Almost 1/3 of Americans Don't Know 9/11 Year - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dvae · 08-12-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

There ya go "defending" - I'm an "ass clown" for listing your own polls???

Sure, they are a range over a number of polls and some were never claimed to be statistically correct - others are. The post was a joke man - don't take it seriously.

OK, so if I make up my own poll about the people in your country you wouldn't care.
Believe me, I could make anybody out to be a bunch of numb nuts

Webby · 08-12-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

OK, so if I make up my own poll about the people in your country you wouldn't care.
Believe me, I could make anybody out to be a bunch of numb nuts

Oh Gawd

Yes.. can you please make up a poll about other nations - you will find it a little bit more difficult - but go ahead

PS And no - I really would not give a shit.

kapon · 08-12-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

This surprises you?
50% of Americans think we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

jayeff · 08-12-2006, 09:55 AM

Many times I wish I had studied mass pyschology properly instead of just dabbling in it. Because for example in the case of the WMD's (or rather the lack of them) isn't it bizarre that a year ago only a little over one-third of Americans believed they had been found and now half do.

The phenomenon is explained by some analysts who claim that reality is less important to many people than wanting to feel good about their country. Which in this context means finding a justification for the invasion of Iraq. And there is perhaps an explanation in that just before the Harris Poll this summer, a couple of Republicans did make a noise about a weapons dump that was discovered. They chose not to mention that the weapons were all old and useless, and I guess if you wanted to believe what they were implying, you simply ignored everyone who later pointed out that missing information.

Otherwise, most of the things Americans apparently don't know are down to poor education. The US has the lowest education standards of any industrialised nation and at least in terms of the most popular media, there isn't much risk that Americans' basic ignorance of the world around them is likely to be disturbed.

But it is only a matter of degree. Polls in other countries can be almost as embarrassing and everywhere, cost, rather than a sincere desire to educate, dominates.

onno · 08-12-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

Many times I wish I had studied mass pyschology properly instead of just dabbling in it. Because for example in the case of the WMD's (or rather the lack of them) isn't it bizarre that a year ago only a little over one-third of Americans believed they had been found and now half do.

The phenomenon is explained by some analysts who claim that reality is less important to many people than wanting to feel good about their country. Which in this context means finding a justification for the invasion of Iraq. And there is perhaps an explanation in that just before the Harris Poll this summer, a couple of Republicans did make a noise about a weapons dump that was discovered. They chose not to mention that the weapons were all old and useless, and I guess if you wanted to believe what they were implying, you simply ignored everyone who later pointed out that missing information.

Otherwise, most of the things Americans apparently don't know are down to poor education. The US has the lowest education standards of any industrialised nation and at least in terms of the most popular media, there isn't much risk that Americans' basic ignorance of the world around them is likely to be disturbed.

But it is only a matter of degree. Polls in other countries can be almost as embarrassing and everywhere, cost, rather than a sincere desire to educate, dominates.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Oh Gawd

Yes.. can you please make up a poll about other nations - you will find it a little bit more difficult - but go ahead

PS And no - I really would not give a shit.

Of course, because us Americans are just so naive and stupid. It's amazing that for as stupid as we are, we are as powerful as we are. Must say something about the rest of the world if us dumb Americans can dominate the world.

onno · 08-12-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Of course, because us Americans are just so naive and stupid. It's amazing that for as stupid as we are, we are as powerful as we are. Must say something about the rest of the world if us dumb Americans can dominate the world.

you can try to donimate the world as others did before. But at the end the number of low educated people will be the same or even higher.

jayeff · 08-12-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Must say something about the rest of the world if us dumb Americans can dominate the world.

I think you just demonstrated more than any poll could have done. Apart from which:

1. We claim not to want to dominate the world, so how smart is it that the US accounts for more than 40% of the total that every country in the world spends on armed forces?

2. How smart is that we spend so much money, yet while we are bogged down in two weak countries most Americans couldn't find on the map, we are probably incapable of a third such occupation.

3. How smart is it that we rank so poorly in areas such as education and health care, yet more than 50% of our annual discretionary spending (the amount "left over" after mandatory spending to comply with laws covering such things as social security benefits, medicare and paying the interest on the national debt) goes to the military.

