American refugee's in Canda??

Americans don't read the papers or listen to most news stations - because (go on flame me) - but - I feel; it is because 90% of the news agencies are to "Liberal" and anti-american and Americans are tired of it. So we vote with our dollar, we don't buy the paper - we don't watch CNN or MSNBC - CBS - ABS - Americans are watching "FOX NEWS". Why! Because they have changed format to a conservative side of the line (Where the majority of Americans are).

Their viewer population is 49% - CNN (commie news network) has droped to 18% -

Liberal don't get it - the majority of America is not liberal as the papers and new media has become. So the majority is tired of reading their BS anti-american views - Americans want a non-bias news (not liberal not conservative - just report it) - as Fox News has been doing.

Papers are losing readers - news networks are down viewers (except Fox News up 23% in q2) -

But what do the liberals blame it on - its not that everyone is tired of hearing their leberal BS anti-american song and dance - but its because Americans are Lazy - Can't Read - don't care about their fellow man (BULL S*&*) or some other reason..

They don't accept the Truth - "We Don't want to hear or read their Liberal Crap any more.."

Just report the news - we can think and reason for ourselves - we don't want to hear some liberals op about it - we don't what it slanted one way or the other (liberal or conservative) - we can make up our own minds - we are free thinking people.

if a majority of the populace of the most powerful nation on earth don't want to know what's happening.

Australians from all social strata are very interested in keeping up with the news. Most will read at least one newspaper a day; most who are not working will listen to talk-back radio; most tradesmen listen to talk-back radio while they are working; almost EVERYONE watches at least one TV newscast per day (and they do NOT have to compete with game shows, which are broadcast at different times), as well as various current affairs programs.

All radio stations broadcast a brief summary of the latest local and international news every hour. Sure, sport is perhaps the biggest drawcard, but NEVER at the expense of news. I am an incorrigible extrovert, and talk to anyone, anywhere, any time. Everyone I talk to is aware of the most important news events both at home and overseas.

Most of the people who do read the free local newspapers reader the "Letters to the Editor" section, which covers topics local, national and international.

There you go again, Julian. Chas made a perfectly innocent (but valid) statement, and you take something and stretch and twist it in the worst kind of way to justify your criticism of the United States and its citizens. (And you wonder why I think you're disingenuous.) But we've come to expect that of you. He never said "majority", but you took it that way - and repeated it that way. Moreover, you can't state with any degree of certainty or credibility that the general population of Australia, measured by a percentage of the population, is any more news/political savvy than that of the US, or any other country for that matter. Don't make a statement of fact unless you can back it up with facts - and in this case, you can't.

But to put things in perspective:

The population of Australia is what, 20 million?

The population of the United States is over 285 million - and a much more diverse population, I would hazard to guess.

If only 10% of the population remained politically "ignorant" of the various issues (in both countries), the total number of those remaining so in the US would be greater than the entire population of Australia. This might seem more significant in the US than in Australia, just because of sheer numbers, but in all likelihood the percentages are similar. And I don't think you could prove otherwise.

Moreover, English is recognized as the official language of Australia, while in the US we have been unable to pass a national official language measure, largely in part to the pandering of our Spanish speaking immigrants. In fact, we currently have about 35 million citizens who were not even born in the United States, and I would guess, although I have no numbers on this, that there are over 20 million Americans who cannot even speak English - our "unofficial" official language. Having said that, it might stand to reason that more people remain uninformed on the issues just because of a language barrier.

But let's look at some numbers. Circulation of the Sydney Morning Herald is probably between 200,000 and 300,000 daily - let's call it 12% of the total population. Yes, Australia certainly does have a lot of local papers as well, but answer this. What is the TOTAL DAILY circulation of all newspapers in Australia. I'll wait for you to find the number (or maybe you're SO informed that you just know it off the top of your head), and we'll assign a percentage of the total population. In the United States, we have approximately 2,388 daily and Sunday papers published, for a TOTAL circulation of around 115 million - about 40% of the population. This figure, by the way, represents the highest number of newspapers with the highest total circulation for any country in the world. And yes, I could prove that, but since you don't like links to sources that back up what someone states as fact, I'll just let you try to disprove it.

(But for those who would like a link to my source for this fact: http://tinyurl.com/jl67 - don't look, Julian.)

