# Is America the greatest country in the world?



## Foxfyre

The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.

But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.

Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?

I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.

If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw]The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

And to start things off, I voted "Yes" and also "No, but it could be again" which of course is yes and no.

For me I would not choose to live anywhere else.  It is the greatest country in the world.  But I also grieve at what we have lost of our greatness in my lifetime, and how much I hope to live to see us regain that greatness.


----------



## rightwinger

Nobody else is a close second


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Nobody else is a close second



For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!

We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.

The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody else is a close second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
Click to expand...


Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.


 
I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.

We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.

But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.

It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.


----------



## Foxfyre

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody else is a close second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
Click to expand...


These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.

And that is not an insignificant thing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.
> 
> We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.
> 
> It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.
Click to expand...


Um, and that was in the video....where? I must have missed it


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.
> 
> We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.
> 
> It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.
Click to expand...


I have seen it my whole life....the next up and coming nation that would overtake the US

Germany in the 30s-40s
USSR in the 50s-60s
Japan in the 80s-90s
The European Union in the 2000s
Now its China

They all had momentary spurts that looked like they would be unbeatable. The US, our system of government, our open society has always prevailed


----------



## High_Gravity

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
Click to expand...


According to the UN Belarus, Hungary, Lithuania and the Ukraine have a better quality of life than the US, thats funny considering most of the taxi drivers outside the Baltimore airport are from those countries. If life there is so great why are they here driving cabs?


----------



## eots

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
Click to expand...


I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in


----------



## eots

America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.
> 
> We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.
> 
> It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen it my whole life....the next up and coming nation that would overtake the US
> 
> Germany in the 30s-40s
> USSR in the 50s-60s
> Japan in the 80s-90s
> The European Union in the 2000s
> Now its China
> 
> They all had momentary spurts that looked like they would be unbeatable. The US, our system of government, our open society has always prevailed
Click to expand...


OMFG!!! I thanked you twice and posrepped you in this thread.

What the fuck?!  Did Oddball or Liability hack your account?


----------



## CandySlice

Man, is this little show getting a workout!! If you'll read  my 'Far Right Wingers'  thread you'll see I also found something inspiring.

Waaay Cool


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPtD0ZcEYt8]PAUL HYDE - America Is Sexy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.
> 
> We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.
> 
> It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, and that was in the video....where? I must have missed it
Click to expand...


At the end.  He phrased it differently than I did, but I got what he was saying when he said "It sure used to be. . . ." and then went on to list those things that by implication we have lost.


----------



## Liability

Foxfyre said:


> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   * * * *
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube



There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes. 

There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.

When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.

We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.

If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.

It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.  

Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.


----------



## Jos

CrusaderFrank said:


> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.



Americans were sold into slavery by Bank debt


----------



## there4eyeM

This way of discussing the question is so far from anything indicative that participating is a dubious activity, but to play the game...

Determining the criteria of what is desirable would be nice. Anyone who has actually lived in another country for a significant amount of time knows that people there are often quite satisfied with their culture and system. The French, English, Germans and many other Europeans are usually interested in America, but not in moving there.

Many things in the US are great, many problems are also great. A flat statement that it is the best is totally unsubstantiated.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.



The point, moron, is what happened to that country.


----------



## Foxfyre

Liability said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   * * * *
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.
> 
> There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.
> 
> When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.
> 
> We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.
> 
> If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.
> 
> It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.
> 
> Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.
Click to expand...


I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> This way of discussing the question is so far from anything indicative that participating is a dubious activity, but to play the game...
> 
> Determining the criteria of what is desirable would be nice. Anyone who has actually lived in another country for a significant amount of time knows that people there are often quite satisfied with their culture and system. The French, English, Germans and many other Europeans are usually interested in America, but not in moving there.
> 
> Many things in the US are great, many problems are also great. A flat statement that it is the best is totally unsubstantiated.



Which is what the speaker in the video said.  I touched on what I would consider desirable in my first post after the OP.  The speaker in the video touched on it in his closing remarks when he denounced social policy based on politics and obviously longed for the time that men were men, less likely to compromise out of fear, and who acted based on moral conviction rather than social pressure.


----------



## CandySlice

Foxfyre said:


> And to start things off, I voted "Yes" and also "No, but it could be again" which of course is yes and no.
> 
> For me I would not choose to live anywhere else.  It is the greatest country in the world.  But I also grieve at what we have lost of our greatness in my lifetime, and how much I hope to live to see us regain that greatness.



I voted no, but it could again too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, moron, is what happened to that country.
Click to expand...


Here's what what wrong, Freddo


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, moron, is what happened to that country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
Click to expand...


Under our Constitution, however, no President can cause too much mischief unless the people are so apathetic they don't care or so lazy they can't be bothered or are so partisan they sacrifice their values and principles or are so unedcuated they are too easily fooled or, finally, so addicted to what they get or hope to get through the government, that they look the other way re any negatives or warning signs.

It was part of the final point the speaker in the video said.  We were once the greatest nation because we were a people of courage and conviction and commitment to what was the right thing to do.


----------



## there4eyeM

The four photos above that propose to explain 'what went wrong' are interesting. It is particularly notable that the first three were very intelligent. Perhaps this shows that, as the fourth was the worst, unintelligent is even more dangerous.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> The four photos above that propose to explain 'what went wrong' are interesting. It is particularly notable that the first three were very intelligent. Perhaps this shows that, as the fourth was the worst, unintelligent is even more dangerous.



And again, please do not derail the thread with partisan jabs.  The thesis of the video did not focus on political parties or personalities.  It focused on values, convictions, principles, and courage.  It focused on the people and how they conduct themselves in their world.


----------



## Synthaholic

eots said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in
Click to expand...

Or the Swedes.  Or the Dutch.  Or the Danes.  Or the Finns.  Or the Aussies.  Or the New Zealanders.  Or the Germans.  Or the French.  Or the Belgiums.  Or the Norwegians.  Or the . . .


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I answered "was and can be again" (before watching the video).
We are no longer a Representative Republic.
We are a Plutocracy that pretends to be a representative governance. 
American culture in the past 30 years is about "ME"...*PERIOD.*
We talk about "where are the jobs" - but we have allowed the situation where the nations largest employer is a retail box chain selling a vast array of cheap foreign made goods whose company motto is "as cheap as possible". - WE did this.

 I could go on for pages...but I have to go.


----------



## Mr Natural

It depends on where in America you live.

I'll take a nice upwardly mobile suburban community in France or Sweden over an inner city slum or two-bit down-and-out town in Nowheresville, Texas anyday.


----------



## there4eyeM

The fact that 'W' existed and was actually president for two terms goes a long way in explaining why the US is not necessarily the best country.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   * * * *
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.
> 
> There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.
> 
> When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.
> 
> We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.
> 
> If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.
> 
> It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.
> 
> Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
Click to expand...

You are correct.  Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal.  Or a Conservative.

Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, moron, is what happened to that country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
Click to expand...

Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point, moron, is what happened to that country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
Click to expand...


Obama Fluffers are so dependable and defend Obama and Holder with passion and fervor you only see at Al Qaeda rallies


----------



## Foxfyre

I am going to ask again that the professional trolls or unpaid trolls or just those with short attention spans NOT derail this thread.  If this falls within the realm of the moderators I would even request some help with that.  This thread is not about the current or former occupants of the White House,  It is not about political parties.  It is not even about ideology.

It IS about qualities of character, conviction, purpose, moral centers, values, and attitudes that made America great, if you believe it was or is, or that do not make it great if you believe it is not.


----------



## Foxfyre

To follow up, the Founders of the country believed that only a people who governed themselves were a truly free people.  Do you agree with that?  Why or why not?

For most of the first 200 years of this country, the traditional family was the norm with very positive benefits from that.  Fathers were expected to support their families if they were physically able to do so, parents were expected to parent their children and raise them up as responsible productive citizens, and there were principles and convictions that could not be compromised by people of exemplary character even if they had to act against their own interests.

This is what I think the speaker in the video was expressing.

Do you agree with that?  Why?   If not, why not?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Foxfyre said:


> To follow up, the Founders of the country believed that only a people who governed themselves were a truly free people.  Do you agree with that?  Why or why not?
> 
> For most of the first 200 years of this country, the traditional family was the norm with very positive benefits from that.  Fathers were expected to support their families if they were physically able to do so, parents were expected to parent their children and raise them up as responsible productive citizens, and there were principles and convictions that could not be compromised by people of exemplary character even if they had to act against their own interests.
> 
> This is what I think the speaker in the video was expressing.
> 
> Do you agree with that?  Why?   If not, why not?



That's what you wanted him to say,  but what he said was Liberal blather about War on Poverty, etc. and mocked the idea that he USA is a "Free country"

Did you catch that? There are 180 "free" countries and so the USA is no big deal in that regard


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Also, I'm not responsible for Obama Fluffers trying to derail your thread, blame them


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you didn't listen closely to what he said.  Yes, the USA was unique among nations of the world, past and present.  We were the great experiment.  Our government would secure our rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves, to live our lives as we saw fit, to achieve or fail according to the choices we made.  And for up to about 200 years, that concept made us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, most productive, most generous, and most forward thinking people that have ever lived.
> 
> We've made mistakes because we are an imperfect nation of imperfect people.  But because of the freedom we have enjoyed, we have been able to recognize and correct the mistakes as we went along.  We have fixed a lot of our worst mistakes and were working on others.
> 
> But somewhere along the way, we started shifting the concept of self governance back to an authoritarian central government and began allowing it more and more power to make our choices for us, to direct what sort of societies we would have, assign the rights we would be allowed, and to take more and more of our assets to swallow up in an ever growing and more cumbersome bureaucracy and using the rest to create winners and losers.   It has corrupted our values, our priorities, and depleted our creative impulses.
> 
> It is THAT which so many of us wish to reverse and restore the concepts that made us the great nation that we are.
Click to expand...


Is that what he said, or is that how you interpret what he said?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> To follow up, the Founders of the country believed that only a people who governed themselves were a truly free people.  Do you agree with that?  Why or why not?
> 
> For most of the first 200 years of this country, the traditional family was the norm with very positive benefits from that.  Fathers were expected to support their families if they were physically able to do so, parents were expected to parent their children and raise them up as responsible productive citizens, and there were principles and convictions that could not be compromised by people of exemplary character even if they had to act against their own interests.
> 
> This is what I think the speaker in the video was expressing.
> 
> Do you agree with that?  Why?   If not, why not?



Let's be real.  The speaker in the video is an actor, acting in a TV series.  His comments were general and open to interpreation.  

I suggest you go back and review the census from the late 19th century and see how many widowed women lived in 'poor houses', many with children.  That is one easy example of how far we've come (and where many conservatives seem to want us to return).


----------



## Wry Catcher

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point, moron, is what happened to that country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
Click to expand...


Whose the creep, moron?  If that comment is directed at me you're a liar.


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To follow up, the Founders of the country believed that only a people who governed themselves were a truly free people.  Do you agree with that?  Why or why not?
> 
> For most of the first 200 years of this country, the traditional family was the norm with very positive benefits from that.  Fathers were expected to support their families if they were physically able to do so, parents were expected to parent their children and raise them up as responsible productive citizens, and there were principles and convictions that could not be compromised by people of exemplary character even if they had to act against their own interests.
> 
> This is what I think the speaker in the video was expressing.
> 
> Do you agree with that?  Why?   If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you wanted him to say,  but what he said was Liberal blather about War on Poverty, etc. and mocked the idea that he USA is a "Free country"
> 
> Did you catch that? There are 180 "free" countries and so the USA is no big deal in that regard
Click to expand...


I hear what you are saying and I am considering it, but again I did not get the same message you did.  What he said was that we have freedom and there is freedom in all those other countries too.  So that isn't what makes America great.  Again, I didn't draw the same inference from his remark on the 'War on Poverty' as you did.  When, within that context, he inserts the remark of men being men, and not being afraid, I took his meaning as not necessarily a 'liberal' perspective but one of attitude.

I could be wrong.  It sure wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose the creep, moron?  If that comment is directed at me you're a liar.
Click to expand...


It's not you, Wry. It was directed at me


----------



## Swagger

With all due respect, I think you should've chosen a video that takes more time to expand upon and take into account some of the reasons behind America's supposed shortcomings.

Firstly, you're a comparatively young nation. During the time in which powerful nations/empires in Europe were pursuing enlightenment, both spiritually and materially, Americans who were heading west were pre-occupied with ensuring their own survival against the odds and elements. That was their sole prerogative. In my opinion, your high rates of incarceration are rooted in a system that was designed to deter lawlessness during an era - and across a landscape - where the law had little reach beyond large settlements. That system is still in place, for better or for worse. Though I have to admit that I'm still undecided upon the American judicial system and the scope of punishments at its disposal. One the one hand, many of the jail terms handed down are savage to the point of spitefulness. However, and where I'm personally concerned, they provide a deterrent compared to some of the ubsurdly lenient sentences handed down in European courts, that often consider themselves more "enlightened" than their American counterparts (notice that e-word popping-up again?). I'm of the firm belief that a middle ground should be arrived at concerning the sentencing thresholds of our respective continents, where a reasonable agreement between time in jail and eventual outcome can be agreed on to provide a suitable deterrent without the convicted spending 50 years in jail for fraud.

During this period of great hardship, settlers took solace in their faith. It gave them comfort, and was accordingly celebrated. This, I think, is why there are more adults who believe in "sky fairies" when compared to other comparatively atheist nations across the Occidental world, who didn't face the same barren landscapes and inhospitable climates as those who were setting about populating a young nation where industrialisation had a comparatively further journey to travel. True, Christianity and its values were equally present in the nations mentioned, but citizens of those nation had less pressing reason to seek solace and salvation in their faith as their American contemporaries.

You can't compare literacy and poverty in America to the other "free nations" mentioned in the Newsroom clip. This is down to two core factors: landmass, population. The other nations mentioned are small compared to the United States. True, Australia and Canada come close, but it's lacking in the latter factor: population (both nations have a tenth of the population of the UK, a comparatively tiny island). Despite its expanse of wilderness and mountains, America does actually boast a rather large population. You simply can't take care of everyone. And in a nation that's states are bigger than some countries, there's an awful lot of everyones. The question of literacy, however, isn't as easy - in my mind - to tackle than that of poverty. And education, in my opinion, is where you begin to arrive at where America has faltered. This generation is more concerned with consumerism and instant gratification than its predeccesors. When you go back even to the '80s, America's youth were just as smart and intellectually capable as their contemporaries in the nations mentioned in the Newsroom clip. Regrettably, that isn't the case now. The American curriculum wasn't a partisan battle ground. It was a place geared towards imparting common sense, wisdom and tools that would ensure that graduates were marketable in the world of work. It impressed upon its charges the "Three Rs." Though I hasten to add that a decline in standards is also visible among the respective education systems in the countries mentioned. And I admit to not being able to put a finger on absolute causes, though I reckon a lot of it has to do with progressively declining standards exhibited by older generations.

Is America the greatest nation on earth? It's a matter of perspective ,especially when you consider the multinationally available interface you've posed this question on. You are, currently, the most powerful nation on earth, and are thus, in my opinion, entitled to promote your success, however comparatively disproportionate that promotion is. But it's worth mentioning that your power-wielding predeccesors did exactly the same. Britain celebrated its imperial, technological and cultural achievements, as did _our_ Roman predecessors. Why shouldn't you? 

Lastly, I want to touch upon the notion of freedom. The United States, even in its current state, is undeniably the freest nation on God's green earth. And until you've lived under what I and many others refer to as the EUSSR, you have no idea what you could potentially be throwing away. Dwell on that.


----------



## Swagger

That needed a couple of edits, for those who noticed them.


----------



## Ernie S.

there4eyeM said:


> The four photos above that propose to explain 'what went wrong' are interesting. It is particularly notable that the first three were very intelligent. Perhaps this shows that, as the fourth was the worst, unintelligent is even more dangerous.



The 4 photos prove to me that what you call intelligence can be a very dangerous thing.


----------



## there4eyeM

Foxfyre said:


> I am going to ask again that the professional trolls or unpaid trolls or just those with short attention spans NOT derail this thread.  If this falls within the realm of the moderators I would even request some help with that.  This thread is not about the current or former occupants of the White House,  It is not about political parties.  It is not even about ideology.
> 
> It IS about qualities of character, conviction, purpose, moral centers, values, and attitudes that made America great, if you believe it was or is, or that do not make it great if you believe it is not.



The segregation you desire of these subjects is not possible or appropriate. Politics and ideology are intimately connected with character, conviction (especially where conviction involves war criminals and if their presence in a nation's government reveals anything about its greatness), values, etc. What you are asking is schizophrenic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> With all due respect, I think you should've chosen a video that takes more time to expand upon and take into account some of the reasons behind America's supposed shortcomings.
> 
> Firstly, you're a comparatively young nation. During the time in which powerful nations/empires in Europe were pursuing enlightenment, both spiritually and materially, Americans who were heading west were pre-occupied with ensuring their own survival against the odds and elements. That was their sole prerogative. In my opinion, your high rates of incarceration are rooted in a system that was designed to deter lawlessness during an era - and across a landscape - where the law had little reach beyond large settlements. That system is still in place, for better or for worse. Though I have to admit that I'm still undecided upon the American judicial system and the scope of punishments at its disposal. One the one hand, many of the jail terms handed down are savage to the point of spitefulness. However, and where I'm personally concerned, they provide a deterrent compared to some of the ubsurdly lenient sentences handed down in European courts, that often consider themselves more "enlightened" than their American counterparts (notice that e-word popping-up again?). I'm of the firm belief that a middle ground should be arrived at concerning the sentencing thresholds of our respective continents, where a reasonable agreement between time in jail and eventual outcome can be agreed on to provide a
> 
> During this period of great hardship, settlers took solace in their faith. It gave them comfort, and was accordingly celebrated. This, I think, is why there are more adults who believe in "sky fairies" when compared to other comparatively atheist nations across the Occidental world, who didn't face the same barren landscapes and inhospitable climates as those who were setting about populating a young nation where industrialisation had a comparatively further journey to travel. True, Christianity and its values were equally present in the nations mentioned, but citizens of those nation had less pressing reason to seek solace and salvation in their faith as their American contemporaries.
> 
> You can't compare literacy and poverty in America to the other "free nations" mentioned in the Newsroom clip. This is down to two core factors: landmass, population. The other nations mentioned are small compared to the United States. True, Australia and Canada come close, but it's lacking in the latter factor: population (both nations have a tenth of the population of the UK, a comparatively tiny island). Despite its expanse of wilderness and mountains, America does actually boast a rather large population. You simply can't take care of everyone. And in a nation that's states are bigger than some countries, there's an awful lot of everyones. The question of literacy, however, isn't as easy - in my mind - to tackle than that of poverty. And education, in my opinion, is where you begin to arrive at where America has faltered. This generation is more concerned with consumerism and instant gratification than its predeccesors. When you go back even to the '80s, America's youth were just as smart and intellectually capable as their contemporaries in the nations mentioned in the Newsroom clip. Regrettably, that isn't the case now. The American curriculum wasn't a partisan battle ground. It was a place geared towards imparting common sense, wisdom and tools that would ensure that graduates were marketable in the world of work. It impressed upon its charges the "Three Rs." Though I hasten to add that a decline in standards is also visible among the respective education systems in the countries mentioned. And I admit to not being able to put a finger on absolute causes, though I reckon a lot of it has to do with progressively declining standards exhibited by older generations.
> 
> Is America the greatest nation on earth? It's a matter of perspective ,especially when you consider the multinationally available interface you've posed this question on. You are, currently, the most powerful nation on earth, and are thus, in my opinion, entitled to promote your success, however comparatively disproportionate that promotion is. But it's worth mentioning that your power-wielding predeccesors did exactly the same. Britain celebrated its imperial, technological and cultural achievements, as did _our_ Roman predecessors. Why shouldn't you?
> 
> Lastly, I want to touch upon the notion of freedom. The United States, even in its current state, is undeniably the freest nation on God's green earth. And until you've lived under what I and many others refer to as the EUSSR, you have no idea what you could potentially be throwing away. Dwell on that.



Thanks for the time and effort you put into writing that, Swagger.  Some good stuff there.  I find it interesting that you, a Brit, would see us as still the most free nation on Earth.  And I won't argue that even as we have seen government chip away at our freedoms and the role of the people to govern themselves.

It is also important to realize that our country with 300+ million people cannot be compared to countries with populations little more than just one of our more populous states.  Australia, for instance, occupies an entire continent with a total population of about 2/3rds of the population of California.  Canada also has more land mass than the USA but has a population approximating that of California alone.  As Swagger points out, much higher population densities and very large populations create issues not experienced by smaller, less densely populated countries.

And to Wry, my comments thus far have been my own but result from my impressions from the content of the OP.  It doesn't matter that the speaker is playing a role and that the vehicle is a fictitious television program.  The content is either worth exploring or it is not.  I found it significantly pertinent to our current culture and national condition whether or not it was intended to be that.

At some point, I think we all are going to have to back off looking for people or groups to demonize and rather focus on what we actually want to be accomplished in this country.  We are going to have to forget that we are loyal Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians long enough to figure out what sort of people we want Americans to be.

It was that I saw as the thesis of that video clip.  I am wondering if anybody else saw it the same way?


----------



## Peach

​*Yes.*


----------



## Synthaholic

Wry Catcher said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what what wrong, Freddo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose the creep, moron?  If that comment is directed at me you're a liar.
Click to expand...



Excuse me???  Who did I respond to?

Take your time.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose the creep, moron?  If that comment is directed at me you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not you, Wry. It was directed at me
Click to expand...

Donkey shines.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
Click to expand...



And not only do a great many people come here from Korea, but a very large percentage of them come here specifically FOR education.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Synthaholic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the creep who thinks it's just fine to exploit the death of a U.S. Border Agent for partisan political reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose the creep, moron?  If that comment is directed at me you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me???  Who did I respond to?
> 
> Take your time.
Click to expand...


Ooops, mea culpa.  I missed all the little dots.


----------



## Dr Grump

Define greatest...


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

I'd rather be the most Just, Aware and Noble - Great just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And not only do a great many people come here from Korea, but a very large percentage of them come here specifically FOR education.
Click to expand...


Yes they do, for higher education above the public school level.  Not so for our public schools.  A degree from one of our prestigious universities apparently opens a lot of doors.


----------



## ipMems

this time, of cause, USA is No.1 almost in all things... the question is only about the space - may be, in this brench No.1 is devided between Russia(USSR) and USA
so, it's no theme for argue - your country is No.1 
but China is growing quickly... and this is socialistic country, trusting in marxism-leninism!  5 years - and China can become No.1 in economic power


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not only do a great many people come here from Korea, but a very large percentage of them come here specifically FOR education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do, for higher education above the public school level.  Not so for our public schools.  A degree from one of our prestigious universities apparently opens a lot of doors.
Click to expand...



Actually, a great, great many come for high school, and increasingly jr high as well. It is difficult for an international student to be enrolled in a public school here, so they apply to private high schools; some very prestigious, but also Catholic schools or wherever they can find a fit.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And not only do a great many people come here from Korea, but a very large percentage of them come here specifically FOR education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do, for higher education above the public school level.  Not so for our public schools.  A degree from one of our prestigious universities apparently opens a lot of doors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a great, great many come for high school, and increasingly jr high as well. It is difficult for an international student to be enrolled in a public school here, so they apply to private high schools; some very prestigious, but also Catholic schools or wherever they can find a fit.
Click to expand...


That is probably correct.  Most of our private and parochial schools are still quite excellent.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they do, for higher education above the public school level.  Not so for our public schools.  A degree from one of our prestigious universities apparently opens a lot of doors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a great, great many come for high school, and increasingly jr high as well. It is difficult for an international student to be enrolled in a public school here, so they apply to private high schools; some very prestigious, but also Catholic schools or wherever they can find a fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is probably correct.  Most of our private and parochial schools are still quite excellent.
Click to expand...



No "probably" about it, they come in their thousands and thousands every year.


----------



## Toro

2nd greatest!


----------



## Unkotare

Someone give Canada a lollipop.


----------



## Liability

Foxfyre said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   * * * *
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.
> 
> There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.
> 
> When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.
> 
> We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.
> 
> If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.
> 
> It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.
> 
> Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
Click to expand...


