Funny- I think I have found the ultimate explanation of "why they hate us"- I found it in a profanity strewn review on his show on a website, I am not sure of the rules here- so if you want to PM me about the website address- the profanity is not work safe, nor child safe- but I found the gem of the statement that really nails it down. I am not endorsing all he says- but the statement is a GREAT sig line for every site I visit today:

Sean Hannity is the face of what's wrong with America. He's "why they hate us." He's the spokesperson for the humananzees who compose such a broad stripe of the U.S. and who so embarrass the rest of us, those who wish to be part of the civilized world. The defining characteristic behind all of the above is pride in ignorance. I'm fairly certain that this trait is common only here in America. Only here could someone become a national radio star by loudly and proudly shoving his ignorance and foolishness in your face.
It's us SHOUTING our ignorance- there is plenty of ignorance and stupidity, I guess other cultures just aren't as able to be as loud about it!

We don’t have a monopoly on ignorant loud blowhards. They do make more money here, true. A Sean Hannity equivalent wouldn’t make as much money in Europe, for sure. I don’t think a pro-American propagandist could make ten cents off of his thoughts elsewhere. As for the opposite, Michael Moore has certainly made much more than Thierry Meyssan for spewing 911 propaganda.

Interesting how it’s a recuring theme throughout these sorts of threads that it is wrong to immediately judge anyone who disagrees with American policy as “anti-American” (I agree that's wrong), but many of those same people who scoff at the former turn around and deem any American who criticizes the policies of other countries as “ignorant” and “arrogant”.

The bottom line of it all is, Europe and America have contrasting world views. They (disclaimer, this is a huge generalization of both countries, but roughly true) think of us as cowboys who favor coercion over persuasion. They feel they approach problems with more nuance and sophistication. They are the carrot, and we are the stick, in other words. And there’s a lot of truth to that. I think those different world views are the source of a lot of confrontation. We take turns labeling these ideas as either “aggression” or “appeasement” depending on whichever side each is on.

There are also some very broad brushed inaccuracies applied to us because we are a large world power. It is rare to hear Finland, for example, impugned by the international community for not signing onto the landmine ban. Now, I can hear the responses already. “That’s different! We are a world leader and as such have the obligation…yadda…yadda…” Exactly so. We are world leaders, and as such are signatories to security agreements which make us in large part responsible for the defense of numerous countries around the globe. We don’t need landmines to protect our Canadian and Mexican borders, but we do need them to stand between north and south Korea, in absence of a less deadly form of defense. Yes, I said less deadly. Those landmines won’t hurting anyone, with the exception of advancing attacking troops, in which case they will slow them down. The removal will not lead to anything but insecurity and instability in that area. We place more money and effort into the removal and containment of landmines worldwide than nearly any other country (Finland also invests heavily in this endeavor, actually). That is just one of a score of examples.

No matter how much anyone can hate Michael Moore and his politica views or ignorance- he doesn't go hollering it at the top of his lungs LOL

It is not Sean Hannity himself- but his behavior and even look is the way many Europeans generalize as ALL US culture- that is the part I am trying to say.

Being very loud and arrogant, and wrong most of the time, loudly bellowing about something that won't let the facts sway thier opinions, and then declaring this as "character" and a good thing.

I also feel this is why GW is such a lightening rod around the world- I think he exemplifies everything other countries, or culture that DO hate about us- the arrogance, the blustering ignorance.

I have heard it described so many times with a sneer as "American cowboy"-

Let's pick apart that phrase a bit-

Do you think it is because that foriegn to US folks don't like an worker that herds cows- or is it some non-work related behavior that the phrase is built around.

The comment about Hannity gels that behavior quite well.

It is not Hannities political views- it is that when he is shown to be very, very wrong, he just shouts over everyone some slogan over and over again, with maybe an occasional "bomb them to the stone age" or "turn that place into glass" threats of violence thrown in for good measure!

THAT is a generalization of all Americans that can no way fit into some sort of super-majority of Americans, we are way to diverse for that. But the Hannities have been in control for over 6 years, and it started really with Reagan in the 80s, when you herd that "cowboy" phrase more and more. - and to the foriegn observer- it would be easy to think our nation are all a bunch of Hannities, and very few Eisenhours.

Even IF it is not true.


And Mrs. P- one area we are NOT on the wrong side of is landmines- you got it dead on in N vs S Korea.

HUH? ? ? ?
Micheal Moore made a movie based upon pure rhetoric and half truths... the only reason you don't despise him as much as Sean Hannity is because, umm... maybe you disagree with Hannity but not Moore?

Hannity has a talk show, Moore made a movie shown in theaters nationwide and that can be found on Blockbuster shelves in most towns in the US. Doesn't seem to be much of a comparison. The LARGEST difference is that Hannity's show is based upon fact...

Europeans don't hate us because of Hannity or even the way he acts. Europeans hate us because we tout our military power and financial prowess. It's a mixture of jealousy and disgust. They frankly aren't enthusiastic about our lack of interest in culture or historical precedent, and see us as the "young bullies" on the block... not that I agree.

