Except that Mike Shedlock is not personally America and has no control of the actions of the American government.

Also, there's only one nation in the world called "America," so it's plenty precise. The continents are "North America" and "South America," or jointly "the Americas." Posturing aside, I don't believe that a reasonable person is likely to confuse them.

> Also, there's only one nation in the world called "America,"

That's going way off topic, but I couldn't resist. I can't find such nation in the globe.

And the continent is called "America". There is even one country that formed by the union of several smaller ones that calls itself "United States of America" because it's located at this continent called "America".

> That's going way off topic, but I couldn't resist. I can't find such nation in the globe.

Are you also opposed to referring to the United Mexican States/Estados Unidos Mexicanos as simply "Mexico"?

Come to think, it's a little odd that you find "America," a word found in only one nation's name, to be imprecise, but are totally fine with "United States," which is found in two current and like ten historical nations.

> And the continent is called "America". There is even one country that formed by the union of several smaller ones that calls itself "United States of America" because it's located at this continent called "America".

On further reading, the definition of a "continent" is completely arbitrary, but dividing the Americas into two continents has been standard in the English-speaking world for ages. The single-continent standard used in the Hispanic world is equally arbitrary; you don't get to claim that your arbitrary standard is objectively correct but ours is cultural imperialism.

I was responding to someone who was cheerfully making anti-French statements because a US citizen was mistreated by some piece of the French government. This is no different (except in degree) from an Pakistani citizen (say) being killed by the US government, also outside its legal jurisdiction.

You were responding to someone who was being derogatory towards Société Générale. How is this 'Anti-French'? Isn't your objection here pretty ironic considering the topic at hand?

Both are bad (although obviously there is a discrepancy in seriousness here). We should not fail to criticize one because the other also happens.

Yes but to make sweeping complaints about the French as an American is absurd. (And note that I myself pointed out that France has a serious problem with institutionalized corruption, not that the US has anything to crow about.)

> "Yes but to make sweeping complaints about the French as an American is absurd."

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere in this dicussion:

"Insane laws in one place do not make laws in another place any less insane. If we universalized your attitude towards criticism, then only those blessed to live in utopias would have the privilege of leveling complaints at other systems."

Americans do get to criticize the French government. Americans get to criticize the American government. French get to criticize the French government. French get to criticize the American government. Zimbabweans get to criticize the Portuguese government. The Portuguese get to criticize the the Swiss government.

Everybody gets to criticize any government they please, no matter what government happens to lay stake to the place that they live. It is absurd to think otherwise.

I don't see where gnu8 made any statement and/or attack about France. Would you kindly point this out for me so I can read it?

Nobody you were replying to made any sweeping complaints about the French. And pointing it out as a citizen of the U.S. doesn't count as crowing unless you get defensive and interpret it that way.