Proud to be American?

What does that matter to the average family if wages haven't increased proportionally?

That's a different matter entirely. He said that America was not wealthy anymore, and that's not the case.

Irrelevant...

I'd say it is relevant. When you use a purely subjective word like "better", your own subjective preferences become atleast relevant. I mean if you just say "better", I can respond with "Well I disagree with that opinion," or I can tell you that you're free to live in those countries if you'd like, if they really are better.

I never knew having a high GDP meant that.

I asked how America isn't free in response to you saying it's not free, and said that America has the highest GDP in response to you saying that America isn't wealthy. They weren't the same response, they were different.

Infrastructure. Well-maintained social services. Clear and transparent buyer/seller agreements.

I definitely don't have time at the moment to discuss this more, but with how social security and medicare are currently and stuff like that, I definitely can't deny that American infrastructure leaves a lot to be desired.

Anecdote.

Alright, if my anecdote is useless, then back up your original assertion.

Originally Posted by theunabletable

I'd say it is relevant. When you use a purely subjective word like "better", your own subjective preferences become atleast relevant. I mean if you just say "better", I can respond with "Well I disagree with that opinion," or I can tell you that you're free to live in those countries if you'd like, if they really are better.

You can disagree all you want, but the word "better" is not at all subjective. A person who got an A in school did better than the person who got a B. Purely objective.

I asked how America isn't free in response to you saying it's not free, and said that America has the highest GDP in response to you saying that America isn't wealthy. They weren't the same response, they were different.

Except America isn't wealthy. We house some big corporations, but do not think that they respect national borders at all. The distribution of wealth in America is the worst amongst countries that have a degree of wealth. So no, America isn't wealthy, even if the GDP is high. Venture capitalists and "job creators" are wealthy, but the rest of the country has nothing. By the way, the GDP is high in this country because it uses force. War and famine are how we force other countries to use the American dollar, thus reinforcing the American GDP. It's downright disgusting, really. In summary, the value of our domestic products rise when the international dollar is forced to be the US dollar. In fact, it leads into my reasoning as to why this country can sustain such massive deficits and not crumble like a cookie.

Alright, if my anecdote is useless, then back up your original assertion.

For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter - The Washington Post
Mexican ‘illegals’ leaving U.S. in droves, study finds - The Globe and Mail
Study: More Mexicans Leaving US than Entering
More Mexicans Are Now Leaving The U.S. Than Entering | ThinkProgress

Originally Posted by Nen desharu

I agree with you, Red Shadows.

What does Canada, Britain, and Scotland has that the United States does not have? There are many things. A truly democratic country has more than two major political parties.

I'd like to point out that Britain has a two party system almost as severely as America.

Major parties-
-the conservatives are weak to middling right wing.
-labour are weak to middling left wing.

Middling parties-
-Lib Dems were briefly a major party, but have largely deteriorated into a joke. They were mostly central.

Minor parties-
-UKIP are a group of insane little independence wanting ♥♥♥♥s who have got little to no clue about anything. They are middling right.
-The BNP are basically Nazis. I will defend this statement to the death.
-The Green party are a group of well-meaning but ultimately hopeless Eco lovers.

There are also other parties that have more power in Wales and scotland, but ultimately an English voter either votes for the conservatives or labour if they really want to make a difference, or possibly the lib dems if they seem popular at the time. All other parties are just throwing your vote away for a cause you believe in.


My point is thus- the two party system is not an American problem.

You can disagree all you want, but the word "better" is not at all subjective. A person who got an A in school did better than the person who got a B. Purely objective.

Did better "at getting an A in school than the person who got a B".

The word "better" is purely contextual, and in this instance (calling one nation "better" than another), it tries to apply to so much that it ends up losing any meaning at all.

Except America isn't wealthy. We house some big corporations, but do not think that they respect national borders at all. The distribution of wealth in America is the worst amongst countries that have a degree of wealth. So no, America isn't wealthy, even if the GDP is high.

Man, I don't want to get into semantics, because I get the idea you're going towards, but this really comes down to what definition you use for "wealthy" I suppose lol.

America has a lot of wealth, and I figured that was good enough to classify America as wealthy. If you want wealthy to mean "very equally distributed wealth among the population", that's fine, but it's certainly confusing lol.

I mean, certainly someone could use a statistic like this:

and say that America is wealthy.

Others could point out that there is relatively large wealth inequality in the United States and say that they aren't wealthy.

Neither of those statements are wrong, exactly. If our measurement of wealth is how much we own, America is wealthy. If our measurement of wealth is how even distributed our wealth is, America isn't particularly wealthy (although not particularly poor, in that regard either).