There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.

Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true.  If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah.  no problem.  I'm good with that."

TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good.  I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too.  But let's be objective about it on both sides.  I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems.  I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.

The difference is in how we go about it.  And the process matters.  Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.


----------



## Liability

there4eyeM said:


> The four photos above that propose to explain 'what went wrong' are interesting. It is particularly notable that the first three were very intelligent. Perhaps this shows that, as the fourth was the worst, unintelligent is even more dangerous.



False.

The ones to whom you assign such high marks for intellect were probably smart.  Certainly Wilson had solid academic credentials.  FDR?  Not as much.  And LBJ?  Seriously?  Please.  

And your assessment of W is just dopey of you.  You permit your partisan political hackery to lead you to conclude bullshit which you choose to believe.  In fact, W was a smart guy.  LBJ for all of his political acumen was a fucking failure of a President.  FDR (to his credit) got us INTO WWII (or at least is recognized as having sought that result), but he crammed socialist type programs down the collective throat of America in violation of our Constitution and more than Wilson got us going down a very wrong path.

I disagree with CrusaderFrank's judgment on W, but at least he is objective enough to include guys from both sides of the aisle, politically.


----------



## Douger

Foxfyre said:


> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its *former greatness, prosperity, and best values*.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.


Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.
> 
> There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.
> 
> When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.
> 
> We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.
> 
> If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.
> 
> It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.
> 
> Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct.  Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal.  Or a Conservative.
> 
> Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.
Click to expand...


False.

NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.


----------



## Unkotare

Douger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its *former greatness, prosperity, and best values*.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
> I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)
Click to expand...



You want so badly to be anti-American, but you are too much of a fucking dim-wit to do so in any but the most block-headed, unimaginative, repetitive manner. You are too much of a fucking idiot to even be as much of an asshole as you'd like to be. Pathetic.


----------



## there4eyeM

It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.

As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.


----------



## Liability

there4eyeM said:


> It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.
> 
> As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.



W is certainly NOT the worst President.  That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.

But now, the incumbent has run away with it.


----------



## Unkotare

FDR still holds the title as worst.


----------



## Foxfyre

Liability said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There WERE some tidbits of honesty in that three and a half minutes.
> 
> There was also a lot of very stale, tired, rancid and not particularly honest partisan hackery.
> 
> When the character intones how we "used to" pass laws for moral reasons and cited the "example" of "waging wars on poverty not on poor people," I snorted.
> 
> We passed bullshit ineffectual "laws" to address poverty.  And we have never waged wars ON poor people.
> 
> If you bury that kind of rancid bullshit in what could have otherwise been a fair-minded answer to the "question," the 3 1/2 minutes of honesty gets tragically diluted.
> 
> It was a Sorokin liberal bit of verbal masturbation wherein liberals are the enlightened good guys and conservatives are the thuggish bad guys.
> 
> Yeah.  There is some painful truth in the speech.  There's also a lot of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
> He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.
> 
> Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true.  If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah.  no problem.  I'm good with that."
> 
> TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good.  I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too.  But let's be objective about it on both sides.  I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems.  I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.
> 
> The difference is in how we go about it.  And the process matters.  Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.
Click to expand...


Again I call on fellow USMB members to not let this dissolve into another bashing session of any political figures or political party.  I am NOT including Liability's post here in that request, however, as he is absolutely debating the concept of the OP.  And I will now respond to it.

Liability, you may be right re the "War on Poverty" but I just didn't get the sense that he was referring to LBJ's signature legislation because of the context in which he included it.  But we can amicably agree on different perceptions there.   We can all argue the various postives and negatives we see in our country and whether we think these are increasing or decreasing.  But public perception certainly seems to agree with the speaker in the OP:

In 2011:
The Hill:  poll shows that more than 2/.3 of voters think the U.S. is declining
Fox News:  62% think the U.S. is in decline.
Politico:  4 in 10 Americans think U.S. is in permanent decline.
CBS-NYT: 39% think U.S. is in permament decline.

And according to a late 2011 Pew polll, in a nation that was created on a concept of American exceptionalism, only about 50% of Americans now see America as exceptional.

The Hill Poll: Voters say US is in decline - TheHill.com
Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline | Fox News
httphttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/19/charles-blow-and-the-hard-lefts-addled-view-of-american-exceptionalism/://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58097.html
Poll: American Exceptionalism in Decline, RealClearWorld - The Compass Blog

*So for everybody, what has changed us as a people?  Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that.  We choose.  We the people determine what is important to us.  Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country?   Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?*


----------



## Foxfyre

However, in rebuttal to my own previous post, this essay in "The New Republic" makes a compelling argument that the USA is not in decline.  It is a pretty long read though, but attributes those polls as mostly a national funk following the economic crash of 2008.

Excerpt:



> Less than a decade ago, most observers spoke not of Americas decline but of its enduring primacy. In 2002, the historian Paul Kennedy, who in the late 1980s had written a much-discussed book on the rise and fall of the great powers, America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great disparity of power as between the United States and the rest of the world. Ikenberry agreed that no other great power had held such formidable advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural, or political capabilities. . . .. . . . Did the fundamentals of Americas relative power shift so dramatically in just a few short years?
> 
> The answer is no. Lets start with the basic indicators. In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, Americas position in the world has not changed. Its share of the worlds GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the worlds economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy. . . .


Robert Kagan: Against The Myth Of American Decline | The New Republic


----------



## there4eyeM

Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.

The mention of White House shrubbery was only intended as a marker for how low things got.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.



But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.

Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.


----------



## High_Gravity

Douger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its *former greatness, prosperity, and best values*.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
> I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)
Click to expand...


What an ignorant fucking post.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> I disagree with CrusaderFrank's judgment on W, but at least he is objective enough to include guys from both sides of the aisle, politically.




Some of us actually have vivid memories of CrusaderFrank supporting Dubya's every move, on Hannity's cesspool of a board.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal.  Or a Conservative.
> 
> Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.
Click to expand...



Laughable.

How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?

How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?


These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.

And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.


----------



## Foxfyre

Still one more appeal for civility, gentlemen????  Please???? And one more appeal to conduct partisan politics on some other thread?   Please????


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.
> 
> As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W is certainly NOT the worst President.  That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.
> 
> But now, the incumbent has run away with it.
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Still one more appeal for civility, gentlemen????  Please???? And one more appeal to conduct partisan politics on some other thread?   Please????


I think, since you started this thread, it is incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters for discussion are.


----------



## tjvh

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal.  Or a Conservative.
> 
> Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
Click to expand...


How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it all depends on how you interpret what he is saying or what filter you look through to arrive at a conclusion.  I did not get the same inferences from it that you did, and anybody who knows me is that I am about as modern American conservative as they come and have been railing against the welfare state for decades now.  He didn't say so specifically, but within the whole of his message, I could easily see him seeing the so called "War on Poverty" as a war on the poor and a part of the problem, not the solution.   I interpreted it that he started out by focusing on modern liberalism and wove that into the substance of his observation about what was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that he equated the alleged "War on Pverty" with a War on the Poor.
> He was distinguishing BETWEEN the two.
> 
> Some of the "facts" he discussed are all too true.  If we said to all the folks at USMB (excluding the laughably mindless morons like Douger, etc) "is it acceptable that we are so far from being the best in terms of infant morality or from meeting educational needs" I can't imagine that any of us -- liberal or conservative -- would say "yeah.  no problem.  I'm good with that."
> 
> TO pontificate like Sorokin does about where we need to improve ourselves is all well and good.  I want our infant mortality rate to get much better, too.  But let's be objective about it on both sides.  I GRANT that many (maybe most) of the people we call modern American liberals ee problems and want to fix those problems.  I further believe that many (maybe most) conservatives would like to see many of those same identified problems remedied, too.
> 
> The difference is in how we go about it.  And the process matters.  Sorokin's pontifications don't recognize that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I call on fellow USMB members to not let this dissolve into another bashing session of any political figures or political party.  I am NOT including Liability's post here in that request, however, as he is absolutely debating the concept of the OP.  And I will now respond to it.
> 
> Liability, you may be right re the "War on Poverty" but I just didn't get the sense that he was referring to LBJ's signature legislation because of the context in which he included it.  But we can amicably agree on different perceptions there.   We can all argue the various postives and negatives we see in our country and whether we think these are increasing or decreasing.  But public perception certainly seems to agree with the speaker in the OP:
> 
> In 2011:
> The Hill:  poll shows that more than 2/.3 of voters think the U.S. is declining
> Fox News:  62% think the U.S. is in decline.
> Politico:  4 in 10 Americans think U.S. is in permanent decline.
> CBS-NYT: 39% think U.S. is in permament decline.
> 
> And according to a late 2011 Pew polll, in a nation that was created on a concept of American exceptionalism, only about 50% of Americans now see America as exceptional.
> 
> The Hill Poll: Voters say US is in decline - TheHill.com
> Fox News Poll: 62 Percent Think U.S. Is on the Decline | Fox News
> httphttp://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/11/19/charles-blow-and-the-hard-lefts-addled-view-of-american-exceptionalism/://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58097.html
> Poll: American Exceptionalism in Decline, RealClearWorld - The Compass Blog
> 
> *So for everybody, what has changed us as a people?  Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that.  We choose.  We the people determine what is important to us.  Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country?   Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?*
Click to expand...

Unbridled Greed.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.
Click to expand...


Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.

Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.

Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.

Now it's seen as a business goal.


----------



## eots

America is in fact a paradox of the greatest and the lamest, the most noble and most despicable and if any part of it has ever been the "envy of the world" it would be the opportunity provided by less government and more individual freedom and more credit being given to personal achievement than bloodline or birthright and this is a great risk of being lost at this point in time


----------



## Synthaholic

tjvh said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.
Click to expand...



How nice of you to display your stupidity.

Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.

I didn't claim that most poor people are drug abusers.




Another example of why the Rightwing are constantly wrong:  they cannot even read and comprehend correctly.


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand how statements and positions can be so misinterpreted. Bush is certainly the worst president, but any criticism of him that falls also on his party is not intended as only reserved to it. Both parties are to blame.
> 
> As a side thought, using word-salad in place of argument is only amusing for a short time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W is certainly NOT the worst President.  That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.
> 
> But now, the incumbent has run away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.
Click to expand...


No.  Your rejoinder is the example you seek.

Idiots like to pretend that W was dumb and the worst President ever.

He clearly was neither.

It is one thing to admit where he fell short.  It is quite another thing to jump to the unsupported conclusions you prefer.  When you do that you are assuming your conclusion as your premise and then reaching your conclusion.   It can sometimes look like logic.  But it is in fact, just a fallacy of yours.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> W is certainly NOT the worst President.  That title used to belong to Jimmah Cartduh.
> 
> But now, the incumbent has run away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of your hyper-partisanship that blinds you to political reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Your rejoinder is the example you seek.
> 
> Idiots like to pretend that W was dumb and the worst President ever.
> 
> He clearly was neither.
> 
> It is one thing to admit where he fell short.  It is quite another thing to jump to the unsupported conclusions you prefer.  When you do that you are assuming your conclusion as your premise and then reaching your conclusion.   It can sometimes look like logic.  But it is in fact, just a fallacy of yours.
Click to expand...

The conclusions are supported in enormous quantities.

You just won't admit them.


----------



## eots

Synthaholic said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to display your stupidity.
> 
> Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.
> 
> I didn't claim that most poor people are drug abusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of why the Rightwing are constantly wrong:  they cannot even read and comprehend correctly.
Click to expand...


poor people ,pan handlers,hardcore homeless addicts do not fund  billion dollar drug enterprises just as alcoholic town drunks do not support the liquor industry.. there are not enough hardcore street addicts to support such a vast enterprise..what supports the industry is vast numbers of middle  and upper income recreational users and addicts


----------



## Swagger

Synthaholic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.
> 
> Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.
> 
> Now it's seen as a business goal.
Click to expand...


What you're condemning is far from exclusive to the United States. Surely you must've known that?


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.
> 
> Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.
Click to expand...


Was it?  I don't recall that being an issue in the 1960's and 70's.  I do recal people like J.C. Penney and Henry Ford and the Rockefellers being somewhat revered as the examples of what we all could aspire to be--people who provided us with great products, great marketing, great philanthropy.  Certainly the disparity between the income of these people and all of the people I knew was immense.  But it didn't matter as we all expected to earn what we received.   Class warfare was not a common household word as it is today.



> Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.
> 
> Now it's seen as a business goal.



From what I heard and read from the generation just preceding mine, in WWII--that would be well before the 1980's--it was considered one's patriotic duty to participate in the war effort.  Many manufacturing plants shut down domestic operations to retool to make guns and tanks and other war equipment.  Certainly all who did that profited mightily.   Many women left their kitchens to become "Rosie the Riveter" in the manufacturing plants to replace the men who were overseas fighting the war.  To save certain products, to conserve, to accept rationing was all one's patriotic duty.

There are many perspectives to consider other than the assigned political views and talking points.  I like to focus on the realities in this thread rather than the politivcally correct point of view.


----------



## there4eyeM

One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
> At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.



Exactly.  American exceptionalism is the concept of self governance and the amazing things the human spirit and initiative can achieve when people are truly free.  The function of the central government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them alone to create whatever sort of society they wished to have.  Some did that better than others, but as the Founders knew would happen when people were grounded in morals and values, the people one by one rejected more harmful policies and adopted better ones.

I will disagree on your version of patriotism.  I think Americans have always known that to be an American is something special, and I think most have respected our flag and our patriotism from the beginning.

it was the nobility and virtues of mankind making America great that I heard from the speaker in the OP.  Obviously everybody hasn't heard that the same way.


----------



## Liability

there4eyeM said:


> One thing that changed is that some of us learned about all the lies that had been perpetrated in order conserve and develop a childish devotion to an untenable ideal.
> At the beginning, Americans were oriented to where they lived and not a flag. All that sort of patriotism came from often unnecessary wars (with Mexico, with Spain, in Vietnam, Iraq and arguably others). The spirit was of family, work and community. There was individual initiative, strenuous effort, enterprise and sharing with loved ones and the needy. These were obvious and no central control was required for administration.



A succinct reiteration of the crap version of liberalism taught in today's schools.  

But in actuality, the ideal most of us have of America revolves around a few core matters of importance:  America's dedication to liberty and freedom, the notion of individual (as opposed to collective) identity and self worth, the rights we cherish and our ability to improve our lot in life by our own efforts.

It is not necessary that we cling to the views taught in grade school in our younger days.  We are ok when we admit our shortcomings.

But it is a very different thing to focus so heavily on the things we have done wrong that we forget to keep in mind the important and more noble things that got us where we are.  

Slavery was wrong.  Racial discrimination is wrong.  We have rooted slavery out and have made genuine progress on rooting out racial bigotry.

Some of our wars were arguably ill-advised, but despite that, at least in modern day America, the wars we fight have not been wars of conquest.  It was a liberal member of the USMB family who recently noted that fact here.  A damn fine point, I'd say.

We don't suffer under Sharia Law and Muslims are not forbidden from practicing *their* dopey faith here.  I can call Islam a dopey religion here without having to fear reprisals.

Are there other countries on Earth where folks have freedom, too?  Yes.  Sure.

 In some cases, their freedoms may even rival ours.  But it's simply *not* the case that they have superior rights, freedoms and liberties.  Despite the rancid partisan yapping of some folks, OUR businessmen and businesswomen are not subject to arbitrary governmental reprisals after suspicions are raised.  France, Germany tax evasion inquiries target Swiss bank clients - latimes.com

I cannot abide our current Chief Executive.  I can openly talk about getting him removed from Office and I can openly criticize the current policies of our government.  I do so feel secure in the knowledge that the government can't say "boo" about it.  This is NOT the way it is in all other countries, not even some of the ones we recognize as having similar freedoms.


----------



## there4eyeM

Talk about a lot of words, and without saying very much.
The poster thinks America is great, so it is.
Other people may think their country is great, but they just don't understand that they don't understand.
Poor foreigners! Those French who find their nation a just compromise between freedom and collective effort must just be stupid to not think precisely as "'mericuns" do.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> *So for everybody, what has changed us as a people?  Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that.  We choose.  We the people determine what is important to us.  Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country?   Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?*



I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.

McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.

How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.

My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether that person belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So for everybody, what has changed us as a people?  Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that.  We choose.  We the people determine what is important to us.  Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country?   Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.
> 
> McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.
> 
> How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.
> 
> My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.
Click to expand...


Perhaps.  But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university.  (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.)  This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls.  In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked by the students and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.

Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman,  I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism.  It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students, at least those I interveiwed.

I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature.  It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous.  And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.

But is the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture?  Or do others see a breakdown?   Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here?  Or something else?  These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.  The idea of being entitled to or deserving of anything anybody else earned was a totally foreign concept to the students in that university in my day.

Why the difference between the two eras?


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So for everybody, what has changed us as a people?  Please don't say that it was any one person or any political party because neither has the power to do that.  We choose.  We the people determine what is important to us.  Why and when did we change from the exceptional nation to just another country?   Or did American exceptionalism ever exist?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.
> 
> McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.
> 
> How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.
> 
> My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university.  (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.)  This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls.  In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.
> 
> Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman,  I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism.  It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature.  It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous.  And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.
> 
> But is the the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture?  Or do others see a breakdown?   Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here?  Or something else?  These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.
> 
> Why the difference between the two eras?
Click to expand...


I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.

Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.

I tend to see our own society as fragmented.


----------



## Liability

there4eyeM said:


> Talk about a lot of words, and without saying very much.
> The poster thinks America is great, so it is.
> Other people may think their country is great, but they just don't understand that they don't understand.
> Poor foreigners! Those French who find their nation a just compromise between freedom and collective effort must just be stupid to not think precisely as "'mericuns" do.



You may be an imbecile, but at least you totally lack logic.

I didn't say that folks in other countries are not allowed to revere their own nations.

But if the Congo considers itself the best country on Earth, that doesn't make them right.

Ditto the Peoples' Republic of China.

And the word you were straining so ineffectual to reach is "Americans."

*Newsflash* for you, thereforyouaren't, you poor deluded dipshit:  just because YOU don't agree that America is the greatest country on Earth doesn't mean that YOUR belief is right, either.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking it was Communism - or at least, it's perception - particularly during the McCarthy era that has caused us to lose focus on where we're going as a country.
> 
> McCarthy not only rooted out the evil hordes, but he made it perfectly acceptable for us to polarize into sects who will not, under any circumstances, accept the legitimacy of any opposing argument purely on the merits. We now pick a label to apply to anyone who dissents, and use that label to simply brush the opposition to the side without ever having to consider the honesty of that action. It has become sufficient to simply say "He's a liberal" in order to avoid actually thinking.
> 
> How does a country ever regain what it's lost, if anything, and more importantly, how does a country maintain it's greatness when every 4 or 8 years, we simply tear down what came before based solely on the ideology that put it there in the first place? How do we maintain continuity from administration to administration when we, as a people, swing from one side to the other? As an engineer, I see this as being a complete and reckless waste of time, energy, and funding. WE lose sight of what was important, and fail to properly understand the problems we're trying to get fixed. WE miss the opportunities to correct past mistakes in the least intrusive and most efficient manner. But, perhaps the saddest of all, WE miss out on working together to solve issues and to learn from each other.
> 
> My father was right, Communism is a "bad thing". My father was also wrong - Communism was created as a solution to a problem, and contained within it's tenets, in which we truly don't believe, are nuggets which we have actually put into practice in our system. Good ideas used to stand up on their own. Now, I guess, it's just about who thought of them and whether they belonged to the ideology du jour at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university.  (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.)  This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls.  In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.
> 
> Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman,  I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism.  It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature.  It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous.  And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.
> 
> But is the the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture?  Or do others see a breakdown?   Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here?  Or something else?  These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.
> 
> Why the difference between the two eras?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.
> 
> Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.
> 
> I tend to see our own society as fragmented.
Click to expand...


I didn't think you were selling Communism or setting it on a pedestal.  I think I got what you were saying and I appreciate the point of view.  I'm just quarreling with it a bit, while leaving  the possibility of my being persuaded differently open.  

Going all the way back to Pearl Harbor, the USA was attacked by Japan and thereby dragged into WWII.  But the attack itself occurred during the very week that Japanese diplomats were meeting with FDR to work out differences between the two countries.   And in the shock and anger at the attack, the administration, constitutionally charged to provide the national defense, had to be concerned about what spies and saboteurs had been installed in the USA by Japan.  And what loyalties Japanese Americans might have to their mother country.  So thousands of Japanese were rounded up and placed in interrment camps while all that was sorted out.

Justifiable?  No, not in hindsight.  It was a cruel process for most.  A few were happy to go out of fear of retaliation of their American neighbors.  But was it reasonable?  At the time, we have to at least admit that it would seem so to an administration that had not experienced such an attack.  There was a reason over and above blatant racism for the policy.

And we learned from it.  When we were attacked by al Qaida on 9/11/2001, we didn't round up and inter a lot of the Arabs in the country.  But without the lessons of Pearl Harbor, we might very well have seen a justification to do that.

The next lesson learned from WWII, was the expansion of the Soviet empire following the close of WWII.  And being smarter and wiser, we knew full well that the 'empire' intended to eventually include us in that expansion.  Or at least obliterate us as a world power.  So ally became cold war enemy.   But what spies and saboteurs had the 'empire' established in the USA?   A justification of McCarthyism?   No.  A reason for it over and above ideological prejudices, yes.

And purely because so many Americans saw the injjustices of the Japanese interrment camps and the worst of McCarthyism, we didn't repeat those injustices following 9/11.

And that is why I don't see McCarthyism as the culprit in changing the culture.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps.  But I can remember a time in college when a communist leader (Russian) was invited to speak at my university.  (I covered the event as a reporter so was paying special attention to both the speaker and the audience reaction to him.)  This was a very conservative, anti-communist part of the country at that time--still is actually--but the speaker was received very cordially--no boos, no cat calls.  In the question and answer period at the end of the speech, thoughtful questions were asked and thoughtful answers were given by the speaker.
> 
> Despite this being a very attractive, intelligent, and persuasive gentleman,  I don't think the speaker changed a single opinion about communism.  It was still viewed as an unworkable system by all the students.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature.  It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous.  And yet it has been a scourge and a creator of mass poverty everywhere it has been tried.
> 
> But is the the "Marxist" mentality of a virtue in everybody sharing in everything according to their needs that has created the current breakdown in American culture?  Or do others see a breakdown?   Is the entitlement mentality the core of the problem here?  Or something else?  These days students are more apt to protest or even riot in objection to somebody speaking at their university if they strongly disagree with that person.
> 
> Why the difference between the two eras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.
> 
> Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.
> 
> I tend to see our own society as fragmented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think you were selling Communism or setting it on a pedestal.  I think I got what you were saying and I appreciate the point of view.  I'm just quarreling with it a bit, while leaving  the possibility of my being persuaded differently open.
> 
> Going all the way back to Pearl Harbor, the USA was attacked by Japan and thereby dragged into WWII.  But the attack itself occurred during the very week that Japanese diplomats were meeting with FDR to work out differences between the two countries.   And in the shock and anger at the attack, the administration, constitutionally charged to provide the national defense, had to be concerned about what spies and saboteurs had been installed in the USA by Japan.  And what loyalties Japanese Americans might have to their mother country.  So thousands of Japanese were rounded up and placed in interrment camps while all that was sorted out.
> 
> Justifiable?  No, not in hindsight.  It was a cruel process for most.  A few were happy to go out of fear of retaliation of their American neighbors.  But was it reasonable?  At the time, we have to at least admit that it would seem so to an administration that had not experienced such an attack.  There was a reason over and above blatant racism for the policy.
> 
> And we learned from it.  When we were attacked by al Qaida on 9/11/2001, we didn't round up and inter a lot of the Arabs in the country.  But without the lessons of Pearl Harbor, we might very well have seen a justification to do that.
> 
> The next lesson learned from WWII, was the expansion of the Soviet empire following the close of WWII.  And being smarter and wiser, we knew full well that the 'empire' intended to eventually include us in that expansion.  Or at least obliterate us as a world power.  So ally became cold war enemy.   But what spies and saboteurs had the 'empire' established in the USA?   A justification of McCarthyism?   No.  A reason for it over and above ideological prejudices, yes.
> 
> And purely because so many Americans saw the injjustices of the Japanese interrment camps and the worst of McCarthyism, we didn't repeat those injustices following 9/11.
> 
> And that is why I don't see McCarthyism as the culprit in changing the culture.
Click to expand...


