On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.

Look at the info sources.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.

Look at the info sources.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

Actually, read them.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:16:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/


I still do not understand how they got their numbers.
Take Freedom.
France is 100 with religious persecution, language laws. and no 2d
amendment?
A legal system based on the Nepoleanic code. Simple question. Would
you rather be charged with a crime in Paris or San Francisco?

Climate?
In the US you have a broad choice of climate. Pick the one you like
44% of Australia is virtually uninhabitable how is that a 100?
Environment?
They are injecting a huge amount of bias for something that has
nothing to do with quality of life (greenhouse gas)
If that is a problem, it is a problem for France as much as it is for
America. Why not talk about nuclear waste disposal, then France takes
a beating.

This is something generated by people with an agenda Why not look at
how many Americans are moving to Germany, France or Australia and how
many of them are moving here?

Logic and reason are not highly rated in the liberal agenda.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:16:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a
very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.


Have you looked at their assumptions:

http://internationalliving.com/2010/...cores-quality/


I still do not understand how they got their numbers.
Take Freedom.
France is 100 with religious persecution, language laws. and no 2d
amendment?
A legal system based on the Nepoleanic code. Simple question. Would
you rather be charged with a crime in Paris or San Francisco?

Climate?
In the US you have a broad choice of climate. Pick the one you like
44% of Australia is virtually uninhabitable how is that a 100?
Environment?
They are injecting a huge amount of bias for something that has
nothing to do with quality of life (greenhouse gas)
If that is a problem, it is a problem for France as much as it is for
America. Why not talk about nuclear waste disposal, then France takes
a beating.

This is something generated by people with an agenda Why not look at
how many Americans are moving to Germany, France or Australia and how
many of them are moving here?

Logic and reason are not highly rated in the liberal agenda.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

Lying and racism are very highly rated in your tiny brain.