Which Party do you feel will "fix" America's problems?

[Jyosua]

This is funny. Not many kids KNOW American history. You gotta start somewhere. I'm surprised to see people not even a little bit interested in history. Too many people think it's boring.

Besides, we only dedicate 2 years to American History, and one to government. 8th grade and 11th grade. Of course Elementary schools teach it, but come on.

That doesn't change the fact that the kids don't know ANY world history.

No, it doesn't. Honestly, I don't see where you're going with this. I think it's much more important to teach/learn about your own country's history first. 1 year dedicated to world history is good enough to me. A student can go into independent studies after that.

How long do other countries spend learning world history?

1 year for American History is plenty to get the gist of it. What really matters is that either the teachers suck, or the students don't put any effort into learning it, and get passed anyways. My issue with the school system is that neither me (private school) or my friends (public school) were required to take any sort of world history, aside from half baked elementary school classes that focused on the stupidest aspects, because they related to the US. The first real exposure I had to it was in college's western humanities class, and what the fuck, that's only about half the world. I'm completely unaware of any history regarding areas like Russia, Asia, and more, other than stuff I've picked up on my own, which isn't much.

[Phoenix Wright]

Such "advancement" wasn't limited to the U.S. nor a production of such a nation, really. It was more of the "at the right time, right place" kinda stuff.

Studying the details of everyday life during the Great Mortality is usually more fantastic and interesting than whatever American history is being written to accommodate egos and sheep.

I love you right now.

Just a little fun fact: The industrial revolution happened in the UK before it happened in the US. Renaissance happened in the UK before it happened in the US. limited monarchy, which was a form of representative government happened in the UK before the US.

How exactly has the US "advanced" so quickly? By following others footsteps, so really I wouldn't call that an advancement, I'd call it an improvement. Sure, you blokes have made a few advances that others didn't have, but the basis of America is copied from other cultures. In fact when writing your own constitution, they looked at other nations laws, such as France and England.

A lot of America was based off of other countries. I dropped out of school and I still know that. I really detest this American centralized point of view...

Read Quanta's post, and then come back to this one. :)

The UK was a country before Columbus sailed here. It would be SAD if we did anything before you guys. FYI, the US didn't have a Renaissance period. In fact, not for many years did countries outside of Italy have a Renaissance. The Renaissance (1450-1525) didn't have much impact on anyone besides the Humanists and the people who were able to read their books. Another reason for the Renaissance was the inclusion of the "Middle Class," which were a bunch of powerful merchants.

The fact remains we advanced quickly because it took us a few hundred years to get what countries still don't have after a few thousand. Catch my drift? It's not like luck had nothing to do with it, though. We're very lucky.

Also, I don't see what's so bad about using other countries ideas, and changing them to make it "our own." The UK didn't come up with everything either. The language you're using now is borrowing off of so many languages it's really not funny.

1 year for American History is plenty to get the gist of it. What really matters is that either the teachers suck, or the students don't put any effort into learning it, and get passed anyways. My issue with the school system is that neither me (private school) or my friends (public school) were required to take any sort of world history, aside from half baked elementary school classes that focused on the stupidest aspects, because they related to the US. The first real exposure I had to it was in college's western humanities class, and what the fuck, that's only about half the world. I'm completely unaware of any history regarding areas like Russia, Asia, and more, other than stuff I've picked up on my own, which isn't much.

You telling me this makes me feel lucky. My school has fantastic teachers. It's too bad only about 15% of our school's students care though. It truly makes me angry sometimes. Especially when I see some that have a lot of potential. Edited August 29, 2009 by Old Snake

[Crystal Shards]

This is funny. Not many kids KNOW American history. You gotta start somewhere. I'm surprised to see people not even a little bit interested in history. Too many people think it's boring.

Besides, we only dedicate 2 years to American History, and one to government. 8th grade and 11th grade. Of course Elementary schools teach it, but come on.

That doesn't change the fact that the kids don't know ANY world history.

No, it doesn't. Honestly, I don't see where you're going with this. I think it's much more important to teach/learn about your own country's history first. 1 year dedicated to world history is good enough to me. A student can go into independent studies after that.

How long do other countries spend learning world history?

1 year for American History is plenty to get the gist of it. What really matters is that either the teachers suck, or the students don't put any effort into learning it, and get passed anyways. My issue with the school system is that neither me (private school) or my friends (public school) were required to take any sort of world history, aside from half baked elementary school classes that focused on the stupidest aspects, because they related to the US. The first real exposure I had to it was in college's western humanities class, and what the fuck, that's only about half the world. I'm completely unaware of any history regarding areas like Russia, Asia, and more, other than stuff I've picked up on my own, which isn't much.