That's mostly my point, though. There is a "justification" for the things we do - mostly created in hindsight. It's logic that tries to cover the initial emotion. But, it's the underlying emotion that is, in itself, the problem.

As far as the Japanese were concerned in WWII, there was no other motive for the internment camps than cultural racism. We were fighting a war on a different front and had accepted as many or more German ex-pats into our country who did not share the same fate.

Fear of saboteurs and spies is the justification for McCarthyism - and I accept that logic. But, it's the emotional content that was also released that still plagues us today. 

From those examples you gave, we have learned that internment camps and kangaroo courts in Congress are bad things. But, at the same time, cultural racism still exists. And we received a new tool to dismiss even more people who are different from "us" from Uncle Joe himself.


----------



## there4eyeM

"Some of our wars were ill-advised..."

What a laughable euphemism! 

The most vociferous criticism from such an intellect can only be considered as flattery.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to set Communism (or any other ideology) itself on any pedestal. The point was that McCarthy showed us that it was acceptable to paint any radical new idea with a dismissive brush without ever contemplating the idea's application to the problem set. From that point on, if a person appeared to have communist leanings, his entire line of reasoning was branded communist and dropped without a second thought.
> 
> Over the years, we have refined that anti-discussion method so that we have different brushes, but it amounts to the same thing. We, who once all pulled in the same direction, are now going our own separate ways. The only opinions that count are the ones that come from our own way of thinking, and all else is garbage.
> 
> I tend to see our own society as fragmented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you were selling Communism or setting it on a pedestal.  I think I got what you were saying and I appreciate the point of view.  I'm just quarreling with it a bit, while leaving  the possibility of my being persuaded differently open.
> 
> Going all the way back to Pearl Harbor, the USA was attacked by Japan and thereby dragged into WWII.  But the attack itself occurred during the very week that Japanese diplomats were meeting with FDR to work out differences between the two countries.   And in the shock and anger at the attack, the administration, constitutionally charged to provide the national defense, had to be concerned about what spies and saboteurs had been installed in the USA by Japan.  And what loyalties Japanese Americans might have to their mother country.  So thousands of Japanese were rounded up and placed in interrment camps while all that was sorted out.
> 
> Justifiable?  No, not in hindsight.  It was a cruel process for most.  A few were happy to go out of fear of retaliation of their American neighbors.  But was it reasonable?  At the time, we have to at least admit that it would seem so to an administration that had not experienced such an attack.  There was a reason over and above blatant racism for the policy.
> 
> And we learned from it.  When we were attacked by al Qaida on 9/11/2001, we didn't round up and inter a lot of the Arabs in the country.  But without the lessons of Pearl Harbor, we might very well have seen a justification to do that.
> 
> The next lesson learned from WWII, was the expansion of the Soviet empire following the close of WWII.  And being smarter and wiser, we knew full well that the 'empire' intended to eventually include us in that expansion.  Or at least obliterate us as a world power.  So ally became cold war enemy.   But what spies and saboteurs had the 'empire' established in the USA?   A justification of McCarthyism?   No.  A reason for it over and above ideological prejudices, yes.
> 
> And purely because so many Americans saw the injjustices of the Japanese interrment camps and the worst of McCarthyism, we didn't repeat those injustices following 9/11.
> 
> And that is why I don't see McCarthyism as the culprit in changing the culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's mostly my point, though. There is a "justification" for the things we do - mostly created in hindsight. It's logic that tries to cover the initial emotion. But, it's the underlying emotion that is, in itself, the problem.
> 
> As far as the Japanese were concerned in WWII, there was no other motive for the internment camps than cultural racism. We were fighting a war on a different front and had accepted as many or more German ex-pats into our country who did not share the same fate.
> 
> Fear of saboteurs and spies is the justification for McCarthyism - and I accept that logic. But, it's the emotional content that was also released that still plagues us today.
> 
> From those examples you gave, we have learned that internment camps and kangaroo courts in Congress are bad things. But, at the same time, cultural racism still exists. And we received a new tool to dismiss even more people who are different from "us" from Uncle Joe himself.
Click to expand...


I strongly disagree that the Japanese interment camps were motivated by cultural racism.  If you accept the rationale that Communist dictatorships would have motive to place moles, spies, and saboteurs among us, then surely we can give benefit of the doubt to an Administration who would see Japan having motive to place moles, spies, and saboteurs among us as well as concern that the Japanese Americans themselves would feel compelled to side with their motherland.  It was only after the fact that we learned that they had no such compulsion.

Understanding motives as not being evil is not the same thing as condoning all actions committed out of fear or concern.

But yes, we can see how we learned from that experience as well as learning from McCarthyism not to commit such injustices even when there could be a motive for doing so.   And we have not done so since those times, at least as official policies of government.

So that brings us back to the drawing board as to what has changed and fragmented our culture that once was mostly cohesive and most shared the most important basic values.

You have accused McCarthyism.  I have rejected that as explained.

Another has blamed Communism.  That one might be edging closer to the basic cause though not imported from other places.  I think it goes back to that "War on Poverty" concept that eventually came to be what some of us see as a "War on the Poor" but has nevertheless changed the culture in a dramatic way.  (Yeah, I know Liability will disagree with me on that one.  )


----------



## Desperado

CrusaderFrank said:


> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.



So what happened to those ideals?


----------



## Moonglow

The rights of indiviuals have more protection today than in anytime of US history.
The first two hundred years the rights of the indivual were inforced for whites only.


----------



## Foxfyre

Desperado said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a pompous answer! And wrong in the trillion column too!
> 
> We have (had) a country with a Constitutionally limited central government and 50 sovereign states that were supposed to be incubators of ideas and ideals. How'd he miss that?  That's what made us great.
> 
> The one nation on the planet set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened to those ideals?
Click to expand...


CF is right that we are the one nation on the planet, in the entire history of the world in fact, set up to acknowledge and protect the rights of the individual.  In ALL other governments on Earth, individual rights are assigned by the government.  But the character in the OP did not deny any of that.  He was focused on the ideals.

So those ideals are exactly what I see as the fundamental question suggested by the OP.  What has fractured our unique American culture that had developed by shared ideals that some of us now see replaced by something else.  I think that also is what the speaker in the OP was addressing.


----------



## Moonglow

The US is not going to be number one in every catagory, nor time. The greatness you speak of landed in our laps. After populating every state and new lands are not there  for our taking we fing the US of A becoming overcome with  the same problems that plagued many nations in the past.

The greatness you speak that was once America is still there, you just don't see it.

We became great through military objectives and taking away lands that belonged to other indiginious people.
That was our greatness. Every country has hard working people, smart people. What makes the US of A great is our laws, our society and our military.

people from all over the world want to come here for freedom, and that is a fact, jack!.


----------



## there4eyeM

We love our country, so it is great. It is great, so we love it.

Keep chanting.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature.  It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous.




I've never thought so. History, philosophy, and personal experience have proven me right.


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its *former greatness, prosperity, and best values*.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Kool. Can we wipe out the rest of the "red savages" and go nuke the shit out of some slant eyes now ?
> I know ! How about buying a few million ******* to do the work murkins won't do and that meskins can't(legally)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an ignorant fucking post.
Click to expand...



What else do you expect from an ignorant fuck?


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  Watching the rest of the episode clearly puts things in perspective that the Jeff Daniels character is not a Liberal.  Or a Conservative.
> 
> Liability does not see that many policies of the Rightwing are indeed wars on poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
Click to expand...



You have failed completely to prove your point.


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to display your stupidity.
> 
> Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.
Click to expand...



Most drug users who are imprisoned are drug dealers, multiple-multiple offenders, and/or were charged with drug-related crimes while in the process of committing other crimes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay boys, civility and on topic please.  Tbere are hundreds and hundreds of threads devoted to insulting each oher.  I respectfully request that you do not do that here.  Thank you very much.

And I will agree with Moonglow that our military power is the largest and most powerful in the world.  But I don't think many will agree that it is that which makes us a great country.

I also agree that people want to come here for the freedom and opportunity that we offer.  Those things do factor into into our greatness.

And I also agree with there4 that many of us do love our country.  We want our children to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we salute the flag, we feel a lump in our throat when we sing or hear the National Anthem sung.  Many of us will always put the national interest ahead of our own.

And there was a time in America that most Americans agreed on what the national interest was.  Among others things that agreement has become fragmented and I suspect many of us will disagree on what make a nation great.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> And I will agree with Moonglow that our military power is the largest and most powerful in the world.  But I don't think many will agree that it is that which makes us a great country.
> .






It's certainly part of it.


----------



## there4eyeM

"I sometimes wonder if most students now even know why communisim is a dangerous thing, and why it is unworkable within human nature. It sounds so noble, so righteous, so virtuous."

A feature it shares with democracy.

But even that should not be said in the context of this post, as 'communism' has not been defined. Change the last letters of the word from sm to ty and most problems with it disappear.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

The dude in the video said Great Britain had freedom. I don't buy that when they're putting someone one trial for what he said during a freaking soccer game. Also, Canada, who he mentioned, will literally thought police people into bankruptcy.


----------



## there4eyeM

'Patriot' Act. Airport harassment. N.D.A.A. Random police checks. ID cards. Marijuana prohibition.

Freedom?


----------



## Indofred

I voted, "No, but it could be.".
The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.
Mass education, aid to set up farming to keep hunger from the world and assistance to those in trouble from disaster.
And at a price that's likely to be a lot cheaper than war.

The US has the power to make the world it's friend - has it got the balls to do it?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Indofred said:


> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.
> Mass education, aid to set up farming to keep hunger from the world and assistance to those in trouble from disaster.
> And at a price that's likely to be a lot cheaper than war.
> 
> The US has the power to make the world it's friend - has it got the balls to do it?



You'll like our balls.


----------



## Indofred

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.
> Mass education, aid to set up farming to keep hunger from the world and assistance to those in trouble from disaster.
> And at a price that's likely to be a lot cheaper than war.
> 
> The US has the power to make the world it's friend - has it got the balls to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll like our balls.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the offer but I only like girls.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.




Yeah, and WE DO.


----------



## there4eyeM

America may aid other countries, but not massively (unless arms are counted).
A very small percentage of G.D.P. even if one includes weapons.

But keep chanting...


----------



## Indofred

there4eyeM said:


> America may aid other countries, but not massively (unless arms are counted).
> A very small percentage of G.D.P. even if one includes weapons.
> 
> But keep chanting...



The US has sent Israel $115 billion since WWII
Pity it's almost all weapons.

How does that compare to the healthcare bill that is considered to be such a waste of money?


----------



## Liability

there4eyeM said:


> "Some of our wars were ill-advised..."
> 
> What a laughable euphemism!
> 
> The most vociferous criticism from such an intellect can only be considered as flattery.



Only because you are such a drooling moron you cannot grasp the fact that some of our wars were well advised.

You really are quite pathetic.

Your stupid tone and boring tenor are familiar. 

Did you used to post here under some  other boring username?


----------



## Foxfyre

Indofred said:


> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.
> Mass education, aid to set up farming to keep hunger from the world and assistance to those in trouble from disaster.
> And at a price that's likely to be a lot cheaper than war.
> 
> The US has the power to make the world it's friend - has it got the balls to do it?



Is there ANY other nation, however, that sends as much aid to other countries as does the USA?  Is there ANY other nation that spends as much of its GDP in aid to other countries? 

You seem to suggest that if the USA was more generous, we would have more friends or everybody would be its friend.  I'm sorry, but that simply has not been the case thus far.  While the USA remains the #1 preferred destination for those who would like to relocate, we are probably waaaaaaaaaay down on the list of nations that receive favorable ratings from other nations.  We are almost consistently outvoted at the UN.  We are criticized, maligned, insulted, and shrugged off.   How "friendly" would all those nations receiving U.S. aid be at all if they were cut off from that aid?

Currently to Asia alone we are sending substantial funding to (and you'll note that Indonesia is on this list):

Afghanistan ·
 Armenia ·
 Azerbaijan ·
 Bahrain ·
 Bangladesh ·
 Bhutan ·
 Brunei ·
 Burma (Myanmar) ·
 Cambodia ·
 People's Republic of China ·
 Cyprus ·
 East Timor (Timor-Leste) ·
 Egypt ·
 Georgia ·
 India ·
 Indonesia ·
 Iran ·
 Iraq ·
 Israel ·
 Japan ·
 Jordan ·
 Kazakhstan ·
 North Korea ·
 South Korea ·
 Kuwait ·
 Kyrgyzstan ·
 Laos ·
 Lebanon ·
 Malaysia ·
 Maldives ·
 Mongolia ·
 Nepal ·
 Oman ·
 Pakistan ·
 Philippines ·
 Qatar ·
 Russia ·
 Saudi Arabia ·
 Singapore ·
 Sri Lanka ·
 Syria ·
 Tajikistan ·
 Thailand ·
 Turkey ·
 Turkmenistan ·
 United Arab Emirates ·
 Uzbekistan ·
 Vietnam ·
 Yemen

And limited funding to:
Abkhazia ·
 Nagorno-Karabakh ·
 Northern Cyprus ·
 Palestine ·
 Taiwan ·
 South Ossetia
British Indian Ocean Territory ·
 Christmas Island ·
 Cocos (Keeling) Islands ·
 Hong Kong ·
 Macau

It is noted that countries that are not our enemies are also not neceessarily our friends which is the case with most of those countries that receive U.S. dollars as gifts.  The old saw that friends you have to buy are not really friends remains true.

On the domestic front, in most cases, we can also recognize that we aren't making prosperous, productive, responsible citizens out of Americans receiving U.S. funds, nor in most cases are we making patriots (friends of our nation.)  We do seem to be creating a great deal of that fragmentation that was mentioned by somebody in an earlier post however.


----------



## Indofred

Foxfyre said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there ANY other nation, however, that sends as much aid to other countries as does the USA?  Is there ANY other nation that spends as much of its GDP in aid to other countries?
> 
> Currently to Asia alone we are send substantial funding to (and you'll note that Indonesia is on this list):
> 
> Afghanistan ·
Click to expand...


I rather liked that post.
Te alphabetical listing was a nice touch.

You really have to try a little harder to twist a story when the figures are so easily available on the internet.

try this site

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

A third of aid goes to Israel and Egypt, most in arms sales.

Indonesia was, as you said, on the list.
In the 70s, the US supported Indonesia.
Untitled Document

nearer to today
Indonesia at the Crossroads: U.S. Weapons Sales and Military Training | World Policy Institute

US has ended lethal weapon sales ban: RI | The Jakarta Post

Pretty much up to date
Indonesian Civil, Military Sectors Have Healthy Aircraft Appetites

OK, Indonesia is coming out of a dark period and is trying its best to become a democratic nation.
It's doing pretty well at it too but the aid is still arms sales for the most part.


----------



## Hollie

Indofred said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there ANY other nation, however, that sends as much aid to other countries as does the USA?  Is there ANY other nation that spends as much of its GDP in aid to other countries?
> 
> Currently to Asia alone we are send substantial funding to (and you'll note that Indonesia is on this list):
> 
> Afghanistan ·
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rather liked that post.
> Te alphabetical listing was a nice touch.
> 
> You really have to try a little harder to twist a story when the figures are so easily available on the internet.
> 
> try this site
> 
> U.S. Foreign Aid Summary
> 
> A third of aid goes to Israel and Egypt, most in arms sales.
> 
> Indonesia was, as you said, on the list.
> In the 70s, the US supported Indonesia.
> Untitled Document
> 
> nearer to today
> Indonesia at the Crossroads: U.S. Weapons Sales and Military Training | World Policy Institute
> 
> US has ended lethal weapon sales ban: RI | The Jakarta Post
> 
> Pretty much up to date
> Indonesian Civil, Military Sectors Have Healthy Aircraft Appetites
> 
> OK, Indonesia is coming out of a dark period and is trying its best to become a democratic nation.
> It's doing pretty well at it too but the aid is still arms sales for the most part.
Click to expand...


No one is forcing the Indonesian government to buy US aircraft. 

Your posts would be better by ending them with "Death to the Great Satan".


----------



## there4eyeM

Who agrees that the war with Mexico was just and good? How about the imperial war with Spain and the resulting occupation and repression in the Philippines? How about the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq? Any drooling idiots want to defend these?


----------



## Indofred

Hollie said:


> No one is forcing the Indonesian government to buy US aircraft.



This is true but that's governments for you. 
You'll note, in my defence, the aid comes at exactly the same time as orders for aircraft.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Come on - The US is giving away free aircraft to keep the US arms trade running.
It'll be really interesting to know who pays who to vote for these things.



Hollie said:


> Your posts would be better by ending them with "Death to the Great Satan".



Perhaps you could link to hate posts about the US. I've pointed out how various governments have murdered in large numbers no hate as such.
Is it hate to point out undisputed facts?

Same goes for Israel. Point out where I've shown hatred. I really dislike their government but I never make hate posts about Jews or anyone else and so on that you see from other posters.

Can you say the same with regard to your posts about Muslims?


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there ANY other nation, however, that sends as much aid to other countries as does the USA?  Is there ANY other nation that spends as much of its GDP in aid to other countries?
> 
> Currently to Asia alone we are send substantial funding to (and you'll note that Indonesia is on this list):
> 
> Afghanistan ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rather liked that post.
> Te alphabetical listing was a nice touch.
> 
> You really have to try a little harder to twist a story when the figures are so easily available on the internet.
> 
> try this site
> 
> U.S. Foreign Aid Summary
> 
> A third of aid goes to Israel and Egypt, most in arms sales.
> 
> Indonesia was, as you said, on the list.
> In the 70s, the US supported Indonesia.
> Untitled Document
> 
> nearer to today
> Indonesia at the Crossroads: U.S. Weapons Sales and Military Training | World Policy Institute
> 
> US has ended lethal weapon sales ban: RI | The Jakarta Post
> 
> Pretty much up to date
> Indonesian Civil, Military Sectors Have Healthy Aircraft Appetites
> 
> OK, Indonesia is coming out of a dark period and is trying its best to become a democratic nation.
> It's doing pretty well at it too but the aid is still arms sales for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forcing the Indonesian government to buy US aircraft.
> 
> Your posts would be better by ending them with "Death to the Great Satan".
Click to expand...


The USA sends more than $250 million to Indonesia, unrelated to any arms sales, each and every year.  That puts Indonesia about 13th on the list of the nations that receive U.S. aid.  By comparison, Israel who is No. 1 on the list, receives something over $2 billion.

Israel, however, generally votes with the U.S. at the U.N.  Indonesia almost never does.   So what does our contributions to Indonesia buy us?  Nothing.  It is a pure gift.  Apparently with no strings attached, but does provide something of an incentive to keep markets open.

Despite the relatively small percentage of the U.S. budget going for all foreign aid, it is still a significant amount of money.  How many of us have ever had a million dollars?  How much money is a million dollars to you?   How hard do you have to work to send a few thousand dollars in taxes to Washington every year?   Yet to our fearless leaders there, a million dollars is pocket change, not even worth considering how hard we worked to send it to them to spend.

And not only do all those nations politely receive our money, most seemingly accepting it as their right to receive with no need to reciprocate, so does the benevolence our tax dollars heap on about 50% of our own American people become something they seem to accept as their right to have with no need to reciprocate.

And it is THAT which I believe is the worst problem our nation faces today, and it is THAT which I believe has fragmented us, and has diminished us as a nation.

Convince me otherwise.


----------



## Foxfyre

President Obama reports that U.S. aid is only 1 to 2% of the federal budget.  Yet it translates to about $180 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. if everybody paid federal taxes.  Since everybody doesn't pay federal taxes, the annual contribution for those of us who do is considerably higher.

Do you feel you are getting your money's worth?

Domestic welfare is about 20% or so of the federal budget if you include social security and medicare  and that translates to something over $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA.  And yet there is more dependence on govenment than ever with approximately 50% of all Americans receiving some sort of government benefit.

do you feel you are getting your money's worth?


----------



## Synthaholic

eots said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to display your stupidity.
> 
> Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.
> 
> I didn't claim that most poor people are drug abusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of why the Rightwing are constantly wrong:  they cannot even read and comprehend correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor people ,pan handlers,hardcore homeless addicts do not fund  billion dollar drug enterprises just as alcoholic town drunks do not support the liquor industry.. there are not enough hardcore street addicts to support such a vast enterprise..what supports the industry is vast numbers of middle  and upper income recreational users and addicts
Click to expand...

True.  But it doesn't address my point in the least.


----------



## Synthaholic

Swagger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.
> 
> Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.
> 
> Now it's seen as a business goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're condemning is far from exclusive to the United States. Surely you must've known that?
Click to expand...


I disagree.  And note that I never claimed it was exclusive to the U.S., but we pioneered it.

You will not find the same inequities in Britain or Germany.  Japan even has laws regulating it.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> America may aid other countries, but not massively...





Go ask people suffering from AIDS and malaria in Africa about that (for one example out of many, many), you empty-headed big-mouth punk.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> OK, Indonesia is coming out of a dark period and is trying its best to become a democratic nation.
> It's doing pretty well at it too but the aid is still arms sales for the most part.



U.S. ups tsunami aid from $35 million to $350 million - CNN

US tsunami aid still reaps goodwill / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

DefenseLink Special: U.S. Troops Aid Tsunami Victims


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare  (and one or two others), I have repeatedly requested civility for this thread.  There are hundreds of threads where it is expected that you insult other members.  We are having an intermittant interesting discussion here, and I very much do not want this to dissolve into another flame thread.  Your understanding will be much appreciated.

As far as massively aiding other countries, yes we send a tremendous amount of aid for Africa's efforts to combat rampant AIDS there.   President Bush stepped up that process several fold during his Administration.

But what is the definition of 'massive'?  Is $50 billion an insignificant amount?   Many, probably most of us, cannot really wrap our minds around how much a billion dollars actually is.  How many man hours it requires to earn that much money.  More significantly, how many man hours of hard work it requires to pay that much in taxes.

I think that is another serious flaw and breakdown in our great country.  We have lost perspective and too often do not translate dollars into the effort and resources necessary to produce them.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> How about the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq? ?





It was not illegal and we did not destroy Iraq.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered vulgar by American society for a CEO to make more than 100 x more than their employees.
> 
> Now it's celebrated by some as an ideal to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was it?  I don't recall that being an issue in the 1960's and 70's.  I do recal people like J.C. Penney and Henry Ford and the Rockefellers being somewhat revered as the examples of what we all could aspire to be--people who provided us with great products, great marketing, great philanthropy.  Certainly the disparity between the income of these people and all of the people I knew was immense.  But it didn't matter as we all expected to earn what we received.   Class warfare was not a common household word as it is today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the 1980s, it was considered unpatriotic for a company to be a war profiteer.
> 
> Now it's seen as a business goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I heard and read from the generation just preceding mine, in WWII--that would be well before the 1980's--it was considered one's patriotic duty to participate in the war effort.  Many manufacturing plants shut down domestic operations to retool to make guns and tanks and other war equipment.  Certainly all who did that profited mightily.   Many women left their kitchens to become "Rosie the Riveter" in the manufacturing plants to replace the men who were overseas fighting the war.  To save certain products, to conserve, to accept rationing was all one's patriotic duty.
> 
> There are many perspectives to consider other than the assigned political views and talking points.  I like to focus on the realities in this thread rather than the politivcally correct point of view.
Click to expand...



Wow, that's a lot of words to be totally wrong on both counts!

Henry Ford paid his workers very well, because he knew that if he didn't they would not be able to afford his automobiles.  He needed those cars out on the streets, in order to spur interest and sales, and to get the government to build roads.  Demand spurring supply.

Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler, who was a Marine Corps Major General and a major figure in U.S. military history, wrote a groundbreaking book after WWI, War Is A Racket, which outed industrialist war profiteers.  During WWII, FDR made it a crime to be a war profiteer.  There is a famous photo of one being carried out of his corporation by 5 or 6 police officers, arrested.