They see us as FUBU wearin', McDonald's eatin', rap and country music listenin', overweight warhawks. It's not necessarily who Americans are, but it's like any other stereotype... people take the fringe and turn it to accomodate their prejudices. HENCE, why Europeans are the generally the only people who really don't care for Americans... go to S. America or Japan. They're happy to see us (or at least our dollars...) ...
Funny thing is that this is how it's really always been.... it didn't just happen when we didn't find WMD's in Iraq... it's been like this since the first time I went to Europe in the Mid-90's for sure, and even our French office makes jokes. One of the Tech Support guys (who ironically happens to be a little chunky) in Paris has a shirt that says "I'm not fat, I'm American"...

I will make this short, because last time I responded to statements like this I was the center-point of attention.



Why do you keep on bringing this up? I already said this is your perception of what you think Europeans are thinking. Besides that your whole claim that Europeans are generally the only people who really don't care about Americans is wrong. Middle-East, Russia, China ... just to name a few "small" parts of the world have a stronger disliking towards the U.S. than Europeans. Apart from that .... do Americans care about Europeans?

Uh, sure, Hannity on fact- um, okay - I was only making the point, that, as a pundit, Michael Moore doesn't LITERALLY shout- Hannity does. Michael Moore, love him or hate him- is soft spoken in his left wing commie american hating LOL

In other words- he doesnt YELL his ignorance- he states it quietly? A loud baffoon is slightly more irritating than a person that whispers thier ignorance....

Only difference- everything Micheal Moore says is based on fact ....

I'd say this is a big part of anti-Americanism in Europe, certainly. Much of the world (outside the US) looks up to intellectuals and academics in a way the USA just doesn't seem to. To varying degrees; the French tend to put them on pedestals, while the Brits are often quite sceptical but at least listen.

Part of it manifests itself as a kind of "so what if the French / liberals / anti-Americans don't agree? We're right and we're going to go ahead anyway". Nobody seems to stop to think why opponents think the way they do, to follow through their arguments and talk through your own.

In a way, the American dynamism to take action has the downside that the urge to do something - anything - overtakes the urge to plan through it beforehand, wins hearts and minds in support, etc. No-one likes to have their opinions dismissed out of hand, and America seems to do this in international policy more often than other countries (most obviously over the Iraq War, but it goes way back, including things like Suez).

Now, it's true that, when Britain, France and other European powers were the global top dogs of their day, we behaved with similar indifference to the interests of other nations, and would often deliberately undermine them to maintain our own dominance. But then - and this is a crucial difference - we never said we didn't want to be an imperial power.

But back to the "pride in ignorance" thing. There's the overt sort of the Hannity type, but there's also a more pervading perception of it that maybe isn't intentional, or even there at all.

American rhetoric has always been a the muscular end of the debate on terrorism and the like, well before any international groups targeted the USA. Public and political opinions inevitably, and rightly, lined up in solidarity with the people under attack. Yet, all the way through the 70s and 80s, when domestic terrorism attacks took place in continental Europe, US tourism to Europe took a huge hit, despite the tiny odds of becoming a casualty.

Ok, this was sort of understandable immediately after Lockerbie. But American tourism to the UK plunged similarly once the BSE story broke, by which time the corrective actions taken meant British beef was about the safest to eat on the planet.

And the simple unwillingness of most Americans to travel abroad sits uncomfortably somehow.

Europeans visiting America vastly outnumber Americans visiting Europe, so it isn't JUST the isolation that's the problem. We have more holiday; we wean ourselves onto travel by hopping across international borders in a single car journey or a 20 minute flight; increasingly, we speak good enough Standard English to get by (not including all British people )

We know that you have less vacation than us; even though we know your country is so large that it's hard work and expensive to get into the habit of international travel; even though we know the language barrier is bigger in our direction than in yours (even Spanish speakers often arrive in Spain to find they don't speak the same dialect - Castilian - that most Spaniards do).

Yet these practicalities are rarely the first answer an American will give when asked "why don't you come to visit Europe?". Most often, there'll be 20 minutes of bluster along the lines of "why would I? I haven't seen all of America yet - does Europe have anything to match the Grand Canyon? Death Valley? New York City? Niagara Falls? No, Europe has nothing I am interested in seeing. I am American, and I am proud to be an American, so I want to see more of this great country before I even consider blah blah blah".

No doubt some Americans who HAVE travelled internationally decide that they prefer domestic travel for these reasons (and not just because of any language barrier).

However, most well travelled Europeans*, especially Northern Europeans, and most Australasians (and, increasingly, Southern Africans, Russians,and Eastern Europeans) will then roll their eyes - they've been to NYC, the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, etc AND to New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, Rome, Paris, Prague, London, the Inca trail, etc.

And they've heard this from Americans enough times to think "you're just scared of the unknown and you can't admit it so you pretend to be proud of it". Which is another type of 'pride in ignorance', and something I'd say was far more pervasive in the USA than the shouty, Hannity type.

One of America's strengths has been to turn its weaknesses INTO strengths. But sometimes, this is only pretend. Weaknesses remain weaknesses. And sometimes, the pretence, only really fools Americans themselves.