Would you like to compare some VERIFIABLE numbers for other sources of news gathering information, sources such as radio (and we sure have a lot of political talk shows on the radio, one of which has a higher listening audience than Australia's total population.), television (both network and cable), and magazines/newsletters. Personally, I believe that if a person took a serious - and accurate - look at the numbers, one would discover that a higher percentage of Americans are "informed" than Australians.

None of that matters, however, as you still misquoted someone, and built your very faulty argument on that very blatant misquote. But I'm not surprised, as I've discovered - and proven - that you do it quite often. But you'll do whatever it takes to bash the USA, right Julian?

because the fish aren't biting. Your comments are noted. Your opinion of my character and intentions are completely inaccurate and, as previously stated, libellous when posted on a public forum. But I have learned that you cannot accept criticism or disagreement with your views, so try and have a nice day despite me.

by thechas Aug 10, 2003

Just as Julian is stretching things to conclude from my observations that most Americans do not pay attention to the news, you are wrong to conclude from circulation figures that 40 percent of Americans read the news.
My local paper does not publish it's circulation, (at least on the daily paper) so I can't localize the numbers.

Interestingly, per the 2000 census figures, ( http://tinyurl.com/jlot) there are 105,480,101 households in the US, Yet newspaper circulation is 115,000,000.

Where are all the extra papers?

First, circulation figures are inflated.
They are the peak number of sold papers in a given period plus an allowed percentage above that number.
Circulation therefore, is more correctly the maximum number of papers produced. And may have little correlation to the number of papers read.

Next, there are a number of institutions that subscribe to multiple copies of multiple newspapers. This includes libraries, schools, think tanks, clipping services and businesses.

Then, there are the individuals that subscribe to multiple papers.

What can we conclude from these numbers?
Not much.

I will see if I can get some good numbers to work from for my area of the country.

Chas

This is a different scenario of course, but does indicate a trend towards the acceptance of marijuana. The New South Wales Government is in the process of legalising the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Specifically this drug relieves the pain, and stimulates the appetite of people dying from AIDS.

My local Federal MP, who is a Cabinet Minister and former National President of the Australian Medical Association, supports this application of the drug after other measures have failed to provide relief.

A gay friend of mine has informed me that the practice of using marijuana in this context has been carried out discreetly for a number of years, in a Catholic run Hospice for the Dying.

As for Medical Merijuana, the Cannabis Club and Compassions Clubs have been established in Vancouver for providing terminally ill patients with cannabis for relief of pain. My best freind's father is suffering from AIDS and uses Marijuana to increase his appetite as he has lost so much weight and become quite weak because of it. He has a membership for medicinal marijuana but the smoke is raunchier than local smoke (street bought as opposed to regulated)which caused severe coughiong fits, it is also MORE expensive and not nearly as good as what he gets from his 'personal' supplier.

medical marijuana has been grown under such conntrolled circumstances that it is not even worth the time to pass the laws.

If it's true, it's not libel (or slander)

And if you look at the message left by Chas, and then look at your reply, you will indeed see that you misquoted and misrepresented what he said.

(Just like the time I caught you misquoting President Bush.)

This seems to be common behavior for you. (My opinion, of course, based on observation.) Perhaps it's your journalism training.

Why don't you just admit that you made an error? Or do you claim that you did not misquote him?

(Right, it's beneath your dignity to justify this with a reply.)

I would say that the inference I drew from the two postings by TheChas: "Americans hear what they want to" and "News avoidance" was quite understandable.

Perhaps you would like to vent some of your vitriol on a fellow American, TheChas, for not being more specific in his comments.

Oh, and thanks for the link. I am greatly reassured to learn that Americans follow the news so intently.

....would be "quite understandable" only to those who regularly make it a practice to exaggerate to the point of being dishonest. (More of your word games there, Julian.) But I'm glad we agree that you are belong in such a category.

You said, "Perhaps you would like to vent some of your vitriol on a fellow American, TheChas, for not being more specific in his comments."

No, not at all. It's you who misquoted him, not I. TheChas, like so many other of us mere mortals, makes general comments all the time. But it's the elitist thinking snobs who continually misquote, take words out of context, and, as I like to say, take an ounce of truth and whip up a pound of lies - all to make whatever demeaning conclusion they desire. It's general practice in today's media - the world wide media, I might add - and it's all to common on these threads. If anything it is you who showed a disparaging disrespect for TheChas by intentionally taking his message out of context for the sole purpose of satisfying your own twisted political agenda.

