Question for the 'Muricans
 

I was wondering how you as a people felt being so patriotic about a country that really doesn't have an actual name., in no different of a way than referring to the EU as "The United States of Europe"

What name would you like to adopt for your nameless United Landmass that happens to be situated in the Americas.

It's a slooow day.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Dont forget the United Arab Emirates, same deal.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

We have our states? Some people get really excited for their state (looking at you, Texas).

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

In some ways I admire the state governance in America. I think centralization is good in some aspects, like public health prevention, as long as it's actually public health and not corporate contract stunted. That said, I would love a Canada that shifts from a 'quebec separation' dilemma into a more 'state' situation. Ideally, join BC and Quebec(maybe nflnd for cheap labour), creating a francophone/english cross continent republic that abides by the Canadian criminal code and all the other rubbish, but we could legalize medicine and subsidize McGill tuition. Contract Bombardier to make rigid airships to accommodate cheap air travel and have the canucks and habs play each other five times a season....
Eastern hash, poutine, cheese, and BC salmon, bud, and snowboarding. Recipe for success.
sloow day

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

I've actually thought about how our country's name sucks. You're right, it doesn't really have specific name...it's just a bunch of states that are united in the Americas. Well, I think Ginkasa has a point though. We all do associate with our States more than we do with the whole country. Whenever I travel around, I always point out when I've been through different states. So it never actually feels like you're traveling through one country, but rather through different states.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Keep in mind that the original intention of the US was to essentially be a series of economic and military treaties between mostly independent states. The 10th amendment decreed that almost all laws not issues in the Constitution or Bill of Rights should be decided on a state my state basis. We've gotten very far away from that vision, but that is where the name comes from.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Columbus Land

England part II

The Subjugated Indian Territories

All Your Base

Texas and the Rest

W.B.B.P. (We Bomb Brown People)

Manifested Destiny

North Mexico

:tap:

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

'Mystery Babylon'

Not to incite a religious debate ;)

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Galactus.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Yep, yet here you are born in a nameless country separated into 50 seemingly independent areas with widely differing views, being governed as one country from a location that isn't even part of any of those states.


I actually lol'd at that more than I should have.


I still personally like the DPR(o)A. Not because that's what North Korea calls itself and it's some type of jab, but because "The Democratic People's Republic of America" is way more accurate at describing your country than "The United States", [They are hardly United, one floating way out in the ocean, buying one from Russia, phff.] plus that's what North Korea calls itself, and it's some type of jab!.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

Is Canada really all that different, or should I ask someone from Quebec what they think about it? :lol:

In all honestly, I think the confederation of states is a better way to organize and govern such a large country with a diverse population. Traveling from the Philly area to New Orleans, you might think you are in another country if you didn't know better. Local governments know their population, the culture (which varies greatly from state to state and in the same state in many cases), what they want and need, and can supply it more efficiently (IMO). In most cases, federal programs have either failed in delivery (poor performance for the people), or failed in management (out of control expenses, spending).

The European Union seems to view the United States as a template for future governance, so all jokes aside (many very funny - North Mexico), I'm not sure what everyone finds all that unique about our structure or name...

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

The downside is if you're born in a state that tends to have radical views it's harder for the federal government to set things right.

Mostly talking about very conservative southern states - how many people are disadvantaged from birth due to outdated views on gender, sex education, and marriage?

I don't think the federal government could fix all these things with the wave of a wand, but it makes things more difficult when the mantra "let the state decide" is so ingrained.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

The simple answer is "move", even though I understand it's not that simple for everyone. But hell, if destitute Mexicans can find a way to illegally travel thousands of miles across national and state borders for the chance at a better life, I think we're a little lazy to think an American is trapped in a state.

For things like health care, states can serve as laboratories for ideas. For example: One aspect of Romneycare that many people ignore, or simply got understand, is that not all plans fit all states/communities. Romneycare was built for Mass. If you were to build something for Florida, it would likely be very different. It also allows these governments to compare notes, learn from mistakes, and because the size of the program is much smaller making positive change is much easier. After all, we've seen what happens when anyone tries to fix social security: political death sentence. reduce the stakes and people will take more intelligent risks.

And of course I think real human rights issues like gender and race should be handled on a national level. I'm referring to many social programs such as welfare, unemployment, healthcare, and also many social issues, such as gay marriage, that are more a reflection of that state's specific culture or economic makeup. I'm for gay marriage, but I also don't think it is pragmatic to force it on a community. Let them decide, and as we've seen the force of the nation, not the government, can move mountains and people are more tolerant because they were given a voice. It takes more time, but the end results are far better. Forcing people to do something, like Roe v. Wade, leads to 40 years of contention and even murder.

Uh oh... we just got all serious in a joke thread... :)

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

I agree that if you live in a place that tends to go against all your ideas you should move, but that still sets the person back even further economically, just because of where they were born.

But I'm not just talking about adults stuck in a situation that they don't like. I mean how many people grow up into a tragic lifestyle because they were born in a state that willing fosters and encourages intolerance and ignorance? Teenage pregnancy, hate crimes, drugs, etc. A lot of people don't even have the chance to get out before they are consumed and become just another cog moving the wheel forward.

And I think we would be worse off than we are without Roe v. Wade. I think there would be more deaths due to illegal abortions than there are deaths from people rallying against abortion. I mean, no one is pro abortion. Everyone wants there to be less or zero abortions, and evidence from around the world shows that places where abortion is legal and sex education is more available, there are actually less abortions.

Same with gay marriage. In my mind it's a human issue alongside gender and race and a state shouldn't be able to up and discriminate against those people under the guise of culture and heritage. That rings a little too close to the KKK slogans for me.

But these are two very different schools of thought and an argument that has been going on since the birth of the nation. I'm the Hamilton to your Jefferson.

Re: Question for the 'Muricans
 

While I appreciate the good intentions of having national government handle the issues you mention, I'm not sure what any national or state government could do about much anything you mentioned. Culture supersedes laws, and in most states that have poor records on those issues they already have laws on the books that haven't done much.

That assumes that the status quo of the early 1970's would have maintained. I would argue that most states would have at least early term abortion legal with appropriate protections against late term abortion/infanticide. But then again, we're both speculating. In any case, abortion is a very blurry issue because both the rights of the mother, and at some point the rights of an unborn child (from months 7-9 the only real difference between a viable baby and a fetus is location), need to be considered. Honestly, this is why I tend to favor the state by state approach because it allows 50 states to create solutions as opposed to one country that can't seem to agree on anything...

I don't personally disagree, but IMO we have to measure the severity of the violation to rights to the impact it would have on the society, and compare that to momentum. Prohibiting gay marriage doesn't really "hurt" anyone, but telling a state they had to allow gay marriage could lead to reactionary violence in the least tolerant regions. Also, momentum is definitely moving towards gay marriage being legalized on a state by state basis. Given a decade, I would assume half of the states will legalize gay marriage, if not more.

Very true.