*Especially the under-35 generation of middle class 'Eurokids' that see the 'gap year' they first enjoy between school and university not only as a right, but as something they should have the right to repeat at least once every 5 years for the rest of their lives, no matter how much debt it runs up)

I'll address just a few of your points. Yes, many in the US don't look up to academics the way that people in Europe. But that's cultural and it goes back to the roots of our country which was not designed as a "class based" society. There was once a day in this country when only the elite could attend college. Those days have largely been eliminated but the cultural bias toward "elites" remains. Furthermore, America has traditionally been a results oriented society, not one based on class and status. The poorest American has the mobility to become the richest if they play their cards right. That is not true in many (if not most) of the world's societies. Bill Gates is a college drop out and Sam Walton was of very modest beginnings. American culture has long celebrated the "underdog" and the "ordinary" person who makes it big against the odds. Having a diploma on one's wall and being a Ph.D. after having written a thesis in some obscure area just doesn't pull much weight in this country.

I also reject the "celebration of the ignorance" premise that has been running through a few of the posts in this thread with Sean Hannity being used as the example. That, my friends, is an other example of liberal arrogance. Hannity (and anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman politically) are seen by liberal cultural elites as "ignorant" because, and only because, they do not share the views of those self-appointed to define the "truth".

With respect to Americans and travel to Europe, there are practical reasons that you covered and more. With respect to vacation time, you are correct. Americans, in general, don't get as much time off work (just trying dealing with a European company in August for example). In addition to that, there are practical obstacles including cost (air travel is required), hotels (generally more expensive in Europe), transportation (cars are expensive and small, trains are ok but don't take you everywhere), the exchange rate (negative for Americans) and also the time-zone shift. Americans from the west coast, for example have an 8 hour shift at a minimum between their homes and the west of Europe. Then, on top of that, you add the language barriers and the anti-American snobbery that one can experience in some place and there is no wonder why Americans don't flood to Europe.

I've been to Europe more than a few times and enjoy many of the places there. But, I see myself as an experienced traveler who's been to both Europe and Asia many times. I can see why someone from Des Moines who's not been beyond a place like Chicago might not want to jump on the next Air France flight to Charles De Gaulle airport.

There are, after all, many, many beautiful places to see within the boundaries of the United States including Alaska and Hawaii. Everyone speaks English. Dollars and credit cards can be used with no problems. And one can always find food and lodging that is familiar and comforting.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, lordhelmet



I can see that, and sympathise with it to some degree. As a Brit, we don't have the same reverence for academia as France, for example. But I think modern America's idea of its social mobility, and of it's superiority in this regard to Europe, is at odds with real measures of social mobility, where Western Europe and America are more similar than some would like to admit (i.e. Europe is not the completely closed, class-based society of yore, and America is not the completely mobile society - the Horatio Alger idea - that many people think. Some European countries, though not the UK, are somewhat more socially mobile than the US. Carlitoswhey and I started a thread on this subject some time ago.)

And, I think there is a tendency, more common in the US than elsehwere, to take this entirely healthy (in moderation) mistrust of class rigidity and self-defined elites and turn it into a general sense that a broad education, being white and middle class, and - fatally - having open enquiring minds that reject one's particular point of view after due consideration of it, are rejected on principle as some kind of inverse snobbery. Only people like me can be any good. We shouldn't be governed by or respectful of people who have used their brains to get where they are, unless it's in commerce.

Even then, America's reflexive anti-intellectualism means that there's a tendency to respect enormously wealthy and successful intellectuals like Bill Gates (a "geek") rather less than more blue collar successes, if only in mindset, who made their way despite lacklustre or absent education like, say, the current President. It's as if education or just being intellectually very smart (like drop-out Gates) is some sort of unfair advantage, rather than a route to success in itself.



First off, air travel is required, certainly, but it doesn't explain why vastly more Europeans visit America than the other way around. The planes fly both ways. If air travel is too expensive, then maybe that's an argument for the kind of open skies arrangement the US has resisted for so long? Let EasyJet, Go or on of the other European budget airlines fly in an out of O'Hare or Dulles the way they do from smaller airports here, and before long you could fly across the country for less than $200 just like we can.

Hotels - fair point, though most Eurokids, and most ANZAC visitors to Europe, do the whole hostelling/backpacking thing much more often than they stay in even budget motels. Because it's cheaper. As a mostly business traveller, you probably wouldn't put up with that (neither would I, as it goes - if it doesn't have room service and cable, I don't stay there)

Cars - fair point, plus I'd guess the prevalence of manual gearboxes ('stickshifts') puts people off, because most have probably never used them before. (Another 'fear of the unknown' disguised as 'America is better anyway')

The exchange rate is also a fair point, though for ease if nothing else, surely things have got better since the Euro came in (no need to change currency if you visit more than one country).

