The best thing about the USA is the Redwood trees. Ooooops another java script error. How unfortunate.
Say something positive about the USA
- Thread starter MutantScalper
- Start date
Some decent people is from there.
I also admire alot of U.S citizens work ethic.
I also admire alot of U.S citizens work ethic.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Once while cycling in the Central Business District here, I had stopped for the light (because one is supposed to, and it's implicit from affirming to obey traffic rules... and because the habit is life saving)... a driver rolled down their window and exclaimed that I was the first person in this city that they had seen actually stop for the traffic light as one is supposed to.
Here we have a serious problem not only of nutter cyclists, but also equally nutter three wheeled pedal cabs, and mopeds, and motorcyclists—and mule drawn carriages the size of UPS trucks; "Mules don't care about stop lights" they'll say at you as they run the intersection, or even 180° turn in the middle of them.
*But of course pedestrians are the absolute worst of them all. The elderly are what stuns, they have been alive long enough to know better, and they still act like kids in the street. One wonders how they have survived to their present age behaving like that in traffic.
Envious of that.. I wish I could have seen it. It needs to happen here a lot—and it never does. I have had nutcases on bikes run stop signs and pedal in front of me (driving @ 56kph) laughing over their shoulder, and/or flipping the bird.
This city is littered with [hundreds of] spray-painted bicycle memorials where someone (or many someones) got themselves hit by a car.
Last edited:
Yeah ... we have some of those "Ghost Bikes" here in Munich as well.
Couple years ago, the river was exceptionally low (scorching hot summer, who'd a thunk!) and the river bottom is just *covered* with bicycles - just covered! In some areas, it was *thick* with bicycles, just piled on top of each others, and in other areas it was thin, just a bicycle here and there, but seriously hundreds of them!
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
I learn more USA geography every day thanks to Fallout.
It's amazing how much climate variety that entire place got.
It's amazing how much climate variety that entire place got.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I AM NOT SOUTHWEST RUSSIA.
cronicler
Lurksalot
It's existence is actually founded on laws agreed upon by it's citizens and actual citizenship; as opposed to top down fiat and subjects.
It will survive whereas almost all others will wilt and wither on the vine as the environmental conditions change..
It will survive whereas almost all others will wilt and wither on the vine as the environmental conditions change..
I love the cars from the 30's. The headlamps/lights and the grilles remind me of 
grinning emojifications
grinning emojifications
T
TorontoReign
Guest
The best thing about the USA is how great our propaganda indoctrinated everyone into thinking it was different than large parts of Europe. It's not really and nothing is special about the constitution when you can just amend it.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Nelson W. Aldrich said:
@TorontoReign Delete if you deem it to be necessary. I went down the rabbit hole again ..
Same happened to the Reich
'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. ' - George Santayana
Let me tell a story:
Once there was a small settlement in a sparsely populated region. This settlement began to grow, both in size and population.
At some point, the people became tired of being ruled by a tyrannical king, so they overthrew the king and instituted a new government, passing laws through a representative legislative body.
The settlement continued to grow. They basically said “Come here. Get a new start. As long as you’re willing to fully integrate into our society, we welcome you!”
This worked until one man decided to he wanted to greatly increase his power, and ignored the legal restrictions placed on him. This caused massive internal strife, led to the rise of powerful rulers again, and broke down the balances of power.
This society extended its rule over a vast territory.
After a couple centuries, one of these rulers decided “It doesn’t really matter your background. If you live in this society, you get to vote!” ignoring whether or not the people outside the original settlement had the best interests of this society at heart, or were just looking for quick benefit. The outsiders could outvote the original citizens.
This society came crashing down shortly afterwards.
Am I talking about Rome, or the United States?
Republicans who learned nothing from the 20th century.
In the 1930s, thin Hitler, a murderous tyrant, rose to power in Germany. His approval rating towards the end of that decade were through the roof. Many ‘good’ Germans worshipped him as the strong leader they believed Germany needed.
Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and many ‘good’ US Americans embraced another tyrant, fat Hitler, believing him to be the country's salvation.
The turn to fascism never turns out well.
Its Rome 2. And Rome, fell ..
Same happened to the Reich
'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. ' - George Santayana
Let me tell a story:
Once there was a small settlement in a sparsely populated region. This settlement began to grow, both in size and population.
At some point, the people became tired of being ruled by a tyrannical king, so they overthrew the king and instituted a new government, passing laws through a representative legislative body.
The settlement continued to grow. They basically said “Come here. Get a new start. As long as you’re willing to fully integrate into our society, we welcome you!”
This worked until one man decided to he wanted to greatly increase his power, and ignored the legal restrictions placed on him. This caused massive internal strife, led to the rise of powerful rulers again, and broke down the balances of power.
This society extended its rule over a vast territory.
After a couple centuries, one of these rulers decided “It doesn’t really matter your background. If you live in this society, you get to vote!” ignoring whether or not the people outside the original settlement had the best interests of this society at heart, or were just looking for quick benefit. The outsiders could outvote the original citizens.
This society came crashing down shortly afterwards.
Am I talking about Rome, or the United States?
Republicans who learned nothing from the 20th century.