It used to be a reviled practice.

But then came Bush/Cheney:

The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers | World | AlterNet

It is disgusting.

ETA:  the politicians who have taken the money:

http://archive.truthout.org/war-profiteers-corner-steven-r-loranger62704


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not illegal and we did not destroy Iraq.
Click to expand...


Where this one becomes relevant to this thread is in our view of the world as citizens of the last world super power. Do we really see the activities of other nations as our business to the point that we should intervene?  Was the murder of thousands of their own citizens by the Lybian government sufficient cause to intervene?  Would it be in Syria in which even larger amounts of people are being killed on a daily basis?

And as a people do we see a threat to U.S. interests as sufficient reason to act?  Or must there be hostile action from others that justifies retaliation before we can load our weapons?

If we had known in advance what al Qaida was planning on 9/11, would that have been sufficient reason to strike first?  Or should it be as a matter of policy that we allow all those people to die in order to justify retaliation? 

As a people we should think on these things and instruct our government accordingly.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> If we had known in advance what al Qaida was planning on 9/11, would that have been sufficient reason to strike first?  .







Of course.


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> NONE of the policies favored by Conservatives constitute a war on poor people.  In fact, objectively, which Synth is not, it could be better argued that the effect of modern American liberalism is an attack on individual liberties the worst effect of which is dumped on "poorer" people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed completely to prove your point.
Click to expand...

I doubt you even understand what point I was making.


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to stereotype the poor as being drug users. I don't think the examples you give hurt poor people as much as they hurt *STUPID* people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to display your stupidity.
> 
> Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most drug users who are imprisoned are drug dealers, multiple-multiple offenders, and/or were charged with drug-related crimes while in the process of committing other crimes.
Click to expand...

False.


----------



## Synthaholic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted, "No, but it could be.".
> The US has massive resources that could be used to help the whole world in a wide variety of ways.
> Mass education, aid to set up farming to keep hunger from the world and assistance to those in trouble from disaster.
> And at a price that's likely to be a lot cheaper than war.
> 
> The US has the power to make the world it's friend - has it got the balls to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll like our balls.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-SX_W0lrQ]You&#39;re Gonna Love My Nuts - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had known in advance what al Qaida was planning on 9/11, would that have been sufficient reason to strike first?  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
Click to expand...


But would you agree with me that it is a legitimate debate?  In the case of Iraq, virtually every member of the Bush and Clinton administrations, every member of Congress, every member of the U.N., and almost all heads of state throughout the free world, and all his Arab neighbors believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them against America and all her allies.  More than a few still believe he had them and moved them out to places like Iran and Syria during all those long months he stalled the U.N. inspectors.  There is concern as we type this that intelligence has determined that Syria has chemicals of mass destruction (cyanide, serin, et al) and is prepared to use them on its own citizens.  Where did those come from?  Did Syria develop them?  We don't know.

And then there is the issue of the sanctions that many believe had Saddam contained, but that were nevertheless causing death and suffering of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens.  What is more humane?  Sanctions that kill tens of thousands?  Or war that ends the problem once and for all?

Now in hindsight, most would say that the invasion of Iraq, however legal, was ill advised and was not worth the immense cost of American blood and treasure.  The Ron Paul et al camps think we never should have meddled in any of it in the first place.  Others think we have to care when human lives are being destroyed by tyrants.  And that is absolutely a legitimate debate to have.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some of our wars were ill-advised..."
> 
> What a laughable euphemism!
> 
> The most vociferous criticism from such an intellect can only be considered as flattery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you are such a drooling moron you cannot grasp the fact that some of our wars were well advised.
> 
> You really are quite pathetic.
> 
> Your stupid tone and boring tenor are familiar.
> 
> Did you used to post here under some  other boring username?
Click to expand...

Why do you always resort to this kind of posting whenever you no longer have an intelligent response?

Wouldn't it be better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some of our wars were ill-advised..."
> 
> What a laughable euphemism!
> 
> The most vociferous criticism from such an intellect can only be considered as flattery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you are such a drooling moron you cannot grasp the fact that some of our wars were well advised.
> 
> You really are quite pathetic.
> 
> Your stupid tone and boring tenor are familiar.
> 
> Did you used to post here under some  other boring username?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you always resort to this kind of posting whenever you no longer have an intelligent response?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?
Click to expand...


Appeal to civility please.   You guys that enjoy the schoolyard taunts and insults and have issues with each other, please take it to the flame zone or rubber room.

Let's focus on the pertinent issues raised in the O.P. here.  Thanks.


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laughable.
> 
> How about Mandatory Minimums for drug offenders?
> 
> How about the disparity between sentences for crack vs cocaine?
> 
> 
> These two hurt poor people at a much higher rate than rich people.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that millionaire Wall Streeters don't do drugs.  It is well documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed completely to prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you even understand what point I was making.
Click to expand...




You want to doubt that, but doing so does not - despite your hope - make you any more intelligent or, in this case, correct. Your failure stands.


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How nice of you to display your stupidity.
> 
> Most drug abusers who are *imprisoned* are poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most drug users who are imprisoned are drug dealers, multiple-multiple offenders, and/or were charged with drug-related crimes while in the process of committing other crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.
Click to expand...



True. By far the most common punishment for drug crimes is probation and mandatory treatment programs. If you are doing hard time for drugs it's because you were dealing, you were caught with them while committing another crime, or you are so hopeless you are a multiple, multiple, multiple loser.


----------



## Foxfyre

Would the greatest country in the world have a huge alcoholism and other drug addiction problem?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Would the greatest country in the world have a huge alcoholism and other drug addiction problem?



Why wouldn't it?


----------



## Big Fitz

She is great, but not as compared to the way she once was.  I don't know of a country greater than her, but I do know she's come a long way from her prime.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Indofred said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> America may aid other countries, but not massively (unless arms are counted).
> A very small percentage of G.D.P. even if one includes weapons.
> 
> But keep chanting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has sent Israel $115 billion since WWII
> Pity it's almost all weapons.
> 
> How does that compare to the healthcare bill that is considered to be such a waste of money?
Click to expand...


Americans are more afraid of terrorists than heart disease, despite the relatively tiny number who have died from the former.    

But Greatest Country in the world is silly, jingoistic, and infantile. 

What makes America great is her system of justice, which is far superior to that of any other nation. 

To be sure there are nations with fair and just legal systems, ensuring civil rights and due process, but they dont work as well as the American judicial system, which has the advantage of a written Constitution, its case law, and a long legal tradition. 

Many countries struggle with the issue of immigration, for example, where those born of foreigners are in a citizenship limbo. 

In the United State, on the other hand, all persons are entitled to due process regardless their immigration status and those born here are citizens. Period. 

Whats most remarkable about the American legal system is the doctrine of judicial review and the rule of law  where all persons are protected from the tyranny of the majority, in all jurisdictions. 

The only problem with the American judicial system is Americans who are ignorant of the law or have contempt for Constitutional case law and precedent.


----------



## Unkotare

Big Fitz said:


> She is great, but not as compared to the way she once was.  I don't know of a country greater than her, but I do know she's come a long way from her prime.




People have been saying that since 1777.


----------



## Foxfyre

Big Fitz said:


> She is great, but not as compared to the way she once was.  I don't know of a country greater than her, but I do know she's come a long way from her prime.



That's where I am, which is why I voted Yes and also No, but it could be again on the poll.  In many ways--C Clayton touched on our judiciary for instance--we are superior to all others.  Our judiciary, at least that part we can commend, is based on the Founders concept of unalienable rights taking precedent first and foremost over all other concerns.  No other nation recognizes unalienable rights and thereby bases its judiciary on whatever permissions are granted by their respective governments, or, in the case of the more totalitarian governments, the whims of the dictator du jour.

But for me I see the decline in various breakdowns of the American cohesiveness in its values and ideals.  Exalting multiculturalism, for instance, rather than assimilation into a unique American culture has been a huge part of that breakdown.  Rather than appreciating the various cultures people contribute to the mix as interesting and informative, we have begun changing our culture to accommodate others.  And that has not been a positive thing and in fact has created divisiveness.

We have already touched on the welfare state as a key factor in the breakdown of the American family and raising up unprofitable characteristics of society as the new normal to be celebrated rather than regretted.

Too many of our friends here want to blame somebody or some group or some policy or some negative aspect of our history.  But all nations deal with those kinds of things.  The fragmentation of our society that is diminishing our greatness, I think goes far deeper than that.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Exalting multiculturalism, for instance, rather than assimilation into a unique American culture has been a huge part of that breakdown.  Rather than appreciating the various cultures people contribute to the mix as interesting and informative, we have begun changing our culture to accommodate others.  And that has not been a positive thing and in fact has created divisiveness.





How so?


----------



## Big Fitz

Unkotare said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is great, but not as compared to the way she once was.  I don't know of a country greater than her, but I do know she's come a long way from her prime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have been saying that since 1777.
Click to expand...

How could they.  The United States of America didn't exist till 1791 when the constitution was ratified.


----------



## Unkotare

Big Fitz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is great, but not as compared to the way she once was.  I don't know of a country greater than her, but I do know she's come a long way from her prime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have been saying that since 1777.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could they.  The United States of America didn't exist till 1791 when the constitution was ratified.
Click to expand...




Don't ruin my clever remark! (but really, people have been saying it since before 1776 if you want to get fussy about it, AND we were in fact The United States of America under the Articles of Confederation as well, so...).


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exalting multiculturalism, for instance, rather than assimilation into a unique American culture has been a huge part of that breakdown.  Rather than appreciating the various cultures people contribute to the mix as interesting and informative, we have begun changing our culture to accommodate others.  And that has not been a positive thing and in fact has created divisiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


There was a time when people came to America to be Americans.  They WANTED to be Americans and all that entailed.  I was blessed to participate in helping with classes to help new immigrants from all populated continents (including ours) to assimilate into American culture, to learn the language, to learn the more critical basic laws, to learn the content and respect for the Constitution, to learn our Pledge of Allegiance and the symbolism in our flag, etc.  And there were no more proud people in the world who stood up at their swearing in ceremony, who recited the Pledge of Allegiance, who took the oath:

(Working from memory)

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

(and then they sign a written oath containing the same language.)

When you see them reverently facing our flag, reciting the Pledge, many with tears of joy streaming down their cheeks, (and also my cheeks when I was in attendance), there is nothing else to describe it.

From then on they were Americans who happened to be born in another culture.  They were not asked to renounce their culture and at times we all joyfully share in the festival traditions of the Chinese, the Irish, the Russians, the Italians, the Mexicans, et al.  But they  also assimilated into and enriched the unqiue American culture.  They did not demand that the American culture change to accommodate them.

When out of political correctness we adopt and force multiculturalism to accommodate different cultures and set them apart, we fragment society.  We fragment America.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exalting multiculturalism, for instance, rather than assimilation into a unique American culture has been a huge part of that breakdown.  Rather than appreciating the various cultures people contribute to the mix as interesting and informative, we have begun changing our culture to accommodate others.  And that has not been a positive thing and in fact has created divisiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when people came to America to be Americans.  They WANTED to be Americans and all that entailed.  I was blessed to participate in helping with classes to help new immigrants from all populated continents (including ours) to assimilate into American culture, to learn the language, to learn the more critical basic laws, to learn the content and respect for the Constitution, to learn our Pledge of Allegiance and the symbolism in our flag, etc.  And there were no more proud people in the world who stood up at their swearing in ceremony, who recited the Pledge of Allegiance, who took the oath:
> 
> (Working from memory)
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> 
> (and then they sign a written oath containing the same language.)
> 
> When you see them reverently facing our flag, reciting the Pledge, many with tears of joy streaming down their cheeks, (and also my cheeks when I was in attendance), there is nothing else to describe it.
> 
> From then on they were Americans who happened to be born in another culture.  They were not asked to renounce their culture and at times we all joyfully share in the festival traditions of the Chinese, the Irish, the Russians, the Italians, the Mexicans, et al.  But they  also assimilated into and enriched the unqiue American culture. .
Click to expand...



All that is still true today.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when people came to America to be Americans.  They WANTED to be Americans and all that entailed.  I was blessed to participate in helping with classes to help new immigrants from all populated continents (including ours) to assimilate into American culture, to learn the language, to learn the more critical basic laws, to learn the content and respect for the Constitution, to learn our Pledge of Allegiance and the symbolism in our flag, etc.  And there were no more proud people in the world who stood up at their swearing in ceremony, who recited the Pledge of Allegiance, who took the oath:
> 
> (Working from memory)
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> 
> (and then they sign a written oath containing the same language.)
> 
> When you see them reverently facing our flag, reciting the Pledge, many with tears of joy streaming down their cheeks, (and also my cheeks when I was in attendance), there is nothing else to describe it.
> 
> From then on they were Americans who happened to be born in another culture.  They were not asked to renounce their culture and at times we all joyfully share in the festival traditions of the Chinese, the Irish, the Russians, the Italians, the Mexicans, et al.  But they  also assimilated into and enriched the unqiue American culture. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All that is still true today.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean.  When I see demands from the PC crowd that we 'accommodate' or change our uniquely American traditions and customs lest we 'offend' somebody of 'another culture', I see that as a problem.  And that phenomenon is a fairly recent thing, at least no earlier than the last 30 years of American history.


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some of our wars were ill-advised..."
> 
> What a laughable euphemism!
> 
> The most vociferous criticism from such an intellect can only be considered as flattery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you are such a drooling moron you cannot grasp the fact that some of our wars were well advised.
> 
> You really are quite pathetic.
> 
> Your stupid tone and boring tenor are familiar.
> 
> Did you used to post here under some  other boring username?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you always resort to this kind of posting whenever you no longer have an intelligent response?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?
Click to expand...


I offered that kind of response because that's all the dopey post to which I was responding warranted, as you would know if you were objective.  But you aren't.

And I don't "always" do anything, but I frequently respond with derision to dopey posts like his -- and yours.

As for the balance of your post, you probably can't even grasp how much of a complete asshole hypocrite you just proved yourself to be --again.

Don't worry too much.  We expect you to be unoriginal and derivative.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when people came to America to be Americans.  They WANTED to be Americans and all that entailed.  I was blessed to participate in helping with classes to help new immigrants from all populated continents (including ours) to assimilate into American culture, to learn the language, to learn the more critical basic laws, to learn the content and respect for the Constitution, to learn our Pledge of Allegiance and the symbolism in our flag, etc.  And there were no more proud people in the world who stood up at their swearing in ceremony, who recited the Pledge of Allegiance, who took the oath:
> 
> (Working from memory)
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> 
> (and then they sign a written oath containing the same language.)
> 
> When you see them reverently facing our flag, reciting the Pledge, many with tears of joy streaming down their cheeks, (and also my cheeks when I was in attendance), there is nothing else to describe it.
> 
> From then on they were Americans who happened to be born in another culture.  They were not asked to renounce their culture and at times we all joyfully share in the festival traditions of the Chinese, the Irish, the Russians, the Italians, the Mexicans, et al.  But they  also assimilated into and enriched the unqiue American culture. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that is still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  .
Click to expand...



I mean exactly what I said. Everything you described is still true today.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that is still true today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean exactly what I said. Everything you described is still true today.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think everything I have described is still true today.  As I said, when the PC Police and activists demand that we change our time honored customs and traditions to avoid giving 'offense' to this group or that group, it creates divisions among us and begins to crumble the uniquely American culture.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean exactly what I said. Everything you described is still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think everything I have described is still true today.  .
Click to expand...




Ok, which part - specifically  - is not?


----------



## NoNukes

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
Click to expand...


They emigrate to European countries too, so that is not a valid argument.


----------



## Foxfyre

NoNukes said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are excellent points.  You don't see a lot of Americans wanting to emigrate to Korea or Cuba.  There are lots of Koreans and Cubans who would love to immigrate here.
> 
> And that is not an insignificant thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They emigrate to European countries too, so that is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...


Certainly it is a valid argument if you are discussing whether Cuba and Korea are more desirable places to move than is the United States.  Europe was not part of that discussion.

However, if you would like to name ANY other country that would be as appealing to as many people who would choose the USA to live given the opportunity, go for it.   I am pretty sure the USA gets more immigration applications than does at least most of the rest of the world combined.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean exactly what I said. Everything you described is still true today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think everything I have described is still true today.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, which part - specifically  - is not?
Click to expand...



Hello?


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean exactly what I said. Everything you described is still true today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think everything I have described is still true today.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, which part - specifically  - is not?
Click to expand...


Too many to list, but to name a few. . . .

The parts where a school teacher can now be fired for having too many traditional Christmas carols in the winter music program.  There was a time when highschools could perform all the wonderful traditional Christmas music from the ages and people, Chrsitian, Jew, Atheist, secular, would come from miles around to enjoy it.

The part where schools can no longer have a "Christmas program' despite it being an officially recognized national holiday.

The part where it is considered inappropriate to insist that school children learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem and learn and practice proper protocol for display and respect for the flag.

The part where we can no longer have a generic prayer before a highschool football game when it is comforting for both the fans in attendance and the team or a student led prayer at a highschool assembly.  Such were once traditional and customary across the land.

The part where teachers are no longer allowed to promote traditional marriage as the norm or teach children that if they stay off illegal substances, educate themselves, acquire marketable skills, and wait until they are able to support a family and then get married before they have children is the surest ticket to success and prosperity and the surest insurance against poverty.

The part when pride in America and patriotism and an expectation that new citizens would be Americans first in all things were considered virtues.

The part when taking responsibility for your own wants and needs and doing what you had to do to support and set an exemplary example for your family was the expectation of men and what made them men.

The part where we expected people to respect and obey our laws in all things, including immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> The parts where a school teacher can now be fired for having too many traditional Christmas carols in the winter music program.  There was a time when highschools could perform all the wonderful traditional Christmas music from the ages and people, Chrsitian, Jew, Atheist, secular, would come from miles around to enjoy it.
> 
> The part where schools can no longer have a "Christmas program' despite it being an officially recognized national holiday.
> 
> The part where it is considered inappropriate to insist that school children learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem and learn and practice proper protocol for display and respect for the flag.
> 
> The part where we can no longer have a generic prayer before a highschool football game when it is comforting for both the fans in attendance and the team or a student led prayer at a highschool assembly.  Such were once traditional and customary across the land..




You're not describing the ills of multiculturalism, you are talking about the divisiveness of left-wing extremism as manifested through a hostility toward patriotism and the attempt to impose their militant secularism on a largely religious country. And none of this is particularly new. The phrase "under God" was only included in the pledge back in 1954. Court challenges soon followed. School prayer cases date back to the 60s as well. The Supreme Court ruled way back in 1943 that students couldn't be forced to recite the pledge.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parts where a school teacher can now be fired for having too many traditional Christmas carols in the winter music program.  There was a time when highschools could perform all the wonderful traditional Christmas music from the ages and people, Chrsitian, Jew, Atheist, secular, would come from miles around to enjoy it.
> 
> The part where schools can no longer have a "Christmas program' despite it being an officially recognized national holiday.
> 
> The part where it is considered inappropriate to insist that school children learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem and learn and practice proper protocol for display and respect for the flag.
> 
> The part where we can no longer have a generic prayer before a highschool football game when it is comforting for both the fans in attendance and the team or a student led prayer at a highschool assembly.  Such were once traditional and customary across the land..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not describing the ills of multiculturalism, you are talking about the divisiveness of left-wing extremism as manifested through a hostility toward patriotism and the attempt to impose their militant secularism on a largely religious country. And none of this is particularly new. The phrase "under God" was only included in the pledge back in 1954. Court challenges soon followed. School prayer cases date back to the 60s as well. The Supreme Court ruled way back in 1943 that students couldn't be forced to recite the pledge.
Click to expand...


The extremism however is based on the assumption that nothing should be allowed that might offend somebody of another culture.  It is all interrelated.  It includes no assumption that others should enjoy and share the time honored traditions we have enjoyed for generations.  The assumption is that it is insensitive to practice anything that somebody else does not embrace.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The parts where a school teacher can now be fired for having too many traditional Christmas carols in the winter music program.  There was a time when highschools could perform all the wonderful traditional Christmas music from the ages and people, Chrsitian, Jew, Atheist, secular, would come from miles around to enjoy it.
> 
> The part where schools can no longer have a "Christmas program' despite it being an officially recognized national holiday.
> 
> The part where it is considered inappropriate to insist that school children learn the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem and learn and practice proper protocol for display and respect for the flag.
> 
> The part where we can no longer have a generic prayer before a highschool football game when it is comforting for both the fans in attendance and the team or a student led prayer at a highschool assembly.  Such were once traditional and customary across the land..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not describing the ills of multiculturalism, you are talking about the divisiveness of left-wing extremism as manifested through a hostility toward patriotism and the attempt to impose their militant secularism on a largely religious country. And none of this is particularly new. The phrase "under God" was only included in the pledge back in 1954. Court challenges soon followed. School prayer cases date back to the 60s as well. The Supreme Court ruled way back in 1943 that students couldn't be forced to recite the pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The extremism however is based on the assumption that nothing should be allowed that might offend somebody of another culture.  It is all interrelated.  It includes no assumption that others should enjoy and share the time honored traditions we have enjoyed for generations.  The assumption is that it is insensitive to practice anything that somebody else does not embrace.
Click to expand...



You're still describing a troubling political trend, not multiculturalism. Please try again.


----------



## Noomi

I believe that my country is the best country in the world. If I claimed that, everyone who believes the US is the greatest country would disagree. But how would you know if I was right, and my country was, in fact, the best country?

The US is not the greatest country on earth, far from it. It is not perfect and never has been. That said, I don't think Australia is perfect, either. We never have been and never will be, We are just the greatest country for the people who choose to live here.

The OP should have asked people whether they are US citizens or foreigners, to get an idea of whether outsiders believe the US to be the greatest country.

I think all our countries are special in their own way, but no country can ever be known as 'perfect'.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not describing the ills of multiculturalism, you are talking about the divisiveness of left-wing extremism as manifested through a hostility toward patriotism and the attempt to impose their militant secularism on a largely religious country. And none of this is particularly new. The phrase "under God" was only included in the pledge back in 1954. Court challenges soon followed. School prayer cases date back to the 60s as well. The Supreme Court ruled way back in 1943 that students couldn't be forced to recite the pledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extremism however is based on the assumption that nothing should be allowed that might offend somebody of another culture.  It is all interrelated.  It includes no assumption that others should enjoy and share the time honored traditions we have enjoyed for generations.  The assumption is that it is insensitive to practice anything that somebody else does not embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're still describing a troubling political trend, not multiculturalism. Please try again.
Click to expand...


Well perhaps we have differing definitions for multi culturalism.  When I see the policy being based on not offending any race or ethnic group or lifestyle or religion, its multi culturalism.


----------



## Unkotare

Noomi said:


> I believe that my country is the best country in the world. If I claimed that, everyone who believes the US is the greatest country would disagree. But how would you know if I was right, and my country was, in fact, the best country?
> 
> The US is not the greatest country on earth, far from it. It is not perfect and never has been. That said, I don't think Australia is perfect, either. We never have been and never will be, We are just the greatest country for the people who choose to live here.
> 
> The OP should have asked people whether they are US citizens or foreigners, to get an idea of whether outsiders believe the US to be the greatest country.
> 
> I think all our countries are special in their own way, but no country can ever be known as 'perfect'.




I don't think the OP was about "perfect."


----------



## Noomi

Unkotare said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that my country is the best country in the world. If I claimed that, everyone who believes the US is the greatest country would disagree. But how would you know if I was right, and my country was, in fact, the best country?
> 
> The US is not the greatest country on earth, far from it. It is not perfect and never has been. That said, I don't think Australia is perfect, either. We never have been and never will be, We are just the greatest country for the people who choose to live here.
> 
> The OP should have asked people whether they are US citizens or foreigners, to get an idea of whether outsiders believe the US to be the greatest country.
> 
> I think all our countries are special in their own way, but no country can ever be known as 'perfect'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the OP was about "perfect."
Click to expand...