The time shift is another thing that cuts both ways, and besides, jetlag is normally deemed to be worse when one travels West than when going East. So Europeans get jet lag when visiting the States, on either coast, and what's more have it for the first few days of their vacation. Don't you find you have it worse when you get home after visiting Europe than when you first arrive here? (Though being a seasoned traveller you've probably found a way around it anyway. )



Me too, but I think it's more to do with the fear of the unknown and the inconvenience that you've outlined. I also think that Joe in Des Moines is far less likely to start out by saying "it's too far, too expensive, and too much hassle" (a boiled down version of what we both agree are some of the main reasons) and far more likely to be asome sort of patroitic mumbo jumbo. And almost none of Joe's friends will have travelled either, unlike Jean in St Etienne, who will likely be surrounded by people who have travelled and will bore him silly with their tales of backpacking derring do.

And credit cards aren't to much of a problem, at least not in Northern Europe. (In the UK, cash is almost old hat in shops these days, with all the chip & pin signs.)



Familiar and comforting - there you go. Where's the sense of adventure there?

I don't buy that. That situation has been gone past living memory, now the US is just as much (or just as little) class based as the rest of Europe. Besides, even if not, France as you may recall has an even less 'class based' society than the US. In their revolution, they actually purged the royal class. This 'difference' is not a reason, its a justification.

Exactly the same with the oft-repeated 'everyone can get rich here and nowhere else' claim. That may have been true back in the frontier days when the west was expanding, but now you can get rich in Europe exactly the same way you can get rich in the US. For every rich US dropout I can point to a rich European with humble beginnings. How is the US supposed to be 'easier' NOWADAYS to get rich then Britain, or France, or Germany, or Canada?

These are steriotypes, and bear no resemblance to reality anymore.




I'm sorry LordHelmet, but that is nothing more than a talking point. Your rhetoric swings both ways of course, this 'right wing' rant against the 'liberal media' and liberal elites' is fictional, and that fiction exists only because, as you say, they do not share the views of those self-appointed people on the 'right' to define the "truth".


But I'll tell you what, lets step back from the politically charged axamples and see if there are any other examples of this 'celebration of ignorance'. Is there a French or German equivalent to Jerry Springer? When I was studying in the UK, I used to joke with an American fellow student who was lamenting the steriotype of the dumb American: I said "Look, no nation has a lock on stupidity. The US has no higher a percentage of stupid people then anywhere else. We just don't televise ours every day'.



I would accept all that if it were not for the solid disproval of your point in the example of Canada. Canada shares all the disadvantages you mentioned, and even worse in the case of the Canadian dollar which has an even worse exchange rate. Yet Canadians travel as a part of their experience. Growing up I has exchange programs through schools, family trips and so on, everyone I knew regardless of social status had been or wanted to travel the world, Europe as a good starting point. Yet Canada has as much if not more Natural beauty as the US.

So while there are practical problems, that certainly cannot account for the miniscule percentage of the American population that owns a pasport...

Hello, good to see you again. I thought you were not gonna reply to me so I was away for a while, but seems like you did, as I expected.



I used to argue with some Austrian girl, and she told me "How come the United States does not have a good social programs that the European countries do?"
So I answered her

"America is basically a country that's forcing people to become rich. And I am willing to be rich as well.
America might not have great social programs as you think, but when you see the entire country, you will figure out how great this country is. And what I really care about is that U.S.A. is the only Hyperpower on the earth."

How can you assume that I was not going to reply, and at the same time expect that I was going to reply?
Eh, doesn’t matter. On to the issue at hand:



Exaggerating is a polite way of saying wrong, but as you now backpedal with somewhat more accurate facts, it in no way alters the error of your original statement.

As it happens Canada does pay about 2.81% of the UN’s budget in 2004, so you were close. But your somewhat vague comment about Italy, seemingly implying Canada pays very little, as usual makes no sense. Nations contribute to the UN based as a percentage of GDP through a formula which takes into account standard of living and a host of other factors. The amount is calculated to be EQUAL across the board in terms of population and GDP. Yes, The US pays 22% and Canada 2.8%, but then again the US has 9.5x the population of Canada, meaning per capita Canada actually pays very slightly more. So much for your point.



Thank you for that polemic rant. However, lets have fun and try and insert a few facts in there, shall we? Bush Jr. certainly did not ‘save’ the economy, but I will deal with that later in your post when you try and produce figures, thus shooting yourself in the foot (again)

I find it amusing that you now claim that what the world thinks has nothing to do with you, when that is the entire point of the thread, and in direct contradiction to some of your earlier wild claims. Kim Jong Il has certainly not been ‘deterred’ by Bush jr, in fact it was under Bush Jr that he developed and now claims to possess nukes. In fact I think its clear that neither Clinton NOR Bush Jr. have had the slightest impact on the North Korean leader.

And thank you so much for your opinion that liberalism is dead. It has little bearing on reality, but at least now we know what your opinion is. I could lampoon Bush Jr’s actions regarding both natural disasters and global warming all day, but I will leave that for other threads.



Yes, it does seem like your facts are often in error, you should really be more careful.

For example, the 2005 annual average for unemployment in the US is 5.1%. That is certainly lower than the 6.0% is was in 2003, but substantively higher than it was during the last four years of Clinton’s presidency: 1997: 4.9% 1998: 4.5% 1999: 4.2%. 2000: 4.0%.

