Is the USA "mentally ill"? What's wrong with the USA?

The USA doesn't need improvement compared to other countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK.

OP:

Yes the US is mentally ill, the power wielding members of society are corrupt and incapable of making sound judgment. This is generally what happens when a system has run it's course. The system was never sustainable in the first place so it has to collapse and be "rebooted" in a sense. It's time to let go of the things that do not work for humanity and raise the bar; now is the time to start fresh but the old guard (old money) will fight to keep it's strangle hold on power. It's sort of like the beasts final roar to take us all into these wars. They don't know what to do so they use old tricks that don't work.

It's going to get a lot worse before it get's better and individuals in society are going to have increased anxiety and mental illness because of all this. There is a lot of manipulation on the networks and billboards and wherever else you are exposed to media. It's part of what I call Project Sheepletown, pretty much you're getting bombarded by PsyOps both Gov and Commercial sector, even throw in Religion as well and friends feeding friends garbage too.

It won't last long, 5-30 years maybe?

I guess we still don't understand the POWER of microwave links. Signals are flying all around us. If you had some kind of receiver that showed the signals...we'd be watching MSNBC in mid air. The only reason why we can't see these signals, flying all around us, is because we can't transfer the signal...but the signal is still there. These signals are being bounced from satellites in space, to communication towers, on earth...and then bounced to another tower, and then another tower, to get to where you're at.

All these microwave links are scrambling the electrical signals in the brain. I suppose you could say they're "mentally ill" because those signals are messing with their brains...causing them to lose the ability to think clearly!

awwwww

That is a sure fire way to get points and a thread going, eh?

:bnghd:

'lets take the piss out of someones country! Pfft!!!!!!!

Originally posted by mexicanatheist
The USA doesn't need improvement compared to other countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK.

You want to expand on that? How exactly are Australia, Canada and the UK in worse state than the U.S.? Last time I checked, we don't have entire cities crumbling to the ground, entire towns wiped off the map and no manufacturing capability left.

You, Sir, are completely delusional. Congratulations on swallowing the propaganda.

reply to post by Observor


Ok. So the population of America in 2004 (when Bush was re-elected) was about 291 million people. Bush won the election that year with a popular vote of roughly 62 million votes. So 62 million Americans that year were psychopaths.

Originally posted by Observor
But when a nation is majority psychopaths as demonstrated by the results of November 2004 elections, the others may start lying low for the fear of their own lives. While those who are not psychopaths, but live in the USA, have reasons of personal safety not to publicly denounce their psychopathic majority of countrypeople, no one who is not a psychopath has a reason defending these psychopaths and declaring them as "good" people.

62 million people is not a majority. It's less than a quarter of the American population. John Kerry that year lost with about 59 million popular votes. None of this is counting the people who voted for other candidates.

Now, we could go even further and say that only about 122 million people out of the entire population voted that year. Less than half of the entire population of America at that time. If every single eligible American voted, it may have been drastically different. Maybe Kerry would have beat Bush. Maybe more "psychopaths" would have shown their true colors and strengthened Bush's win even more. We'll never know, so I think we can overlook the "could have" scenario here. Granted, more people should have stood up and voted to try and ensure Bush didn't win.

So... By your standards, only less than a QUARTER of Americans are proven "psychopaths" for voting for Bush.

Originally posted by Observor
That is a funny question, but yes, the answer is that the psychopaths are the bad people.

So, in your own words, the psychopaths are the bad people. If less than a quarter of Americans can be proven to be psychopaths by your method of deciding who is/isn't a psychopath, then you are saying that -MOST- Americans, meaning, the majority of Americans, are not bad people.
This is based on what you have said.
Psychopaths = the bad people, according to you.
We both know that 62 million is NOT a majority of Americans. (And again, since you can't prove non voters are psychopaths, we can't count them..unless you're going to speculate and assume. You wouldn't do that though.)

Since psychopaths = not the majority THEN.... the majority = not bad.

Correct? I would love to hear more if this seems incorrect to you. Honest.

And also, you've answered my question! I am not a psychopath because I didn't vote for Bush either time.
whew...THAT'S a relief.

Cheers.

EDIT: And also.... that was 2004. A lot of people have changed their tune since then. Obama sucks, I won't deny that, but your arguments have been based on Bush. This thread is referring to NOW.