Perhaps it's the very technical and precise nature of my thinking, but I choose my words very carefully, and I try to be as exact in my meaning as possible. Perhaps it's a skill that a non-technical person like yourself is lacking, but would do well to learn. As I said earlier, your journalism training is quite obvious, not by your grammatical style, but by the mendacious nature of your words.

By the way, you've made reference on more than one occasion about, as you described, my intolerance for the opinion of others if they were at odds with my own. To the contrary, I welcome such opinions, especially since it gives me a chance to allow someone to see an issue from a differing perspective, and I do indeed believe that you, as well as others, have a perfectly legitimate right to express such opinions (as misguided as they may be). Most of the opinions that fall into such a category barely get noticed by me, and I seldom reply. (At least not of late.) But when the opinions include disparaging remarks towards the country in which I live and love, make no mistake about it. I too have the right to stand up in her defense.

by tomsal Aug 11, 2003

...and I find the news ridiculous to watch, therefore I *purposefully* try and watch as little of it as possible.

1) All you see any more is how sick and demented the world is...children being molested, women raped, thugs shooting down an oldman for $5.32. Oh yay..let's watch the news...

2) The next bit on the news I can't stand is the mass media's incessant pushing of information concerning "celebrities" -- sports, movie, music or otherwise, as though I give a damn. So and so is having a kid -- so what? So and so is getting married -- who friggin cares? So and so did this (as in crazy thing or whatever) -- ok and I care about this person because.....?

3) The only value I get from the news that I think is someone important is the weather, financial/business news and the latest scoop on International events (ie. the situation in the mid-east).

So I very seldom watch the news.

...circulation numbers alone don't reflect newspaper readership. But one could assume that whatever the relation, it's most likely similar in the USA and Australia. (And as Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.") But my point was that the percentage of "informed" citizens was probably similar in both countries, although I have no idea how that might be proven - or disproved.

As far as the circulation numbers being higher than the number of households, you are correct by suggesting that many households subscribe to more than one publication. (As well as the other reasons you stated.) I, for example, subscribe to both the local newspaper and the local business journal, and I occasionally purchase the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the New York Times, just to mention a few. I know many people who read several newspapers daily. And yes, many of these subscriptions are not read at all, except perhaps by the birds who see them on the bottom of their cages. But there are probably just as many literate birds (percentage wise) in Australia.

by guruofdos Aug 10, 2003

Back again after another absence...Hmmm...

I won't get involved in personality clashes or political debates here, just throwing in a few observations.

In the UK, newspaper sales figures are the most accurate in Europe, if not the world. Our national and regional press distribution system ensures that accurate sales figures are produced daily. All papers sold in the UK are distributed on a 'sale or return' basis. That is, any unsold papers are collected from newsagents the next day and the newsprint is recycled. That way, within a percent or two, actual sales figures for papers are recorded.

There are two classes of newspapers - tabloids and broadsheets. Tabloid sales (The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Sport, etc.) account for over 60% of newspaper sales. Over 70% of tabloid readers purchase the papers purely for the sport, gossip or TV sections and aren't interested in genuine 'news', preferring sensationalism, scandal and gossip to 'hard news'. Many people buy a paper for a week or so purely to collect tokens for, say, cheap ferry trips to France, or because a paper has an exclusive serialisation of a particular story. A good quality broadsheet such as the Times or Daily Telegraph sells fewer copies than the Sun or Mirror, but has about 4-5 times as much news, a business section and several pull-out special interest sections. Sunday editions of the quality papers with their weekend sections, sports sections, colour magazine and property gazette can weigh in at nearly 1.5kg!

Me? I don't read a paper...but I do get my news from the BBC, as does the majority of the world. In fact, the BBC (TV and Radio) has a higher worldwide audience figure than ANY other broadcaster anywhere in the world....full stop! More Chinese and Russians listen to the BBC than they do their own domestic services and with news and programming in over 100 languages, have a truly global presence.

It is my understanding that the BBC can EVEN be received in Australia...I have often watched the BBC news when visiting family in upstate New York and in fact my in-laws now get their 'world' news from the BBC as is it is more up to the minute and accurate than THEIR domestic service!