By perfect, I mean greatest. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The extremism however is based on the assumption that nothing should be allowed that might offend somebody of another culture.  It is all interrelated.  It includes no assumption that others should enjoy and share the time honored traditions we have enjoyed for generations.  The assumption is that it is insensitive to practice anything that somebody else does not embrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still describing a troubling political trend, not multiculturalism. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well perhaps we have differing definitions for multi culturalism.  When I see the policy being based on not offending any race or ethnic group or lifestyle or religion, its multi culturalism.
Click to expand...



That's not what you described either. The leftist extremists and militant secularists are very enthusiastic about offending certain races, religions and lifestyles.


----------



## Foxfyre

Noomi said:


> I believe that my country is the best country in the world. If I claimed that, everyone who believes the US is the greatest country would disagree. But how would you know if I was right, and my country was, in fact, the best country?
> 
> The US is not the greatest country on earth, far from it. It is not perfect and never has been. That said, I don't think Australia is perfect, either. We never have been and never will be, We are just the greatest country for the people who choose to live here.
> 
> The OP should have asked people whether they are US citizens or foreigners, to get an idea of whether outsiders believe the US to be the greatest country.
> 
> I think all our countries are special in their own way, but no country can ever be known as 'perfect'.



I think anyone is blessed to believe his/her country is best/greatest country and to not want to live anywhere else.  I have a friend who was born and grew up in the Netherlands and now lives in Denmark and he doesn't feel that way about either country.  And both are really great countries.  So I think that is a shame.

And thanks for clearing up the 'perfect' thing.  All nations are populated by less than perfect people and therefore will be less than perfect nations.  Certainly, as previously posted, the USA and also regions within it have adopted indefensible policies in the past but generally get around to getting it right.  Some want to point to those indefensible policies to condemn us.  And some of us look to what we were able to solve, resolve, and do better as one of the things that makes our country great.


----------



## MikeK

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody else is a close second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
Click to expand...

So much for the Koreans and Cubans (and Mexicans, Africans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish and Russians).  But how many Danes have you met who have migrated to the U.S.?  How many Norwegians?  French?  Swedes?  Finns?  Icelandics?  Costa Ricans?  

According to Gallup, the UN, Forbes and a few other respected polling organizations, *Denmark*, a socialist country, is the *happiest* nation in the world.  And _happiness_ is a much more desirable state of being for the citizens of a nation than is _greatness_ -- which extends implications beyond the general quality of its citizens' lives.

Rome was great.  So was the British Empire.

As far as the U.S. being the "best," my beef stew is the best beef stew in the world -- because it is mine.


----------



## Foxfyre

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me yes.  But, as was expressed in the video, we lag so far behind so many other countries in so many categories.  In order to be intellectually honest, don't we have to at least look at that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which categories do you mean specifically? the education system in Korea may be better and you get free health care in Cuba but look at all the Cubans and Koreans who come here to live. America is the best country in the world hands down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the Koreans and Cubans (and Mexicans, Africans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish and Russians).  But how many Danes have you met who have migrated to the U.S.?  How many Norwegians?  French?  Swedes?  Finns?  Icelandics?  Costa Ricans?
> 
> According to Gallup, the UN, Forbes and a few other respected polling organizations, *Denmark*, a socialist country, is the *happiest* nation in the world.  And _happiness_ is a much more desirable state of being for the citizens of a nation than is _greatness_ -- which extends implications beyond the general quality of its citizens' lives.
> 
> Rome was great.  So was the British Empire.
> 
> As far as the U.S. being the "best," my beef stew is the best beef stew in the world -- because it is mine.
Click to expand...


It took me a bit to find it, but the fact is, the people are so happy in Denmark that there is a tremendous labor shortage because so many young Danes cant wait to get out of there once they complete their free education.  The high taxes and resulting almost Spartan standard of living when compared to much of Europe and the USA is not conducive to the educated and motivated to remain there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/b.../05iht-labor.4.8603880.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Denmark is a tiny country much smaller than New York State with a tiny, extremely cohesive population about 2/3rds of that of New York City.  Evenso it is taking measures to reduce its own problems with multiculturalism corrupting the unique Danish culture.  But to compare it to the 300+ million and extremely diverse population of the USA is ludicrous.

However, since 1820, 400000-450000 Danish people have immigrated to the US and are included in the 35 million Europeans who have come here during that time.
Danish immigration to the United States - Denmark - VisitDenmark: Official guide to Denmark from VisitDenmark with hotel links, map, visa, pictures, flag, Copenhagen info etc.


----------



## ginscpy

USA is a pale shell of itself in the 40s 50s and 60s.

Back when I was a kid - it seemed like everything was "Made In USA."

Today even our Olympic uniforms are made in China.


----------



## Indofred

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that my country is the best country in the world. If I claimed that, everyone who believes the US is the greatest country would disagree. But how would you know if I was right, and my country was, in fact, the best country?
> 
> The US is not the greatest country on earth, far from it. It is not perfect and never has been. That said, I don't think Australia is perfect, either. We never have been and never will be, We are just the greatest country for the people who choose to live here.
> 
> The OP should have asked people whether they are US citizens or foreigners, to get an idea of whether outsiders believe the US to be the greatest country.
> 
> I think all our countries are special in their own way, but no country can ever be known as 'perfect'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the OP was about "perfect."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By perfect, I mean greatest. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...


Serious question.

How many countries have you lived in?


----------



## Noomi

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the OP was about "perfect."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By perfect, I mean greatest. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in?
Click to expand...


Just one - my home country.


----------



## there4eyeM

Anyone who does not realize that the 'W' Bush induced hostilities in Iraq were and are illegal either does not know the meaning of the word or is simply in denial. "I love my country, so it is good and could not be capable of doing bad things." Very childish.
Any and all objective views of the situation agree, as they must, that the international law involved is clear. 
As for adolescent name-calling in place of rational argument, well, it is its own indictment.

But keep chanting....


----------



## there4eyeM

And yes, Noomi, one is equally justified to regard one's homeland is the best in the same way these superficially 'America first' types do. Unfortunately, that simply continues the cult of nationhood, which has become the enemy of humankind.
We need to transcend 'nation' and gain 'consciousness'. Forgetting all this petty garbage about countries would be a great step forward for our race.


----------



## Indofred

Noomi said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> By perfect, I mean greatest. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one - my home country.
Click to expand...


Interesting.
I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.

Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
I no longer know where the best place in the world is.


----------



## Indofred

Added.
The UK press is full of shit about Muslims. Frankly, when I took my first trip to Malaysia, I was worried.

A few days there told me the papers were talking crap.
The most violent thing a Muslim did was buy me lunch.
That's when I started to look at Islam and liked what I saw.

Malaysia, by the way, is a wonderful place. Give it a try.


----------



## Noomi

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one - my home country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
> I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
> I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.
> 
> Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
> I no longer know where the best place in the world is.
Click to expand...


I do plan to travel some day, when I have the money. The Netherlands is number one on my list, and I would also like to visit Denmark and Finland.


----------



## Indofred

Noomi said:


> I do plan to travel some day, when I have the money. The Netherlands is number one on my list, and I would also like to visit Denmark and Finland.



Nice but not that far removed from your own culture.
Try a real wander.
I suggest Malaysia because the majority speak English so it's a soft start for a new tourist.
That and its interesting mix of cultures and history.
Great Chinatown in Kl, the Indian food is wonderful and you'll find out Muslims are actually just people like anyone else. 
You have to try the street food. You'll wonder if its safe at first but, if you're willing to try, you'll eat nothing else but that for the rest of the holiday.
Add the ease of travel to other countries in the region because of the fantastic "Air Asia" and you have a great holiday.
Cheap as well. A clean but simple hotel will cost you about $31/night.


----------



## Noomi

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do plan to travel some day, when I have the money. The Netherlands is number one on my list, and I would also like to visit Denmark and Finland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice but not that far removed from your own culture.
> Try a real wander.
> I suggest Malaysia because the majority speak English so it's a soft start for a new tourist.
> That and its interesting mix of cultures and history.
> Great Chinatown in Kl, the Indian food is wonderful and you'll find out Muslims are actually just people like anyone else.
> You have to try the street food. You'll wonder if its safe at first but, if you're willing to try, you'll eat nothing else but that for the rest of the holiday.
> Add the ease of travel to other countries in the region because of the fantastic "Air Asia" and you have a great holiday.
> Cheap as well. A clean but simple hotel will cost you about $31/night.
Click to expand...


I will keep that in mind.  I see you are from Indonesia, and I have to say that I would not wish to visit Indonesia - not after what happened to Schapelle Corby!

My sister is going to Hong Kong in November - do you know anything about this country I could pass on to her?


----------



## Indofred

Noomi said:


> I will keep that in mind.  I see you are from Indonesia, and I have to say that I would not wish to visit Indonesia - not after what happened to Schapelle Corby!
> 
> My sister is going to Hong Kong in November - do you know anything about this country I could pass on to her?



Corby was very foolish.
Drugs are really serious stuff out in most of SE Asia. Most countries here have serious sentences for importing the stuff.

Indonesia isn't as easy for a tourist. The majority don't speak English and here is a lot of con work going one that is aimed at tourists.
Other than that, it's safe and cheap.

My wife has been to HK, she says it's an interesting and safe country, full of life and loads of stuff for a tourist to do.
Seems it's quite easy to find an English speaker.

I suppose the usual safety rules apply as they would in any city.

I'd love to get over there with my camera. My hobby, such as it is, is to take photos of whatever I see and pop them onto forums.
The various threads have quite a following now.

This sort of thing.


----------



## Ravi

Another Foxfyre hatin' on America thread. Awesome!


----------



## there4eyeM

Another chanter?


----------



## editec

*



Is the USA the greatest country in the world?

Click to expand...

 
Its has the greatest (and most expenisve) conventiaonal military.


*


----------



## there4eyeM

Totally prepared to fight the last war.
Totally unprepared for peace.


----------



## Foxfyre

Nonsense.  The U.S. military is up to whatever it has to face.  Ineffective use of the military or wrong choices do not change that in the least.  And peace is impossible where it is not allowed unless a given dictatorship or totalitarian government can be in control.  Admittedly many of our leaders have not quite grasped that concept.

But as far as this thread is concerned, the only relevant part of that is how we, as Americans, see what the proper utilization of our military to be.  Most of you skipped over the issues of whether we should intervene to stop slaughter of thousands or milllions when we have the power to do so.  Or is the proper use to be strong against any intended harm to our own people and otherwise mind our business no matter what is happening elsewhere?   These are not easy questions.

And once again Ravi comes in to cast insults most likely due to her consistent reading dysfunction.  It is especially emphasized if she thinks Foxfyre is hatin' on America ever.


----------



## Foxfyre

There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about.  But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great?  That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not.  We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.  

Or at least that is what it is intended to be.  Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gong back to a discussion Unkotare and I were having yesterday, this morning I was watching the news before getting out of bed.  Included was an interview with a VFW commander in Minnesota.  For the last eight years, the VFW have placed and taken care of American flags installed on major Minnesota bridges.  The purpose was to symbolize love of country and support for the military in harm's way.

This week, after eight years,  they were told they would have to take the flags down or they would be removed.  Why?  Because the flags themselves were not a problem but for safety reasons the authorities could not have people isntalling a lot of stuff on bridges, and if they allowed the American flag, they would have to allow an Iraqi flag if somebody wanted to fly one.  The Commander said that was the specific analogy used for the explanation.

That, Unkotare, does tie into your 'liberal extremism' concept, but it also is born of the multiculturalism aspect of that which I encourage Americans to fight against.


----------



## Swagger

Foxfyre said:


> Nonsense.  The U.S. military is up to whatever it has to face.  Ineffective use of the military or wrong choices do not change that in the least.  And peace is impossible where it is not allowed unless a given dictatorship or totalitarian government can be in control.  Admittedly many of our leaders have not quite grasped that concept.
> 
> But as far as this thread is concerned, the only relevant part of that is how we, as Americans, see what the proper utilization of our military to be.  Most of you skipped over the issues of whether we should intervene to stop slaughter of thousands or milllions when we have the power to do so.  Or is the proper use to be strong against any intended harm to our own people and otherwise mind our business no matter what is happening elsewhere?   These are not easy questions.
> 
> *And once again Ravi comes in to cast insults most likely due to her consistent reading dysfunction.  It is especially emphasized if she thinks Foxfyre is hatin' on America ever.*



For what it's worth, Ravi is a perpetual antagonist who spends all day online seeking to elicit exactly that kind of reply. It says a lot about her upbringing.

Anyway, why should the United States (or anyone, for that matter) feel obliged to intervene whenever there's bloodshed elsewhere in the world? I think this rot you're alluding to took hold when the U.S. abandoned its policy of isolationism, in my opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The U.S. military is up to whatever it has to face.  Ineffective use of the military or wrong choices do not change that in the least.  And peace is impossible where it is not allowed unless a given dictatorship or totalitarian government can be in control.  Admittedly many of our leaders have not quite grasped that concept.
> 
> But as far as this thread is concerned, the only relevant part of that is how we, as Americans, see what the proper utilization of our military to be.  Most of you skipped over the issues of whether we should intervene to stop slaughter of thousands or milllions when we have the power to do so.  Or is the proper use to be strong against any intended harm to our own people and otherwise mind our business no matter what is happening elsewhere?   These are not easy questions.
> 
> *And once again Ravi comes in to cast insults most likely due to her consistent reading dysfunction.  It is especially emphasized if she thinks Foxfyre is hatin' on America ever.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, Ravi is a perpetual antagonist who spends all day online seeking to elicit exactly that kind of reply. It says a lot about her upbringing.
> 
> Anyway, why should the United States (or anyone, for that matter) feel obliged to intervene whenever there's bloodshed elsewhere in the world? I think this rot you're alluding to took hold when the U.S. abandoned its policy of isolationism, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


   If you were an American, Swagger, you'd be drafted into the Ron Paul or Gary Johnson campaigns.  But you do raise a very valid point that I think should be in the national debate.  Up until around the mid 20th Century, the USA did not see itself as the policeman of the world.   We entered WWI reluctantly and did our damndest to stay out of WWII until Pearl Harbor dragged us into it.  Since then, war has seemed easier to initiate and reasons for our involvement are much fuzzier with much room for speculation, reasonable or not.  And many of us struggle with the morality of helping fund other people's wars even when we aren't furnishing our own blood and guns.

Minding our own business was our policy for most of our history.

Still, had we known that Hitler was murdering six million Jews, what is the morality of sitting on our hands and allowing that to happen?

All that I think has to factor in the debate of what a great nation does.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the OP was about "perfect."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By perfect, I mean greatest. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in?
Click to expand...



What was the motivation behind that question?


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> the 'W' Bush induced hostilities in Iraq were and are illegal ....





Wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> This week, after eight years, they were told they would have to take the flags down or they would be removed. Why? Because the flags themselves were not a problem but for safety reasons the authorities could not have people isntalling a lot of stuff on bridges, and if they allowed the American flag, they would have to allow an Iraqi flag if somebody wanted to fly one. The Commander said that was the specific analogy used for the explanation.


What does disallowing flags being placed on bridges have to do what type of flag is placed on a bridge, you obviously dont understand what the issue is about. Freedom of expression is not absolute, the state may curtail a given expressive act if justifiable, such as safety concerns  whether American flags or Iraqi flags are displayed is irrelevant. 



> That, Unkotare, does tie into your 'liberal extremism' concept, but it also is born of the multiculturalism aspect of that which I encourage Americans to fight against.



How is abiding by the Constitution and its case law liberal extremism  when we already know for a fact freedom of expression is not absolute. 

If those placing flags on bridges were to file suit in Federal court, they would have a very difficult time proving the policy violated the First Amendment. The prohibition of placing flags on bridges is narrowly tailored, addressing a safety issue, not the content of the speech, there are ample alternative channels of communication available, as bridges arent the only venue one might display flags, and the state is likely able to provide evidence in support of the prohibition. See: _Frisby v. Schultz_ (1988).

Consequently, there is no such thing as liberal extremism, its clearly a contrivance of the right in the context of conservative ignorance of  or contempt for  the Constitution and its case law. 

As for fighting against multiculturalism, thats yet another example of rightist ignorance and hate.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> And yes, Noomi, one is equally justified to regard one's homeland is the best in the same way these superficially 'America first' types do. Unfortunately, that simply continues the cult of nationhood, which has become the enemy of humankind.
> We need to transcend 'nation' and gain 'consciousness'. Forgetting all this petty garbage about countries would be a great step forward for our race.




Putting you on the first available rocket to the Sun would be a great step forward for our race, you Kumbaya fruitcake.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Serious question.
> 
> How many countries have you lived in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one - my home country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
> I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
> I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.
> 
> Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
> I no longer know where the best place in the world is.
Click to expand...




What a pretentious douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do plan to travel some day, when I have the money. The Netherlands is number one on my list, and I would also like to visit Denmark and Finland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice but not that far removed from your own culture.
> Try a real wander.
Click to expand...




What an extra-pretentious douchebag.


----------



## Swagger

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one - my home country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
> I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
> I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.
> 
> Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
> I no longer know where the best place in the world is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pretentious douchebag.
Click to expand...


I suspect he's a troll who's attempting to surreptitiously divert the track of this thread. Just my opinion, but there's something suspicious in his tone, along with his complete lack of interest in Foxfyre's OP.


----------



## there4eyeM

The American military was not prepared for Vietnam. It was not prepared for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not prepared for 'asymmetric' war. Certainly, today, in a conventional war with, say, Russia there is no doubt of the outcome. That kind of conflict is entirely unlikely.
American planning was not ready for the fall of the Soviet Union and the possibility for a real change in the world, so it re-created the scenarios of the past to fit its concepts of its capacities. That is not a sign of greatness.
The administration previous to the present one grotesquely abused the power available to it, and the current one has failed to make amends. Those are not signs of greatness.
America has the power to be what it wants to be, but at present it is what it is.


----------



## there4eyeM

Foxfyre said:


> There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about.  But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great?  That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not.  We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.
> 
> Or at least that is what it is intended to be.  Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.



Not the only country. France, for one, has a very strong attachment to inherent human rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about.  But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great?  That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not.  We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.
> 
> Or at least that is what it is intended to be.  Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the only country. France, for one, has a very strong attachment to inherent human rights.
Click to expand...


Certainly there are some parallels in the American and French Revolutions with most historians agreeing that the former inspired the latter.  Nevertheless, nobody with any sense of history would say that the nation of France was founded on any concept of human rights or that most of its history has not been one of monarchal dictatorships.  The current French Constitution, however, does reference and respect the same natural rights included in the French constitutional documents of the late 18th century.

The current French Cosntitution includes much more power specifically assigned to the government and includes a mandate that the central government provide certain social serviices and there is no concept of a people who will govern themselves.   At least some of the freedom that the Founders wanted for the American people can be far more legally restricted by government in France.


----------



## Unkotare

Swagger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> I come from a place called Barnsley in the North of England.
> I great place, wonderful people and amazing scenery.
> I thought it was the best place in the world until I wandered into other countries and found there was more to life than I knew before.
> 
> Take a wander, meet new people from different cultures and enjoy the learning experience.
> I no longer know where the best place in the world is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pretentious douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect he's a troll who's attempting to surreptitiously divert the track of this thread. Just my opinion, but there's something suspicious in his tone, along with his complete lack of interest in Foxfyre's OP.
Click to expand...



Could be


----------



## there4eyeM

The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. In their recent presidential election there was 80% voter participation.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man was very early in the evolution of post-revolutionary French politics. As for parallels, it is difficult to compare with the war for independence. France was surrounded by historical enemies that immediately invaded at the start of the revolution. America had the luxury of developing without aggressive neighbors. The sad events between 1791 and 1871 could only have been avoided if perfect guidance had been in place; there was no margin of error.
America has no such excuse. Its massive riches should have assured a peaceful, prosperous nation with plenty for all.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. .





That is obviously not true. The French people lost a significant portion of the meaning and power of their vote when it was taken from them and given to some bureaucrats in Brussels.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is obviously not true. The French people lost a significant portion of the meaning and power of their vote when it was taken from them and given to some bureaucrats in Brussels.
Click to expand...


'Obvious' to whom?
What of their vote was transferred?
Who did this taking?
What bureaucrats in Brussels?

Europe is not federated. France conforms to certain commonly held rules of the EU, but can and does do pretty much as it wants (take a look at the EU 'limitations' on deficits; Germany is similar).

The French have many criticisms of their country and their system, but they are very happy to be French and few would abandon the attachment to Europe.


----------



## Unkotare

Maybe you need to come back after you've brushed up on modern history and current events.


----------



## Synthaholic

I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.



Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil.  So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> It took me a bit to find it, but the fact is, the people are so happy in Denmark that there is a tremendous labor shortage because so many young Danes cant wait to get out of there once they complete their free education.  The high taxes and resulting almost Spartan standard of living when compared to much of Europe and the USA is not conducive to the educated and motivated to remain there.
> 
> [...]
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/b.../05iht-labor.4.8603880.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


The _Times_ article speaks of a percentage of young Danes who took advantage of the free education and benefits afforded by that nation's socialist system but wish to expatriate because they don't want to pay the kind of tax which enabled their success.  But the article does not speak for all Danes.  And while the NY Times is an authoritative source, so is the following:

(Excerpt)

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you? 


"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about. 

(Close)

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News


So perhaps the question I should ask is what you believe to be the difference between _greatness_ and _happiness._  And which of the two conditions would you prefer to live within?


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> Nonsense.  The U.S. military is up to whatever it has to face.  Ineffective use of the military or wrong choices do not change that in the least.  And peace is impossible where it is not allowed unless a given dictatorship or totalitarian government can be in control.  Admittedly many of our leaders have not quite grasped that concept.


Barring the use of nuclear weapons, which amounts to Mutually Assured Destruction, I don't know what your confidence is based on.  I frankly don't know how well we would do in a ground war against the Chinese military, which outnumbers us by at least a ten to one margin.  This is the main reason why I advocate re-activating the draft, which in a relatively short time would provide us with millions of trained former soldiers in the civilian sector who could be called up and made active within weeks rather than the months it takes to train raw recruits.  



> But as far as this thread is concerned, the only relevant part of that is how we, as Americans, see what the proper utilization of our military to be.  Most of you skipped over the issues of whether we should intervene to stop slaughter of thousands or milllions when we have the power to do so.  Or is the proper use to be strong against any intended harm to our own people and otherwise mind our business no matter what is happening elsewhere?   These are not easy questions.


It is an easy question for me.  

Interfering in other people's affairs is never a good idea.  That principle emphatically applies to examples of oppression within and against foreign nations (other than active military allies), mainly because there is no end to it and we are not the cops of the world.  There almost always are consequences for not minding your own business.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> Maybe you need to come back after you've brushed up on modern history and current events.



Why don't you talk to someone who lives there?


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> There4, your concept of one world without borders is interesting to think about.  But how is that accomplished without losing the greatest single concept of all that make America great?  That concept would be our unique recognition that humankind is born with unalienable rights given by God, if one is a believer, or natural rights if one is not.  We are the only nation that has ever existed in all of world history in which the government does not assign us our rights.
> 
> Or at least that is what it is intended to be.  Teaching and defending the concept is more difficult in modern times when so many are seeing virtue in more socialist, more authoritarian, more involved government and so many no longer seem to grasp a concept of unalienable rights.


Our history of genocidal oppression (of native populations), slavery and Jim Crow segregation exists because the absence of any socialist influence on our government over the years enabled it.  Civil rights in America are a relatively recent social endowment and occur as a fundamental socialist principle.  

While I do not advocate plenary socialism I believe the optimal situation is a capitalist economy which is controlled by altruistic socialist concerns (regulations).  Because, as we have recently learned, laissez faire capitalism is an insidious social malignancy.  

My point is socialism, per se, is by no means the evil social influence that far too many Americans are being led to believe it is.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> Gong back to a discussion Unkotare and I were having yesterday, this morning I was watching the news before getting out of bed.  Included was an interview with a VFW commander in Minnesota.  For the last eight years, the VFW have placed and taken care of American flags installed on major Minnesota bridges.  The purpose was to symbolize love of country and support for the military in harm's way.
> 
> This week, after eight years,  they were told they would have to take the flags down or they would be removed.  Why?  Because the flags themselves were not a problem but for safety reasons the authorities could not have people isntalling a lot of stuff on bridges, and if they allowed the American flag, they would have to allow an Iraqi flag if somebody wanted to fly one.  The Commander said that was the specific analogy used for the explanation.
> 
> That, Unkotare, does tie into your 'liberal extremism' concept, but it also is born of the multiculturalism aspect of that which I encourage Americans to fight against.