My question is who cares? You don't need to know everything about world history, and there's so much of it you can't really expect students to a-absorb it all, and b-really give a shit. Those who are actually interested will continue learning about it, just like kids who are interested in math or science or any other subject. We don't expect every kid to know calculus or advanced physics by the time they get out of high school, because quite frankly, some of them just can't handle the information and most of them won't use it. The same goes with world history. And before anyone pulls out the whole, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" crap, I agree, but only to a certain extent. Expecting every single school to focus on world history on top of English proficiency on top of technological proficiency on top of mathematical proficiency on top of all that other random shit they shove down these kids' throats nowadays and STILL expecting them to be mentally stable is a farce.

"Stupidest aspects"? Which ones are those? I think being forced to learn about the Russian Revolution is stupid. I think being forced to sit through lectures about the hundreds of emperors China has been through is stupid. Focus on crap that actually affects our country and the way it's run, not the Renaissance and its 1023480324 painters/sculptors/poets. There is nothing wrong with focusing on America's history, as we're AMERICANS. German students learn a lot about Germany's history and Dutch students learn a lot about Dutch history. Ukrainian students learn a lot about the Ukraine and Macedonians about Macedonia. That's the same anywhere. Yeah, kids should get SOME world history in there too, but there's no reason to learn irrelevant information. And just because you and your friends had a shitty education doesn't mean the whole country's in the shitter and we need to add even more onto these kids' plates. We can't know everything.

[Agro]

You can call us blokes all you want (I'm really not sure if that's an insult, it really just sounds like racism), the fact remains we advanced quickly because it took us a few hundred years to get what countries still don't have after a few thousand. Catch my drift? It's not like luck had nothing to do with it, though. We're very lucky.

Bloke is a word equivalent to calling someone a "nigger"; just for white people instead. I think you should start fighting.

Goddamnit, the stupidity. "Bloke" = "guy" or "dude". I'll tell it like it is: this is the reason why the rest of the world thinks America is stupid.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Angelix

[Rehab]

Well then that's shitty impressions getting the better of them and they can't really claim much high ground if they apply Stupid Murrikans^TM to the rest of us. Just because one guy hadn't picked up what one familiar colloquialism means doesn't mean widespread derision gets a free pass. Unless you're lazy then it's cool

[Phoenix Wright]

You can call us blokes all you want (I'm really not sure if that's an insult, it really just sounds like racism), the fact remains we advanced quickly because it took us a few hundred years to get what countries still don't have after a few thousand. Catch my drift? It's not like luck had nothing to do with it, though. We're very lucky.

Bloke is a word equivalent to calling someone a "nigger"; just for white people instead. I think you should start fighting.

Goddamnit, the stupidity. "Bloke" = "guy" or "dude". I'll tell it like it is: this is the reason why the rest of the world thinks America is stupid.

Don't fucking attack me like that. I don't expect you to know every colloquialism America has, I can't see why you'd expect me to know all of Scotland's.

Pretty childish reason to call Americans stupid.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on America's history, as we're AMERICANS.

Also my thoughts. Edited August 29, 2009 by Old Snake

[burning_phoneix]

We were radically changing in those few hundred years. Some countries haven't become advanced after a few thousand years! Cough-Middle East-Cough.

Wow, it seems that you guys really do need at least some basic world history lessons.

[Agro]

Don't fucking attack me like that. I don't expect you to know every colloquialism America has, I can't see why you'd expect me to know all of Scotland's.

Attack? I'm not attacking you. I just said I told it like it is; the rest of the world seriously thinks Americans are stupid. I never you were actually stupid, did I? I've been to America and met a lot of people, and I know that they're not stupid, though I do think America on a whole is somewhat ignorant to the worldly affairs. I was merely saying that your comment was a prime example of why the rest of the world thinks you're stupid (hint: Google words you don't know).

[Celice]

We were radically changing in those few hundred years. Some countries haven't become advanced after a few thousand years! Cough-Middle East-Cough.

Wow, it seems that you guys really do need at least some basic world history lessons.

though to be fair, theocracy is so bat-shit crazy

[burning_phoneix]

We were radically changing in those few hundred years. Some countries haven't become advanced after a few thousand years! Cough-Middle East-Cough.

Wow, it seems that you guys really do need at least some basic world history lessons.

though to be fair, theocracy is so bat-shit crazy

To be fair, no nation on earth can claim to be thousands of years old.