Originally posted by mexicanatheist
The USA doesn't need improvement compared to other countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK.

And yes, you are delusional.
America needs improvement.

Every country needs improvement, but America more-so than many.

Cheers.

reply to post by Qemyst


I have no reason to believe that 52% of those votinng in the November 2004 elections (which constituted 60% of those eligible to do so) is not a representative sample of the population.

Not voting for George W Bush doesn't necessarily mean they are not psychopaths, they may have preferred a different psychopath, like Kerry, over Bush to represent them.

So yes, I would rather believe the demonstrated results than some self-serving statements.

reply to post by Observor


The people themselves individually are not ill, the way the system has grown is the illness. The top tier corruption feeds the anxieties of the lower tiers. You ever worked for a boss that was an idiot and was always riding your ass? That's what has happened to the US and Europe, Canada etc... They are insane with greed and will sacrifice the well being of the many to line their own pockets failing to acknowledge that the majority is what actually lends them the power in the first place.

The lower tier or middle class and below are mentally ill for letting the top tier take things to where they stand today. It's not microwaves or anything strange, unless you want to count the fact that the microwaves send the signal to the television and PC which promotes top tier individuals desires for you to spend money on things you can or can not afford.

Although Confucius claimed that he never invented anything but was only transmitting ancient knowledge (see Analects VII, 1), he did produce a number of new ideas. Many European and American admirers such as Voltaire and H. G. Creel point to the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with nobility of virtue. Jūnzǐ (君子, lit. "lord's child"), which originally signified the younger, non-inheriting, offspring of a noble, became, in Confucius' work, an epithet having much the same meaning and evolution as the English "gentleman". A virtuous plebeian who cultivates his qualities can be a "gentleman", while a shameless son of the king is only a "small man". That he admitted students of different classes as disciples is a clear demonstration that he fought against the feudal structures that defined pre-imperial Chinese society.
***
Another key Confucian concept is that in order to govern others one must first govern oneself. When developed sufficiently, the king's personal virtue spreads beneficent influence throughout the kingdom. This idea is developed further in the Great Learning, and is tightly linked with the Taoist concept of wu wei (simplified Chinese: 无为; traditional Chinese: 無為; pinyin: wú wéi): the less the king does, the more gets done. By being the "calm center" around which the kingdom turns, the king allows everything to function smoothly and avoids having to tamper with the individual parts of the whole.
en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see from the above quoted wiki, different philosophies in practice have net benefits, some of the times...We may need to relearn a little Confucian during this time of great confusion.

Originally posted by TheRemedial
reply to post by Observor

 

The people themselves individually are not ill, the way the system has grown is the illness. The top tier corruption feeds the anxieties of the lower tiers. You ever worked for a boss that was an idiot and was always riding your ass? That's what has happened to the US and Europe, Canada etc... They are insane with greed and will sacrifice the well being of the many to line their own pockets failing to acknowledge that the majority is what actually lends them the power in the first place.

The lower tier or middle class and below are mentally ill for letting the top tier take things to where they stand today. It's not microwaves or anything strange, unless you want to count the fact that the microwaves send the signal to the television and PC which promotes top tier individuals desires for you to spend money on things you can or can not afford.

Very interesting tale of fiction. Probably makes for a nice movie script too. Any plans of turning it into a screen play?

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by Qemyst

 

I have no reason to believe that 52% of those votinng in the November 2004 elections (which constituted 60% of those eligible to do so) is not a representative sample of the population.

Not voting for George W Bush doesn't necessarily mean they are not psychopaths, they may have preferred a different psychopath, like Kerry, over Bush to represent them.

edit on 28-8-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)

Oh, so now anyone who voted for Kerry (7 years ago) is a psychopath (today) as well. You have only been using Bush so far. So, which candidate could people have voted for to avoid being considered a psychopath by you personally? I don't want to suggest one because you seem to continue to bring up more 'evidence' that shows why someone is a psychopath that you haven't brought up before. For all I know, suggesting a Ralph Nader or a Michael Badnarik or a Michael Peroutka would result in your response being "ANY PERSON who voted for ANY CANDIDATE in 2004 is a psychopath because I say so." or something along those lines.