_"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross."_  [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]

Flag-wavers annoy me.  Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose.  Anyone can get a flag and wave it.  They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.


----------



## Friends

Whether or not one thinks the United States is the greatest country in the world depends on what one values in a country. Ronald Reagan said, "America should be the kind of country where it is always possible to become rich."

If that is what you value, you should prefer the United States. Those born with rare and valuable talents probably have more opportunities here than anywhere else in the world to advance economically. Nevertheless, people do not deserve their talents, or the absence of talent. 

I value a country where ordinary people with ordinary abilities who play the game by the rules can be assured of a reasonably decent standard of living. The United States was that way during the 1950s and 1960s. It is not that way now. 

Although democratic socialism has been a popular ideal for perhaps a century and a half, it exists nowhere. That suggests to me that it cannot exist. What does exist, and what works reasonably well is Social Democracy. Social Democracy includes strong labor unions, a high minimum wage, a mixed economy, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. 

I am not sure that Social Democracy would work as well in the Untied States as it does in Scandinavia, that is the direction I want the United States to be moving in.


----------



## Friends

MikeK said:


> _"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross."_  [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]
> 
> Flag-wavers annoy me.  Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose.  Anyone can get a flag and wave it.  They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.


 
Patriotism should entail the willingness to sacrifice for the good of one's country. In the United States those who are most public in expressing their patriotism are also most public in expressing their hatred of taxes, and their willingness to do anything possible to reduce their tax load.

When I was a child and a teenager I was patriotic. I thrilled to "amber waves of grain," although I seldom saw any, and "rocks and rills," although I did not know what rills were. 

The War in Vietnam took that away from me. I never got it back. Appeals to American nationalism fill me with cold disgust. 

There are things that I appreciate about the United States. Those things are also true of other affluent democracies. 

What I do not like is unique to the United States among affluent democracies. Our political campaigns are too long and too expensive. Elected officials spend too much time campaigning and raising campaign funds when they should be governing. The rich have too much money and too much power. The country is too polarized because too many lower income whites oppose domestic spending programs that would help them if they also help non whites.


----------



## there4eyeM

The last two posters are courageous, presenting as they do a viewpoint bound to be disapproved by many here.
We need to be eclectic in the new age. Ideology will only serve as a very general guide. 'Does this work for people,' should be the question. All of our sciences have informed us that past concepts are obsolete, or at least limited. America has the capacity to lead in these times, if 'lead' remains an appropriate word. It could certainly be a source of positive energy. The object should be to make the world great for everyone.


----------



## Indofred

MikeK said:


> _"If fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross."_  [Sinclair Lewis - 1935]
> 
> Flag-wavers annoy me.  Redundant expressions of patriotism equate to fanaticism and serve no useful purpose.  Anyone can get a flag and wave it.  They don't cost much and most of them are made in China.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your country and trying to do the best you can for your nation.
Buy your flag and wave it with pride - but not to the point where it becomes a symbol of hatred for others.


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> The reference to France is perplexing. It is a voting democracy where the people certainly do govern themselves at least as much as in the US, if not more. In their recent presidential election there was 80% voter participation.
> The Declaration of the Rights of Man was very early in the evolution of post-revolutionary French politics. As for parallels, it is difficult to compare with the war for independence. France was surrounded by historical enemies that immediately invaded at the start of the revolution. America had the luxury of developing without aggressive neighbors. The sad events between 1791 and 1871 could only have been avoided if perfect guidance had been in place; there was no margin of error.
> America has no such excuse. Its massive riches should have assured a peaceful, prosperous nation with plenty for all.



We can respectfully agree to disagree on the definition of self governance.  Voter participation is NOT self governance.  Voter particiipation was pretty high in Iraq when Saddam boasted that he had the overwhelming support of his people.   He who votes does not hold the power in most countries.  He who counts the votes does.

That should not be construed as a suggestion that French elections are corrupt.  But the French have less experience with a democratic republic than we do because for most of its history, France was a monarchy with the government having total power.

Self governance as the Founders saw it was a government that was assigned its responsibility by the people.  The purpose of the central government was to provide a process by which the various states could be one country and to secure the rights of the people.  The central government would then leave the states and the people entirely alone to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to prosper or fail according to the choices they made.

The French government set itself up to direct much of that process and provide social services which invariably place much more control with the government itself.  In America the government cannot amend the Constitution--that is a process that can be done only by the states/people.  In France the government amends its own Constitution.

 In France, the government assigns what rights the people may have and can just as easily take them away.

In America the people were seen as having unalienable rights from God and the Constitution was ntended to assign responsibility to the government.  It is that concept which at least some of us see as the one critical component that has made the USA the great nation that it is, even the greatest nation the world has ever known.  And it is that concept which at least some of us are seeing under attack to the detriment of the country.  Once the government of the USA assigns the rights the people may have, our decline will be certain and our mediocrity or worse will be sealed.


----------



## Foxfyre

MikeK said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took me a bit to find it, but the fact is, the people are so happy in Denmark that there is a tremendous labor shortage because so many young Danes can&#8217;t wait to get out of there once they complete their free education.  The high taxes and resulting almost Spartan standard of living when compared to much of Europe and the USA is not conducive to the educated and motivated to remain there.
> 
> [...]
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/b.../05iht-labor.4.8603880.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> The _Times_ article speaks of a percentage of young Danes who took advantage of the free education and benefits afforded by that nation's socialist system but wish to expatriate because they don't want to pay the kind of tax which enabled their success.  But the article does not speak for all Danes.  And while the NY Times is an authoritative source, so is the following:
> 
> (Excerpt)
> 
> For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?
> 
> 
> "The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.
> 
> Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
> 
> (Close)
> 
> Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News
> 
> 
> So perhaps the question I should ask is what you believe to be the difference between _greatness_ and _happiness._  And which of the two conditions would you prefer to live within?
Click to expand...


Again Denmark occupies a land mass less than that of New York State and the Danish population is an extremely cohesive homogenous group sharing generations of history and total about two thirds of the population of New York City.  To assume that the definition of happiness to a Dane is the same definition of happiness to a Texan or New Yorker or Californian is a huge assumption.

You can also read that the rates of suicide and diagnosed depression are higher per capita among the Danes than among people in many other parts of the world.  Sociologists also write that the Danes have pretty well accepted the inevitable results of shared mediocrity, lack of opportunity to change one's circumstances, even shared mild deprivation.  Not much difference than Mr. Foxfyre and I were when we were first starting out with extremely limited resources and just getting by the best we could.  We were among the nation's 'poor' and there was no welfare state as yet at that time.  But we were happy because almost all our friends were in the same boat.  So we shared our franks and beans and played pinochle all night on the weekends and life was good.  And in time we have all prospered.

We remember that part of our life fondly.  Would we return to it now given an opportunity to do so?  Probably not.

In Oprah's writings, she was amazed at the somewhat spartan conditions under which the Danes lived compared to much of the rest of the free world.  Sociologists writing on the Danish life speculate that their 'happiness' comes from meeting very low expectations for themselves and their society.  If you don't want much or have llittle ambition for anything different, you are happy with what you have.


----------



## there4eyeM

First, remember that France is the equivalent of a state in the US.
The majority of the time since 1789, France has been a republic. The concept of the social contract was born there. The founding fathers studied Montaigne, Voltaire and Rousseau along with other European philosophers. Most of their concepts came from there.
The French constitution may be changed with careful scrutiny by the representatives of the people chosen by direct election. Laws are scrutinized for constitutional adherence automatically by the judiciary.
As for taking away rights, what difference is there between anything in France and what has happened in the US with atrocities like the 'Patriot Act' and random police checks? Clearly unconstitutional bull fertilizer is dispensed all the time with very little protest from the Prozac-age American electorate.


----------



## Foxfyre

Further to MikeK, there is no denying that Americans, like all people of the world, are imperfect people and they, like all people of the world, established an imperfect nation.  We Americans, as do all people of the world, have a history checkered with nobility and greatness and also failure and the indefensible.

But as much as you wish to point to the indefensible in America's history as somehow different or unique or more terrible than the indefensible in anybody else's history, we, like so many others who have chosen a higher path, have recognized our "sins" and have repented and we have reformed.

Now we should be looking at 'new sins' and the 'new indefensible' that many of us see.  And as the greatest nation in the world, we should be seeking to correct that which we intend as good but which in fact is hurting people.  The welfare state should be No. 1 on the list in that regard.


----------



## there4eyeM

"Now we should be looking at 'new sins' and the 'new indefensible' that many of us see. And as the greatest nation in the world, we should be seeking to correct that which we intend as good but which in fact is hurting people. The welfare state should be No. 1 on the list in that regard."

Can you be truly serious? America a welfare state? Absurd! The foremost problem is the accurate perception in the international community the the US is a danger to peace and the rule of law. What needs to be done is a massive work to undo the destruction to America wrought by 'W' and his henchmen.
America could still be a force for constructive change. That is the greatest thing it could do.
Welfare state!?! Would that we really were concerned with the welfare of those who cannot live a decent life in the richest country the world has ever seen!


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed completely to prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you even understand what point I was making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to doubt that, but doing so does not - despite your hope - make you any more intelligent or, in this case, correct. Your failure stands.
Click to expand...

The point was that Rightwing policies hurt the poor more than the rich.

You have yet to refute that.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil.  So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was.  That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188


And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:



Synthaholic said:


> I think, since you started this thread, it is  incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters  for discussion are.



​It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why Foxfyre hasn't responded to my replies to her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil.  So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was.  That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188
> 
> 
> And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, since you started this thread, it is  incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters  for discussion are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.
Click to expand...


There are people who are in the business of making guns, tanks, missiles, and other trappings of war.  Such people are going to do well when there is a market for such trappings of war.  It is as wrong, however, to promote war or sabotage peace as it would be wrong to sabotage the petroleum industry so that 'green industries' can thrive or to case false accusations about somebody in order to look better to the electorate or the person who will offer the job.   There are all manner of people who do wrong for their own interests.

Perhaps it is a consequence of being the last and only military superpower that encourages war profiteers to pull strings and circumvent laws.  To think that diminishes the USA as 'the greatest nation' is pretty shortsighted and tunnel visioned, however.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am not interested in diverting this thread to partisan motivated bashing and I'm very interested in keeping things civil.  So I won't respond to anybody's personal insults and you haven't offered any replies that I thought were relevant to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you just didn't know what a war profiteer was.  That would seem to be the case, judging by what you wrote:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...atest-country-in-the-world-4.html#post5619188
> 
> 
> And I don't understand what is keeping you from answering this:
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, since you started this thread, it is  incumbent upon you to define "greatest", so we know what the parameters  for discussion are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ​It's certainly not an uncivil question, so stop hiding behind 'civility'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people who are in the business of making guns, tanks, missiles, and other trappings of war.  Such people are going to do well when there is a market for such trappings of war.  It is as wrong, however, to promote war or sabotage peace as it would be wrong to sabotage the petroleum industry so that 'green industries' can thrive or to case false accusations about somebody in order to look better to the electorate or the person who will offer the job.   There are all manner of people who do wrong for their own interests.
> 
> Perhaps it is a consequence of being the last and only military superpower that encourages war profiteers to pull strings and circumvent laws.  To think that diminishes the USA as 'the greatest nation' is pretty shortsighted and tunnel visioned, however.
Click to expand...

I was right:  you don't know what a war profiteer is.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Hint: it's not about profits:


prof·it·eer  (pr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




f
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







-tîr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)_n._ One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

_intr.v._ *prof·it·eered*, *prof·it·eer·ing*, *prof·it·eers*  To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.


**************************************

profiteer [&#716;pr&#594;f&#618;&#712;t&#618;&#601;]_n_ (Business / Commerce) a person who makes excessive profits, esp by charging exorbitant prices for goods in short supply

_vb_ (Business / Commerce) _(intr)_ to make excessive profits*profiteering* _n


***********************************************

_*prof·it·eer*

&#8194; &#8194;[prof-i-teer]  Show IPA 
noun 1. a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits,  especially through the sale of scarce or rationed goods. 


 verb (used without object) 2. to act as a profiteer. 




*************************************

*Definition of PROFITEER*

*:* one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency 

&#8212; *profiteer* _intransitive verb




I like the last one, from Merriam-Webster, the best.
_


----------



## Synthaholic

Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.



Link


----------



## Swagger

There are several European nations that are capable of fielding their militaries in times of war that host - and indulge - arms manufacturers that pull strings (lobbying) and circumvent laws (often with the assistance of officials) when it comes to marketing hardware and securing contracts. See BAE Systems and QinetiQ of the UK, Bofors and Saab of Sweden, Heckler & Koch of Germany and Aérospatiale-Matra, Dassault and Eurocopter of France. The U.S. is far from alone in that respect.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link
Click to expand...

Here's one for $45 per case:

Halliburton Watch

And $100 for a load of laundry.

Then there's this:

 A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:

This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
More:

Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research


There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> There are several European nations that are capable of fielding their militaries in times of war that host - and indulge - arms manufacturers that pull strings (lobbying) and circumvent laws (often with the assistance of officials) when it comes to marketing hardware and securing contracts. See BAE Systems and QinetiQ of the UK, Bofors and Saab of Sweden, Heckler & Koch of Germany and Aérospatiale-Matra, Dassault and Eurocopter of France. The U.S. is far from alone in that respect.



Yep, and whether it is profits or excess profits as Synthaholic seems to be fixated on--what is 'excessive' is also arbirtarily defined depending on who is defining it--the government buying the armaments sets the price for those armaments.  So if somebody is overcharging for something, however that is defined, the government has the option of accepting the price or buying from somebody else at a lower price.  Does the system sometimes corrupt those letting the contracts and/or those accepting them.  Yep it sure does.

Does the welfare state that some think doesn't exist in the USA corrupt those issuing the benevolence as well as those receiving it?  Yes, that happens too.

There is truth in the old saw of "killing somebody with kindness."  The truly merciful will look at that and whether it is worthy of the world's greatest nation.  The ideologically fixated will refuse to do so.


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton charging the U.S. Government $5 per can of Coca-Cola for troops in Iraq is an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
Click to expand...


There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.

Some of it might be very well justified.

But consider the source.

You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  And be honest:  you don't give a shit.


----------



## Foxfyre

By the way, 'greatest' is obviously defined in at least as many different ways as there are people posting on this thread.  When expressing one's opinion via the poll, I presume that person is using their own definition of 'greatest'.  For me, it is America's exceptionalism as designed by the Founders that made it and makes it the world's greatest nation.   And in that regard, 'greatest' is incorporated into that exceptionalism allowing us to become the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most prosperous, and most generous people the world has ever known.

And I fully appreciate that there are many who don't have a clue what that is, who can't wrap their indoctrinated minds around it even when it is explained to them, and those who reject it as pertinent.


----------



## Swagger

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  *And be honest:  you don't give a shit.*
Click to expand...


Judging by the content of his contributions to this thread thus far, I'm inclined to agree. I suspect that Synthaholic is more than likely posting out of spite, and is only interested in trashing a patriotic concept/notion that he knows Foxfyre holds dear.


----------



## Foxfyre

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  *And be honest:  you don't give a shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judging by the content of his contributions to this thread thus far, I'm inclined to agree. I suspect that Synthaholic is more than likely posting out of spite, and is only interested in trashing a patriotic concept/notion that he knows Foxfyre holds dear.
Click to expand...


   I am not so vain as to think Synthatholic gives a shit about Foxfyre or what she might call dear.

I do see the usual technical differences of opinion that is typical among conservsatives, and a huge disconnect between what those on the left and right see as important in evaluating what makes a nation "great" and what makes the USA "great".

The left seem to be pretty consistent to focus on past and present "sins" of America as the sum total of what America is, and/or they focus on specific persons or entitites that they hold up as the villains to be blamed for all of America's ills.   They quickly try to divert attention from any in depth discussion of specific policies or issues that do not fit the politically correct positions of the more socialist America.  Such seems to be the mndset of the left.

Those on the right are not entirely blameless in seeking to accuse or cast blame, but at least some of those on the right seem to grasp the concept of the OP and are at least able to follow the discussion and draw conclusions about why America is great.  Or not.


----------



## there4eyeM

Stats: US not the greatest in world ranked health care.
US not the greatest vis-a-vis infant mortality.
US not the greatest in education.
US not the greatest in infrastructure.
US not the greatest with regards to poverty.
US not the greatest in respect for international law and order.
US the greatest in military spending.
US the greatest in energy consumption.
US (probably) the greatest emissions and pollution.

US history: mixed.
US government: held in contempt by a great part of the population and the international community.
US society: marked by violence, fear and suspicion.
US business: regarded as predatory.

Those who agreed with this list at the beginning still agree. Those whose minds were made up against it at the start, remain so.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  And be honest:  you don't give a shit.
Click to expand...

So you would rather bash the messenger.

Why am I not surprised?

The fact is that all of these can be backed up.

But, since it's a Rightwing corporation, YOU don't care.


----------



## Synthaholic

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  *And be honest:  you don't give a shit.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judging by the content of his contributions to this thread thus far, I'm inclined to agree. I suspect that Synthaholic is more than likely posting out of spite, and is only interested in trashing a patriotic concept/notion that he knows Foxfyre holds dear.
Click to expand...

Yup!  Facts are spiteful!


----------



## Foxfyre

there4eyeM said:


> Stats: US not the greatest in world ranked health care.
> US not the greatest vis-a-vis infant mortality.
> US not the greatest in education.
> US not the greatest in infrastructure.
> US not the greatest with regards to poverty.
> US not the greatest in respect for international law and order.
> US the greatest in military spending.
> US the greatest in energy consumption.
> US (probably) the greatest emissions and pollution.
> 
> US history: mixed.
> US government: held in contempt by a great part of the population and the international community.
> US society: marked by violence, fear and suspicion.
> US business: regarded as predatory.
> 
> Those who agreed with this list at the beginning still agree. Those whose minds were made up against it at the start, remain so.



Now compare the USA to those countries with populations as large and/or as diverse as ours and see how well we stack up.


----------



## NLT

When I was in the Navy I got to see Europe, Africa, the middle east, Asia, the carribean and south America. Hands down, no question, the USA is the best place to achieve your dreams...for now. Another four years under the current administration...not so much.


----------



## Foxfyre

NLT said:


> When I was in the Navy I got to see Europe, Africa, the middle east, Asia, the carribean and south America. Hands down, no question, the USA is the best place to achieve your dreams...for now. Another four years under the current administration...not so much.



I agree another four years with the current Administration is a really REALLY grim prospect, but I don't think we can lay it all at the feet of the current Administration.  The current Administration is a child of a deeper cancer within society, one trained and indoctrinated and yes, ultimately brainwashed, in the Alinsky model committed to change the USA into something the Founders risked their blood and fortunes to free us from.  It has been coming upon us for decades now.   Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.

Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.


----------



## Synthaholic

NLT said:


> When I was in the Navy I got to see Europe, Africa, the middle east, Asia, the carribean and south America. Hands down, no question, the USA is the best place to achieve your dreams...for now. *Another four years under the current administration...not so much.*





Foxfyre said:


> *I agree another four years with the current Administration is a really REALLY grim prospect*,













> but I don't think we can lay it all at the feet of the current Administration.  *The current Administration is a child of a deeper cancer within society, one trained and indoctrinated and yes, ultimately brainwashed, in the Alinsky model committed to change the USA into something the Founders risked their blood and fortunes to free us from.*  It has been coming upon us for decades now.   Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.
> 
> Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.



It's clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about or who Alinsky was, or why you even think he was so bad for America.  You're just regurgitating Sean Hannity.


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the Navy I got to see Europe, Africa, the middle east, Asia, the carribean and south America. Hands down, no question, the USA is the best place to achieve your dreams...for now. *Another four years under the current administration...not so much.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree another four years with the current Administration is a really REALLY grim prospect*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I don't think we can lay it all at the feet of the current Administration.  *The current Administration is a child of a deeper cancer within society, one trained and indoctrinated and yes, ultimately brainwashed, in the Alinsky model committed to change the USA into something the Founders risked their blood and fortunes to free us from.*  It has been coming upon us for decades now.   Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.
> 
> Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about or who Alinsky was, or why you even think he was so bad for America.  You're just regurgitating Sean Hannity.
Click to expand...


I don't watch Hannity all that much, but I don't recall him ever mentioning Alinsky.  Alinksy was required reading in college though.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.
> 
> Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.



Maybe because others don't see the US as that much of a freedom-loving place. I mean, on paper it is, but reality is another beast altogether....


----------



## Synthaholic

In Japan, if you feel that you need some codeine for your really bad flu, you have the *freedom *to walk into any pharmacy and buy it.

In the Netherlands, if you want to smoke marijuana, you have the *freedom *to do so.

In Germany, if you want to drive 100 mph on the highway, you have the *freedom *to do so.

That's just three...


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.
> 
> Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because others don't see the US as that much of a freedom-loving place. I mean, on paper it is, but reality is another beast altogether....
Click to expand...


Perhaps that is why so many have checked "No, but it could be again" in the poll choices.  The more authority and power we allow the central government, the less freedom we have.  Freedom loving people want only as much government as is necessary to secure our rights and then we will take it from there.   But many Americans no longer understand that concept and look to government to provide them what they cannot or do not wish to provide for themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre

Synthaholic said:


> In Japan, if you feel that you need some codeine for your really bad flu, you have the *freedom *to walk into any pharmacy and buy it.
> 
> In the Netherlands, if you want to smoke marijuana, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> In Germany, if you want to drive 100 mph on the highway, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> That's just three...



If that is your definition of what makes a nation great. . . .


----------



## Truthseeker420

yes... but i'm shooting for greatest country in the universe.


----------



## there4eyeM

America is a great country, and almost no one would seriously dispute that statement. It is also true that many in the world would love to at least visit. The possibility has always been there for the US to be magnificent. Perhaps that is why some of us are hard on it, out of disappointment. I was raised with a tremendously overblown belief in the nation, a faith that suffered severely over Vietnam, Nixon and many other issues. Though some things have changed for the better since then (race relations, the place of women, sexual-choice liberty), some things are perplexing in their stupidity. What keeps the electorate from throwing out the scoundrels, or from voting at all, for example? How is it that the worst examples of consumption and egocentrism have become the standard?
In any case, 'the greatest' is probably unachievable in a truly objective fashion since there are just too many variables that are too personal.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of that includes the reference with which some of our friends regard the European and Asian models and how deeply they want the USA to emulate them.
> 
> Freedom loving people look instead for others to emulate us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because others don't see the US as that much of a freedom-loving place. I mean, on paper it is, but reality is another beast altogether....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why so many have checked "No, but it could be again" in the poll choices.  The more authority and power we allow the central government, the less freedom we have.  Freedom loving people want only as much government as is necessary to secure our rights and then we will take it from there.   But many Americans no longer understand that concept and look to government to provide them what they cannot or do not wish to provide for themselves.
Click to expand...


The dichotomy is not lost on me that the very things that purport to make it great are also its Achille's heel. I think the belief that there is this generation of millions of people sucking off the govt teat is not warranted and overblown as to the cause of the US losing its place in the world as a country others aspire to emulate. To be honest, most other western countries I have visited have never aspired to be like the US including GB, France, Germany, Oz and NZ.


----------



## Indofred

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Japan, if you feel that you need some codeine for your really bad flu, you have the *freedom *to walk into any pharmacy and buy it.
> 
> In the Netherlands, if you want to smoke marijuana, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> In Germany, if you want to drive 100 mph on the highway, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> That's just three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your definition of what makes a nation great. . . .
Click to expand...


Maybe.
The US is the greatest hard drug importer in the world.


----------



## editec

Define your definition of "greatest"

The USA is certainly "greatest" in some aspects.

It has the "greatest" military for example and it still has the largest economy.

IN terms of size and population it's not the "greatest".


