundred. Not Three. Thus the scale has to be created to fit in ALL the countries that it intends to be ranking.
I would think it "means much" if it had a tag at the bottom of it saying "the one at the top is more important because it's a ranking".
I would also think it "means much" if someone else used that ranking to say that, for instance, the USA was better than France at that sport, when in fact the evidence that they provide proves otherwise.
Assuming I use your way of thinking about this ranking (your new way, at least) then what you are saying is that because the Australia, Canada, NZ and USA were all given a 6, then they are of exactly equal stature in terms of civil and political liberties?
If so, then how can the USA then have INHERENTLY MORE CIVIC AND POLITICAL LIBERTIES, if you've already said that they are the same? This, however, is not important, because it begs the question that the USA, Australia and Canada are on exactly equal par in terms of civil and political liberties, which is absurd, and more than that:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assuming I use your way of thinking about this ranking (your new way, at least) then what you are saying is that because the Australia, Canada, NZ and USA were all given a 6, then they are of exactly equal stature in terms of civil and political liberties?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are all equal within insignificant differences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If so, then how can the USA then have INHERENTLY MORE CIVIC AND POLITICAL LIBERTIES, if you've already said that they are the same? This, however, is not important, because it begs the question that the USA, Australia and Canada are on exactly equal par in terms of civil and political liberties, which is absurd, and more than that:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 10 2004, 04:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 10 2004, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assuming I use your way of thinking about this ranking (your new way, at least) then what you are saying is that because the Australia, Canada, NZ and USA were all given a 6, then they are of exactly equal stature in terms of civil and political liberties?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are all equal within insignificant differences.
All I said was:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is completely true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They are not all equal within insignificant differences, otherwise they wouldn't have been ranked, they would have just been grouped in accordance with their number.
Anyway, it's not true. We've discussed this already.
But if you want to play the "that's not what my argument was; here let me repost it" game, then don't forget that my point wasn't that the USA had more economic power, but that cannon fodder's preference would be to live in a country with a better Quality Of Life (NB not standard of living), as opposed to having the "power".
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your economy is effective as it is completely liberated. However, this tends to hit the "underlings" in your country.
Also, you have not much in terms of welfare. If someone is not able to work or take measures for his pension, he can shoot himself on the spot.
As for the political, and civil freedom...? patriot act? anybody?
Its not actually a sign of freedom when the intelligence agencies are legally allowed to check your Internet logs, the books you read in the library, listen to your phonecalls with nothing more than "be under suspicion", or is allowed to arrest you without formal charges.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We empower our poor citizens by state welfare, however depending on your state that you live in it's only so much and for so long. ( I think it's state dependant) The welfare then allows citizens to get back on their feet and make a new living.
It doens't hit underlings as much as allows them to escape the life of crap. I can't even imagine being poor in a welfare state and being unable to make it as I have few positions to work my way up the ladder and being forced to rely on the government and not myself. Sounds like a nightmare.
Patriot Act? We get a lot of press about things that start to look bad, but in truth aren't. The patriot act won't even affect 99.9% of our citizens. And for those it does actually effect, here are the "horrible" consequences:
- You are pulled into a room. Interrogated. Released.
"Guys total injustice! I want my 3 hours of my life back!"
Rediculous.
Also, checking my internet logs? Who cares? It's used by advirtising companies to find what people like. Books you read? That's so if you commit a crime people can see what you read before you did the crime.
Listen to my phonecalls? Wow, the government hears my private conversation which has NOTHING to do with them! Like they (or I) could care.
Remember, the founders of our consititution did not consider freedom of privacy to be a right, because it's only relevent to those who wish to make up a false issue in an attempt to win votes (and therefore power).
"Guys, they are taking away your privacy. Vote for me and I'll give it back." I look at that and give a hearty "lol" because I know I'm not dumb enough to fall into the guise of something that looks like an important issue but in reality is worthless.
Arrest you without formal charges? Big deal, what are they going to do, hold you in a room and sit there with you? These cops have lives too, you know, and they don't want to waste them sitting next to a random dude. They can't actually do anything to you untill they find out something to prosecute you on. Just because they can bring in people that fit the racial and ethic requirements for a possible terrorist isn't that bad at all.
It's only a matter of time before the law is removed, and the patriot act is far less of a reaction by our government then say:
- The red scare prosectutions (1910)
- McCarty presectutions (1950)
- Alien and Sedition Acts (1795) <These ones were funny, you could tossed out of the country>
- Draft (1917-1960ish)
- etc. etc. etc.
And nation master isn't a site that takes things lightly. Everything they say is factual, and for their democracy ratings i believe they apply general standards to what makes a country free or not and the USA got a 6 out of 6. I'm not surprised, why are you?
England has its of monarchy? Cool where have you been hiding them? Cause the only royal family I could find anything about was these lot
<img src='http://www.thegordonsworld.co.uk/PHOTO_IMAGES/LONDON/ROYAL_FAMILY_1.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
(yes they are wax works, google image search)
^^ As I belive these are the UK royal family not englands royals.
Anyways I think they should be removed, they play no major part in the nations syke any more. We only see the queen at christmas when all we want to watch is another 'Christmas carol' performed by muppets <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps
Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib' target='_blank'>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib</a>
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, the thing about gross generalisations was a god-damn joke. Look at it again. I said "<i>everyone</i> stop generalising". It was pointed at cannon_fodder anyway, since he was the one saying "I hate conservatives".