Lay it all out there for me, my non-psychopathic brother. List every candidate people could have voted for to avoid being labeled a psychopath (by you), as well as any other reasons. Don't hold back now, give me every reason in explicit detail that, to you, makes someone a psychopath. So far the reasons you've given me are:
-Voted for Bush
-Voted for Kerry
-Spreads propaganda supporting Bush (and now I can assume Kerry??)
-Defends those already labeled psychopaths

Originally posted by Observor
So yes, I would rather believe the demonstrated results than some self-serving statements.

Please understand that none of what I say serves me in any way. I'm simply a ...CURIOUS soul, interested in understanding the unfounded, totally opinionated, meaningless beliefs of others. I just need your personal "facts" in order to give you a proper reply. Thanks!

Cheers

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by Observor
reply to post by Qemyst

 

I have no reason to believe that 52% of those votinng in the November 2004 elections (which constituted 60% of those eligible to do so) is not a representative sample of the population.

Not voting for George W Bush doesn't necessarily mean they are not psychopaths, they may have preferred a different psychopath, like Kerry, over Bush to represent them.

edit on 28-8-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)

Oh, so now anyone who voted for Kerry (7 years ago) is a psychopath (today) as well. You have only been using Bush so far. So, which candidate could people have voted for to avoid being considered a psychopath by you personally? I don't want to suggest one because you seem to continue to bring up more 'evidence' that shows why someone is a psychopath that you haven't brought up before. For all I know, suggesting a Ralph Nader or a Michael Badnarik or a Michael Peroutka would result in your response being "ANY PERSON who voted for ANY CANDIDATE in 2004 is a psychopath because I say so." or something along those lines.

Lay it all out there for me, my non-psychopathic brother. List every candidate people could have voted for to avoid being labeled a psychopath (by you), as well as any other reasons. Don't hold back now, give me every reason in explicit detail that, to you, makes someone a psychopath. So far the reasons you've given me are:
-Voted for Bush
-Voted for Kerry
-Spreads propaganda supporting Bush (and now I can assume Kerry??)
-Defends those already labeled psychopaths

You should brush up your reading comprehension skills. I didn't say everyone who voted Kerry is a psychopath, although they could very well be. I only said that all psychopaths need not have chosen Bush since they had an excellent alternative in Kerry.

I also believe psychopaths don't change with time. People who make mistakes may change after realising their mistakes and correct their mistakes, but not psychopaths.

Originally posted by Observor
So yes, I would rather believe the demonstrated results than some self-serving statements.

Please understand that none of what I say serves me in any way. I'm simply a ...CURIOUS soul, interested in understanding the unfounded, totally opinionated, meaningless beliefs of others. I just need your personal "facts" in order to give you a proper reply. Thanks!

Cheers

Not sure why I need to take your stated motivations at their face value.

Edit: By the way I completely agree with curiosity aspect of your interest. That is another trait that gives psychopaths away. They are absolutely unconcerned about the destruction they engage in, but extremely curious about why others don't see them as "good" people. No matter what they do, they are worried sick about their image.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There are just so many possible angles here to cover. I could go into a long winded analysis about what I think is wrong with the USA, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, but I'm beginning to realize that I'm not neccessarily the smartest or most erudite member here at ATS (yes, I'm beginning to get over my infantile, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, grandiosity), so what are your thoughts..

Is the USA "mentally ill"? What's wrong with the USA?

And more importantly, who is responsible? And can it be fixed? Can "Humpty Dumpty" be put back together again..?

Are we bearing witness to the fall of an empire?

Our main problem is we are spending way too much on other counties and not taking care of our own. Yes there are Huge Corps that are not paying enough in taxes....but whos falt is that? OURS! We elected people who allowed this to happen!

The problems we now face could literally be solved overnight by a single solitary decision. That being....release secret high tech. Military research on Advanced Forms of Energy Generation. Do you actually think that in the year 2011....that we still need to be burning oil?

We have been studying and have had several Fusion Reactors online for decades. What the Military keeps secret is the existance of Low Temp. Micro-Fusion reactors. Plus....we have highly advanced Solar Tech, that is just sitting there doing nothing. We have been working on Solar for over Half a CENTURY! I personally know of a type of cheep solar tech that has been developed into a SOLAR SHINGLE.

