Originally Posted by djplong

Define the question.

Ok, that's oversimplifying. But here's what I mean.

Who are you? What do you want? "Number One" is subjective if you're just going to lump everything into one sound-bite-sized basket.

I'm sure you've seen those articles about "best place to live" or Rand McNally's old "Places Rated Almanac". They take a shopping cart full of variables, rank each place on them and then churn the numbers through a formula. Money magazine did the same things and proclaimed that Nashua NH (the city next to where I live) as the best place to live in 1987 and 1997.

So I'll ask you - "Number One" at what? ...and for whom?

My first wife seems to think Canada is the place to be. She's got 3 kids, the middle one is about to graduate and as soon as that happens, she's moving there with the youngest. She likes the health care, reduced stress and the fact that she'll be getting back together with the father of her youngest.

My best friend came here legally from South Africa (though you'd swear he was from London). He jokes about being an "African American" when his skin complexion resembles that of copier paper He jumped through all the flaming hoops to go through the process to become a citizen. For him, safety (crime was exploding in South Africa) and opportunity were paramount.

For me, I wouldn't permanently move anywhere else. Sure, I want to travel internationally - and I finally get my chance later this year. That doesn't mean I think my country is perfect. No matter how good, there is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Again, it's subjective. Take universities - since people like to point out that, by most measures, we still have the best universities (as a whole) in the world. Now look at tuition inflation, professors protected by tenure who make 6 figures and work 10-12 hours a week and drawing that salary from the backs of those who can least afford it (the proitotypical 'starving college student'). Overall, is that better than, say, Costa Rica where everyone gets a college education? My oldest daughter could NEVER have gone to college if it weren't for the $15,000/semester in scholarships she got from the school. My younger daughter, who's grades were still good but not quite as good, has no such prospect.

What if you love to drive? Is the wide-open U.S. the best (except where there are traffic jams) or is it Germany where you can go as fast as you want on the autobahn?

What if you came down with cancer and your health insurance company just cancelled your insurance?

Those are all subjective. There are things that can be measured objectively (like the life-expectancy stats I quoted yesterday, or things like military and health-care expenditures). You can say "most expensive" or "cheapest" for a lot of things.

But you're asking a subjective question. So I'll ask you - "Number One" by what measure?

As far as I'm concerned, I'll repeat what I said to my fiancee this past weekend. In my opinion, the United States is still the country that exists under the best of all practical possibilities. But, like our forefathers, we have to WORK and PLAN to make it so. We have to get off the oil drug, have a comprehensive transportation and energy plan - after all that's what helped us get to our position. We need to find a way to stop wasting so much money (i.e. objectively, we pay more for health care than anyone, subjectively, we're not getting what we pay for by a lot of metrics). We need to talk more and shout less. We need to think more long-term instead of Next Quarter. We need to hold corporations responsible for their actions instead of bailing them out.

Yes, we're still known as The Land Of Opportunity - but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how much more difficult that is.

You seem to want to do anything but answer the question? Now you want to ask more questions to prove your theory.

Your entire tirade seemed aimed at convincing us that The United States is no longer the number one place in the world to live. You did not qualify your tirade by saying who has replaced the U.S. as #1.

In response to your assertions, I asked who, in your opinion is now number one. There has to be a quantifiable and quantifiable number one if the United States is no longer.

Either your answer will be the Name of the new #1 nation or that you do not know of one that is better.

Yoda

Yoda, I ask for specifics and you accuse me of evading the question.

I'll ask you - "What is best?"

There is NO objective way to answer the question - it depends on who you are.

Take note of what I said earlier - areas where the United States demonstrated supremacy are now areas where we are no longer in the leader's position by any measure I can find.

Again - define the question. If you are capable of something deeper than sound-bite sloganeering, and I think you are, it shouldn't be that hard to define.

"The World" is not a sports league where games are measured and standings kept in one concise, inch-long article that can be gleaned in a glance.

What's more important to you?

If it's communications connectivity, then countries like South Korea, Iceland, Finland and, quite frankly, most of Europe are eating our lunch. (I could go on for quite a while in how our communications corporations are scraming to avoid the very thing that has made Europe's internet serive so much better than ours - AND WE INVENTED IT!!!)

Is affordable health care most important to you? Then we're pretty much last in the industrialized world. But if it's health-care-at-any-cost, then, yeah, we're the best there is.

What about transportation? One could argue that it's the very artery of commerce. But our ttransportation infrastructure is in pretty dire shape. Still, it's not too late to do something about it. But I can imagine the nightmare that would happen if Mt. Ranier blows it's stack and an ash cloud closes every airport form Seattle to Chicago. We don't have a railroad infrastructure to help get passengers to where they're going. You think Europe was hassled by the Icelandic volcano? Just wait and see if it happens here.