Actually, since we have the most expensive per capita education system in the world and ditto health care system, their problems are obviously not lack of funds. Nevertheless, the point about disproportional spending remains valid.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onno

you can try to donimate the world as others did before. But at the end the number of low educated people will be the same or even higher.

There will always be a percentage of your population that is dumb, simply because of the lack of natural selection in our society. We support the non-educated and stupid people through welfare and other social programs. Hundreds of years ago, that population wouldn't have been able to survive and reproduce. It sounds harsh, but the fact we do support our low intelligence population so much is a reason why they continue to flourish.

Nonetheless, we have the brightest minds in the world in our country.

Downtime · 08-12-2006, 05:11 PM

now that is sad

onno · 08-12-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

There will always be a percentage of your population that is dumb, simply because of the lack of natural selection in our society. We support the non-educated and stupid people through welfare and other social programs. Hundreds of years ago, that population wouldn't have been able to survive and reproduce. It sounds harsh, but the fact we do support our low intelligence population so much is a reason why they continue to flourish.

Nonetheless, we have the brightest minds in the world in our country.

*cought* some of the brightest minds in the world are in US, all we know that, but a high % of these super minds aren?t americans, they are they for money and resources. Btw, it's funny how you compare the 0.1-0.5% people with exceptionally minds with the rest.

It's barely known that the best universities in the world are in the us, but only a few people can go there. So, the high education its exclusive only for the people who can afford the universities fees or for some lucky people with scholarship grants. So have the best people there doesn?t mean you are like them

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

I think you just demonstrated more than any poll could have done. Apart from which:

1. We claim not to want to dominate the world, so how smart is it that the US accounts for more than 40% of the total that every country in the world spends on armed forces?

2. How smart is that we spend so much money, yet while we are bogged down in two weak countries most Americans couldn't find on the map, we are probably incapable of a third such occupation.

Unfortunately, our economy has always been tied to war. War brings jobs and money into the US economy. It's a sad state of affairs, but that is unfortunately the truth. It is what makes what Bill Clinton did even more impressive as it was the first time it was that prosperous in a peace time economy.

Quote:

3. How smart is it that we rank so poorly in areas such as education and health care, yet more than 50% of our annual discretionary spending (the amount "left over" after mandatory spending to comply with laws covering such things as social security benefits, medicare and paying the interest on the national debt) goes to the military.

It's difficult to compare us to other countries that have a more socialist government. We are a capitalist economy which means you get what you pay for. Our top schools and medical facilities are world famous and people throughout the world come to us for health care and education. We have the best doctors and professors in the world. On the other hand, those who can't afford those things don't have that option. If you are poor you can't afford the Mayo clinic for your surgery. If you are poor you won't go to the best high school in the state.

I guess I'm just more of a libertarian in my beliefs. I worked hard for my money and in some ways don't feel like I'm responsible for other people's education and health care. It's just a socialist vs individualism approach to society in which the US is more individualistic than other countries in the world.

Quote:

Actually, since we have the most expensive per capita education system in the world and ditto health care system, their problems are obviously not lack of funds. Nevertheless, the point about disproportional spending remains valid.

Again, this is a socialism vs individualism issue. We have schools that are very poor, have a few computers for students, and very low paid teachers. Than in the wealthier areas you find high schools where every student has a laptop, teachers make 6 figures, and the school is on the cutting edge of everything. We have free clinics and stuff for the poor that feature low wage doctors and the bare minimums for health care. On the flip side we have doctors who make millions for curing rare ailments and performing amazing medical feats.

I think we all would like everyone to be offered the best of the best. The problems is that the more socialist your economy and society becomes, the less motivation there is to become better. If a doctor can't charge the top dollar for health care because he has become the best doctor in his area, why strive to become better? If all teachers and schools are the same, what motivation does a teacher have to become better?

Sometimes are flaws are actually our positives. Having a set of haves and have-nots motivate individuals to become better.

jayeff · 08-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

There will always be a percentage of your population that is dumb, simply because of the lack of natural selection in our society.