[Phoenix Wright]

We were radically changing in those few hundred years. Some countries haven't become advanced after a few thousand years! Cough-Middle East-Cough.

Wow, it seems that you guys really do need at least some basic world history lessons.

though to be fair, theocracy is so bat-shit crazy

To be fair, no nation on earth can claim to be thousands of years old.

China?

[burning_phoneix]

We were radically changing in those few hundred years. Some countries haven't become advanced after a few thousand years! Cough-Middle East-Cough.

Wow, it seems that you guys really do need at least some basic world history lessons.

though to be fair, theocracy is so bat-shit crazy

To be fair, no nation on earth can claim to be thousands of years old.

China?

As a socio-political entity, maybe. As a country? No. Communist China is new.

[Celice]

To be fair, no nation on earth can claim to be thousands of years old.

Nuh-uh. There's those reptilian things up north that've been waiting around, manipulating our politics and whatnot. They're older. Or close to it. Whatever.

What happened to that wacko who thinks there's some conspiracy that everything is centered around the U.S.? He needs to pull his head out of his Greco-Roman ass and open up to the rest of the world, that dumb jerk.

[Fox]

Aren't you a victim of the sort of brainwashing America loves to feed its population with to deceive them into thinking it's like, the greatest country in the world?

It is.

[Cynthia]

This was an unexpected turn... Well none the less it seems we all have mixed opinions on the country, and on what needs to be done.

[quanta]

I'm just going to say one thing. One.

God I hate (almost(some fraction of)) all of you (inthisthreadforthelast(coupleof)pages).

Ok, maybe not just one thing. But seriously (some of you) guys, can we stop the "your country is more retarded than mine", assuming people are insulting us, and random generalizations? It's annoying and doesn't contribute to discussion. It was amusing for maybe the first few posts. Now it just makes us all look retarded, whether we're contributing to the retardation or not.

Stop speaking to people as "Americans" or "Not-Americans" or taking a single sample point (because that's clearly the path to drawing a good conclusion) to draw broad conclusions about a whole population for your own amusement. Even though it seems funny or clever at the time.

Besides, 10 bucks (or the currency of whatever country you prefer) says that by any (pseudo-)scientific measure of intelligence you're all (probably) dumber than me anyways.

Thus I can lump all of you punks' into one entity of "not-the-incredible-awesome-that-is-quanta" just like I can lump together everybody who lives in one country, judge that whole country by a couple people in it, then measure them against a nonspecific and nonexistent baseline. Then I can make a smug post and feel really smart about the fact I know more about something than a stranger.

Actually, no I can do better than that. I am just going to declare everything my country especially the internet, because everything is made up of quanta (except maybe time and space).

That's right. Any of you who don't understand at least classical physics and mathematical analysis can get right out of my country of quanta, because clearly you are not allowed to speak FOR REASONS WHICH DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. RAWR!

If you're still reading at this point and haven't caught the sarcasm, then I have failed miserably...

Y'know, there's something very liberating about posting in a manner other than my normal, relatively-restrained "srs buzinezz" tone. Seriously though guys, try to relax a little.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and to get back on topic, I think that it's a bad idea to think of one party as "fixing" America.

It's more useful to think in specifics. What are we talking about? Immigration? I prefer the Democrats' stance on this. Education? I like the idea of vouchers, charters, and school choice. More Republicans support this idea than Dems maybe, but some of the most important backers of this approach are Democrats. National Defense? TBH I don't think about this one too much in comparison. Foreign Policy? My priority is free trade; don't really care who's backing it. Health Care? Although I'm against the Democrats on this one, I'm certainly not with the Republican party; they're being lazy and not doing jack shit to offer any sort of counter-proposal. Financial Regulation? In-between. The environment? Neither.

Edited August 30, 2009 by quanta

[Jyosua]

Besides, 10 bucks (or the currency of whatever country you prefer) says that by any (pseudo-)scientific measure of intelligence you're all (probably) dumber than me anyways.

I'll take this bet. According to the Weschler Scale, I have an IQ of 138, am in the top 99% of people, and am a Member of Mensa (The Tampa Bay Mensa in particular. I'm actually the editor for the damn newsletter, in fact).

[Celice]

You have an IQ.

That's great. You preform well under specific condition and instruction in a specified manner. Now, let's examine intelligence under various other scopes of understanding. Gardner, Triarchtic, EQ, common-sense. Something even Wiki-savants could understand.

[Cynthia]

Wow...

This thread has taken a strange turn... However I would like to remind you that we're not identifying intelligence here.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Cynthia

[Jyosua]

You have an IQ.

