What do you dislike about Americans in general?

[BigBallinStalin]

Are you using my favorite bait?

[MeDeFe]

Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

You mean, like the way Southern Plantation owners worked?

Keep on trying

It's true.

[Caymanmew]

americans in general think there the best at everything

[thegreekdog]

1) The sense of entitlement, whether at home or abroad, that nightstrike point out in his post. This includes not just "bailouts" but also the common "why don't you speak English good" that seems to be commonplace abroad.

2) Half of Americans think there is nothing wrong with the country and/or that we'd all be better off if it was 1955. The other half of Americans think the country is despicable and that we'd all be better off it we were nicer to our international neighbors, ignored our own self-interest (whether on an individual basis or on a national basis), and imposed some brand of socialism.

3) Our "culture" which now consists mainly of big budget movies with no plot, big budget movies with horrendous acting, big budget movies that copy other movies (made in earlier years, made with a smaller budget, or made by a non-American), overhyped pop music (including, but not limited to, bands like Fallout Boy and most rap/hip hop), and novels that read like movies. Grr...

That being typed, I've lived abroad and I like it here, thank you.

[Night Strike]

I dislike the growing attitudes of entitlement and lack of responsibility. It's always either someone else's fault or we're owed something. Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

Agreed. Look at civil lawsuits in general, and you'll see that many people have this attitude of self-entitlement yet completely disregard their own responsibility in the case.

Ack, I had forgotten about those. I don't know who is worse: the individuals/groups thinking they deserve those huge sums of money, or the juries who actually award the amount.

[thegreekdog]

I dislike the growing attitudes of entitlement and lack of responsibility. It's always either someone else's fault or we're owed something. Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

Agreed. Look at civil lawsuits in general, and you'll see that many people have this attitude of self-entitlement yet completely disregard their own responsibility in the case.

Ack, I had forgotten about those. I don't know who is worse: the individuals/groups thinking they deserve those huge sums of money, or the juries who actually award the amount.

The juries.

[got tonkaed]

It seems quite justifiable to be honest. It would be far less intellectually consistent it appears, to decry individuals for getting the maximum, when we laud praise on those who do so in other endeavors, even if the resulting outcome leads to wide inequities compared to others.

How could one square the two away? I am a juror on the one hand who feels the need to impose a maximum in this instance, while the mere mention of any sort of similar restriction in a different setting would be seen by most as antithetical to the system itself.

[AAFitz]

I dislike the growing attitudes of entitlement and lack of responsibility. It's always either someone else's fault or we're owed something. Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

Agreed. Look at civil lawsuits in general, and you'll see that many people have this attitude of self-entitlement yet completely disregard their own responsibility in the case.

Ack, I had forgotten about those. I don't know who is worse: the individuals/groups thinking they deserve those huge sums of money, or the juries who actually award the amount.

I agree that those that take advantage of the system are guilty as charged...but it is important to keep the option open to truly punish a company or individual for neglect especially when someone is harmed, or killed. If that threat of economic sanctions is not there.....there will be no block against further injury or death. You simply have to keep them in check. It is amazing that juries decide on some of them the way they do...but I suspect it is due to the past injuries and deaths from negligent corporations, throughout history.

It simply HAS to be made unprofitable, to manufacture and sell defective and dangerous products that injure or kill, because otherwise, someone will make them. Even with the knowledge of lawsuits...we still see companies risk peoples lives knowingly, just to save money. It just has to be more expensive to make that mistake...otherwise, the better business decision is to actually take the risk.

Theres just too many examples to list.

[thegreekdog]

It seems quite justifiable to be honest. It would be far less intellectually consistent it appears, to decry individuals for getting the maximum, when we laud praise on those who do so in other endeavors, even if the resulting outcome leads to wide inequities compared to others.

How could one square the two away? I am a juror on the one hand who feels the need to impose a maximum in this instance, while the mere mention of any sort of similar restriction in a different setting would be seen by most as antithetical to the system itself.

I don't think jurors should be limited by law. I think they should be limited by common sense and intelligence, which may be too much to ask. I think that is conducive with my political views generally.

[got tonkaed]

It seems quite justifiable to be honest. It would be far less intellectually consistent it appears, to decry individuals for getting the maximum, when we laud praise on those who do so in other endeavors, even if the resulting outcome leads to wide inequities compared to others.

How could one square the two away? I am a juror on the one hand who feels the need to impose a maximum in this instance, while the mere mention of any sort of similar restriction in a different setting would be seen by most as antithetical to the system itself.

I don't think jurors should be limited by law. I think they should be limited by common sense and intelligence, which may be too much to ask.

Well Id offer that makes the proposed above even stronger. The notion of take as much as you can get is ingrained fairly deep into the culture id gather. Its shown in different fields where individuals could be seen as status models that any variety of individuals could be aware of. If something is culturally accepted to be the case, and given the other ways in which it is clearly accepted, then common sense should trend higher and higher upward.

[thegreekdog]

It seems quite justifiable to be honest. It would be far less intellectually consistent it appears, to decry individuals for getting the maximum, when we laud praise on those who do so in other endeavors, even if the resulting outcome leads to wide inequities compared to others.

How could one square the two away? I am a juror on the one hand who feels the need to impose a maximum in this instance, while the mere mention of any sort of similar restriction in a different setting would be seen by most as antithetical to the system itself.

I don't think jurors should be limited by law. I think they should be limited by common sense and intelligence, which may be too much to ask.