So how do you define "Number One"?

Life expectancy? Infant mortality? Number of gold medals in the Olympics? Military budget?

Financial markets? Not very long ago, London supplanted New York City as the perceived leader.

Maybe it's housing afordability - but even then, what kind of housing?

You're asking a question in a way that has no answer.

That is how you can distinguish a liberal from a conservative.

Ask a conservative on who's country is number one and 90 % of the time you will get USA.

Aska liberal who's number one and 90% of the time the answer is BS.

Originally Posted by Donna2

That is how you can distinguish a liberal from a conservative.

Ask a conservative on who's country is number one and 90 % of the time you will get USA.

Aska liberal who's number one and 90% of the time the answer is BS.

Donna2 I think I figured it out.

It's like grade school sports/ Nobody wins it was a tie. Don't hurt antibody's feelings. No big red F for failure.

Liberals will destroy this country just as they did in Greece.

USA is number one without argument until someone claims a new number one.

Yoda

Americans KNOW the USA is far and away the best place on earth to be a citizen of (poor English?).

If one has ANY doubts, in my narrow minded opinion, and they are trying to figure where else in the world is better, then they need to move on.

Even with our crooked politicians at any level you want to discuss, including out current POTUS, they are momentary self proclaimed idols who have ONLY their own individual best interest as a priority.....it is short lived and sooner or later they will bite the dust....and some one better will come along.

The good old USA is unequivically the best place to be....love it or leave it!!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

All the Red Blooded Americans I know btk

What color is the blood of the rest of the human species? Maybe homeschooled kids are taught something different than "government" schooled kids.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

What color is the blood of the rest of the human species? Maybe homeschooled kids are taught something different than "government" schooled kids.

Depending on who's schooling the home schooled kids. One thing for certain, government school's quality has been sinking for years. If government teachers were paid the equivalent of the quality they produce But with tenure and unions, they are guaranteed wage increases and exorbitant pensions regardless of the product quality.

Now before someone's nose gets bent out of shape, there are many fine school systems that somehow manage to keep the standards high. But they are the exception and not the rule, in my ever so humble opinion, of course.

The Roman empire was number 1 and I know all of you can think of a country or empire that had its turn at #1. I think what djplong is trying to say is that our position as #1 is very precarious and we do have major problems that must be addressed if we are to remain #1. Our infrastructure is collapsing...we have lost our economic independence..the lobbyist industry..obesity...the revolving door...using personal funds for campaign purposes...and no term limits....these seem to be the problems most experts say threaten not only #1 but our nation as we know it.

Why does there have to be a Number One or a New Number One?

Is it contrary to being thoughtful to believe that the U.S. is the only place on earth that one would like to live...but that there are some serious issues that are threatening our lifestyle and the future of our kids and grandkids? Can't we be the best and still agree that there are some issues that really need attention?

That's what I believe.

But if someone says "we're number one and that means we're number one in everything"...my reaction is that's complete nonsense.

My position is that simply mouthing a "We're #1" slogan shows a lack of thought.

As I stated before, it's my opinion that, as far as an overall feeling of possibilities and the *capacity* for fixing what ails us and succeeding beyond that, I *do* believe that the United States is the best country in the world. It doesn't mean that we're the 'best' at any one particular thing, or even (at the moment) in a collecting of 'things' (depending on what you choose).

For example, we all know we HAVE to get off the oil addiction. Ignore all the Global Warming / Climate Change arguments for the moment. FACT: We send FAR too much money overseas to goverments that have people who want to kill us. Nobody can argue that.

FACT: Nuclear power is far safer than critics would like people to believe. It also provides for major capacity upgrades in one fell swoop (as opposed to depending on perhaps thousands of homeowners to put up solar panels).

FACT: China is building several thousand miles of high-speed rail lines that are opening within the next 18 months.

FACT: Our airspace is congested leading to many delays that cost money and time. The least profitable routes are typically short-hop routes. The axim in the airline industry is "a plane only makes money when it's in the air"

PROPOSAL: By converting some existing rail lines to electric and building new high-speed lines between major cities, we could reduce congestion on the ground (cars), cut some gas consumption (cars & planes), improve airline on-time performance, stabilize electric prices (that wouldn't be subject to oil/gas price swings as much). Sounds like a WIN/WIN/WIN idea, yes?

PROBLEM: NIMBY. Heck, when they were building the Acela and stringing the electric wire over the tracks from New Haven to Boston, Connecticut NIMBYs tried to block the project claiming EMF emissions would cause them cancer (despite the fact that this didn't happen anywhere from Washington to New Haven which had the electric lines for nearly 100 years).