That's great. You preform well under specific condition and instruction in a specified manner. Now, let's examine intelligence under various other scopes of understanding. Gardner, Triarchtic, EQ, common-sense. Something even Wiki-savants could understand.

Wow...

This thread has taken a strange turn... However I would like to remind you that we're not identifying intelligence here.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I know these things, but I couldn't help but amuse myself by replying like that to his sarcastic "bet". Let it be said that I normally don't go telling my IQ to the world, nor to I tell people I'm a member of Mensa, but as much as I like Quanta, I wanted to have a little fun with that comment.

[Shuuda]

Well, I would like to remind you all that this is the "Serious" Discussion area. So all this off-topic sarcasm whatever can bugger off. Any more off-topic posts will be punished.

[quanta]

'll take this bet. According to the Weschler Scale, I have an IQ of 138, am in the top 99% of people, and am a Member of Mensa (The Tampa Bay Mensa in particular. I'm actually the editor for the damn newsletter, in fact).

Never taken an IQ test. XD

The comment wasn't really aimed at you, but I'll make sure to tell you if I ever take an IQ test. I can give my PSAT and SAT scores though although I know the correlation isn't very tight. :P

PSAT- 233/240 first time, 225/240 second time. Clearly, I grew dumber between my sophomore and junior year of high school! :D Well, that or the more plausible explanation of natural variation.

SAT- 2210/2400. Only took it once.

I guess I should look into taking that test at some point to change my accounts balance by + or - ten.

So anybody else want to go more in-depth on their political views besides me?

Or should I go make a separate topic for one of the things mentioned above? To quote myself

It's more useful to think in specifics. What are we talking about? Immigration? I prefer the Democrats' stance on this. Education? I like the idea of vouchers, charters, and school choice. More Republicans support this idea than Dems maybe, but some of the most important backers of this approach are Democrats. National Defense? TBH I don't think about this one too much in comparison. Foreign Policy? My priority is free trade; don't really care who's backing it. Health Care? Although I'm against the Democrats on this one, I'm certainly not with the Republican party; they're being lazy and not doing jack shit to offer any sort of counter-proposal. Financial Regulation? In-between. The environment? Neither.

Anybody have suggestions on which of these topics sounds most interesting? I'm partial to anything besides Health Care really. Environmental policy is actually really interesting. There's a lot of interesting interactions between economics and ecology in it. Lots of room to apply game theory and ecological theory, plus the huge importance of incentives and the variations in rational and irrational human behavior.

Edited August 31, 2009 by quanta

[Jyosua]

'll take this bet. According to the Weschler Scale, I have an IQ of 138, am in the top 99% of people, and am a Member of Mensa (The Tampa Bay Mensa in particular. I'm actually the editor for the damn newsletter, in fact).

Never taken an IQ test. XD

The comment wasn't really aimed at you, but I'll make sure to tell you if I ever take an IQ test. I can give my PSAT and SAT scores though although I know the correlation isn't very tight. :P

I realize that it wasn't aimed at me, but you should take an IQ test sometime, if only for fun. It's an interesting experience.

It's more useful to think in specifics. What are we talking about? Immigration? I prefer the Democrats' stance on this. Education? I like the idea of vouchers, charters, and school choice. More Republicans support this idea than Dems maybe, but some of the most important backers of this approach are Democrats. National Defense? TBH I don't think about this one too much in comparison. Foreign Policy? My priority is free trade; don't really care who's backing it. Health Care? Although I'm against the Democrats on this one, I'm certainly not with the Republican party; they're being lazy and not doing jack shit to offer any sort of counter-proposal. Financial Regulation? In-between. The environment? Neither.

Anybody have suggestions on which of these topics sounds most interesting? I'm partial to anything besides Health Care really. Environmental policy is actually really interesting. There's a lot of interesting interactions between economics and ecology in it. Lots of room to apply game theory and ecological theory, plus the huge importance of incentives and the variations in rational and irrational human behavior.

Education is most interesting to me. I would like some clarification as to what is meant by "vouchers" and "charters" though. I agree with school choice, that's very important because frankly, some schools suck, and you shouldn't be stuck having to go there just because of where you live.

[Superbus]

Besides, 10 bucks (or the currency of whatever country you prefer) says that by any (pseudo-)scientific measure of intelligence you're all (probably) dumber than me anyways.

I'll take this bet. According to the Weschler Scale, I have an IQ of 138, am in the top 99% of people, and am a Member of Mensa (The Tampa Bay Mensa in particular. I'm actually the editor for the damn newsletter, in fact).