Well Id offer that makes the proposed above even stronger. The notion of take as much as you can get is ingrained fairly deep into the culture id gather. Its shown in different fields where individuals could be seen as status models that any variety of individuals could be aware of. If something is culturally accepted to be the case, and given the other ways in which it is clearly accepted, then common sense should trend higher and higher upward.

I think you are missing a difference between arguably earned excess and arguably unearned excess. For example, the CEO of McDonald's perhaps earns a multimillion dollar salary. Whereas someone who spills McDonald's coffee on herself perhaps did not earn a multimillion dollar settlement. Incidentally, the pain felt by McDonald's by that particular jury verdict led to the following business change - McDonald's now puts warning labels on their cups that the coffee is hot. I'm sure some may find that to be some sort of significant progress in making hot coffee safer, but it certainly has me stumped.

[got tonkaed]

I dont deny there is a distinction between the two, but it disregards either a)the notion that earned wage at times is over what "common sense would suggest" if such a thing is suggestable and b) that if there is a cultural relationship between the two it interacts in a relatively subconcious fashion, which influences the thought processes but perhaps is difficult for the individual to articluate in the moment. Possibly also c) with a lacking of a mechanism to define where the upward limits are, there is a greyness that can be exploited to define personal value as overly inflated thus making recooperating damages a much pricier endeavor.

Id assume a clever team could play upon this decision making environment.

[thegreekdog]

I dont deny there is a distinction between the two, but it disregards either a)the notion that earned wage at times is over what "common sense would suggest" if such a thing is suggestable and b) that if there is a cultural relationship between the two it interacts in a relatively subconcious fashion, which influences the thought processes but perhaps is difficult for the individual to articluate in the moment. Possibly also c) with a lacking of a mechanism to define where the upward limits are, there is a greyness that can be exploited to define personal value as overly inflated thus making recooperating damages a much pricier endeavor.

Id assume a clever team could play upon this decision making environment.

Frankly, I think all of it ignores some other issues, namely that the plaintiff attorneys apparently do a good job in arguing their respective cases and that juries are more likely to punish a defendant that can afford such punishment. If the defendant had been Mom and Pop Coffee, the award would not be substantial. In other words, the award has little to do with the case and more to do with the defendant. I find that to be wrong, though I understand the rewarding cultural ideals that juries must have. In other words, I understand what you're saying, but if I was on a jury, my award would not be as substantial.

[Woodruff]

I dislike the growing attitudes of entitlement and lack of responsibility. It's always either someone else's fault or we're owed something. Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

Agreed. Look at civil lawsuits in general, and you'll see that many people have this attitude of self-entitlement yet completely disregard their own responsibility in the case.

Ack, I had forgotten about those. I don't know who is worse: the individuals/groups thinking they deserve those huge sums of money, or the juries who actually award the amount.

The juries.

I agree...you'd think it more likely to find common sense among 12 than 1.

[jonesthecurl]

Are you using my favorite bait?

Look, you silly fellow, that wasn't what they meant when they said "dogfish"...

[natty dread]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

[pimpdave]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

OW MY BALLS


Go away! Batin!

[Timminz]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

OW MY BALLS

Go away! Batin!

Excellent!

That was a hilarious, yet disturbing, movie. Also, a great example of what many people dislike about Americans in general.

[Snorri1234]

I dislike the growing attitudes of entitlement and lack of responsibility. It's always either someone else's fault or we're owed something. Get your ass to work if you really want something, don't act like you deserve for someone else to give it to you.

Agreed. Look at civil lawsuits in general, and you'll see that many people have this attitude of self-entitlement yet completely disregard their own responsibility in the case.

Ack, I had forgotten about those. I don't know who is worse: the individuals/groups thinking they deserve those huge sums of money, or the juries who actually award the amount.

The juries.

Then get rid of them.

[pimpdave]

Actually, the real answer to the problem of the juries is the education system.

And I don't think the whole answer is just throwing money at the problem, but rather a combination of things that include a complete overhaul of the system.

Again, I think KIPP provides an outstanding model for how to deal with the modern day challenges of poor, single parent families. I'm not an expert in Education, but it doesn't take one to recognize that the system as it exists now is not (as a whole) meeting the objectives under which it was established.

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

[Snorri1234]

Actually, the real answer to the problem of the juries is the education system.

And I don't think the whole answer is just throwing money at the problem, but rather a combination of things that include a complete overhaul of the system.

Again, I think KIPP provides an outstanding model for how to deal with the modern day challenges of poor, single parent families. I'm not an expert in Education, but it doesn't take one to recognize that the system as it exists now is not (as a whole) meeting the objectives under which it was established.

Remember, the entire reason behind Jefferson's plan for the Virginia board of education was to produce a populace capable of the critical thinking necessary to maintain a democratic republic. The way things are going now, I think we're inevitably headed for Idiocracy. It might even already be here.

Getting rid of them, at least in civil cases, would be easier though.

[jonesthecurl]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

I hate almost all reality tv.
But I think it strted with Big Brother, and I think that was scandinavian to begin with.

[Timminz]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

I hate almost all reality tv.
But I think it strted with Big Brother, and I think that was scandinavian to begin with.

I would say that Survivor, was the beginning of the big boom in "Reality" tv. Although, Big Brother was not far behind.

[Snorri1234]

What do you dislike about Americans in general?

Two words: Reality TV.

I hate almost all reality tv.
But I think it strted with Big Brother, and I think that was scandinavian to begin with.

No, you wanna know who started it??

[natty dread]

The father of all reality shows was, I believe, "The Real World" which was shown on MTV in the 90s.

And that was AMERICAN!