Secondly, yes the GDP has increased in 2005, as it has every year since before 1950, Republican or Democrat in office. However if you compare the rate of increase you will notice that the total increase in the last 5 years under Bush Jr. has been 15%, while the increase in the last 5 years of Clinton’s Presidency was 26%. Furthermore, contrary to your repeated assertion about Clinton leaving the economy in ruins, two of the largest increases in GDP in terms of percentage happened in 1999 and 2000, his last 2 years in office.

I will say this though, this is all getting off topic. While it is undeniable the Clinton’s years as President were strictly in terms of economics vastly better than Bush Jr’s muddling about, that is essentially beside the point. Clinton had MANY problems and made many mistakes to be sure, and I don’t care to have this turn into ANOTHER Bush Jr. vs Clinton debate. Suffice to say you have done nothing to alter the reality of my primary point, that Clinton was loved internationally during his years, and that current Anti-Americanism is in very large part actually anti-Bush Jr rather than anti-the country as a whole.



Well, how about opinion polls conducted independently across the first world which state exactly what I claimed? Enter the name of a country of your choice in google and look for presidential popularity. The first world as pretty unanimous about this. Then again I don’t know why that is such a surprise for you, Bush Jr’s popularity INSIDE the US in his 5th year is 20% lower than Clinton’s was at the same time. So I suppose the trend is universal.

As for an unsourced post claiming Clinton was Hitler, its kind of hard to respond to some bland assertion of a specific single unknown case, somewhere, somewhen.



Oh, you were talking about the Iraqi assault on the Kurds that began in 1975, after the US betrayed the Kurds by promising them a guarantee of safety then refusing to help once the Iraqi attacked? The Kurds were massacred, and this cynical betrayal was so appalling that it was cited in the US Congress Pike Commission as being one of the ‘worst examples of US cynicism’ during the CIA interference in Iraq and Iran.

The repression of the Kurds following the Algiers Agreement of March 1975 was done with equipment purchased from both the East and the West…



So that’s your argument? Despite being invaded TWICE by the US and clearly resisting with every military capacity and unit he had, he just decided not to use his WMD because… because there was no point because that would be helping the Americans? Because if he had used WMD, he would have lost anyways?

So by that argument, why did he bother sending in his military to fight the US? He must have know he could not win, so what’s the point in using ANY of his military? Do you really think this madman would have shown restraint in using any weapon at his disposal if he had had them?

Can you please try and explain your clearly counter-intuitive position?



I’m sorry, have you read a newspaper in the last two years? The Israel/Palestine conflict and the facets of it, from the suicide bombings to the building of the wall to the Hamas election, have been front page news all over the world. How could you possibly not know that? Once again it seems your facts are completely and obviously in error.

People oppose the US in Iraq, and more recently the complete mess the US is making of the post-war in Afghanistan because of Bush Jr’s handling of it, and because they think it is wrong, not because of some latent simmering Anti-Americanism.



Firstly, name-calling serves no purpose, please knock it off.
Secondly, no American would disagree with the fact that there is a war on terror, but the majority seem to think Bush Jr. is doing a bad job at fighting it. Just as a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq. These are the reasons Bush Jr. has an internal popularity in the high 30s right now. So it seems the people of the US are starting to agree with the rest of the world, who don’t dislike the US, they just dislike George Bush Jr.



Look, do you think I ENJOY pointing out your consistent errors? Do you think I find it worthwhile to debate with someone who on his first post on this board calls everyone else ignorant or stupid, and then goes on to show he knows little to nothing about international relations? I can list again some of your more staggering claims in the last 4 posts of yours if you like:
-The US invaded Iraq because it is a communist nation that supported the USSR.
-France invaded Vietnam in the 1960s.
-The United States invented Democracy
-Iraq was a country created by the USSR.
-The US refused to let the UN get involved in the Korean war
-The US ignored the Soviet VETO over the Korean war
-The US pays half of the UN budget

And so on. Do you think I like arguing with someone who makes points like these, things about which a high school student would know better, while at the same time calling everyone ELSE ignorant and stupid?

Its not that I can’t wait to say ‘your facts are in error’, its just that your facts are consistently in error.



No, I suppose you don’t. Chinese holdings in US debt have almost tripled since 2001. That means that as the US continues under Bush Jr. to deficit spend, that is spend money it does not have, this massive and growing deficit is being financed by China (among others). Bush Jr. is forcing the US to borrow massive amounts of money from China. That has a lot of economists, not to mention a lot of the US government, vry worried. Several congressmen have already called for an investigation, and yet Bush Jr. continues to deficit spend. Clinton left the US with the largest surplus in real dollars in all of US history. In 5 years Bush Jr. has turned that into the largest deficit in real dollars, in US history, and he continues to spend…



No, it wouldn’t, but since all your posts have done is make me chuckle, and occasionally grit my teeth with frustration at some of your more outlandish assertions, I don’t think that scenario is terribly likely. What was the point of that silly little comment anyways?