And you still have the common sense of a gerbil. This, by the way, is coming from someone who measured out at 145 when he was 19. IQ is meaningless without practical use, but I'm sure you'll argue some practical use you put to something when you were 17 to protect your ego.

Anyway, I haven't read many posts because I saw this thread was three pages deep, and the few I've read bore my prediction through: most of it was wank. So I'll just come in, say my piece, and you'll all marvel at my insight. Except Quanta, who'll probably argue anything I have to say with reason and intelligence. Fucking tosser.

To ask the question "which party will fix America's problems" exposes multiple problems, and a severe lack of perception on the part of the person asking the question. It's to the point where I have to ask if this is a trick question.

First off, to assume that elected politicians can "solve" any problems is asinine. Politicians are not policy makers, they're policy salespeople. They get elected basically through connections, money (LOTS of money; it's impossible to run for anything above local selectman without some serious bankroll), and by making the most believable promises to the most taxing issues on the minds of most Americans. They then, upon elected, receive advice on what to push through, but not by us; we've done our job upon electing people, and are not very useful at this point. Most of the advice comes from paid lobbyists, usually for a business or a special interest. Oh, what's that, Mr. Senator? You're going to regulate my company? Well, I certainly understand that, but last I checked, we're building a manufacturing plant in your district, and I'd REALLY hate to see those plans shuttered should your regulation that you promised cause undue cost to my company, causing them to cut back, and costing your state thousands of jobs... oh, what a pity that would be. Furthermore, the policy is made by people behind the scenes that crunch all of the numbers and set a plan of attack; it's the politician's job to sell that to the people and vote on it upon legislation.

Furthermore, by assuming that one party can "fix" things, you're also assuming that the other party cannot fix anything. Really? Is policy that cut and dry? OK, the Democrats believe in a totally socialized, single-pay health care system, larger government involvement in issues relating to the economy, lowering defence spending, allowing same-sex marriage, stronger gun controls, and higher taxes. The Republican party, on the other hand, believe in the current, free-market health care system, a more free market economic system, higher defence spending, banning same-sex marriage, abolishing or limiting gun controls, and lowering taxes. By saying that one "party" can fix things and the other cannot, you're having to adopt every position of that party as your own. I'm willing to bet that most Americans are strongly against this; after all, I'm a little of column A and a little of column B on all of these issues. Furthermore, as a registered Libertarian, I don't even really agree with every stated position of my own party. That's what I like to call independent thought.

And speaking of that, you seem to think that every party member toes their own company line. What about the "Blue Dogs", the Democrats that come from conservative areas? Or Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who are one of the few Republicans to cross the proverbial aisle to get anything done without a 100% stalemate (such as that stupid "stimulus")? Again, this is naivete.

Instead of asking which - if any party - can fix America's issues, how about we identify just what those issues are in the first place? Is the economy an issue? Well, according to some, the US is exiting it's current recession, and the economy is cyclical, so don't worry about it. Is it education? Well, how is it a problem and how do we fix it? Street violence? Do we increase police presence and lock down gun controls, or do we lax up gun controls and let the people defend themselves? These are the things that have to be thought about instead of a completely asinine question about political parties and politicians, as if they actually mean anything in the long run.

[Jyosua]

Besides, 10 bucks (or the currency of whatever country you prefer) says that by any (pseudo-)scientific measure of intelligence you're all (probably) dumber than me anyways.

I'll take this bet. According to the Weschler Scale, I have an IQ of 138, am in the top 99% of people, and am a Member of Mensa (The Tampa Bay Mensa in particular. I'm actually the editor for the damn newsletter, in fact).

And you still have the common sense of a gerbil. This, by the way, is coming from someone who measured out at 145 when he was 19. IQ is meaningless without practical use, but I'm sure you'll argue some practical use you put to something when you were 17 to protect your ego.

Heh. Depends what aspect of common sense. I'll admit to being socially inept, but that's about my only weak point. Unfortunately it's a big one.

As for the rest of your post, I agree that politicians suck when it comes to problem solving, because they cater to everyone BUT the people who voted for them. In effect, this leaves only the people with money getting anything out of this.

From what I've observed, a strong leader tries to be impartial to either side, and take each issue as it comes, leaving you with a sort of mix. If everyone sticks to party lines, then nothing ever gets done. This has been seen many times before in legislature. Needless to say, we haven't had a strong leader in a long while, in my opinion, anyways.

Overall, I think we should focus more on the issues rather than who is pushing them. Personally, I hate the Democrat/Republican labels, and wish there was a way to do away with parties altogether, but with our type of government, I don't see that happening.