PROBLEM: BANANA. Can't have a nuke plant no matter how safe ANYWHERE if you listen to some of the activists. Can't dispose of the waste (despite the Yucca Flats solution and new technologies that make use of the waste)

PROBLEM: BUDGET. Oh we can spend $14B on 7 miles of road tunnels in Boston, but to create a network of high-speed lines radiating from Chicago (that would help Midway & O'Hares on-time numbers)? In that area, we've gone from Can-Do to Can't-Do in 40 years. We can spend half a trillion on drugs for seniors, but not a tenth of that to build the line from SF-LA that would get planes out of the sky and cars off the road.

PROBLEM: INTERFERENCE. We've gone from not listening to complainers enough (the human cost of some of our historical construction projects are truly shocking in this day and age) to listening TOO much (like the Cape Wind obstructionists I've mentioned before)

SYMPTOM: Sometimes, we're too nice. We don't want to offend people. We want to give a listen and hear what they have to say. But we're afraid to call a moonbat a moonbat.

We seem to lack the collective will to get things done and defend our positions. (And don't get me started in the role the media plays in this).

Everything I wrote here is just ONE example to demonstrate the problem that infects us in so many places. We're content to sit on our laurels while they rot away underneath us.

With the way the news is, people keep saying we should watch out or we'll end up like Greece. I'm not so sure that's accurate as we deal with crisis (historically) better than they do. You know who we seem to be mirroring? England. Think of England during Victorian times - heck early in the Industrial Revolution, we bought all our steam engines from them! But now they sit on a faded empire, revelling in past glories - though they've managed to keep more of their independence when it comes to the EU.

I still say that we can learn form the successes and mistakes of others, not just ourselves.

Originally Posted by Yoda

You seem to want to do anything but answer the question? Now you want to ask more questions to prove your theory.

Your entire tirade seemed aimed at convincing us that The United States is no longer the number one place in the world to live. You did not qualify your tirade by saying who has replaced the U.S. as #1.

In response to your assertions, I asked who, in your opinion is now number one. There has to be a quantifiable and quantifiable number one if the United States is no longer.

Either your answer will be the Name of the new #1 nation or that you do not know of one that is better.

Yoda

If you can get an answer from Djplong to anything or to back the assertions made you will be the only one to succeed.

I am beginning to think that this one sided approach to a discussion should be simple ignored.

Originally Posted by djplong

...Sometimes, we're too nice. We don't want to offend people. We want to give a listen and hear what they have to say. But we're afraid to call a moonbat a moonbat....

Well said, DJ.

And we're not willing to call a wingnut a wingnut either, even when they are aggravatingly obvious. There are way too many of them on both sides of the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Why does there have to be a Number One or a New Number One?

Is it contrary to being thoughtful to believe that the U.S. is the only place on earth that one would like to live...but that there are some serious issues that are threatening our lifestyle and the future of our kids and grandkids? Can't we be the best and still agree that there are some issues that really need attention?

That's what I believe.

But if someone says "we're number one and that means we're number one in everything"...my reaction is that's complete nonsense.

Why do we give tests in school? Why do we keep score at games? Can't we just be thoughtful?

Give me a break. It's that thinking that is running down or society.

Yoda

Ok, Yoda, then is THAT what you're talking about when you ask "Who is Number One?" Education scores?

You asked me, in post #13 where I was moving to. In post #29 you said "Who is number one?". I asked you to define the question - 'number one by what metrics'. In post #31 you accused me of being evasive and asked the same quesiton again - again without clarifying. In post #34 you made a blanket "USA is number one without argument" statement - and failed to indicate what you might have been using as a measuring stick. Just now you at least made SOME reference to tests and scores - but still no definition of how you would judge "Number One".

Again - by what metric?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Why does there have to be a Number One or a New Number One?

Is it contrary to being thoughtful to believe that the U.S. is the only place on earth that one would like to live...but that there are some serious issues that are threatening our lifestyle and the future of our kids and grandkids? Can't we be the best and still agree that there are some issues that really need attention?

That's what I believe.

But if someone says "we're number one and that means we're number one in everything"...my reaction is that's complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by Yoda

...Give me a break. It's that thinking that is running down or society....

Originally Posted by djplong

...Sometimes, we're too nice. We don't want to offend people. We want to give a listen and hear what they have to say. But we're afraid to call a moonbat a moonbat...

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...we're not willing to call a wingnut a wingnut either, even when they are aggravatingly obvious....

No further comment needed.