my geography book says there is a political division of south, central and north America. it's three, not two and everyone considers it as just that, political divisions. I don't see people refering to each part as a continent.

it's not the same, certainly everyone born in US are americans but the moment you use the term american as if it equals someone born in US (nationality), then there's a problem. USA nationality = United Statian, it doesn't matter how ugly that sounds, nationality is defined by the country's name. at most you can call yourselves united statians of America.

about the deffinition of countrys, well, the deffinition of island is quite clear: a piece of land surrounded by water. since every piece of land on earth is surrounded by water, it's all islands. the world continent sounds as if it's derived from the word continous so a true continent would be something like the red line from one piece universe.

In America, they operate with 7 continents, in the civilized world there are 5.

Often you'll hear people claim that the US is just as correct in doing it their way as anything else. But then one must remember that the US also refuses to use the metric system and the American population will often claim that their system is just as good, which makes just as much sense as saying a turd in a tortilla is just as good as a filet mignon.

As for America going communist (I assume you mean Social Democratic as most Americans do when claiming Europe to be Socialist or Communist) it will not work. The US is too big and Americans are too self centered to adapt the kind of mentality needed for this system to work. Namely, accept that you have a responsibility as a human being for the well-being of others, not just yourself.

It is the exact same thing.  People call people from India Indians, but India is in Asia.  Russia is in Asia mostly, but they aren't called Asians.  People from Canada are in North America (or just America if you want to call it one continent), but they aren't called Americans usually (though there could be an argument for this).  However, there is not one for those in Central America.  I never heard someone call them American.  Just like you don't hear people calling Russians Asian.

Also, you mean definition of a continent, not a country.  We aren't talking about "country."  

I also cannot make out what you're trying to say.  If English isn't your first language, then I don't think you should be arguing this to begin with considering English is my first language and the word "continent" isn't so specific as to make it obvious how many continents there really are.

Here's a definition: "Any of the world's main continuous expanses of land"  

Where in that definition does it specifically show that there being a North and South America as continents is wrong?  Nowhere.  "continuous expanses of land" can even make Greenland a continent, and even Japan as a continent.  

yes we are talking about country, this whole argument started on page 1 because of that.

AND YOU EXPLAINED MY POINT EXACTLY ON YOUR FIRST LINE. Russia is in Asia, therefore russians are asians, but refering to someone as asian as if it equals russian would be incorrect. JUST LIKE IT'S INCORRECT TO SAY AMERICAN=UNITED STATIAN.

And continious expanses of land would be something like transforming the earh's land into water and the water into land, then we would have a continous piece of land. America is a single piece of land so saying it is 3 islands/continents just because of a political division of noth, central and south America is stupid. if a political imaginary line makes a continent than there are as many continents as there are countrys.

I think you should take bits from both ideologies. Pure communism and Pure capitalism models of society aren't very good. From the communist or socialist side, stuff like free education, free healthcare, better social housing and nationalisation of energy, banks (one national bank where you would borrow from at very low interest rates to invest in creating new companies), communication and transport (any actual human needs). While from the capitalist side, the true luxury goods (our human wants) would remain under private, individual ownership. Political freedoms and such would remain. But there is a need for a responsible government which directly provides for it's people to ensure a good basic standard of life. It could be seen as a social-capitalist model of society. Yugoslavia was a good (really, the only) example of how the two could work together and be successful. Tito was a great man

But don't act as China (not communist since Mao died in 1976) is so great. Corruption is far worse over there, the environment isn't cared for and there is a lack of human rights. All of which are very important. Also, it don't matter whether you are communist or capitalist, war will happen, it just depends on the leader of the country. Finally, there are alot of problems in society that one ideology simply couldn't fix

They are still doing better than the rest of Europe. Average EU unemployment is now 12%, while Germany's is about half of that. It's economy is currently flat though but i think it's manufacturing is certainly helping it carry on ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

No.

While our government might be corrupt (and by might I meant they are terribly corrupt) you would be hardpressed (while not impossible) to find one that is less so.

Oh and its not a party thing (Dem/Repub/Conserv/Liberal) its a government problem.

We should restrict Lawyers to 20% of government.

Looking at sweden actuality, yeah, USA would be better socialist.

Just comparing France and Belgium : Belgium has every social decision 10 years before France (Gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia) and France has more immigration problems, worst economy and french tend to be more depressed.