Second, that link you gave shows that both Canada and Australia are ranked above the US, so I don't know how that was supposed to support your point; unless you were trying to be funny too (just as successfully as me, it would seem).
and anyway, since when have US citizens had more civil and political freedoms than Canada and Australia? That is... ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, there is no standard means of ranking countries in terms of civil and political freedoms anyway: but if you can show me, definitively, that US citizens have more civil and political freedoms than Australian and Canadian citizens, I will be the first too apologise. Unless you post it while I'm asleep, or at work, in which case I might be one or two down from the first. However so far the only proof you have given us to that effect is in fact not to that effect at all.
I already said that america had more power; if I didn't, I also meant to say that, of course, america has a lot more money and economic power. Maybe I should have been more specific.
EDIT: removed pointless pdf of UN-HDI
SCOTLAND is NOT england
WALES is NOT england
NORTHERN IRELAND is NOT england
I guess your government thinks if they don't teach you about geography then you won't care which country it is you are blowing up...
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=UK' target='_blank'>READ</a>
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps
Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib' target='_blank'>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib</a>
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, the thing about gross generalisations was a god-damn joke. Look at it again. I said "<i>everyone</i> stop generalising". It was pointed at cannon_fodder anyway, since he was the one saying "I hate conservatives".
Second, that link you gave shows that both Canada and Australia are ranked above the US, so I don't know how that was supposed to support your point; unless you were trying to be funny too (just as successfully as me, it would seem).
and anyway, since when have US citizens had more civil and political freedoms than Canada and Australia? That is... ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, there is no standard means of ranking countries in terms of civil and political freedoms anyway: but if you can show me, definitively, that US citizens have more civil and political freedoms than Australian and Canadian citizens, I will be the first too apologise. Unless you post it while I'm asleep, or at work, in which case I might be one or two down from the first. However so far the only proof you have given us to that effect is in fact not to that effect at all.
I already said that america had more power; if I didn't, I also meant to say that, of course, america has a lot more money and economic power. Maybe I should have been more specific.
EDIT: removed pointless pdf of UN-HDI <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They aren't listed in any particular order buddy
If nationmaster wanted to specifiy even further I'm sure they would have had the originality of coming up with a <b>7, or 8, or even a 9!</b> to further differentiate between the nations in terms of civil liberties.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Definition: Civil and political liberties
Units: Index Ranging from 7 (High Levels of Liberties) to 1 (Low
Units: This is the average of two indicators - civil liberties and political liberties.
Source: Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2000-2001, New York: Freedom House, 2001,http://www.freedomhouse.org/, accessed 26 October 2001. via ciesin.org<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Table shows international ranking by country"...
how could you have thought it wasn't a ranking? It's not exactly in alphabetical order. It is a ranking, and a ranking that clearly shows that Australia and Canada have more civil and political lliberties. Which wasn't even my point: my point was that cannon_fodder was merely expressing his preference for quality of life (not civil liberties...) over "power".
"Table shows international ranking by country"...
how could you have thought it wasn't a ranking? It's not exactly in alphabetical order. It is a ranking, and a ranking that clearly shows that Australia and Canada have more civil and political lliberties. Which wasn't even my point: my point was that cannon_fodder was merely expressing his preference for quality of life (not civil liberties...) over "power". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still don't think it means crap. They all have a 6 man, and that's the bottom line. It's ranked all the same but a bit higher?
I really think that the ranking is insignificant.
EDIT/Elaboration: You were the one who supplied this set of rankings as evidence for your point and now you turn around and say that it's "insignificant"? Interesting...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They all have a 6 man, and that's the bottom line. It's ranked all the same but a bit higher?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> so what you are saying here is that because the rankings are close on a larger scale, then the fact that one is definitively ranked ahead of the other isn't the point? Interesting...
Scale is important as it shows us relative distances (in the rankings) between the two. If you were looking at only USA, Canada and Australia as a ranking thing or a scale of 1 to 10 (or 1 to 7?) then you would find a distinct difference, but this is a ranking of the top 100 countries. One Hundred. Not Three. Thus the scale has to be created to fit in ALL the countries that it intends to be ranking.
Lets say you have five countries win the olympic gold medals in an event:
USA, Germany, France, England, Sweeden
And they are listed in this order:
1. Germany
2. France
3. Sweeden
4. USA
5. England
Do you honestly think it means much? They all won the gold...
I would also think it "means much" if someone else used that ranking to say that, for instance, the USA was better than France at that sport, when in fact the evidence that they provide proves otherwise.
Assuming I use your way of thinking about this ranking (your new way, at least) then what you are saying is that because the Australia, Canada, NZ and USA were all given a 6, then they are of exactly equal stature in terms of civil and political liberties?
If so, then how can the USA then have INHERENTLY MORE CIVIC AND POLITICAL LIBERTIES, if you've already said that they are the same? This, however, is not important, because it begs the question that the USA, Australia and Canada are on exactly equal par in terms of civil and political liberties, which is absurd, and more than that:
It's Wrong.
EDIT: punctuation
They are all equal within insignificant differences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If so, then how can the USA then have INHERENTLY MORE CIVIC AND POLITICAL LIBERTIES, if you've already said that they are the same? This, however, is not important, because it begs the question that the USA, Australia and Canada are on exactly equal par in terms of civil and political liberties, which is absurd, and more than that:
It's Wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who ever said they had more? All I said was:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is completely true.
They are all equal within insignificant differences.
All I said was:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is completely true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not all equal within insignificant differences, otherwise they wouldn't have been ranked, they would have just been grouped in accordance with their number.
Anyway, it's not true. We've discussed this already.
But if you want to play the "that's not what my argument was; here let me repost it" game, then don't forget that my point wasn't that the USA had more economic power, but that cannon fodder's preference would be to live in a country with a better Quality Of Life (NB not standard of living), as opposed to having the "power".