I apologise in advance, your structure of this sentence is really confusing (and please, I mean you no offence at all here, as I think you are doing incredibly well for someone who is ESL) so I have to make a few assumptions about what you were trying to say. If I am in error, I apologise.

Firstly, if I get your meaning correctly, then your facts are once again in error. France has a massive immigrant population and certainly has a school system designed to deal with the issue. Of course as recent events have shown, their social system has several critical deficiencies in dealing with the adult immigrant population and cloisterisation has not helped, but that is outside the scope of the debate. I already demonstrated that according to international rankings, the US education system on average is not even close to the best in the world, I note that you made no attempt to deal with that.



Well, if I can edit your post for hyperbole, yes several of the US universities rank among the best in the world. Certainly Ivy league schools like Harvard, Yale and Princeton are among the absolute best, ranking up there with Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE, Tokyo University and Utrecht University. In fact I will say that the US has more universities in the top 20 then any other nation in the world. But elite, non-subsidised, ultra-expensive Ivy league schools are NOT the average in the US. They are the cream of the crop, no question. But we are talking about average education, and even despite the quality of the Elite US schools, by the same ranking system, US education on average ranks below many of its European counterparts. Now don’t get me wrong, it is still one of the top 20 in the world, and it is not a BAD education system, but it is pure rhetoric and entirely counterfactual to just arbitrarily claim that it is the ‘best in the world’.



Well, thank you for that simple assertion based on nothing. However sadly, reality disagrees with you. Firstly, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) released a study that between 2000 and 2004, 38% more American doctors moved to Canada then Canadian Doctors moving to the US.

Secondly, Canadian doctors are routinely given priority treatment at interviews for top flight US hospitals. For example, despite the fact that Canadian doctors are bit a tiny fraction of all doctors in the US (less than 1%), 9% of doctors currently working at Johns Hopkins received their medical education in Canada.

A recent US survey (http://www.modernphysician.com/news.cms?newsId=4275) concluded that given similar patients and risk factors, survivability of heart attack patients was lower per capita in the US than in Canada.

I can go on if you like…



That is of course not the question you were asked, so I will assume you have conceded my original point. But on the new issue you tried to raise instead, no its true the best medical school in the world is in the US. It is difficult to rank world medical schools (are you ranking them in terms of research? Number of graduates? Etc) but it is safe to say Boston U or Johns Hopkins rank among the best. But same as before, those private elites do NOT represent the average…

Oh, and by the way, Canada is capitalist too, just so you know.



This is amusing. Not ONLY are your facts in error again, but this time the evidence that you are wrong is provided by the site YOU supplied to defend your tenuous position!

Firstly, we were talking about violent crime and murders. Secondly, I never said the US was the worst in the whole world, nor that Canada was the best. I did say that among the FIRST WORLD the US led the planet in murder rates, more than double the Canadian rate per capita.

SO, lets look at the site you provided shall we? We go to the chart on murder rates, and what do we see?

1. That the US has the highest murder rate among the first world
2. About Canada… here I admit I was wrong. I was in error. Mea culpa. I said that the US had double the murder rate of Canada, and it turns out my facts were in error. According to the site YOU provided, the US has TRIPLE the Canadian Murder rate, 42 per 100,000 as opposed to 16 per 100,000. Oops.
3. What on earth does your psudo-insulting rant about the population of Canada have to do with anything? Yes I know the population of Canada, I am Canadian. Did you, before you looked it up?

Here, look at it this way. Visit the Capitol of Canada someday, and look around. See the city, look at the crime stats, the housing stats, and so on. Then Go to Washington DC, more or less the same population, but compare the city, the ‘beauty’, the crime stats, the housing stats and so on. Let me know how they compare.



Well that is a staggeringly illogical answer just on the face of it. Who cares about living longer?

But even more illogical, is you obviously do not understand the stats which produce life expectancy in a nation. Genetically, the populations of Canada and the US in similar situations should have exactly the same life expectancy. But living in the US, (lack of health care, crime and so on) reduces average life expectancy by 3 full years. While you are off ranting about how the US is ‘the best country in the world bar none’ you might want to consider facts like that.

ASIDE: Quotes from here on are in 'Code' format due to quote limites on each post. Thanks Mike...



I already dealt with this though you ignored the answer. Firstly, US immigration rates from first world countries are neutral for most of them, and in fact currently NEGATIVE for some, like Canada. Secondly, the fact that you personally do not like the UN is utterly irrelevant in the relevance of its ranking, which is based not on some guys opinion, but on stats and figures easily available to the public.

In terms of immigration to the US, currently over 60% of the immigration is Latin American, with 30% from Mexico alone. (That is the reason that in the next 25 years, Hispanics will exceed whites in terms of percentage of population in the US)

The first world is a small part of the overall immigration figure, in particular when compared to the emigration figure.



Well I am glad you are ‘not willing to hate Canada’, though how that is relevant I cannot imagine.

I never compared the US to Eastern European countries, Asia or the Middle East, not once. I have consistently compared it to the rest of the first world. Again, your facts are in error.

Yes the US is currently the most powerful nation in the world in terms of military strength and size of the economy, but that does not make it the best place to live by any stretch. 15 years ago the second most powerful nation in the world was the USSR. Did that make it the second best country in the world? Of course not.