Of course it's all relative, as well. A country like Canada has a much higher GDP than Norway, but could be considered much poorer, due to its much lower GDP per capita.

I would say that maybe the solution isn't to decide what constitutes "better", but to instead avoid use of words that are without any clear meaning, and work towards identifying the problems various countries have, and how to fix them.

For instance, it's far more useful to be able to say "United States has relatively bad wealth equality, than it is to say "United States is not wealthy."

Oh and you never explained how America isn't free anymore c:

For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter - The Washington Post
Mexican ‘illegals’ leaving U.S. in droves, study finds - The Globe and Mail
Study: More Mexicans Leaving US than Entering
More Mexicans Are Now Leaving The U.S. Than Entering | ThinkProgress

It's also worth noting that the pewhispanic article those are based on describes it as more of a statistical "standstill" than flood away from America, and also notes that the huge increase in amount of deportations, as well as the increased border patrol, could be contributing factors.

Although you are correct that more left than came to America by a small margin, so fair enough, thanks for the source

Originally Posted by theunabletable

Did better "at getting an A in school than the person who got a B".

The word "better" is purely contextual, and in this instance (calling one nation "better" than another), it tries to apply to so much that it ends up losing any meaning at all.

I said better in pretty much every way. So better was being applied in context to many different things. My point still stands.

Man, I don't want to get into semantics, because I get the idea you're going towards, but this really comes down to what definition you use for "wealthy" I suppose lol.

If we're talking about who has more capital then yes, America is more wealthy than other countries.

America has a lot of wealth, and I figured that was good enough to classify America as wealthy. If you want wealthy to mean "very equally distributed wealth among the population", that's fine, but it's certainly confusing lol.

You don't understand. I'm saying this idea of wealth is an illusion that can shatter whenever things get bad. America doesn't have the capital - the corporations do. And they don't have borders. They are only in America now because it's convenient for them and they can use their excessive capital to influence the country. This is the heart of the point I'm arguing.

I mean, certainly someone could use a statistic like this:

and say that America is wealthy.

You definitely could, but I'm arguing something else completely.

Neither of those statements are wrong, exactly. If our measurement of wealth is how much we own, America is wealthy. If our measurement of wealth is how even distributed our wealth is, America isn't particularly wealthy (although not particularly poor, in that regard either).

See that's what I'm getting at. "We" don't own anything. Corporations with self-serving interests own everything.

I would say that maybe the solution isn't to decide what constitutes "better", but to instead avoid use of words that are without any clear meaning, and work towards identifying the problems various countries have, and how to fix them.

I was very clear in what I said, and the meaning behind my statement was very clear. Basically you're trying to dismiss my argument by saying "we should concentrate on this instead, thus making what you said XYZ".

For instance, it's far more useful to be able to say "United States has relatively bad wealth equality, than it is to say "United States is not wealthy."

But then you could be denying a possible truth. I don't get hung on words just to be PC.

Oh and you never explained how America isn't free anymore c:

Yes, and for a reason. I intend to continue that conversation with mattj.

It's also worth noting that the pewhispanic article those are based on describes it as more of a statistical "standstill" than flood away from America, and also notes that the huge increase in amount of deportations, as well as the increased border patrol, could be contributing factors.

Although you are correct that more left than came to America by a small margin, so fair enough, thanks for the source

The point was to show that there is change.

Also your data is 12 years old

Originally Posted by theunabletable

If we make sure our nation acts how our principles dictate, as well as everyone having that mindset, then it surely does represent these principles. It's an arbitrary political division, but if the way the division is formed is fueled by our principles, then is it not reasonable to say it might "represent" our principles? I guess it's hard to get in-depth without a clear definition of representation, and the other words used, but I think we both probably get the idea well enough that maybe it's not necessary?

If you agree that principles are more important than real estate, then why must you use a nation as a proxy for those principles? Would it not be better to say "I am proud of my principles" rather than "I'm proud of a country that I just happened to be born in, that just happens to currently share my principles right now, but probably didn't twenty years ago and probably won't in twenty years"? Trying to strongarm the concept of your nation into your principles and assume there's a strong correlation seems highly arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

A core disagreement I have here is that I do not define a nation by its principles. Principles are ever-changing things, and I think it is naive to assume that nations are embodiments of the principles they are founded on. I agree that people should live by principles and not by real estate, but principles are not what nations represent, nor do they represent ideology or moral behavior. Nations are arbitrary political divisions, and until we wrap our head around that fact, we will always be fighting for real estate, not actual moral principles, no matter how much we want to.