These shingles are self heating to melt any snow build up and very non-stick as to prevent a build up of dust in desert climates. A larger type of these type of solar panels have been proposed to be built in California and in Nevada. A single 50 mile by 50 mile array...that is only 12 ft off the ground....can generate over 50 percent of the electricity used in the 48 states area on an average day.

Believe it or not....Enviromentalists....seeking to protect Desert Wildlife and Plant life....have derailed a similar plan....using conventional solar panals. If every home in the Northeast was equipt with the Solar shingle version of these cells...an average....4 bedroom ranch....would produce enough electricity as to actually sell back to the grid more electricity than it would have to buy during the cloudy Winter months. NO WONDER WHY THEY WANT TO KEEP THIS UNDER WRAPS!

Finally....we have engines for auto use that you fill the tank with distilled water....an electric charge seperates the Hydrogen from the Oxygen...uses the natural build up of pressure to fill very similar pistons...and current cars can be changed with a kit...burns the Hydrogen/Oxygen mix....and do you know what comes out of the exhaust? Water Vapor!

We all need to WAKE UP! It is not 1911....it's 2011! Split Infinity

Originally posted by Observor
Not sure why I need to take your stated motivations at their face value.

You don't. I never said you 'need' to take anything I said at face value. I said "please understand" and then asked some questions. So, how about before lowering yourself to using a "learn to read" style of remark, you do some 'brushing up' of your own.

Originally posted by Observor
Edit: By the way I completely agree with curiosity aspect of your interest. That is another trait that gives psychopaths away. They are absolutely unconcerned about the destruction they engage in, but extremely curious about why others don't see them as "good" people. No matter what they do, they are worried sick about their image.

edit on 29-8-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)

Absolutely. Anyone who does something destructive to others, and then does not know why those "others" don't like them, are psychopaths. It's insane to think that hurting someone would make them like you. However, being curious means absolutely nothing.

Look, regarding our back and forth-- You have a personal opinion with no actual fact behind it, aside from your own personal observances, to prove that anything you say as being truth. The same goes for myself. I have a personal opinion with no actual fact behind it either. I totally agree with you on many things you have said throughout this thread, to myself, and to others. America is in terrible condition, and people are finally starting to realize it. Folks like me and you have seen this for a long time. The war in the middle east is garbage. Bush was a moron. I could go on....

Ultimately, I have to agree with others regarding your replies though. By the definition of the word, you ARE stereotypical, and anyone who doesn't realize it is a psychopath. It's your right to be stereotypical, and it pleases me when someone exercises those rights. What you think of Americans, or myself, means very little. I haven't cared about such petty things in a very very long time. Just don't let the bulk of your replies to others be based on your clear stereotypes.

Had you not stooped to the "learn to read" style comment earlier, I would have been happy to offer up further discussion. On top of it all, it's too difficult to have this discussion with your stereotype. Alas, I must deny any more discussion regarding the topic at this point. It was enjoyable up until your last post.

I wish you peace.
Cheers.

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by Observor
Not sure why I need to take your stated motivations at their face value.

You don't. I never said you 'need' to take anything I said at face value.

Nor did I say you did

I said "please understand" and then asked some questions. So, how about before lowering yourself to using a "learn to read" style of remark, you do some 'brushing up' of your own.

I am afraid that remark still applies, to you

Look, regarding our back and forth-- You have a personal opinion with no actual fact behind it, aside from your own personal observances, to prove that anything you say as being truth. The same goes for myself. I have a personal opinion with no actual fact behind it either.

On the contrary, I offered the evidence based on which my conclusions follow logically. Here is a summary of my assumptions/definitions.

1. The invasion of Iraq was the work of psychopaths.
2. After the US administration disowned its own official reasons for the invasion, no one but a psychopath would have supported them.
3. The people voting in the November 2004 elections consisted of a representative sample of the American population.
4. No one but psychopaths call psychopaths 'good' people.

For anyone who agrees with those assumptions, the conclusion that USA is a nation of majority psychopaths (and hence bad) is a logical inevitability.

reply to post by DaMod

I agree with you though i feel it might be a temporary problem, after all nothing is impossible for usa.