And another gem. I think that is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that dumb people are only to be found among the ranks of the chronically poor. So is it just bad luck when someone manages to blow a fortune which his or her family has held for generations?

More people move down the economic ladder than up it. If that were entirely a consequence of individual shortcomings rather than something systemic, it would still indicate that "dumb" people can be found at every economic level. And since the vast majority of us fail to rise above the economic class into which we were born, you might even be able to make a case that very few of us are particularly well equipped with whatever it takes to succeed.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onno

*cought* some of the brightest minds in the world are in US, all we know that, but a high % of these super minds aren?t americans, they are they for money and resources. Btw, it's funny how you compare the 0.1-0.5% people with exceptionally minds with the rest.

It's barely known that the best universities in the world are in the us, but only a few people can go there. So, the high education its exclusive only for the people who can afford the universities fees or for some lucky people with scholarship grants. So have the best people there doesn?t mean you are like them

I don't agree with that statement at all. The "can't afford college" route has been used as an excuse or crutch by many who didn't go. Yes, college is expensive. Paying for the top minds is expensive and providing a high level of education with the top of the line technology is too.

Nonetheless, I've never seen someone not be able to acquire financial aid to attend schools. Whether it's grants, scholarships, federal loans, or private school loans, there is always a way of getting the money to go to college. Banks practically throw money at you when you are that age. Yes, going to Harvard is expensive as shit and you will end up with a crapload of school loans. But a degree from Harvard usually guarantees you'll end up with a pretty sweet job.

Yes, college is expensive. So is buying a car, house, or anything else in life. I went to college with no money at all and was able to get loans and even earn some scholarships through working hard. I had school loans when I got out, but worked hard and paid them off. If I could do it, why can't others?

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

And another gem. I think that is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that dumb people are only to be found among the ranks of the chronically poor. So is it just bad luck when someone manages to blow a fortune which his or her family has held for generations?

More people move down the economic ladder than up it. If that were entirely a consequence of individual shortcomings rather than something systemic, it would still indicate that "dumb" people can be found at every economic level. And since the vast majority of us fail to rise above the economic class into which we were born, you might even be able to make a case that very few of us are particularly well equipped with whatever it takes to succeed.

Unfortunately, our school budgets are proportional to the local property taxes. This means that the wealthy areas have great schools and the poor areas have bad schools. If you attend a bad school, you are less likely to get a good education and even less likelier to succeed in the world.

Yes, there are exceptions and not every human being who falls into an economic class like that. But it is a fact that we pay individuals on welfare more for every child they have. It is true that the uneducated are having more children than the educated in our society.

We came to be based on millions of years of natural selection and development. The stronger, smarter survived. We are who we are today because over those millions of years, the stronger genes survived in our society and continued to reproduce. We are at a point in this world where that no longer takes place to an extent and us as a species may not evolve much more.

jayeff · 08-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

this is a socialism vs individualism issue

It has nothing whatever to do with socialism vs individualism: capitalism is as much a form of collectivism as socialism is. Nor is there anything magical about military spending. Government spending per se is what has the impact, more than what the money is spent on, although if you wanted to dig deeper, you would find that tax dollars spent on the military benefit the economy far less than tax dollars spent on welfare.

In any case, I'm curious how you find the whole concept of arguably unnecessary government spending compatible with your claims to be a libertarian and wanting to hang on to the money you have earned. I get the impression of smugness rather than political conviction.

jayeff · 08-12-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

We came to be based on millions of years of natural selection and development. The stronger, smarter survived. We are who we are today because over those millions of years, the stronger genes survived in our society and continued to reproduce. We are at a point in this world where that no longer takes place to an extent and us as a species may not evolve much more.

I'm done for the day, so my last comment is that we have not relied on natural selection for thousands of years. It would be easier to argue that since we raised property ownership and wealth in its various forms to be more important than personal characteristics, we have flown in the face of natural selection. Particularly once we added inheritance into the mix.

