@Grey Wolfe: Norway is a very nice country, I'm sure. TimC's comment was mostly correct though. No country is ever going to be first in everything. And in fact, I think the US does pretty poorly in a lot of areas. Though I'm not sure what you mean about personal liberties, if you mean Bill of Rights type protections. Given your spelling choices, I'm guessing you're from one of our fellow anglophone countries, in which case, we have better protections for freedom of speech, for instance, than you'd see in your country. (Or Norway, for that matter.) I think his larger point was that greatest or best country is a subjective choice.

So while I could spend hours listing things about other countries I think we could emulate, if I had to pick one country that's the best, I'd probably still pick the US. What's more, if you consider voting with your feet, it seems like most people agree. The US has far and away the highest immigration inflow of any country, with vastly more people trying to get in, than actually make it.

This is pretty implausible. So the average size of a soda in 1950 was about about half a can's worth of coke? And the average size today is 2x the size of McDonald's medium? (Large is 32oz.) I'm guessing the burger is the patty weight, so I can buy a 4oz patty in 1950 - that's the size of a regular McDonald's hamburger today. But 3x that now? That would be a Quarter Pounder + another hamburger.

Of course, they don't bother to explain how they arrive at these numbers. But who cares if CDC is pushing policy instead of science? Woah - they should pull their entire Sexual Health site and replace it with one touting the wonders of abstinence!

@gatherdust - Not a tea bagger!! Well forget actually engaging his arguments! Ad hominem attacks are enough.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't know their history. "Liberals" of the early 20th century have deeply embarassing racist and controlling history. Just read about FDR's attitudes toward "sub-standard" jobs in the New Deal, when they purposefully tried to drive minorites and women out of jobs. Trying to cover this up with platitudes and changing the subject is silly.

Further, this article reads more like a smear job than actual history. The revelations about Columbus are tired and pointless. As already mentioned, he's celebrated (rightly) as an explorer, and really has only a tenuous connection to the US.

Washington was the first president. Anyone should know that the United States didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified.

Not seeing the forest for the trees is the kindest possible description of this take on the Civil War, and WWII. Good to know that you consider the invasion of Iraq to be about it's technical violations of the cease fire agreement from the original gulf war. Oh, wait...

While these do contain some facts, they're torturiously distorted to acheive some kind of view. I think calling it "america-bashing" is way overdramatic, but what's the point? To wow people with sort-of-not-really revelations? Link bait?

Our "savings" rate is so low, because savings accounts are just about the stupidest place to put your money. Which is what this statistic is measuring: how many people have money in savings accounts. You're essentially getting 1-2% return above inflation (at best) to let a bank go and invest your money and pocket the difference. I have zero savings, but lots of money invested in my 401k, mutual funds, and money market accounts. I feel like I've got a pretty good handle on the future, but according to you I'm doing terrible.