In the 1930s, thin Hitler, a murderous tyrant, rose to power in Germany. His approval rating towards the end of that decade were through the roof. Many ‘good’ Germans worshipped him as the strong leader they believed Germany needed.
Fast forward to the second decade of the 21st century and many ‘good’ US Americans embraced another tyrant, fat Hitler, believing him to be the country's salvation.
The turn to fascism never turns out well.
Last edited:
cronicler
Lurksalot
Sigh... Toronto, US constitution is fundamentally different from any other similar document on earth.
Almost if not all other comparable documents are lists of "permissions" and "prohibitions" their subjects are restricted to; and in most cases, it's not expressly written & permitted in the document, then the subjects are prohibited to do "it".
US constitution on the other hand is the complete reverse, it details what the US Federal Gov is permitted to do and actually prohibits it from molesting other topics, which are the purview of individual states, which allows for discussion and decisions much closer to home.
Yes, people have been lax and let the system to be subverted but because the foundation is strong, things can be pruned and fixed back to a balanced distribution whereas in places with the reverse mentality and weak or easily rewritable (by a this or that "class" of the country) or even not-existing (Hi UK) protections... Well, we are watching demagogues, mandarins and robber barons take over and impose their will on their subjects, From China to Oceania to EU to S.A. to Canada.
I think you are dismissing the fundamental difference too readily.
cronicler
Lurksalot
P-W T?
Thank you soo much for forcing me to defend DJT. /s
What you are showing us is NOT the reality but editorialized propaganda. Forex, lets take a deeper look at your last picture of DJT and the juicy soundbyte about "animals";
The guy calls MS13 gangbangers and their ilk "animals", yes, the meta conversation is about unlawful immigrants BUT this specific sentence isn't about the whole but a very specific subset of it, the Mexican Cartels and Gangs.
Look, I don't know you at all but if you have any... knowledge on how MS13 and Post-2013 Cartels are operating and you don't think these people don't deserve highest penalties/punishments than there isn't much I can say to you to make you change your mind.
Coming up to the picture above, we have
-Racism... Sure, the guy that opened his establishments to everyone regardless of race and went against the southern "Democrat" norms is the racist one. Same goes for his hiring policies which is ruthlessly meritocratic.
-Mass Deportations; When one breaks law, the state is supposed to punish and in this case the punishment is deportations. State CANNOT do selective application of Laws or the "Rule of Law" gets eroded and you end up with a banana republic. There is a reason Justice "has to" be blind.
If you want to stop deportations, the proper way is to change the friggin law of the land (aka get the congress off it's fat ass and start doing it's job which it has been abrogating since around mid 90s), not stop "selectively" applying whatever law you find distasteful.
-...Rising tide lifts all boats? what's the issue here?
-Anti-Muslim Fascist... And I laugh in Saudi Salafi, Iranian Shia and Pakistani/Afghani Hanafi.
-Forcing 6X output from systems that are configured for 1X output tends to break the social and public systems... you know...
-Again, with the outright fabricated propaganda?
Seriously... Almost everything published in MSM, including the extreme orange colour saturation is either and editorial mistelling or an outright fabrication. Hell, there are thousands upon thousands of issues that you, we can criticize the man and his administration about but every point you bring up and yet, we are still here, having to defend the man because of the constant lies and slander.
Please, before you post anything, try to find the actual transcript of the original incident because you will discover that what you think is the truth... Isn't.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I know that. Why would you think I did not know that? I'm not sucking the dick of this country any longer sorry. Yay we have a slightly different piece of paper nobody gives a shit about. Great.
Yeah, that it is far older than most others and thus more fallible. As we've recently seen with the Supreme Court.
It's still bafling how someone seriously could go around in this day and age look at something and think, hmmm how can I apply this law like it was 1787.
WhAT WoULd ThE FouNDinG FaTHers SaY=!
Nothing Bob. They would say noting. Because they are fucking dead.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The USA have a lot of flaws, but also have a lot of satirical works. Some countries might arguably have less flaws, but it would be harder to openly criticize them.
They really really really have hard time to admit it, but the USA, Canada and some other, are fully immigrant countries, born and nurtured by dozen of different cultures and ethnicities, which actually makes the country more interesting.
They really really really have hard time to admit it, but the USA, Canada and some other, are fully immigrant countries, born and nurtured by dozen of different cultures and ethnicities, which actually makes the country more interesting.
cronicler
Lurksalot
Crni... can you please explain how walking back a false/politically expedient/untrue decision and restricting the Federal government's overreach is a bad call?
The original decision was wrong when it was politically produced and was still wrong when it was finally struck down. This is an issue that individual states should be deciding upon, not a top down lawfare forced fiat decision/decree; how is this a "wrong" call?
And, please do spare us the appeals to emotion. The politicians who are the loudest in proclaiming the tyranny of law had "50" years to actually pass the required laws through the systems and actually "fix" this issue properly and yet, they abandoned it the moment it was forced down via fiat and stopped getting them votes.
Here is a unique line of thought; stuff build on sand will collapse under it's own weight, even before we factor in the external stimuli. Why not try building things up properly upon the actual solid foundations US has?