To that extent, if any natural selection at all still goes on in our society, far from being among the wealthy, it is among the poor, who have nothing except their personal strengths with which to get by.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

It has nothing whatever to do with socialism vs individualism: capitalism is as much a form of collectivism as socialism is. Nor is there anything magical about military spending. Government spending per se is what has the impact, more than what the money is spent on, although if you wanted to dig deeper, you would find that tax dollars spent on the military benefit the economy far less than tax dollars spent on welfare.

In any case, I'm curious how you find the whole concept of arguably unnecessary government spending compatible with your claims to be a libertarian and wanting to hang on to the money you have earned. I get the impression of smugness rather than political conviction.

I never said I agreed with the spending. I hate big government spending, am against the war, and against a lot of the ridiculous spending we have.

I disagree with welfare spending benefitting military spending as a boost to our economy. One is a way of giving your citizens money that is actually creating something and making your society stronger by not only building something, but creating skill sets that the society can adapt to. With welfare, you are giving out money and getting nothing in return.

For instance, you have $10,000. Do you give it to a guy and tell him here, this is your welfare. He doesn't learn anything from it, doesn't gain skills, doesn't do anything. Or do you take that $10,000, provide him with a job where he helps make a company better and bigger, all the while earning himself a set of skills that will benefit him in life. I can't fathom how you could argue welfare spending is better for a society than giving them jobs.

In any case, I never advocated government spending. I am simply pointing out what the US economy has been dependant on for a long time. It is "the easy way out" I guess for many Presidents. I think it's a bad way to do it, but it's unfortunately where we are at.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

I'm done for the day, so my last comment is that we have not relied on natural selection for thousands of years. It would be easier to argue that since we raised property ownership and wealth in its various forms to be more important than personal characteristics, we have flown in the face of natural selection. Particularly once we added inheritance into the mix.

To that extent, if any natural selection at all still goes on in our society, far from being among the wealthy, it is among the poor, who have nothing except their personal strengths with which to get by.

I disagree here as well. Think of the many wars fought over the past thousands of years. Think of societies, cultures, and people that have been eliminated because a stronger one came in and wiped them off. I don't agree with it, but I'm saying it has taken place. If it didn't, where did all the Native Americans go?

Star 69 · 08-12-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poisson

That's so pathetic. 2/3 of USA dont know they share border with canadians.

onno · 08-12-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Unfortunately, our economy has always been tied to war. War brings jobs and money into the US economy. It's a sad state of affairs, but that is unfortunately the truth. It is what makes what Bill Clinton did even more impressive as it was the first time it was that prosperous in a peace time economy.

It's difficult to compare us to other countries that have a more socialist government. We are a capitalist economy which means you get what you pay for. Our top schools and medical facilities are world famous and people throughout the world come to us for health care and education. We have the best doctors and professors in the world. On the other hand, those who can't afford those things don't have that option. If you are poor you can't afford the Mayo clinic for your surgery. If you are poor you won't go to the best high school in the state.

I guess I'm just more of a libertarian in my beliefs. I worked hard for my money and in some ways don't feel like I'm responsible for other people's education and health care. It's just a socialist vs individualism approach to society in which the US is more individualistic than other countries in the world.

Again, this is a socialism vs individualism issue. We have schools that are very poor, have a few computers for students, and very low paid teachers. Than in the wealthier areas you find high schools where every student has a laptop, teachers make 6 figures, and the school is on the cutting edge of everything. We have free clinics and stuff for the poor that feature low wage doctors and the bare minimums for health care. On the flip side we have doctors who make millions for curing rare ailments and performing amazing medical feats.

I think we all would like everyone to be offered the best of the best. The problems is that the more socialist your economy and society becomes, the less motivation there is to become better. If a doctor can't charge the top dollar for health care because he has become the best doctor in his area, why strive to become better? If all teachers and schools are the same, what motivation does a teacher have to become better?

Sometimes are flaws are actually our positives. Having a set of haves and have-nots motivate individuals to become better.

I don't agree with that statement at all. The "can't afford college" route has been used as an excuse or crutch by many who didn't go. Yes, college is expensive. Paying for the top minds is expensive and providing a high level of education with the top of the line technology is too.