To try to pin point the problem with the USA to just as few as two or three things is futile in itself. There are MANY issues with our nation, some minor, some major, but many either way. Not one president or congress will solve it. Some can make it better, but it will take a lot of people and some time to heal that which is broken. I could give a dissertation on the issues, but it would take weeks.

Originally posted by Observor

On the contrary, I offered the evidence based on which my conclusions follow logically. Here is a summary of my assumptions/definitions.

1. The invasion of Iraq was the work of psychopaths.
2. After the US administration disowned its own official reasons for the invasion, no one but a psychopath would have supported them.
3. The people voting in the November 2004 elections consisted of a representative sample of the American population.
4. No one but psychopaths call psychopaths 'good' people.

For anyone who agrees with those assumptions, the conclusion that USA is a nation of majority psychopaths (and hence bad) is a logical inevitability.

SIGH.... As I said, I have no care for what you think of Americans, or even myself, because what you think of Americans is, yes, a personal opinion. I guess I have to come back to reply for the simple reason that you seem to think that your opinions are proof of something. If your opinions were about peanut butter (and not America) and you said you thought peanut butter was "bad food" and then rattled off opinionated reasons why, passing it off as PROOF, I would still be posting, because you're a fool if you think your reasons for calling something "bad" are evidence, when they are just opinions and assumptions.

Originally posted by Observor
When I talk of murderers I am referring to those who hired/ordered/confirmed the orders on those mercenaries to commit the murder. In this case 52% percent Amercian adults who chose to exercise their franchise in 2004. I am sure it includes some of those mercenaries too, but that's about it.

By that logic, you must also mean that most people from Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom are "psychopaths" and are "bad people". Their people voted their leaders into office, and their leaders approved sending soldiers. They had the option to say "nah we don't want to send soldiers to Iraq." but they did.... but then, we still have no proof that they are "psychopaths" or are "bad".

Hell, in 2001 America sent troops to Afghanistan to secure Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. Troops were sent by the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway, Bulgaria, and many other members of the European Union as well as South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore. Which countries from those were involved in the most intense combat situations? United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Denmark... But again, you can't -PROVE- that any of the soldiers, or the people who voted for their leaders which sent them there, are "psychopaths" or "Bad people".

Originally posted by Observor
I am not interested in convincing anyone that Americans are not good people, I know exactly what kind of people would call them good.

Then, quit regurgitating your same old opinionated, stereotypical views and trying to pass them off as evidence.

As for your points:

1. You only have proof that America invaded Iraq, and still no proof that it was by psychopaths or even bad people, regardless of what either of us believe.
2. You still have no proof that everyone who supported the US administration are psychopaths.
3. Again, to YOU it is a representative population because it helps your argument, and is again in no way proof that the majority are "bad" people.
4. Not proof, only your personal belief.

All your "evidence" is based on your own personal meaning of the words "psychopath" and "bad". None of it constitutes actual proof. Hence, everything you have said, in every post, is your personal opinion, and that's fine, but it's not proof.

Originally posted by Observor
For anyone who agrees with those assumptions, the conclusion that USA is a nation of majority psychopaths (and hence bad) is a logical inevitability.

Anyone who agrees with those assumptions has the right to do so, but they are exactly that-- ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, find actual proof of psychosis in most Americans and other aforementioned countries, and actual proof that most Americans and citizens from other aforementioned countries are "bad". No more opinionated regurgitations.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Qemyst

Originally posted by Observor
I am not interested in convincing anyone that Americans are not good people, I know exactly what kind of people would call them good.

Then, quit regurgitating your same old opinionated, stereotypical views and trying to pass them off as evidence.

I am done, anyway

All your "evidence" is based on your own personal meaning of the words "psychopath" and "bad". None of it constitutes actual proof. Hence, everything you have said, in every post, is your personal opinion, and that's fine, but it's not proof

Oh! It certainly is, to anyone who is not a psychopath. I wasn't attempting to prove anything to psychopaths, as I had stated very clearly.

ETA: Regarding your questions about people of other countries, yes, there are psychopaths in every country, not just the USA. But the USA is the only country where majority of the people have openly demonstrated that nature to the world. I personally believe the British and the French to be far worse on that count than the Americans, but they are far too clever to openly get caught as the Americans did. So, if I said I considered majority British, French etc. to be psychopaths, that would be a statement without proof, not Americans.