What was the United States at its conception but the manifestation of what those men strove to achieve? The system they desired to set in place was a system designed to serve the ideals which had driven the idea to become a reality. It was not simply an arbitrary line drawn around a particular plot of land, it was the fruit of a great labor along with a governing system in place to utilize the minds of reasonable men. That isn't arbitrary -- it is deliberate, and it doesn't exist as a concept, but a reality. That is why patriotism is a powerful tool in America -- it gives men the motivation and clarity needed to properly utilize the tools at their disposal.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

If you agree that principles are more important than real estate, then why must you use a nation as a proxy for those principles? Would it not be better to say "I am proud of my principles" rather than "I'm proud of a country that I just happened to be born in, that just happens to currently share my principles right now, but probably didn't twenty years ago and probably won't in twenty years"? Trying to strongarm the concept of your nation into your principles and assume there's a strong correlation seems highly arbitrary.

Because a nation is a powerful proxy. I would also like to point out that you need not be born in the United States to be an American Patriot. Further, what the sleazy politicians did this day or that day is not relevant to the core principles of a nation -- what it is relevant to is the weakness of man, and the parting of those men with the principles they are supposed to live and to uphold.

I don't strong-arm the United State's principles into my own, much like I do not strong-arm the principles found in Plato's republic into my own. There is no need.

man I am not in the mood to have a quote-war lol. I'll concede this argument

If you agree that principles are more important than real estate, then why must you use a nation as a proxy for those principles? Would it not be better to say "I am proud of my principles" rather than "I'm proud of a country that I just happened to be born in, that just happens to currently share my principles right now, but probably didn't twenty years ago and probably won't in twenty years"? Trying to strongarm the concept of your nation into your principles and assume there's a strong correlation seems highly arbitrary.

My nation isn't part of my principles, its core tenets share principles.

Is it that much different to be proud of your nation's founding principles, and that it came to those principles instead of others, as well as the actions they took, than it is to be proud of your favorite Chess player winning a match with an opening you like? Or different from being proud of your favorite sports team for doing well, or of your son for graduating college, etc?

I mean that's kind of what being proud of something is, right?

idk I'm not particularly clear I understand the objection. Is it that I don't have anything to gain from patriotism, and I might as well just have my own individual views, unrelated to my country? Which, if that is the case, I'd like to add that that is how I feel, but I don't think individualism and patriotism are at odds with each other.

Originally Posted by Bill

-Many people will see this as a positive, but America's rate of religiosity is much higher than other developed nations. Unsurprisingly, America lags behind other developed nations in social justice issues like granting the right of marriage to homosexual couples. Far fewer Americans accept the theory of evolution than other developed nations.

Actually America is very ahead of the majority of nations in same-sex marriage rights. In the UK it's illegal EVERYWHERE. In America, same-sex marriage is allowed in a few states and the majority of states recognize that marriage, even if they won't perform it. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden are the only nations that perform it everywhere in the country.

While it isn't nationally recognized/performed in the United States, popular support of it is rising fast. Assuming all of Europe counts as developed, that means America is above more than 20 nations in that right.

As for belief in evolution, that's hopefully changing soon. I would also like to see America become more of a science-based ideology place, but if it doesn't that's not worth my time to complain about. It's the right of people to choose their beliefs.

We can compare countries all day and i'ts never going to give us accurate results. Many things are relative, and the economy in every individual country is different in big and small ways. I realize I compared America to Europe in my last post but maybe it's not always what we should do.

With each country being different, many topics (including patriotism) is relative. Every country has generally a different history and economy. We may just want to stick to comparing patriotism within America, even though that sounds really stupid and isolated. I'm just thinking outloud...

Originally Posted by America

As for belief in evolution, that's hopefully changing soon. I would also like to see America become more of a science-based ideology place, but if it doesn't that's not worth my time to complain about. It's the right of people to choose their beliefs.

Not when their beliefs require that infringing upon the sovereignty of others. You might say that's not germane to the question of creationism, except for the fact that in the US creationism and ID are almost exclusively restricted to the Christian culture warrior demographic.

I am proud to be an American. As wacky and screwed as this nation gets sometimes, I'm fortunate to live in a nation where I don't have to worry about someone watching my every movement, finding means for sustenance or slave labor. I wouldn't want to live in any other country in the world (Canadians you snag a close second).

I would say that I'm at least fortunate to live in a country that is semi-stable right now. In England, I believe they're putting taxes on virtually everything, and in the Middle East, things are just screwed up. Right now, yeah, the US is a big target for hate from other countries and we're a huge war machine, but we stay alive.