Often referred to as the British Broadcorping Castration is MY favorite source of news. I get it via satellite at home and a few band members often send me the Times, Mirror (good page 2 nudes) etc.
I agree that hands down, the British Press is FAR more accurate and up to date than ANY news source I've seen. Often a story will be published in the Times and several weeks later, I'll see the same story colored in the NY Times or Vancouver Sun. I guess it takes writers out here a little longer to make reality look pretty.

by mrbill- Aug 11, 2003

The folks who go to Canada seeking refugee statuses so they can legally smoke pot can stay there for all I care. Most are not going for medical benefit, they are there to smoke pot, that?s all. I feel sorry for the Canadian Gov and her people because these low-lifes are only going to cause a drain on the system. What is the unemployment like up there, how is welfare? These folks are not the best or the brightest we have to offer. Don?t get me wrong, if you are a pot smoker that is your choice, but it does harm you, as do cigs and alcohol.

Just my opinion.

and I can take it as that, at least your not spewing crap from other websites, you have an opinion and I appreciate it.

As for American refugees being ALLOWED into Canada, not a single American has been admitted to Canada under refugee status in over 15 years. They simply send 'em back home, we don't need 'em.
In fact, a recent customs report stated that American refugees have the lowest acceptance rate of all refugees applying here.

As for Welfare, I think that the scene is no different than in the US except most people who need welfare there find it a better opportunity to join the armed forces. You get a paycheck and some training out of the deal, 3-meals + clothes. If your still alive after 4 years and haven't been sent to your certain death by the maniacle leaders, you may stand a chance at employment in a kitchen or end up on welfare again until the next tour.

Let the flame begin, but keep in mind, I merely state from common knowledge, this is what many other people see of you also.

by mrbill- Aug 11, 2003

I want Canada to take the refugees, get them out of my pocket. Sorry!

Woo - Ozzie - you all are in la La land - Babe - who's common knowledge - Socialists? - Need to stand up and give your brain a chance to get some air ...

First - Military service in the US is an excellent career choice - they can earn upwards of $25,000 for college after discharge, while they are in the military picks up the tab for college including books, the training is excellent from Electronics to engine mechanic ... and are highly prized by employers once discharged.. Police departments give bonus points to military applicates ... because they are so highly prized..

The US military - is one of the best trained - best outfited - and best paid in the world.

Again - You speak from Common Knowledge - You speak from your A9*(hole - which I think is interchargable with your mouth and brain... Common Socialist propaganda is where you are speaking from.(Have you server in the US military - or any military? - Coward? - ah thats right you don't believe in your government so why should you support it... I remember now..)

Flame - On - baby - Socialism will never win over capitalism and a free society... socialism always ends like the USSR did - that Socialist state didn't make 75 years did it... Hum America coming up on 250 years - Pretty good for a low life country as you prefess we are or our leaders are... now isn't it ...

Not to bad - first man on the moon, transplants, modern drugs, electronics, chips, nano-technology, cell phones, and many other things... You can bad mouth us all you want - we are still are still the best place to live in the world ... (matter of fact - its so great we just hired two Canadains that got their green cards... hum)

Personally, I think Fox is the worst for coloring news into a pretty Pro-American statement to appease the masses. As you said, that's what Americans want to hear as opposed to Anti-American news. Either way, pro or Anti, it is colored to meet public demand.
Fox is responsible for all the worst shows on TV these days that are simply cloned shows from Eurpoe that they think will sell if prettied-up for the American audience.

I can't disagree with you on the Fox network and the shows they do. "Who's Line is it" - British take off (where's the Benny Hill Show)... And many others.. But that is networks.

For the "Fox News Network" I think Fox is right on the money - "NO Spin" - either way. They report what they see, and have both sides of the story so the viewer can determine.

Call me a Conservative dog - but I also enjoy the O'Reily Factor "No Spin Zone" - and a number of other shows they have.

Thier view rating is from worldwide not just USA - so someone likes it more than just me and other American viewers.

But that still leaves you with MSNBC and CNN Headline and CNN ... news... to watch.

by maecuff Aug 11, 2003

I don't watch/read the news because it is depressing to read (watch) stories about raped children, murdered wives and so on. I hear enough against my will.

I'll stick with the funnies and dear abby.

Seeing as America is so proud of the government and the country for which they stand so tall,
keep yer rejects too, sorry but you don't get the best of both worlds, now perhapse you can get that through your presidents thick head too.

by mrbill- Aug 11, 2003

I am only human.

In regards to our rejects, Canada is the country that invites them with the Cannibus Care (or whatever you call it).

As a regular visitor to Europe, I've seen the effects on Amsterdam (happy people, less crime)that decriminalizing marijuana has done.

It would be nice to see alcohol banned again but the government feeds off it. i'm positive ther are less roberies and driving deaths from weed then booze, but that's another dead end.