Nonetheless, I've never seen someone not be able to acquire financial aid to attend schools. Whether it's grants, scholarships, federal loans, or private school loans, there is always a way of getting the money to go to college. Banks practically throw money at you when you are that age. Yes, going to Harvard is expensive as shit and you will end up with a crapload of school loans. But a degree from Harvard usually guarantees you'll end up with a pretty sweet job.

Yes, college is expensive. So is buying a car, house, or anything else in life. I went to college with no money at all and was able to get loans and even earn some scholarships through working hard. I had school loans when I got out, but worked hard and paid them off. If I could do it, why can't others?

Unfortunately, our school budgets are proportional to the local property taxes. This means that the wealthy areas have great schools and the poor areas have bad schools. If you attend a bad school, you are less likely to get a good education and even less likelier to succeed in the world.

Yes, there are exceptions and not every human being who falls into an economic class like that. But it is a fact that we pay individuals on welfare more for every child they have. It is true that the uneducated are having more children than the educated in our society.

We came to be based on millions of years of natural selection and development. The stronger, smarter survived. We are who we are today because over those millions of years, the stronger genes survived in our society and continued to reproduce. We are at a point in this world where that no longer takes place to an extent and us as a species may not evolve much more.

I disagree here as well. Think of the many wars fought over the past thousands of years. Think of societies, cultures, and people that have been eliminated because a stronger one came in and wiped them off. I don't agree with it, but I'm saying it has taken place. If it didn't, where did all the Native Americans go?

Sorry man but i must say now that some your arguments seems ridiculous.

Seems that all the world except US is socialist or retarded. And that education level in the rest of the world is lower. What makes you think all socialist countries has poor education? Some of the best mind in the history had been from socialims countries and some of them the went to work in the states. So that means there are brilliant minds out of states.

About health care system i think it's better you take look on other countries (like Sweden) and say then if you have the best system. If you are poor you can afford Mayo clinic? better say that if you aren?t rich you cant afford it. And if you spend a moment and look the doctors in the Mayo clinic, some of them aren?t Americans. And again there are brilliant minds and doctors and scientist out of states. The smart world doesn?t end at the states and out there the are intelligent and smart people too.

About studies if all people was able to study in Harvard, it wont be the best university in the world. Only selective universities can expend massive money in investigation and lectures. And why you haven?t an alternative university system free for all the people? give free education isn?t so bad. And then you can decide if you want high elitist education level like in Harvard, or some not so elitist education, but university studies for all people.

Ah! not only the stronger survives, the weak can survive too. And the natural selection arguments had been used by brilliant minds like Hitler and some dictators. So it?s and common arge used by people the think they are better than the rest. Natural selection can be used in wild live, but in our society it's not a really valid arge, I'm sure you know weakest and dumbest people that they have better job, more money and a nicer wife than you. So what happened here, they when against natural selection??? or maybe they had better opportunities and more luck that you had. So who cares what natural selection says if the weak can go over the strong. Seems that you like to mention war and history? in some past battles the poor and weak busted the monster and stronger, simply by errors in strategy or just because they didn?t expected the attack. So again natural selection failed. Also the powerfull went shit when other even more powerfull came to the stage.

Isn?t so complicate to assume that apart of good things you have bad things too. Once you assumed the problems you can really see and try to solve them.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onno

Seems that all the world except US is socialist or retarded. And that education level in the rest of the world is lower. What makes you think all socialist countries has poor education? Some of the best mind in the history had been from socialims countries and some of them the went to work in the states. So that means there are brilliant minds out of states.

I never said that. I said that you couldn't compare an education system on average between two different styles of governments. The US has a system that will produce a broader range of people from the really smart to the really dumb. A socialist education will form people with more consistency and less gap between haves and have nots. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Although I am against government spending and such, I do feel that there needs to be more minimum standards placed on schools in our country so that the schools that don't get the funding from property taxes can still provide a high level of education and produce a smarter society.

Quote:

About health care system i think it's better you take look on other countries (like Sweden) and say then if you have the best system. If you are poor you can afford Mayo clinic? better say that if you aren?t rich you cant afford it. And if you spend a moment and look the doctors in the Mayo clinic, some of them aren?t Americans. And again there are brilliant minds and doctors and scientist out of states. The smart world doesn?t end at the states and out there the are intelligent and smart people too.