I have not been referring to social programs, I have been referring to social programs as part of the overall picture: education, crime rates, housing, health, and so on. In all of which the US ranking is consistently below many of its European counterparts as well as Canada.

Actually, the EU is doing quite well, and perhaps you would like to take a moment and compare the relative value of the US dollar against the Euro over the last 2 years? The value of the dollar internationally has been sliding consistently due to the habit Bush Jr. has of vast deficit spending. In terms of economics and policy, it is frankly too early to tell how tightly knit the European Community will eventually be, but to claim it ‘won’t work’ is silly and goes against every piece of evidence there is’.

Lastly, as I have said before, this fantasy that ‘people can only make it rich in the US’ is just that, a fantasy, or perhaps a long distant memory from the western frontier days. Tell you what, since you are SO confident that this ‘opportunity’ only exists in the US, perhaps you can explain to all of us why this is?

What is the patent process or small business investment policy I the US that is so different from Canada or France? How exactly does opportunity exist in the US where it does not anywhere else? So seem SO confident on this point, so Please illuminate us.



Your counter-factual rants are getting worse again.

Firstly, I have never compared the US to Eastern Europe or the Middle East. Every indicator I gave you on relative quality has been with the rest of the first world. Please check your facts.

Secondly, you don’t care if the US was popular under Clinton? Then why did you spend so long arguing against the point only to concede it now? Have some consistency.

Thirdly, How is Bush Jr. doing in that whole hunt for OBL? Still nothing?

Fourthly, exactly what military weapons secrets was Clinton supposedly giving away to Europe? What are you talking about?



I honestly cannot believe you are still trying to argue this. You admit you know nothing of the natural beauty of other countries, you then state you do not CARE to know anything about the natural beauty of other countries, but still try and make this staggeringly illogical point about the US somehow having more ‘natural beauty’ then other countries? Are you serious? I could list you Canadian wonders, but what good would that do you? If your fervent nationalism is so blind that you honestly think no other country can have the natural beauty of the US, then you have other problems, and I’m not going to bother trying to debate the basic principles of geology and biology with you.

Lets just drop this whole absurd tangent before it gets any sillier.




There is no such thing as a hyper power, it doesn’t even make sense. The US is the sole remaining superpower, there is no need to invent new words to try and make it sound even flashier.

Again, you go back to the military status of the US, which nobody is disputing. The US has the largest military in the world in terms of projectable power, and its military technology is either equal to or better than the rest of the world in 85% of cases, with a very few exceptions where US military technology lags behind other countries.

But so what? By any other objective standard the US ranks AMONG the top 15 places to live on the planet (which is not bad!), but never the best. Education, health, crime, life expectancy, racial integration and so on, all factored into a dozen studies, the UN world ranking being first and foremost, but if you ‘don’t like’ the UN, all equally available for you to examine on the web.


In the meantime, you keep on denying reality in this matter, all the while being singularly unable to provide any evience to back up your case, making vast numbers of basic factual errors, and calling everyone else names. Are you holding yourself up as an example, I wonder?

Actually, when you consider militaries of scale, the United States Military is the best equipped large scale force on the planet. There are some European nations that have armies that may be marginally better equipped, but this is predominantly due to their size and scope.



I hate to burst your bubble, but you make no claims that tie Mr. Clinton to the actual changes in the economy. Like I've said a million times on this board, the administration is only marginally tied to the economy.

Liberals love for Mr Clinton and spewing statistics that they neither understand nor can tie to actions of the President seemingly come out of the woodwork here...

Let me help you to understand the fallacies with your Micheal-Moore esque logic.....


Ok... let's break out what Mr. Clinton ACTUALLY did, or rather didn't do...
-In February 1993 President Clinton announces his new Administration's first economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The spending package is later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally irresponsible

- In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his $250-billion tax hike -- which New York Sen. Pat Moynihan accurately describes as "the largest tax increase in world history." It passes both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote. The package contains approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes

- In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat the bi-partisan Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut federal spending and the deficit by $90 billion over five years

- In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil "ClintonCare." The proposed hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy would add at least $75 billion to the deficit over the next six years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

- In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal Democrats in Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure supported by 75 per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a little too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions about this Administration: "The President is against simply balancing the budget

I could go on FOREVER....

Need More???
- In October 1994 the President signs into law his $30-billion "crime bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a vast array of new social programs" including federally funded exotic-dance classes, sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball leagues. The cost of the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic House of Representatives rejects the original version as too expensive

- In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."


Come on... you're making this entirely too easy... instead of talking about Bill Clinton and why you believe that GW is the reason that people don't like Americans... why not take a second to ponder the facts? ....

I agree. When I was referring to a few cases of other nations technological advantage, these are few and in the end would make little difference. Besides, to quote Stalin, "quantity has a quality all of its own".



I am sorry Aevans, but you are not bursting my bubble.