Hey, we don't invite people to smoke weed, we just don't want to deny those Canadians who are suffering so terribly. I'm sure that if the government came up with a suitable drug to ese the pain of AIDS, many would be happy to do things that way as opposed to fighting for medical marijuana.
Out of time for now though, have to get out of my office and get some dinner on.

by thechas Aug 11, 2003

The majority of news outlets that I have tried are way too simplified and converted to sound bites. Give me some depth and detail.

Further, it is very interesting to be at the scene of a news event, and then see the stories about it. I really wonder about just how truthful our news is.

US news is driven by ratings period.
Where I live, TV news primarily competes based on the accuracy of the weather forecast.
During sweeps week, we are treated to titillating stories.
The rest of the time, you can see the sensationalizing and condensation of the news.

Because of this, I get most of my news from a right leaning newspaper, and NPR.

In my opinion, NPR provides some of the most detailed and balanced news coverage in the US. I agree that NPR news leans slightly to the left, (as does most news) but not near as far as my local paper leans to the right.
The talk shows on NPR do lean more to the left than the news shows.

The primary benefit of NPR is the depth of the coverage. I also enjoy the regular commentators on the news shows.

My wife and kids have a strong disdain for the news.
They choose music and sit-coms over news coverage.

Chas

And that is work everyone is asking for - a fair and unbias report - in depth - how do you cover a story in 30 seconds or 10 seconds ... as most local news does.

I am an volunteer emergency responder and you are 100 percent correct - living the event then seeing it covered by the local media. You wonder if you were even there - or was it a dream.

The majority of Local print and TV media is very liberal and slight to far left of center. And you are right - about they rate themselfs on weather.

I don't really listen to NPR - so I can say anything about them - I do enjoy Fox - some of the stuff falls far Right - but the majority is pretty much centered or slightly right...

I may have to tune into an NPR reports... and take a listen..

by hal 9000 Aug 12, 2003

Of the Murdoch stuff it is all biases in favour of good old Rupet and what he wants this week and changes like the wind so you never actually know where that stuff is coming from. With the recent changes in the Media Laws over there I can just see Rupet rubbing his hands in glee as he has some very interesting therioes on World Domination of the Mass Media and is currently attempting to put these in place. That's part of the reason why he renounced his Australian Citizenship and took up US Citizenship so he could have access the the media over there which isn'[t as tightly controlled as it is here. But he left his Australian Media interests intact and suspossely in the hands of his son who just rubber stamps what his father wants. So unless you like drivel I'd advise you to keep clear of all the Murdoch junk.

by thechas Aug 13, 2003

While watching CNN headline news (it's on 24/7 in our cafeteria) they splashed a blurb that a survey showed that CNN's audience is more conservative than FOX's.

Just thought this was interesting in relation to the context of this discussion.

Chas

by jardinier Aug 12, 2003

Without meeting me in person, you have made up your mind what kind of person I am. So I suppose you will find it hard to believe that the many people who actually know me and see me on a daily basis have roughly the opposite opinion of me as you do.
Now you'll no doubt find this hard to swallow, but I am merely stating facts: the most common observation people make about me is that I am "open, honest, and up front."
Now as for your brilliantly precise thinking because you are a "technical" person, you may as well know that mathematics and physics were my best subjects in school, and electronics was my hobby as a youth, as well as my first attempt at a career.
You would also know of course that it is commonly known that there is a close relationship between mathematics and music, and a person who is good at one is likely to be good at the other. Now I not only play several instruments, but I also compose music. Without telling her who wrote the music, I let a retired piano teacher play a few small pieces I have written in the baroque style, and then asked who she thought had written it. "Well it sounds like Bach to me."
So it seems you are wrong about me in just about every way, but it really doesn't matter a damn to me because I know who I am, and whatever it is that seems to get you so worked up about me seems to be your problem, and I have no intention of making it mine.
I think if you spent more time looking for beauty and truth, instead of your obsession with finding errors and flaws, you might be a happier person. But don't take my word for it, because you seem to think that everything I say has a sinister, twisted intent.
I actually think you are a rather nasty person, because you cannot just disagree with me, or point out some error in my reasoning or statements, without making a big issue of it. You are the only person on this website who makes such scathing attacks on me, and makes such derogatory statements about my character.