I never said that there aren't brilliant minds outside the states. I'm saying that our form of health care gives more motivation to doctors. The reason doctors come from overseas to the US is because if they are great doctors, they can earn more. In a socialist form of health care, the good doctors make as much as the bad doctors and there is no motivation to be a better doctor. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but remember it would increase taxes dramatically. Canada has much higher taxes than the US. I would rather give the government less of my money and be able to choose my own health care. Not to mention the fact you have no control over who you see and have put the power of your healthcare in the hands of your government.

Quote:

About studies if all people was able to study in Harvard, it wont be the best university in the world. Only selective universities can expend massive money in investigation and lectures. And why you haven?t an alternative university system free for all the people? give free education isn?t so bad. And then you can decide if you want high elitist education level like in Harvard, or some not so elitist education, but university studies for all people.

There isn't an alternative university that is free because the demand is not there. There are many people who don't attend college or don't want to. They don't want their tax dollars poured into a system they will never use. Still, the states and federal government do provide a lot of funding for the univiersities and in many cases subsidize over half the costs of a student. Most state schools are very affordable if you live in that state. I was able to pay $1900 a semester to attend a state school. Schools like Harvard and such are private and can charge whatever they want as they don't receive the same kind of aid.

Quote:

Ah! not only the stronger survives, the weak can survive too. And the natural selection arguments had been used by brilliant minds like Hitler and some dictators. So it?s and common arge used by people the think they are better than the rest. Natural selection can be used in wild live, but in our society it's not a really valid arge, I'm sure you know weakest and dumbest people that they have better job, more money and a nicer wife than you. So what happened here, they when against natural selection??? or maybe they had better opportunities and more luck that you had. So who cares what natural selection says if the weak can go over the strong. Seems that you like to mention war and history? in some past battles the poor and weak busted the monster and stronger, simply by errors in strategy or just because they didn?t expected the attack. So again natural selection failed. Also the powerfull went shit when other even more powerfull came to the stage.

I stated that natural selection has come to an end in most of the civilized world. I was arguing the point that it hasn't existed in thousands of years which it has. It also still exists in very minor situations where families are genetically unable to have a healthy child or children at all.

Jack_Daniels · 08-12-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasago Reno

No great surprise there.

This from the same country that voted Bush in...twice.

Yeah, I gotta admit the truth does hurt sometimes.

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack_Daniels

Yeah, I gotta admit the truth does hurt sometimes.

That does hurt.

In defense of the country though, it wasn't like the other option was better.

Basically you had a pile of shit on the right. The other choice was covered with a box. But inside that box you had a pretty good idea it was another piece of shit. The US just chose the piece of shit on the right.

onno · 08-12-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

There isn't an alternative university that is free because the demand is not there. There are many people who don't attend college or don't want to. They don't want their tax dollars poured into a system they will never use. Still, the states and federal government do provide a lot of funding for the univiersities and in many cases subsidize over half the costs of a student. Most state schools are very affordable if you live in that state. I was able to pay $1900 a semester to attend a state school. Schools like Harvard and such are private and can charge whatever they want as they don't receive the same kind of aid.

Here is where governments and educators must fight and not in wars, to find the way to encourage the most people as possible to get a high education. Education is something basic for us, so it not good to think if you can pay go for it but i cant fuck you. This problem is in all the countries, but getting access to a not too expensive education helps to encourage people to study. For you must have the opportunity to spend you money in private schools.

fuzzylogic · 08-12-2006, 07:32 PM

i am not gonna post some super long essay here but i find it funny how the USA is represented in japanese anime -- as strong and dumb tool for japan to use

KingK7 · 08-12-2006, 07:34 PM

What the fuck is up with the 5000 word essays on here?
Cliff notes please.

notabook · 08-12-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingK7

What the fuck is up with the 5000 word essays on here?
Cliff notes please.

Thread summarized in three words: Americans are stupid.