I hate when threads like these pop up (even though they're great threads with a good question) because they're basically asking whether you like the country or not. You should never really ask that about any person living in any country, because a man should have faith in his home. You wouldn't want to trash your house and insult it all the time, just as you wouldn't with your local sports team. If it's your home, you should damn well support it. If it just gets negative feedback from its citizens, it will fall apart even more than you know.

So yes, I'm proud to be an American. As long as it stays my home and country, it stays on my #1 spot.

I am most certianly proud to be an American.

In fact, to answer this question it is important to know what it is to be American. I see being an American as representing the values that our country stands for. Deeply rooted in our constitution and even the declaration of independance is a promise of opportunity and of equality. These principles founded off past scholars such as John Locke, are what we use to define ourselves. We see the proof in this for America is still a hot spot for immigration.

Despite some of America's darker moments, we have been a benefit to the world. We have stood as a beacon of democracy, and a ray of hope for lesser nations. Our actions in both world wars and in the cold war (despite its selfish motives) helped most of europe and some of asia. It is true that America is a war machine and that it is overstretching its boundaries. However, if you look at the dense history of this country, and see how far it has come and how far it has yet to go, you will truly come to appreciate what our flag stands for.

I'm pretty proud to live in America. I mean, we have survived a lot of wars... Yeah, we may not have the best government, but just about every country has government problems. I think... I don't really pay attention to government or politics at all. I think we do live in a pretty good place to live, so I think I can say I am very proud to be American.

Patriotism is ridiculous. We're all human beings. The fact that we live in one place instead of another is utterly irrelevant, especially given that we're on top of each other from a cosmic perspective.

From Mars Earth is just a speck. Not even the size of a dust mote. Does it really matter which part of a grain of sand you come from?

What's more, barring a few exceptions, you are not responsible for what your country has done in the past, nor are you somehow responsible for the success of its sports teams or armies most of the time.

I remember a question on one of those online political quizzes asking if you agree with the statement "you don't choose the country of your birth so it's foolish to be proud of it." That statement essentially sums up my view. I didn't choose to be an American. I just happened to be born in that country. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be an American. The country I happen to live in does not measure my self worth as a person.

Now it's different if you ask me if I like or dislike living in American. There are things I both like and dislike about my country. I don't agree with some of the politics. I think we should have a universal health care system like the majority of developed nations. I am opposed to the Iraq War. I think my political views more left liberal leaning than the majority of people here. Yet there are things I like about living in America. I admit that I like living in a highly developed country where we have access to enough food and clean water and where most of the population can read and write.

Originally Posted by John

Patriotism is ridiculous. We're all human beings. The fact that we live in one place instead of another is utterly irrelevant, especially given that we're on top of each other from a cosmic perspective.

Our human lives aren't on a cosmic perspective. When you put things in context, things like patriotism are highly meaningful.

Originally Posted by John

From Mars Earth is just a speck. Not even the size of a dust mote. Does it really matter which part of a grain of sand you come from?

Sure, earth is merely a speck when viewed from mars, but from Poland, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were quite a big deal.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

Our human lives aren't on a cosmic perspective. When you put things in context, things like patriotism are highly meaningful.

No, they don't become any more meaningful. Why does it matter what speck of Earth you happen to be standing or born on? When you look at someone your first thought should be that they're a fellow human, not that they happened to be born on the other side of a drop of water.

All patriotism ever seems to do is pit brother against brother for stupid, petty, myopic nonsense. You're proud of your country? Why? What has your country done that human beings haven't? As soon as someone draws a line on a piece of paper, suddenly it becomes "us" on one side and "them" on the other, and we'll justify a hell of a lot if we thinks it helps us while hurting them.

It's stupid. It's destructive. It serves no purpose. It's our tribal instincts gone mad and given guns.

Sure, earth is merely a speck when viewed from mars, but from Poland, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were quite a big deal.

My point exactly, really. Germany was so fixed on people being better because they came from the right part of the planet. The USSR hated its own citizens, but it hated non-citizens even more, which is ridiculous.

I doubt we'll ever get rid of "us" vs. "them" thinking, but we certainly shouldn't be proud of it.

I like the landscape and some of the people in this land, but I don't know if proud is the right way to describe my feelings. I am happy, and feel blessed because I was born here, but I don't feel proud.

I kind of would be proud if the concept of ownership didn't exist, and I could live wherever I felt like. Cause I would be all over Yellowstone. Like seriously, that place is beautiful.