A few not so great things about America..

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: EMO! I will stand by my bands!

Sometimes its hard to be a woman Giving all your love to just one band You'll have bad times And they'll have good times Doing things that you don't understand But if you love them you'll forgive them Even though they're hard to understand And if you love them Oh be proud of them 'Cause after all they're just a band

[are you ready for it? ....]

Stand by your band Give them your alms to cling to And something warm to come to When nights are cold and lonely Stand by your band And tell the world you love them Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your band Stand by your band And show the world you love them Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your band

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: OK, here's my list:

Finding a parking spot at Wal-Mart

The fact that they are so unethusiastic about soccer, while I'm starting to be a fan

Wal-Mart itself(plus McDonald's and Budweiser) should be at the top of this list.

No enthusiasm for soccer at UNC? What about all of those NCAA championships? Once again, what a bunch of freakin' TAR-HOLES!!!

Yea to whoever said SUV's & Oprah.

As I am paranoid and feel tagged with a "anti-America" étiquette because of my citizenship, I prefer to say nothing.

Jiphy wrote: As I am paranoid and feel tagged with a "anti-America" étiquette because of my citizenship, I prefer to say nothing.

Screw that, this is the thread to say it in!

Boatraceface wrote:

ghost rider wrote: president shrub

edit: play nice,bfr, did you post anything nice in the other thread?

Muhammed Ali....Exeptional man!That's really great from where I'm sitting Gaz! You know I'm nice to you anyhow Gaz. Now play the how shit is America game I'm hitting the sack,late here

Muhammed Ali is an exceptional man. Not many like him these days.

Tollways and constant road construction.

[darkgreen]Green[/darkgreen] wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: OK, here's my list:

Finding a parking spot at Wal-Mart

The fact that they are so unethusiastic about soccer, while I'm starting to be a fan

Wal-Mart itself(plus McDonald's and Budweiser) should be at the top of this list.

No enthusiasm for soccer at UNC? What about all of those NCAA championships? Once again, what a bunch of freakin' TAR-HOLES!!!

Yea to whoever said SUV's & Oprah.

I don't mean UNC, I mean the World Cup. US got lucky from that Italian guy's flub.

pumped full of drugs wrote:

Why are so many "American" products regarded boring/bland and low quality compared to Europe (because they often usually are), irregardless of where they were actually manufactured... such as "American" beers, clothes, "American" cars such as Chevy and Ford... the lost is endless. even with cool American stuff they are made "cool" because the British and Europeans like them giving them "import" cred.

american apologists are the worst at doing that

"oh how i wish i was from somewhere cool like London. Do you like British sitcoms"

*maim*

those jim & tammy baker style praise the lord ministries on TV. the english would never get sucked in to all that money robbing/cripple curing shite. wtf?

NEW YORK CITY

a bunch of self important nonsense. No one's actually from the city...it's full mostly cornfed midwest bumblefuck rednecks who are so impressed that they've finally "made it" and live there.

Fuck off kthnx

Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The fact they are so damn powerful.

Pretty much everything else one would want to list follows from point 2.

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

fastfood

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

True for congress, but I disagree when it comes to presidential elections.

Shellshocker wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

I think Vermont, RI, Maine, etc would beg to differ.

It doesn't give disproportionate influence...it gives them a seat at the table. Rather than a tryanny of the midatlantic states and northern california over the rest of the country.

True for congress, but I disagree when it comes to presidential elections.

it doesn't matter if you disagree...you're wrong.

:D

Democrat politicians

wusses

Phily know-it-alls

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

greyhound buses. is it actually possible to travel from NY to LA on one, or do you have to make several stops?

not to mention, bus stations are filthy.

Don't all Americans have therapists to sort out their 'problems'???

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

Also, TX and FL would also be in the list of super populous states... ;)

Brangelina. I am so fcuking sick of hearing about them and their baby. One would think it's Jesus & Mary Magdelene come back to earth and having a kid.

Oh wait, I guess that is a topic on another thread...

those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

AgentWood wrote: those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

You mean Republicans?

AgentWood wrote: those 'love it or leave it' a-holes.

in the eighties, it was a National Front motto... Last night I heared it again in the mouth of a "republican"... That is scary... it is not all about America it is a globalized shift of the conservatives... pas glop pas glop...

ChrissMari wrote:

404 error wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

404 error wrote: Their weird electoral system which seems to give disproportionate influence to low population density states (which are usually conservative states).

The electoral system here sucks! It was basically insituted because the founding fathers didn't quite trust the masses, so they gave themselves a loophole in cases the masses did something stupid, so the electors could give the votes that actually count to the "right man". Worst of all, if we had a popular vote instead of an electoral vote, Bush would not have won in 2000!!

and if it was the popular vote rather than a well proportioned system the president would only represent the most populated areas of the countries foresaking all others, because you'd only need the population of like 6 large cities to win.

See, I think that would a perfectly good system. I mean, its entirely up to you Yanks what system you use, but this 'proportioned' system seems rather like the daft system the EU uses, where one Luxembourger vote is worth six Germans or Five Brits - I don't like that system at all, and if I were a Californian or a New Yorker I wouldn't like your system either. At least the EU can say its giving extra weight to actual nations with their own languages and cultures, not just states.

I prefer one person one vote, all of equal worth. True that would give big power to the big cities, but what's wrong with that? [warning: over-the-top rant ahead] What have low population density rural areas given the world? The Taliban, the electoral base of the German Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the killers of Srebrenica, the Countryside Alliance and the US religious right. While the cities produced most of the opposition to those movements.

It doesn't end up one person one vote with that kind of population dispersal though. It winds up more power to popular areas and people who were born somewhere by accident of birth don't get really represented.

And in the current system, those people are overrepresented. All you have to do is be some inbred halfwit living in a state with more livestock than people, and you have more representation than people who, by accident of birth, live in a city. Yeah, that makes sense.

When you're on meth.