KingK7 · 08-12-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Thread summarized in three words: Americans are stupid.

No shit...
Ever see "Jaywalking" on Jay Leno...? That about sums it up

Drake · 08-12-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poisson

That's so pathetic. 2/3 of USA dont know they share border with canadians.

bs

notabook · 08-12-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingK7

No shit...
Ever see "Jaywalking" on Jay Leno...? That about sums it up

Yeah lol... that old show 'Street Smarts' was pretty accurate as well.

sltr · 08-12-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Best of all... wait for it

60% of Americans believe Joan of Arc is Noah's wife.

the actual % is 12%
http://www.google.com/search?q=60%25...en-US:official

pocketkangaroo · 08-12-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sltr

the actual % is 12%
http://www.google.com/search?q=60%25...en-US:official

Enough with your factual evidence, you'll ruin all the fun.

sltr · 08-12-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Enough with your factual evidence, you'll ruin all the fun.

sorry-

104% of all americans should be strung up and killed

Webby · 08-12-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Of course, because us Americans are just so naive and stupid. It's amazing that for as stupid as we are, we are as powerful as we are. Must say something about the rest of the world if us dumb Americans can dominate the world.

Man... Apart from this post, I just read thru the rest of the diatribe of utter bullshit you just wrote in a pathetic attempt to defend a load of, presumably, mainly unscientific polls in media which were only posted as a joke in response to the thread title.

Well... thanks for writing all that stuff - I'm amazed - it says a LOT

You just supported the sample "polls" - better than they could ever have done - and proving there is foundation with the quantities of innaccurate statements and total assumptions you just made.

That stuff is astoundingly sad - seriously dumbstuck here

It's a friggin joke man - don't take it seriously. I can't believe anyone anywhere would feel a need to actually try and seriously defend what presumably is a load of crap (tho obviously with some foundation) - I'm surprised at ya PK!

Sheesh... I knew GFY was bad, but this is kinda makes ya lose all faith

SleazyDream · 08-12-2006, 09:09 PM

everyone records history differently in their own mental memory of it- the year may be more important to some than others.

all that poll shows is someone cares to much about if others know what year 9/11 happened. - they pretty much ALL knew what 9/11 was and that it DID happen though I'd be willing to bet

08-12-2006, 05:11 PM	#60
Downtime Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: America. Posts: 7,320	now that is sad __________________ #27024067

08-12-2006, 09:09 PM	#86
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	everyone records history differently in their own mental memory of it- the year may be more important to some than others. all that poll shows is someone cares to much about if others know what year 9/11 happened. - they pretty much ALL knew what 9/11 was and that it DID happen though I'd be willing to bet __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

08-12-2006, 09:55 AM	#54
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Many times I wish I had studied mass pyschology properly instead of just dabbling in it. Because for example in the case of the WMD's (or rather the lack of them) isn't it bizarre that a year ago only a little over one-third of Americans believed they had been found and now half do. The phenomenon is explained by some analysts who claim that reality is less important to many people than wanting to feel good about their country. Which in this context means finding a justification for the invasion of Iraq. And there is perhaps an explanation in that just before the Harris Poll this summer, a couple of Republicans did make a noise about a weapons dump that was discovered. They chose not to mention that the weapons were all old and useless, and I guess if you wanted to believe what they were implying, you simply ignored everyone who later pointed out that missing information. Otherwise, most of the things Americans apparently don't know are down to poor education. The US has the lowest education standards of any industrialised nation and at least in terms of the most popular media, there isn't much risk that Americans' basic ignorance of the world around them is likely to be disturbed. But it is only a matter of degree. Polls in other countries can be almost as embarrassing and everywhere, cost, rather than a sincere desire to educate, dominates.

08-12-2006, 07:32 PM	#76
fuzzylogic Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: buffalo, las vegas. icq: 285808879 Posts: 4,796	i am not gonna post some super long essay here but i find it funny how the USA is represented in japanese anime -- as strong and dumb tool for japan to use

08-12-2006, 07:34 PM	#77
KingK7 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 6,372	What the fuck is up with the 5000 word essays on here? Cliff notes please.