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one for $45 per case:
> 
> Halliburton Watch
> 
> And $100 for a load of laundry.
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> A press release put out by Duckworth and Webb asserts the following:
> 
> This fiscal year, Congress will appropriate about $116  billion to military operations - a 72 percent increase since 2004. The  monthly "burn rate" of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will average  almost $10 billion this year - an 18 percent jump from last year. Much  of this amount is attributed to the Pentagon's reliance on contracted  services, especially those that resulted from non-competitive bids. *As  an example of the wasteful spending she witnessed, Duckworth recalled  that the cooks in her National Guard Unit were not allowed to cook  because a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, had received the contract to  provide food at $22 a meal while paying the foreign cooks it hired less  than $10 a day. Likewise, soldiers weren't allowed to sandbag their own  facilities because KBR had the sandbag contract, paying Iraqi workers  five or ten cents per sandbag and pocketing the rest.* Duckworth pointed  out that at the same time these contractors were profiting handsomely  from billions in taxpayer-financed contracts, U.S. troops faced deadly  shortages in body-armor and equipment. "Someone should have to answer  for the disparity between what the contractors received and what our  Soldiers didn't. Someone should be holding those contractors  accountable," she said.​
> More:
> 
> Iraq for Sale: War profiteering facts and research
> 
> 
> There are plenty of links out there, if you are interested in anything more than bashing messengers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  And be honest:  you don't give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would rather bash the messenger.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> The fact is that all of these can be backed up.
> 
> But, since it's a Rightwing corporation, YOU don't care.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Synth.  You tend to be wrong an awful lot.  I'd attribute it to carelessness on your part, except it is too much of a pattern.

I have no love of profiteers.  And if some assholes in Halliburton are engaging in price gouging, etc., using war as their cover, then I endorse a healthy prosecution.  As I correctly said before, SOME of the accusations against Halliburton might be quite justified.

But I reject your implicit premise that Halliburton deserves universal condemnation because of the very nature of the work it does.

You are quite clearly a partisan hack on the matter and notably non-objective.  Sen. Schumer (the schmucky upchucky piece of shit) is a camera whore, but at least his whoring is predicated on his desire for press in order to get re-elected.  Your biased carping is strictly a product of your partisan political blinders.   And it is YOU and you alone who does not care.


----------



## Synthaholic

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Japan, if you feel that you need some codeine for your really bad flu, you have the *freedom *to walk into any pharmacy and buy it.
> 
> In the Netherlands, if you want to smoke marijuana, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> In Germany, if you want to drive 100 mph on the highway, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> That's just three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your definition of what makes a nation great. . . .
Click to expand...

Well.....one of the main reasons the far Right claims we are the greatest is because we have the most freedom.  But apparently, we don't.


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cottage industry of leftists like Haliburton Watch and the insufferably hideous Sen. Schumer taking their shots.
> 
> Some of it might be very well justified.
> 
> But consider the source.
> 
> You choose to lap up their claims because it suits your partisan agenda.  But you have ZERO basis of knowledge as to whether or not the claims are true or fair or supported or valid.  And be honest:  you don't give a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather bash the messenger.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> The fact is that all of these can be backed up.
> 
> But, since it's a Rightwing corporation, YOU don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Synth.  You tend to be wrong an awful lot.  I'd attribute it to carelessness on your part, except it is too much of a pattern.
> 
> I have no love of profiteers. * And if some assholes in Halliburton are engaging in price gouging, etc.*, using war as their cover, then I endorse a healthy prosecution.  As I correctly said before, SOME of the accusations against Halliburton might be quite justified.
> 
> But I reject your implicit premise that Halliburton deserves universal condemnation because of the very nature of the work it does.
> 
> You are quite clearly a partisan hack on the matter and notably non-objective.  Sen. Schumer (the schmucky upchucky piece of shit) is a camera whore, but at least his whoring is predicated on his desire for press in order to get re-elected.  Your biased carping is strictly a product of your partisan political blinders.   And it is YOU and you alone who does not care.
Click to expand...



There is no "some".  These are Halliburton contracts, not some rogue employee in a trenchcoat saying "Psst!  Wanna buy some black market Coca-Cola?"


----------



## Foxfyre

Every Presidential Administration has issued multi Halliburton contracts since there has been a Halliburton because there are only two companies in the entire world that can do what Halliburton does and the other one is French.   Halliburton contracts are not a matter of favoritism or cronyism or politics but simply the only way some things can realistically get done.


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because others don't see the US as that much of a freedom-loving place. I mean, on paper it is, but reality is another beast altogether....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why so many have checked "No, but it could be again" in the poll choices.  The more authority and power we allow the central government, the less freedom we have.  Freedom loving people want only as much government as is necessary to secure our rights and then we will take it from there.   But many Americans no longer understand that concept and look to government to provide them what they cannot or do not wish to provide for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dichotomy is not lost on me that the very things that purport to make it great are also its Achille's heel. I think the belief that there is this generation of millions of people sucking off the govt teat is not warranted and overblown as to the cause of the US losing its place in the world as a country others aspire to emulate. To be honest, most other western countries I have visited have never aspired to be like the US including GB, France, Germany, Oz and NZ.
Click to expand...


Yet many enjoy American music, American blue jeans, and other unique characteristics of our country.  But why should they change their unique cultures and attempt to emulate ours?

We can certain enjoy and celebrate the delights of their cultures from French and Italian cuisine to BMWs to Swiss Chocolate.  But why should those of us who love our country and appreciate the unique American culture and point of view seek to be more like them?


----------



## Artevelde

Foxfyre said:


> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube



I didn't vote in the poll and as a non-US citizen I don't feel it's up to me to feel that the US is great or not.

That being said, I disagree rather profoundly with the fairly glib assertions made by the movie character in the clip. The idea that other countries have just as much freedom as the Us is simply not true. There is greater freedom in the US - a greater freedom to speak one's mind, much greater freedom of information, the press and politics; much greater economic and religious freedom; etc but this obviously also includes greater freedom to be poor, to make stupid choices, etc. It depends on one's personal beliefs and ideology if this makes the US greater than other countries or not.

Other than that, there are some fairly obvious facts:
-) the US is the greatest political, economic, military, technological and cultural global power to date
-) no country in the World inspires so much admiration, dreams and hopes in citizens of other countries and no country exerts such a draw on overseas students, entrepreneurs, immigrants, artists, etc.
-) clearly educational and ethical standards among young people in the US have declined substantially compared to their peers a few generations ago; the same can be said of the work ethic of substantial parts of the working population


----------



## Foxfyre

Artevelde said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't vote in the poll and as a non-US citizen I don't feel it's up to me to feel that the US is great or not.
> 
> That being said, I disagree rather profoundly with the fairly glib assertions made by the movie character in the clip. The idea that other countries have just as much freedom as the Us is simply not true. There is greater freedom in the US - a greater freedom to speak one's mind, much greater freedom of information, the press and politics; much greater economic and religious freedom; etc but this obviously also includes greater freedom to be poor, to make stupid choices, etc. It depends on one's personal beliefs and ideology if this makes the US greater than other countries or not.
> 
> Other than that, there are some fairly obvious facts:
> -) the US is the greatest political, economic, military, technological and cultural global power to date
> -) no country in the World inspires so much admiration, dreams and hopes in citizens of other countries and no country exerts such a draw on overseas students, entrepreneurs, immigrants, artists, etc.
> -) clearly educational and ethical standards among young people in the US have declined substantially compared to their peers a few generations ago; the same can be said of the work ethic of substantial parts of the working population
Click to expand...


Is there anybody who has more thoughtful insights than this?  Thank you for your kind but realistic point of view re our sometimes dysfunctional American society, Arteveld.  Your comments are part of why I checked both "yes"--with 'greatest' of course being subjective depending on our individual perceptions of that--and also checked "No, but it could be again".

On the matter of freedom, yes I do believe Americans enjoy more indivdual freedom than any people on Earth; however, the character in the video clip was not wrong when he noted that many people on Earth now enjoy freedoms.  At least more freedoms than was possible for previous generations.  Dictatorships have been transformed into Democratic Republics that do recognize and respect human rights even when they are more socialist than many of us Americans would be comfortable with.

The fact is many of those in those same more socialist countries would resist giving up the government provided services even to have their taxes lowered.  It seems to be the nature of people to lack courage to give up what government does for them, even at exhorbitant prices, and risk going on their own.   It is no different in America.  Once people receive what they perceive as freebies from the government, they resist giving it up no matter how much good arguments can be made for eliminating certain programs or changing them into something else.   Thus the big government favoring "Left" has become the new old style conservative resisting any fundamental change and demanding the status quo be maintained.

Your observations about breakdown in educational and ethical standards among Americans is spot on and another reason I checked "No, but it could be again."   The Founders, to a man, were agreed that the U.S. Constitution would work only for a virtuous and moral people.  When we lose that concept, we likely lose our Constitution with it.


----------



## signelect

If we were the greatest these little tyrants around the world would not be at war with us because they would be afraid.  As an example the Russians couldn't bring Afganistan into line and we have not fared any better.  We have probelms of our own we can't solve.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Japan, if you feel that you need some codeine for your really bad flu, you have the *freedom *to walk into any pharmacy and buy it.
> 
> In the Netherlands, if you want to smoke marijuana, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> In Germany, if you want to drive 100 mph on the highway, you have the *freedom *to do so.
> 
> That's just three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your definition of what makes a nation great. . . .
Click to expand...

It defines true freedom.  How important is the sense of true freedom within your idea of _greatness?_


----------



## Foxfyre

signelect said:


> If we were the greatest these little tyrants around the world would not be at war with us because they would be afraid.  As an example the Russians couldn't bring Afganistan into line and we have not fared any better.  We have probelms of our own we can't solve.



There are only a few invidual crazies in the world who would not think very long and hard before initiating hostilities with the U.S.A.  And those crazies, while not to be taken lightly, are capable of doing only limited damage at this time.  It should be apparent that we cannot buy or win over their appreciation or friendship short of 100% capitulating to their demands and becoming 100% like them.  Few Americans are willing to do that, so their hatred of us is sort of a badge of honor in a way.  Everybody isn't going to love us, and we should not compromise our principles in some misguided and emotional notion that we can appease anybody determined to do violence to us.

Certainly how we use our military power in the world and for what purposes is a legitimate subject for debate and, in my opinion, one America should seriously engage in.  Currently it is decided on partisanship.  If a Democrat orders action, the leftists mostly support and defend it.  If it is a Republican calling the shots, those on the right mostly support and defend it.  I can't think of a worse method for deciding what our national policies should be.

When the question earlier was whether the U.S.A. should mind its own business even when thousands or millions of people are being murdered somewhere, somebody said the answer was easy for him.  But he never gave one.  And nobody else even ventured to stick a toe in the water on that one.  Why?  Because it is such a damn hard question to answer.


----------



## emptystep

Yes. America has risen to be THE greatest country in the world. From thousands of years of blood, sweat, and tears America is the greatest country in the world. Has what happened along the way been something to be proud of? Sometimes, sometimes not so. We must never shrink from learning from what we are have done, good and bad. But now we are the greatest country in the world. A world that needs leadership on issues of global importance. Leadership does not mean telling people what to do. It means hosting the party, the conference.

For all those who have believed in you and died for you America, don't let eleventh hour self-doubt cripple you. Lead the way into the bold new world!


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why so many have checked "No, but it could be again" in the poll choices.  The more authority and power we allow the central government, the less freedom we have.  Freedom loving people want only as much government as is necessary to secure our rights and then we will take it from there.   But many Americans no longer understand that concept and look to government to provide them what they cannot or do not wish to provide for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dichotomy is not lost on me that the very things that purport to make it great are also its Achille's heel. I think the belief that there is this generation of millions of people sucking off the govt teat is not warranted and overblown as to the cause of the US losing its place in the world as a country others aspire to emulate. To be honest, most other western countries I have visited have never aspired to be like the US including GB, France, Germany, Oz and NZ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet many enjoy American music, American blue jeans, and other unique characteristics of our country.  But why should they change their unique cultures and attempt to emulate ours?
> 
> We can certain enjoy and celebrate the delights of their cultures from French and Italian cuisine to BMWs to Swiss Chocolate.  But why should those of us who love our country and appreciate the unique American culture and point of view seek to be more like them?
Click to expand...


As you point out, Americans enjoy things about other cultures, too. And they don't try to change - in the most anyway. Some American habits are picked up now and again, just as plenty of your traditions come from other cultures. 

I don'tthink you will ever lose those things that are uniquely American.

However, one thing that does rub me up the wrong way - and this is not unique to Aust/NZ - is people immigrating here and wanting us to change to meet their needs. France and Britain have recently said that multi-culturalism doesn't work. And I believe that. France have always welcomed immigrants, but with one caveat - "You want to come and live in France? Fine, but you must become French"...thus the less than tolerant attitude towards burkas etc....


----------



## Dr Grump

Artevelde said:


> The idea that other countries have just as much freedom as the Us is simply not true. There is greater freedom in the US - a greater freedom to speak one's mind, much greater freedom of information, the press and politics; much greater economic and religious freedom; etc



Really? Where do you live?


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> On the matter of freedom, yes I do believe Americans enjoy more indivdual freedom than any people on Earth.



Really? I don't....I feel I have more individual freedom down here than you do up there....


----------



## Artevelde

Dr Grump said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that other countries have just as much freedom as the Us is simply not true. There is greater freedom in the US - a greater freedom to speak one's mind, much greater freedom of information, the press and politics; much greater economic and religious freedom; etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Where do you live?
Click to expand...


I live in Belgium. I have also lived in the US in the past.


----------



## editec

The current land with the greatest FREEDOM?

Somalia.

There's your 100% libertarianism in action, kiddies.

The land comprised of nothing but ATLASes is a state of anarchy.


----------



## Artevelde

editec said:


> The current land with the greatest FREEDOM?
> 
> Somalia.
> 
> There's your 100% libertarianism in action, kiddies.
> 
> The land comprised of nothing but ATLASes is a state of anarchy.



Anarchy and freedom are not the same thing. Actually anarchy directly inhibits freedom.


----------



## Dr Grump

Artevelde said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that other countries have just as much freedom as the Us is simply not true. There is greater freedom in the US - a greater freedom to speak one's mind, much greater freedom of information, the press and politics; much greater economic and religious freedom; etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Where do you live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in Belgium. I have also lived in the US in the past.
Click to expand...


In practical terms, what freedoms do you not have in Belgium?


----------



## Artevelde

Dr Grump said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Where do you live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Belgium. I have also lived in the US in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In practical terms, what freedoms do you not have in Belgium?
Click to expand...


Lots of legislation limits freedoms regarding speech, association, the press, etc. There is also far less freedom in the economic sphere and in employment.


----------



## Foxfyre

Agreeing with Dr. Grump that we diminish our American culture when out of some notion of political correctness we feel we are obligated to accommodate different cultures who come here to live.  Up until the last 20-30 years or so, people who came here to live were expected to accommodate their culture to fit into ours including accepting our Constitution and flag, learning the language, and familiarizing themselves with our laws.

And the reason Americans are more free is that our government cannot change our Constitution without our consent.  The government does not assign the rights we the people will have.  We the people instruct the government in what responsibilities it will have.  We are unique among nations in that regard.  That in a nutshell is the crux of American exceptionalism.

Admittedly in recent years, too many Americans seem to have lost sight of that important point or have been brainwashed to be unable to understand it.  And too many Americans are all too willing to hand over their responsibilities to government to do for them.  And in so doing, they relinquish their individual liberties drip by drip, and if we do not reverse that trend, we will lose our most precious asset.

And agree with those who say anarchy is not freedom.  The only true freedom is having your inalienable rights recognized, defended, and protected so that you can otherwise live your life as you please.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Up until the last 20-30 years or so, people who came here to live were expected to accommodate their culture to fit into ours including accepting our Constitution and flag, learning the language, and familiarizing themselves with our laws.






And that is still what happens today.


----------



## Unkotare

Truthseeker420 said:


> yes... but i'm shooting for greatest country in the universe.




As far as we know...


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> what has happened in the US with atrocities like the 'Patriot Act' and random police checks? Clearly unconstitutional bull fertilizer is dispensed all the time with very little protest from the Prozac-age American electorate.




Unconstitutional according to whom? Your emotions do not carry the force of law.


----------



## High_Gravity

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> what has happened in the US with atrocities like the 'Patriot Act' and random police checks? Clearly unconstitutional bull fertilizer is dispensed all the time with very little protest from the Prozac-age American electorate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional according to whom? Your emotions do not carry the force of law.
Click to expand...


Welcome back son!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtG0aHCJfQ]Most Honest Speech on Amercan Reality. Ever. FACT.^ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

High_Gravity said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> what has happened in the US with atrocities like the 'Patriot Act' and random police checks? Clearly unconstitutional bull fertilizer is dispensed all the time with very little protest from the Prozac-age American electorate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional according to whom? Your emotions do not carry the force of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome back son!
Click to expand...



Thank you!


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the last 20-30 years or so, people who came here to live were expected to accommodate their culture to fit into ours including accepting our Constitution and flag, learning the language, and familiarizing themselves with our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is still what happens today.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.  Again and again, even in examples posted in this thread I believe, the American flag is considered offensive to some people and therefore should not be flown while their previous country flag is not challenged.  We have more and more complaints and protests against children being 'coerced' into memorizing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or being expected to show respectful protocol for the National Anthem and presentation  of the flag.  More and more people discourage certain patriotic songs or traditional heritage music because somebody might be offended. 

There are nore and and more P.C. restrictions on what American Christians and Jews can do in the public sector while more and more accomodations are made for Islam.   So many things that used to be as revered as Americana and as traditional as Mom and apple pie in American culture is being challenged or looked down on as somehow inappropriate or possibly offensive to somebody.   And how many states now print everything in at least two languages as Hispanic immigrants are no longer expected to learn the language of business and commerce that would greatly enhance their assimilation into the American culture.

The previous generation, no matter what their country of orgin and no matter what their ethnicity might be, would have been incensed at having to press #1 for English.  I have looked into the eyes of new immigrants and have seen the joy when they finally mastered enough English to competently recite their oath of citizenship.  And they knew exactly what they were reciting too.

Borders, language, culture, and self governance are what has made the unique American culture.  When one or more of those start becoming ambiguous and fuzzy, that culture starts coming apart at the seams.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the last 20-30 years or so, people who came here to live were expected to accommodate their culture to fit into ours including accepting our Constitution and flag, learning the language, and familiarizing themselves with our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is still what happens today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  .
Click to expand...



Yes, it is. You are still confusing home-grown leftist extremist bullshit for something else.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I have looked into the eyes of new immigrants and have seen the joy when they finally mastered enough English to competently recite their oath of citizenship.  And they knew exactly what they were reciting too.




That same joy exists today in newly naturalized citizens all across our great nation.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked into the eyes of new immigrants and have seen the joy when they finally mastered enough English to competently recite their oath of citizenship.  And they knew exactly what they were reciting too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That same joy exists today in newly naturalized citizens all across our great nation.
Click to expand...


In some cases I'm sure it does.  And in some cases we can all read the signs:  "This was once Mexico and will be again" or some such as that.  When we no longer expect those born here to appreciate being Americans, how much less will we expect of new immigrants?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Hispanic immigrants are no longer expected to learn the language of business and commerce that would greatly enhance their assimilation into the American culture.




Of course they are, most of all by themselves. 


Don't kid yourself that a 50 year old Polish potato farmer went in one side of Ellis Island and came out the other speaking English like Eliza Doolittle, and don't doubt that by the 2nd generation Latino-Americans haven't mastered English and by the 3rd and 4th use it almost exclusively even at home. Reeeeelllaaaaaax on that front and direct your energy to the real problem; home-grown leftist bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked into the eyes of new immigrants and have seen the joy when they finally mastered enough English to competently recite their oath of citizenship.  And they knew exactly what they were reciting too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That same joy exists today in newly naturalized citizens all across our great nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some cases I'm sure it does.
Click to expand...




In just about all cases. Show me one naturalized US citizen marching around with one of those stupid 'this be Mexico' signs.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> When we no longer expect those born here to appreciate being Americans, how much less will we expect of new immigrants?





New citizens expect it of themselves. What you need to worry about is the former.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWr9mgIsgzQ]WHAT WOULD JOHN WAYNE DO ?...JW.vs eots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That same joy exists today in newly naturalized citizens all across our great nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases I'm sure it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In just about all cases. Show me one naturalized US citizen marching around with one of those stupid 'this be Mexico' signs.
Click to expand...


I don't expect new immigrants to be more or less patriotic than our natural born citizens.  And maybe you're right.  Maybe the new immigrants are better than those of us born here.  Maybe they do appreciate us more.  And maybe not,  Maybe new immigrants are just as susceptible to infusion of entitlement mentality and big government solutions as are some who are born here.  Maybe new immirants push for the same absurd political correctness and dismantling of American cultural institutions.  I don't know.  I haven't been a part of that for some time now so I don't know what people are being taught in immigration classes any more.

At the time that I was involved with all of that, the idea of pressing #1 for English was unheard of, however.


----------



## Unkotare

Pressing 1 for English is for the most part a decision by private companies to accomodate the greatest number of potential customers, not a cultural crisis. Not sure why you're so hung up (so to speak) on that one.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> At the time that I was involved with all of that, the idea of pressing #1 for English was unheard of, however.




That's because you couldn't press anything with your old rotary phone.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Pressing 1 for English is for the most part a decision by private companies to accomodate the greatest number of potential customers, not a cultural crisis. Not sure why you're so hung up (so to speak) on that one.



I'm not hung up on it, and I don't CARE what private companies do.  It is just one of the many symptoms that I see that have diminished us as the greatest nation that has ever existed.

While I think it is fine for private business to do business in any language they choose--there was a time their choice would have been English however--now in many states you can't call a city, country, state, or federal office without being instructed to Press #1 for English.  If the same requirement that new citizens or those holding Green Cards have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of English was still in effect, that would not be the case.

A common language, borders, culture is what creates cohesiveness among a people.  Add those plus recognition and protection of unalienable rights, and you have the greatest nation in the world.  Again when the edges start fraying and the concept sbecome blurry, we have a much tougher time holding it together.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressing 1 for English is for the most part a decision by private companies to accomodate the greatest number of potential customers, not a cultural crisis. Not sure why you're so hung up (so to speak) on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not hung up on it, and I don't CARE what private companies do.  It is just one of the many symptoms that I see that have diminished us as the greatest nation that has ever existed.
Click to expand...



Pressing 1 for English has "diminshed us" as a nation? You engage in that kind of hyperbole and claim not to be hung up on it? Come on now...


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> If the same requirement that new citizens or those holding Green Cards have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of English was still in effect, that would not be the case.




It is still in effect.


----------



## Unkotare

Do you consider it a sign of cultural corruption and national dissolution that translation services are available at hospitals?


----------



## Artevelde

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Up until the last 20-30 years or so, people who came here to live were expected to accommodate their culture to fit into ours including accepting our Constitution and flag, learning the language, and familiarizing themselves with our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is still what happens today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  Again and again, even in examples posted in this thread I believe, the American flag is considered offensive to some people and therefore should not be flown while their previous country flag is not challenged.  We have more and more complaints and protests against children being 'coerced' into memorizing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or being expected to show respectful protocol for the National Anthem and presentation  of the flag.  More and more people discourage certain patriotic songs or traditional heritage music because somebody might be offended.
> 
> There are nore and and more P.C. restrictions on what American Christians and Jews can do in the public sector while more and more accomodations are made for Islam.   So many things that used to be as revered as Americana and as traditional as Mom and apple pie in American culture is being challenged or looked down on as somehow inappropriate or possibly offensive to somebody.   And how many states now print everything in at least two languages as Hispanic immigrants are no longer expected to learn the language of business and commerce that would greatly enhance their assimilation into the American culture.
> 
> The previous generation, no matter what their country of orgin and no matter what their ethnicity might be, would have been incensed at having to press #1 for English.  I have looked into the eyes of new immigrants and have seen the joy when they finally mastered enough English to competently recite their oath of citizenship.  And they knew exactly what they were reciting too.
> 
> Borders, language, culture, and self governance are what has made the unique American culture.  When one or more of those start becoming ambiguous and fuzzy, that culture starts coming apart at the seams.
Click to expand...


I think most immigrants in the US still share the vision you have and are really proud to join your community (often more proud than some of the native sons and daughters I'm sorry to say). In this sense the US is still much more successful as an immigrant-assimilating country than most European countries for example.