I get the same thing from Max, he seems to come across as an intelligent thinker that has valid input. He then resorts to assuming one's character (WAY OFF)and evading a valid response by posting scathing remarks. I honestly think he believes people will take his word as gospel and feel the same way. Unfortunately, his accuracy is way off, at one time he thought it was clever to run a WHOIS search and assumed he knew who I was and who I worked for but was only getting my ISP's info, maybe not realizing that not everyone uses residential access or the company's network.

I'd ignore it all Jules, he is becoming butter in his old age, perhaps when midlife crisis passes him by, he'll feel comfortable with himself again and offer more productive input. We all have our bad days, perhaps his is just lasting a little longer than most.

by jardinier Aug 12, 2003

in America, you can readily see from most of the other postings in this discussion that most of your compatriots here represented say that the quality of news disseminated in the USA is rather poor, and that a significant proportion of people have no interest in it at all.

by mrbill- Aug 12, 2003

If I see one more report on the California Governor race I am going to scream, especially if it concerns Arnold, and I don?t mean Gary Coleman.

by tomsal Aug 12, 2003

I agree...scary thought he wins the CA race for government...then in 2008 Arnie is our next President. LOL

Imagine that...

Yep I'll just read the comics and ditch the news.

by maxwell edison Aug 12, 2003

But President - not possible. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who went from being an actor to California Governor to President, Arnold was not born in the USA (he was born in Austria), thus he doesn't qualify.

But if I had to make a bet on someone in that race, I might put my bucks on him. But I'm glad I don't live in California - what a mess.

by marabuntas Aug 12, 2003

I could bet that the news was originaly reported by Paula Zahn.

Who the hell is that? You will probably answer with the prefix being her political position, it seems to make a difference in the US.
Actually it was in ALL the newspapers, broadcast on several Canadian and American network news reports as reported by Canada Customs figures.
Of course that will mean nothing to anyone there because the News, Papers and Canada Customs are probably considered to have a different political stance than yourself, thus rendering all reports useless to a Democtar, Republican, Socialist or whatever you decided to be this week.

How about trying to be people with views instead of lumping yourself with a single viewpoint-nah-that would take a thought process that wasn't inline with who you wish to socialize with. My god, can you imagine, a socialist and a democrat speaking to each other and actually sharniog an opinion? It may make you turn another color, kinda like how you thought that touching a black man would turn you black so many ignorant years ago.

by thechas Aug 12, 2003

Paula Zahn is a 'good looking' anchor on CNN.

A few years back, there was a big controversy over Paula and adds for CNN.
It's faded a bit over the years, but the add slogan had words to the effect that the news on CNN was just a little bit sexy.
This was accompanied by the sound of a sweater zipper being un-zipped.

The add was pulled quickly in response to complaints from both Paula Zahn, and the general public.

Chas

My grandfather, father brother and me have served the RAF. My stint was as a cadet with the ATC but my family has a history sderving with the RAF.
Your assumptions are making you sound like Maxwell! Leave the miscalculations and incorrect personality assumtions to him, he's best at it.

Again, why does EVERY AMERICAN analysis of someones peronality have to be a political label?
I have never been labeled politically in Britian, Australia, Japan, Germany or Austria, only by US citizens. You guys spend WAAAAAAAY to much time fodusing on politics and the military to squash your fears of the reality that America will inevitably face as a result of your constalt attacks on other countries and their governments. The citizens in America are making this label seen worldwide as you constantly barrage the masses with your political stand.

Give it a rest, make up your own mind without the influence of your political belief to support it.

Baby.

All right Jim,if it makes you feel good.
I never said America was a bad place or a bad place to live. I am constantly astounded by the loyalty American's (compared to other country's citizen's)show towards their government's decisions and constantly brag about their political stand as compared to a Republican, Socialist, Liberal or what have you.

I love Canada (yes I lived in Oregon and California where I also currently have two offices, but that was years before the Gulf.)
as well as England and pretty much anywhere else in the world I've been. People are warm and welcoming and never throw their political views down your throat at every chance, or how much better their country is or the government is better than whoever. The ONLY country I have ever seen that does this is America, it is fine to be pround of your country but to force it down somebody's throat everytime you need a power boost or a little reassurance is really sickening. This is probably why so many people see American's as arrogant and loud people.

If you were all a little more humble, it would be so much easier to accept mistakes your government makes, when you spew about being the best, you are going to constantly under attack and scrutinzed for your every move, not a good idea with your latest actions. It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out, even Max thinks I'm an idiot and I can see it like everyone else can.