Talk:United States

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



Needs some factchecking[edit]

If anyone hasn’t noticed, there is a meme on the Internet that basically says,” the United States has been at war for 92% of its existence.” (You can search it up on Google) Is any of that true? AIDS Skrillex (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That depends on what constitutes as a "war". БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Here’s one example AIDS Skrillex (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Churchill quote[edit]

@Christopher My point is that Big Winnie was trying to get the Americans to join him, and so tried to present their entry into World War II as a good idea. While FDR was sympathetic of the British war effort, the American public was generally isolationist at this point. After all, no Axis Powers had provoked them, until Japan did exactly just that on a Sunday. Anyway, I will not press the issue further. If you find my point convincing, please change it back. If not, that's fine. Nerd (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd, I still don't see the relevance, but maybe I'm just being thick. I've left it in (reverting myself) as I seem to be the only one objecting and it's stood for a few months. Christopher (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher Let me be a little more specific. Churchill seemed to imply that the Americans were fumbling around till they found the "correct" way forward. (Don't get me wrong. Fighting fascism was a great idea.) In reality, however, they were actively avoiding involvement in someone else's conflict, pretty much Swiss style.
In any case, I'm glad we are talking this out and thus avoiding an edit war. :-) Nerd (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Christopher (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kazitor. Nerd (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see this has been a point of contention. I just assumed it was some "cheap patriotic comeback" (as I said) that'd been added a while ago and nobody had bothered to remove it. I stand by what I said though, don't have a quotation and then say that actually he's really stupid right underneath. Get rid of it if you don't like it. —Kazitor, pending 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kazitor I don't think it implies he was stupid, though. That's too strong an adjective. It was a cheeky and fairly accurate response to a cheeky and fairly accurate assessment. Again, it is a matter of perspective, which is crucial in teaching and learning world history. However, your suggestion that we remove it is a sound one. Nerd (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Shutdown[edit]

Are the 'anti-big-government' lot and others letting a good crisis go to waste - or are they waiting for a little longer? Should Senate and Congress members' salaries be the first thing to be affected by the shutdown? Anna Livia (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Great point. But to be completely fair to members of Congress, not all of them are anti-government nuts. Some are actually trying to get something done. Also, those Republicans who voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act also voted to exempt themselves from the consequences. They seem to understand the value of universal healthcare; they just don't want fellow Americans to enjoy the benefits. I do believe this is a serious case of treason. Nerd (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Politicians are a subset of the general population - good, bad, indifferent and 'er what?' Making them 'subjects of their own legislation that is likely to negatively affect people' #would# concentrate their minds wonderfully. Anna Livia (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Livia Indeed, Republicans don't care about the deficit if they are in charge. Need more funding? Cut social security. Nerd (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a 'one clause addition' to some legislation - 'official building thermostats' get shut down when there is a official shut down: legislators #do# act when personally affected. Anna Livia (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Added acceptance of evolution in America.[edit]

OK GrammarCommie, I will leave this article alone. I now understand why you deleted my edits. I apologize if I annoyed you by undoing the reverts that you made. All I wanted to point out is that the majority of Americans NOW accept human evolution.Coolguy10038 (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2018 Source:http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/polls_americans_believe_in_evolution_less_in_creationism.html http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

@Coolguy10038 Actually... No, they don't. They accept Old Earth Creationism rather the more logically untenable Young Earth Creationism. The bulk of the U.S. still thinks Goddidit is a valid answer, when that's not what science says at all. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In the money[edit]

Any comments on this?Following on from my point above, the legislators' salaries (and benefits) should be the first to be cut. Anna Livia (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)