Reading throgh the thread you will discover that my posts about Clinton were not some attempt to make Clinton seem wonderful at all, your various 'factoids' attacking him are irrelevant. I was in fact responding to AmericanNations' claim that the economy was great under Bush Jr, saved after Clinton left it in tatters when he left.

For example, my argument about the GNP, had you read a bit more carefully, was nothing but a rebuttal to American Nation's claim that the economy is great under the leadership of Bush Jr because the American GNP increased last year.

I mean come on here. "Michael-Mooresque Logic"? None of the facts I presented about the rise in the GNP during specific years were wrong, nor could you claim such. But I notice you did not trot out your vitriol in regards to AmericanNations post right before mine, when he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING, using rise in GNP as an 'example' of a President's economic effectiveness, but he did it for Bush Jr.

I guess you felt you could only insult the logic when it was applied to a president you don't personally like, right? My whole point was that even if you used gnp as a presidential measurement as AmericanNation did, you STILL cannot claim that Bush has done a great job with the economy. You seem to have missed that entirely in your response though...


Next, I disagree that the President is only loosly tied to the economy. Bush Jr's profligate spending habits have had a substantial impact on the economy, foreign trade, the value of the Dollar and so on, and that is the direct negative effect of the policy of a single leader on the economy of the nation.

Thirdly, even the factoids you produced are hardly representative, only representative of your opinion. That is EXACTLY why I did NOT want yet another of the already innumerable Clinton vs Bush Jr debates to result from this thread.





That last half of the sentence if the first reference you have made to the actual topic, yet it bears no relation to the rest of your post.

Your facts about specific policies Clinton took or endorsed, regardless of their accuracy or representativeness, are irrelevant to the debate, and to my post.

Fine, you dislike Clinton. Power to you. But I have spoken at great length thoughout the last few pages about how Clinton, regardless of what you personally think of him, was very well liked internationally, and how most modern Anti-Americanism is actually anti-Bush Jr-ism.

If you want to actually make a point about that, then I am all ears...

I was making a point about the fact that the ideas that some liberals have about Clinton are not only non factual, but absurd to boot.

Frankly, I'm going to venture to guess that you really aren't an expert on how legislation is passed in the US... because you state:


The President doesn't pass a budget alone, in that Congress has to approve it. He rarely has an effect on foreign trade, as large scale foreign trade is done predominantly in the interest of capitalism. Finally, the value of the dollar has little or nothing to do with the President. Please prove otherwise... while you're doing that... read this from economist.com. It might give you a better idea as to where the values come from.

Frankly, the forces of capitalism and the health of the economy are marginally tied to the President. This is uttered from any economist from Keyes to Sowell....

Why does this have anything to do with the debate? Because I believe that it proves that most people's perception of the GW/Clinton debate has everything to do with the rhetoric that comes of the 8:00 news or from their friends/family as opposed to factual information.

Did the world like Americans prior to GW? Not really, of course unless we were spending money or bailing them out of trouble. It's really always that way... predominantly in Canada and in Europe. Asians don't mind seeing us, nor do people in S America or Australia.

International discontent with the war is prevalent. However, the real issue is that many people are frustrated (as I've stated previously in THIS thread) that their children are listening to Eminem and eating McDonald's. They see American culture infringing on their previous lifestyles, and see American culture as everything they've worked against. There are Starbucks on multiple corners in London (and I think there was one in Heathrow last time I was in) and Budweiser Products available in bars in Cannes.

People don't like the war, and often don't like GW. This is even prevalent in the US... but it has little to do with the distaste for American-ism as a whole. I think that capitalism and industrial reach are at least partially to blame... if not nearly completely. Heck, Vermillion, I'd be willing to bet that the PC you're typing on is from a US company or at least running an American operating system...

What do you think are the causes of Antiamericanism? Do you think it is rational, do you agree with it?

Historically, anti-Americanism has been around for a while. I first heard about it in the early 60s when I took my first college history course.

Americans have had so much for so long compared to the rest of the world, that less prosperous countries have naturally shown some hostility. Now that other countries are "catching up," I find much anti-Chinese, anti-Indian, anti-Mexican, etc. developing in this country.

Really? It looked to me like you took a discusion where Clinton was mentioned to launch an attack on him, regardless of the relevance of your comments. I also note you point out what you think are 'holes' in the logic of Clinton supporters, while saying not a thing when that very same 'holed' logic used one post earlier by a Bush Jr. supporter.



Firstly, your first point is semantic. Yes of course Congress has to approve the budget, but it is the President's Budget reflecting the president's priorities, and the party of the President that passes it in the house of representatives.




(Boggle)

Uh... ok...

Aevans, I am really very VERY confused right now.

-You assert the president and his policies have nothing to do with the value of the dollar

-Then you challenge me to argue otherwise.

-THEN, you provide a link to an article in the Economist called:
"The passing of the buck?
America's policies are putting at risk the dollar's role as the world's dominant international currency"

This article then goes on to describe in GREAT detail how the policies of the current administration have led to a devaluing of the Dollar, and possibly the eventual loss of the US dollar as reserve currency status which would have a devastating impact on the US economy.

In short, this article argues carefully and ardently the EXACT OPPOSIT