Also, I see your "fallible" and raise you "so simple, straightforward that even a modern day 5th grader can grok it and yet, it actually still works". If you want to see something actually "fallible", try taking a real look at what's happening up north in Canukistan.
The original decision was wrong when it was politically produced and was still wrong when it was finally struck down. This is an issue that individual states should be deciding upon, not a top down lawfare forced fiat decision/decree; how is this a "wrong" call?
And, please do spare us the appeals to emotion. The politicians who are the loudest in proclaiming the tyranny of law had "50" years to actually pass the required laws through the systems and actually "fix" this issue properly and yet, they abandoned it the moment it was forced down via fiat and stopped getting them votes.
Here is a unique line of thought; stuff build on sand will collapse under it's own weight, even before we factor in the external stimuli. Why not try building things up properly upon the actual solid foundations US has?
Also, I see your "fallible" and raise you "so simple, straightforward that even a modern day 5th grader can grok it and yet, it actually still works". If you want to see something actually "fallible", try taking a real look at what's happening up north in Canukistan.
I would so love to Wtfitfas your post because you literaly don't see the forrest for the trees.
f the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
- Abraham Lincoln
Right now, the Supreme Court has proven that it has more "say" over the country, as a board of 7 people which is put in place for decades than a Congress voted in by the people consisting of hundreds of Senators. The seperation of powers is not meant to be a place where one Power runs ammok or is exploiting the grind-lock of the other branches. Not to mention that right now you have also justices that are some serious lying sacks of shit with very extreme religious views. And they use those to make decisions. At least one judge already mentioned that several "other" decisions should be checked as well, cuz guess what? TheY ArE NoT PRoTecTED bY dA cONstITutIOn. I quote :
Justice Clarence Thomas once was an outlier for his legal views. But Thomas is now the heart of the Court’s conservative bloc, and his concurring opinion in the recent abortion ruling calls out some other precedents the Court might overturn. (...) It articulates a view more extreme than Justice Alito’s majority opinion, saying that other rights derived from privacy—such as contraception and same-sex intimacy—are not constitutional rights at all. “We have to remember he’s been saying it out loud for quite some time,” Suk Gersen says. “This is not a new thing from Justice Thomas. It’s just that we normally—over decades—didn’t pay that much attention to him, because he was alone in his dissents and concurrences.”
You know. Even ethnic segregation could be justified under the constitution. I guess Jim Crow Laws should be up to the State! No? Or what about Marriage for all? Not part of the constitution I am afraid.
No seriously though. It's not only the US that has an issue with their "aging" democratic institution facing quite some challanges. Britian for example with its fucked up political system and France too, being relatively old democracies suffer from a lot of issues here as well. The biggest issue is that those institutions do a piss poor job at representing their populations which are political far more diverse than the parliaments that are supposed to represent them. Particularly as people have a lot more diverse political opinion these days. And yet when you look at the US in particular you have pretty much two large blocks. And within those blocks everythings kinda lumped together. It's still in some cases run like it was the 18th century though and not a modern national state which simply requires in some cases federal institutions to run the show.
Because almost nothing is protected under the constitution and you had a fucking civil war over "MUH STATE RIGHTS!". I mean it's not like no one ever saw the issue here :
f the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
- Abraham Lincoln
Right now, the Supreme Court has proven that it has more "say" over the country, as a board of 7 people which is put in place for decades than a Congress voted in by the people consisting of hundreds of Senators. The seperation of powers is not meant to be a place where one Power runs ammok or is exploiting the grind-lock of the other branches. Not to mention that right now you have also justices that are some serious lying sacks of shit with very extreme religious views. And they use those to make decisions. At least one judge already mentioned that several "other" decisions should be checked as well, cuz guess what? TheY ArE NoT PRoTecTED bY dA cONstITutIOn. I quote :
Justice Clarence Thomas once was an outlier for his legal views. But Thomas is now the heart of the Court’s conservative bloc, and his concurring opinion in the recent abortion ruling calls out some other precedents the Court might overturn. (...) It articulates a view more extreme than Justice Alito’s majority opinion, saying that other rights derived from privacy—such as contraception and same-sex intimacy—are not constitutional rights at all. “We have to remember he’s been saying it out loud for quite some time,” Suk Gersen says. “This is not a new thing from Justice Thomas. It’s just that we normally—over decades—didn’t pay that much attention to him, because he was alone in his dissents and concurrences.”
You know. Even ethnic segregation could be justified under the constitution. I guess Jim Crow Laws should be up to the State! No? Or what about Marriage for all? Not part of the constitution I am afraid.
No seriously though. It's not only the US that has an issue with their "aging" democratic institution facing quite some challanges. Britian for example with its fucked up political system and France too, being relatively old democracies suffer from a lot of issues here as well. The biggest issue is that those institutions do a piss poor job at representing their populations which are political far more diverse than the parliaments that are supposed to represent them. Particularly as people have a lot more diverse political opinion these days. And yet when you look at the US in particular you have pretty much two large blocks. And within those blocks everythings kinda lumped together. It's still in some cases run like it was the 18th century though and not a modern national state which simply requires in some cases federal institutions to run the show.