But I do recognize the more negative trends you mention (less respect for traditional ceremonies and national heritage; less commonality of language and culture). They are far more pronounced and widespread here in Europe, but for several decades now they have also been present in the US. I tend to believe the US is still strong enough as a society to overcome this, but it is a challenge. And I tend to think that for example the current administration and large parts of the cultural and educational elite are going about it in totally the wrong way.


----------



## Artevelde

Unkotare said:


> Do you consider it a sign of cultural corruption and national dissolution that translation services are available at hospitals?



I don't think anybody would claim that. But there is a difference between translation services being available for practical one-off occasions and the creation of a complete alternative system of services and social life in another language, thereby encouraging the establishment of seperate societies within the country and taking away the incentive for everybody to speak the common language. I can't stress enough how important a shared common language is in creating a common social, cultural and political community.


----------



## Artevelde

Not to belabour the point: but obviously the role of education in creating the common social, cultural and political community is absolutely crucial. And precisely here I'm afraid the US has taken some giant leaps backwards in the previous decades, with the decline in educational standards.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> the creation of a complete alternative system of services and social life in another language.





What do you mean, specifically?


----------



## there4eyeM

How does randomly stopping people conform to probable cause?


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> I can't stress enough how important a shared common language is in creating a common social, cultural and political community.





You can't stress enough? And your expertise such that your emphasis has special urgency?


----------



## Artevelde

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stress enough how important a shared common language is in creating a common social, cultural and political community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stress enough? And your expertise such that your emphasis has special urgency?
Click to expand...


I happen to live in a country that graphically illustrates this point. And yes, I do have substantial expertise in the matter.


----------



## Artevelde

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> the creation of a complete alternative system of services and social life in another language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, specifically?
Click to expand...


What I mean is when a whole network of services (public and otherwise) is established that basically renders it possible to lead a normal public life without having to use the common language.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stress enough how important a shared common language is in creating a common social, cultural and political community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stress enough? And your expertise such that your emphasis has special urgency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to live in a country that graphically illustrates this point. And yes, I do have substantial expertise in the matter.
Click to expand...



Your country has 3 official languages and it doesn't seem to have dissolved yet. And please do tell of this substantial expertise.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> the creation of a complete alternative system of services and social life in another language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, specifically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I mean is when a whole network of services (public and otherwise) is established that basically renders it possible to lead a normal public life without having to use the common language.
Click to expand...



Did you see that I used the word "specifically"? What network of services?


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Do you consider it a sign of cultural corruption and national dissolution that translation services are available at hospitals?



Well bugger me with a large rubber thing.
Hospitals care about the people they look after.

What is the world coming to?


----------



## Artevelde

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't stress enough? And your expertise such that your emphasis has special urgency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to live in a country that graphically illustrates this point. And yes, I do have substantial expertise in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your country has 3 official languages and it doesn't seem to have dissolved yet. And please do tell of this substantial expertise.
Click to expand...


It has to all intents and purposes dissolved. There are no national political parties (only parties within each language group) and there is no real national democracy. The federal government is - in fact - a permanent diplomatic conference - between the leading parties of the two main linguistic groups. There are no Belgians.


----------



## Foxfyre

Whether hospitals provide translation services should be a decision of the hospital.  But anybody should be able to figure out that if everybody speaks the same language, diagnosis and delivery of medical services is much simplified and more efficiently and economically administered.

And being proficient in the primary language in which business and commerce is conducted is quite important in being self sufficient, supporting a ffamily, and avoiding poverty.

I think Arteveld is probably much more of an expert on his own country than are any of us.  I wonder if this piece by NPR is accurate as to the problems multiculturalism and multilingualism is causing in Belgium?
Popular Belgian Party Rejects Multicultural Society : NPR


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to live in a country that graphically illustrates this point. And yes, I do have substantial expertise in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your country has 3 official languages and it doesn't seem to have dissolved yet. And please do tell of this substantial expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to all intents and purposes dissolved. There are no national political parties (only parties within each language group) and there is no real national democracy. The federal government is - in fact - a permanent diplomatic conference - between the leading parties of the two main linguistic groups. There are no Belgians.
Click to expand...



So, what does it say on your passport? Where do you pay taxes? Can someone from Greece vote in your local elections?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I think Arteveld is probably much more of an expert on his own country than are any of us. ]





Who said anything about being an expert on Belgium?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> And being proficient in the primary language in which business and commerce is conducted is quite important in being self sufficient, supporting a ffamily, and avoiding poverty.]





Has anyone suggested otherwise?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> But anybody should be able to figure out that if everybody speaks the same language, diagnosis and delivery of medical services is much simplified and more efficiently and economically administered.]




Sure would be, but that has never been and will never be 100% the case.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anybody should be able to figure out that if everybody speaks the same language, diagnosis and delivery of medical services is much simplified and more efficiently and economically administered.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure would be, but that has never been and will never be 100% the case.
Click to expand...


It was once the case for new immigrants.  And there was a time in America that we expected everybody to share the common language so that everything didn't have to be printed in more than one language.  The concept I'm suggesting here is that accepting more than one shared language as the 'norm' is one of the things, not the only thing, that is diminishing us as the 'greatest nation in the world.'


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But anybody should be able to figure out that if everybody speaks the same language, diagnosis and delivery of medical services is much simplified and more efficiently and economically administered.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure would be, but that has never been and will never be 100% the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was once the case for new immigrants.
Click to expand...



NO, it was not.


----------



## there4eyeM

Where does the first amendment specify that freedom of expression is limited to expression in English?


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure would be, but that has never been and will never be 100% the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was once the case for new immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it was not.
Click to expand...


Yes it was.  Yes there were people who struggled with the language.  My sister's mother-in-law was one but she still did not ever expect anybody to accommodate her native Italian.  She really had to work at it but she gradually did master English sufficiently enough to take her oath of citizenship and in time she did become fluent.  But she also never worked outside the home and therefore it did take her longer.  Her husband became fluent quickly and insisted that his children speak only English in the home, which was sort of unfortunate as most never became fluent in Italian, but he and all seven of them have prospered.

And again, being heavily involved with teaching English as a second language and the other components of America life and culture to new immigrants, I know what they ALL once did.  If there was an occasional exception to that rule just 30 to 40 years ago, it was extremely rare.


----------



## Unkotare

In the 'old days' you want to imagine, there were very clearly defined 'neighborhoods' for the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, the blacks; there was Chinatown. People lived in very segregated areas and everyone knew what happened if you ended up in the wrong place or with the wrong girl. People had 'their' shops and social clubs and houses of worship, etc. It was everything you are afraid of. In the hospitals in or near this or that neighborhood there would be one or several nurses working who were from X or Y ethnic group and could interpret. If not, a younger family member (from that 2nd or 3rd generation that had assimilated - just like today) would come along and help out. 

In the 'old days' people didn't hop off the boat and immediately start reciting Shakespeare and winning hot dog eating contests.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was once the case for new immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was.  .
Click to expand...



NO, IT WAS NOT. It never has been and never will be. Ethnic groups have always relied on mutual aid societies and the support of their fellows to transition to assimilation - JUST LIKE TODAY. Drive around any big city and see the faded old signs above the entrance to the Knights of Columbus, the Portuguese Association, the Ancient Order of Hibernia, etc. The Italian family that came here with very little money and no tradition of education gravitated to Little Italy  where the first generation  survived and sacrificed so their kids could get a good education (including the obvious mastery of English) and then move out of Little Italy to the  suburbs where with each generation they became more and more assimilated. Eventually there weren't enough new Italian immigrants to maintain Little Italy the way it was and it became a part of town with several really good restaurants but not a haven for new immigrants finding their way in a new land. Instead, a new part of town became that same thing for Brazilian immigrants, or Mexican, or Hatian, etc. It's the same process repeating itself. Just because you have become the old curmudgeon on the front porch shouting at those damn teenagers to get off your lawn doesn't mean anything has changed as much as yourself.


----------



## Foxfyre

You, you confuse shared societies with multiculturalism.  Not the same thing at all.  Yes, it is natural for people who share a heritage and who appreciate the same things to group together.  Most especially during the difficult years of assimilation.  That same Italian family that I referred to was part of a much larger group of Italian immigrants who sponsored each other as they came into the country, and helped them get on with the coal companies in northern New Mexico.  A large group eventually broke off and formed a new "little Sicily" in southeastern New Mexico.  Remnants of those important pieces of culture are still strong in both places, but both are 100% American.  You see the same phenomenon in the German, Swedish, Bosnian, Irish et al communities of North Central Kansas.  Strong remnants of those imported cultures are evident but the people are 100% American.   These examples are NOT multiculturalism.

I don't think you are understanding what multiculturalism actually is and why it is harmful to the cohesiveness and natural culture of a nation.   And while it is definitely fed by the looney aspects of the Left, it is its own phenomenon.   Arteveld understands it.  I think he understands it very clearly.  And he doesn't even live here.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, it is natural for people who share a heritage and who appreciate the same things to group together.  Most especially during the difficult years of assimilation.  That same Italian family that I referred to was part of a much larger group of Italian immigrants who sponsored each other as they came into the country, and helped them get on with the coal companies in northern New Mexico.  A large group eventually broke off and formed a new "little Sicily" in southeastern New Mexico.  Remnants of those important pieces of culture are still strong in both places, but both are 100% American.  You see the same phenomenon in the German, Swedish, Bosnian, Irish et al communities of North Central Kansas.  Strong remnants of those imported cultures are evident but the people are 100% American. .




And the same process is at work with today's immigrants.


----------



## Foxfyre

Using Unkotare debate method:   No it isn't.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Using Unkotare debate method:   No it isn't.




Using your own: Yes it is because I see it all the time.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using Unkotare debate method:   No it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using your own: Yes it is because I see it all the time.
Click to expand...


Follow up per your example:   No it isn't because I have seen just the opposite up close and personal.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using Unkotare debate method:   No it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using your own: Yes it is because I see it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Follow up per your example:   No it isn't because I have seen just the opposite up close and personal.
Click to expand...


Exactly what opposite have you seen up close and personal?


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using your own: Yes it is because I see it all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow up per your example:   No it isn't because I have seen just the opposite up close and personal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly what opposite have you seen up close and personal?
Click to expand...


If you haven't figured that out by now, I doubt anything else I said would convince you.


----------



## Unkotare

Are you ducking? Is that your less than honest way of conceding you have been emoting without a basis in fact?


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Are you ducking? Is that your less than honest way of conceding you have been emoting without a basis in fact?



Nope.   I'm not ducking nor have I ducked.  Your constant questions however, have already been asked and answered and you did not wish to engage in those answers.  So I 'm not ducking.  I'm just not taking any more of your bait in whatever dodge and weave and obfusication plot you have here.  Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Unkotare

No "bait." You have repeatedly made false statements that you cannot support.


----------



## Artevelde

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your country has 3 official languages and it doesn't seem to have dissolved yet. And please do tell of this substantial expertise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to all intents and purposes dissolved. There are no national political parties (only parties within each language group) and there is no real national democracy. The federal government is - in fact - a permanent diplomatic conference - between the leading parties of the two main linguistic groups. There are no Belgians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does it say on your passport? Where do you pay taxes? Can someone from Greece vote in your local elections?
Click to expand...


First of all it's not strictly accurate that there are three official languages in Belgium. In the area of Flanders Dutch is the only official language. In Wallonia French is the only official language. In the Eupen-Malmedy German is the only official language. Only the capital - Brussels - has two official languages (Dutch and French). 
To answer your questions: the passport i Have is Belgian. I do not consider myself Belgian however, very few people here do. I am a Fleming, that is the nation to which I belong.
I pay taxes to the local authority, the region and the federal state. The budget of for example Flanders is bigger than the budget of Belgium.
Greeks and other people who live here and register have voting rights in local elections.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> To answer your questions: the passport i Have is Belgian. I do not consider myself Belgian however, very few people here do. I am a Fleming, that is the nation to which I belong.




Oh, is that an independent nation?




And you still haven't told me of your expertise.


----------



## Euroconservativ

The video is a monument of left-wing populism. It has gone viral; you can even find it translated to many languages. The scene is perfect: a smart "independent" guy, a diverse young audience... But using those average figures to describe such a complex and big nation, is very opportunist.

He talks about education. Ironically, american students scored better in math and science when there was not a department of education. Didn't they?

The US life expectancy is 78.2 years. Similar to many european countries.

Border control: The U.S is the only rich country in the top10 and top25 with fastest population growth, together with Nigeria, Congo, Philippines, Ethiopia, Pakistan... The U.S. is adding 100 million new people&#65279; each 3 or 4 decades, most in the&#65279; South. As you can see, poverty rates are not the same in Arizona and New Hampshire.

More facts. The number of Nobel laureates coming from US universities is higher than ever.

The U.S. is the second exporter of goods behind China, not the fourth. And is the world largest exporter of capital goods (aircrafts, turbines, machinery, semiconductors, earthmoving equipment, medical equipment,&#65279; etc).

Defense spending? America spent even more in the "good old years". More than 10% of GDP in the&#65279; 1960s.


----------



## editec

Is America the nicest country in the world?

Is America the greatest country in the world?

Is America the coolest country in the world?

Is America the grooviest nation in the world?

All these sorts of questions are meaningless *until we agree* what the operative words: _nicest, greatest, cool_est, or_ grooviest_ actually MEAN.


----------



## Foxfyre

editec said:


> Is America the nicest country in the world?
> 
> Is America the greatest country in the world?
> 
> Is America the coolest country in the world?
> 
> Is America the grooviest nation in the world?
> 
> All these sorts of questions are meaningless *until we agree* what the operative words: _nicest, greatest, cool_est, or_ grooviest_ actually MEAN.



I gently disagree.  Each is a subjective concept in the minds and hearts of each individual.  You personally will have a yes or no or yes and no answer for each question, and in this regard, the only opinion that matters for you is your own.

There's no hope for our resident trolls, but I had hoped our more thoughtful members would think about it and answer the questions honestly.  I think most have.   But there was a time, not all that long ago in America, when almost all people would have answered the questions the same because they mostly shared a common culture, the same values, the same symbolism, and the same mores.

In my opinion, we are in serious danger of losing that aspect of America.  And I think it is worth fighting for.


----------



## AquaAthena

eots said:


> America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...



Our vote in November, `12, will determine whether we stay that way.


----------



## Foxfyre

AquaAthena said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our vote in November, `12, will determine whether we stay that way.
Click to expand...


I hope you are wrong about that g/f, and fear that you are not.

Certainly President Obama has been destructive to the American culture and has greatly escalated the headlong rush to finish dismantling the concepts the Founders gave us and shift ever more power to the central government until it has it all.

That can go one of two ways.  His worshippers will continue to have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to oppose that.  (Of course some are probably fully aware of what he is doing and are cheering him on.)   And those of us who hate what is happening will either sit on our hands and allow it to happen or will choose to get serious about fighting back.   Right now I think apathy is our worst enemy.

At this point, I honestly don't know which way it is going to go.


----------



## Artevelde

AquaAthena said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our vote in November, `12, will determine whether we stay that way.
Click to expand...


I understand your point, but still disagree. The United States was well-constructed and is stronger than one man's ability to bring it down. It has survived bad and very bad President in the past. That doesn't mean the election of the chief executive isn't important in this respect. But it is only one piece in a vast system.


----------



## Foxfyre

Artevelde said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our vote in November, `12, will determine whether we stay that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point, but still disagree. The United States was well-constructed and is stronger than one man's ability to bring it down. It has survived bad and very bad President in the past. That doesn't mean the election of the chief executive isn't important in this respect. But it is only one piece in a vast system.
Click to expand...


There was a time not that long ago that I would have emphatically agreed with you on this Arteveld.  But that was when I knew we were many people, many differences of opinion, many schools of thought, but basically one culture, one America.

Now as an American who sees so many things seeming to be coming apart at the seams, my faith has been shaken.  I am NOT saying Obama (or anybody else) is another Hitler, but as a student of history I can see how the people can become so ignorant, so clueless, so apathetic, or pin their hopes on some elusive promise or vision that they hand over their destiniy to somebody who is not at all what he pretends to be.  I am watching high level officials who know that lying to and manipulation of the people is effective and who do so regularly with no apparent misgivings or conscience.   If we had a well educated and cohesive electorate, we could and would deal with it.  But I fear we are too partisan, too fractured, too dismembered as a culture.

I hope I'm wrong too.  And fear that I am not.


----------



## Artevelde

Foxfyre said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our vote in November, `12, will determine whether we stay that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, but still disagree. The United States was well-constructed and is stronger than one man's ability to bring it down. It has survived bad and very bad President in the past. That doesn't mean the election of the chief executive isn't important in this respect. But it is only one piece in a vast system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time not that long ago that I would have emphatically agreed with you on this Arteveld.  But that was when I knew we were many people, many differences of opinion, many schools of thought, but basically one culture, one America.
> 
> Now as an American who sees so many things seeming to be coming apart at the seams, my faith has been shaken.  I am NOT saying Obama (or anybody else) is another Hitler, but as a student of history I can see how the people can become so ignorant, so clueless, so apathetic, or pin their hopes on some elusive promise or vision that they hand over their destiniy to somebody who is not at all what he pretends to be.  I am watching high level officials who know that lying to and manipulation of the people is effective and who do so regularly with no apparent misgivings or conscience.   If we had a well educated and cohesive electorate, we could and would deal with it.  But I fear we are too partisan, too fractured, too dismembered as a culture.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong too.  And fear that I am not.
Click to expand...


Take heart FoxFyre. There are still many traditional and sincere Americans around, like yourself. We've seen the decline of the US predicted so many times, but the inner strength has always come true.


----------



## Foxfyre

Artevelde said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, but still disagree. The United States was well-constructed and is stronger than one man's ability to bring it down. It has survived bad and very bad President in the past. That doesn't mean the election of the chief executive isn't important in this respect. But it is only one piece in a vast system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time not that long ago that I would have emphatically agreed with you on this Arteveld.  But that was when I knew we were many people, many differences of opinion, many schools of thought, but basically one culture, one America.
> 
> Now as an American who sees so many things seeming to be coming apart at the seams, my faith has been shaken.  I am NOT saying Obama (or anybody else) is another Hitler, but as a student of history I can see how the people can become so ignorant, so clueless, so apathetic, or pin their hopes on some elusive promise or vision that they hand over their destiniy to somebody who is not at all what he pretends to be.  I am watching high level officials who know that lying to and manipulation of the people is effective and who do so regularly with no apparent misgivings or conscience.   If we had a well educated and cohesive electorate, we could and would deal with it.  But I fear we are too partisan, too fractured, too dismembered as a culture.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong too.  And fear that I am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take heart FoxFyre. There are still many traditional and sincere Americans around, like yourself. We've seen the decline of the US predicted so many times, but the inner strength has always come true.
Click to expand...


Well you warm my heart my friend and I so hope you're right.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your questions: the passport i Have is Belgian. I do not consider myself Belgian however, very few people here do. I am a Fleming, that is the nation to which I belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that an independent nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't told me of your expertise.
Click to expand...




...still waiting...


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And being proficient in the primary language in which business and commerce is conducted is quite important in being self sufficient, supporting a ffamily, and avoiding poverty.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Click to expand...




Well? Has anyone?


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Remnants of those important pieces of culture are still strong in both places, but both are 100% American.  You see the same phenomenon in the German, Swedish, Bosnian, Irish et al communities of North Central Kansas.  Strong remnants of those imported cultures are evident but the people are 100% American.





The same process that new immigrants are going through today. Your pessimism has less to do with the country (and just about nothing to do with legal immigrants) than it does with your own warped point of view. Don't let yourself become one of those angry, fearful old bitties sitting in her rocking chair moaning about the end of the world.


----------



## Foxfyre

Again, while you are not being disagreeable,  the Q & A has run its course Unkotare and is tiresome and unproductive to the discussion.  I think many of us would be happy to engage you in a discussion of the topic, but that requires more than unexplained criticism of other people's opinions or loaded questions for which it is obvious that you aren't interested in the answers.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of those important pieces of culture are still strong in both places, but both are 100% American.  You see the same phenomenon in the German, Swedish, Bosnian, Irish et al communities of North Central Kansas.  Strong remnants of those imported cultures are evident but the people are 100% American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same process that new immigrants are going through today. Your pessimism has less to do with the country (and just about nothing to do with legal immigrants) than it does with your own warped point of view. Don't let yourself become one of those angry, fearful old bitties sitting in her rocking chair moaning about the end of the world.
Click to expand...


Well I have done my best to explain why I hold the what I consider to be informed opinions that I do, and you blew off and dismissed those explanations and now assign them to a warped point of view.  I accept that as your opinion and that you can't back it up with anything credible and we'll let it go at that.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Again, while you are not being disagreeable,  the Q & A has run its course Unkotare and is tiresome and unproductive to the discussion.  I think many of us would be happy to engage you in a discussion of the topic, but that requires more than unexplained criticism of other people's opinions or loaded questions for which it is obvious that you aren't interested in the answers.




I don't ask questions to which I am not interested in the answers. If you need any criticism explained just say so and I'll explain it for you.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remnants of those important pieces of culture are still strong in both places, but both are 100% American.  You see the same phenomenon in the German, Swedish, Bosnian, Irish et al communities of North Central Kansas.  Strong remnants of those imported cultures are evident but the people are 100% American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same process that new immigrants are going through today. Your pessimism has less to do with the country (and just about nothing to do with legal immigrants) than it does with your own warped point of view. Don't let yourself become one of those angry, fearful old bitties sitting in her rocking chair moaning about the end of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have done my best to explain why I hold the what I consider to be informed opinions that I do, and you blew off and dismissed those explanations and now assign them to a warped point of view.  I accept that as your opinion and that you can't back it up with anything credible and we'll let it go at that.
Click to expand...



You have "informed" nothing by repeating your subjective impressions, which do not accord with reality.


----------



## Unkotare

...and America remains the greatest country in the world.


----------



## 8236

High_Gravity said:


> According to the UN Belarus, Hungary, Lithuania and the Ukraine have a better quality of life than the US....



Citation needed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

8236 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the UN Belarus, Hungary, Lithuania and the Ukraine have a better quality of life than the US....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citation needed.
Click to expand...


It's probably true the UN doesn't like the U.S.


----------



## The Professor

eots said:


> America is still the biggest ass kicker on the planet however...



That enriches my life in so many ways.


----------



## Noomi

Unkotare said:


> ...and America remains the greatest country in the world.



It cannot possibly be consider the greatest country in the world when you fell head first into a recession. Meanwhile, Australia, a country smaller than the US and with a much smaller economy, chugged along nicely.


----------



## regent

What's the criteria for the greatest country in the world? Can a small country that doesn't make a lot of wars qualify? Is it the happiness of its citizens? Is it the biggest and meanest, is it the country with the richest elite, or do we just pick our own country as we are supposed to do?


----------



## Unkotare

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and America remains the greatest country in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It cannot possibly be consider the greatest country in the world when you fell head first into a recession. Meanwhile, Australia, a country smaller than the US and with a much smaller economy, chugged along nicely.
Click to expand...


Don't be ridiculous. You and your fellow Australians would be on your hands and knees working in the dirt and speaking Chinese if the US did not exist. A flea riding on the shoulder of a giant is not in fact as tall as the giant, 'mate' (even when the giant catches a cold).


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Noomi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and America remains the greatest country in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It cannot possibly be consider the greatest country in the world when you fell head first into a recession. Meanwhile, Australia, a country smaller than the US and with a much smaller economy, chugged along nicely.
Click to expand...


maybe we can export Obama and our Progressives to Australia when he loses in November?


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and America remains the greatest country in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It cannot possibly be consider the greatest country in the world when you fell head first into a recession. Meanwhile, Australia, a country smaller than the US and with a much smaller economy, chugged along nicely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe we can export Obama and our Progressives to Australia when he loses in November?
Click to expand...


It is true that Australia, the 6th largest country in the world in area, and 52nd in the world in population with a population of under 22 million--smaller than Texas, only slightly larger than New York State--has enjoyed a stable population and a much more stable economy than we have.

Following recessionary trends in the early 90's, economic reforms have reduced regulation and increased free market principles and keeping a low public debt--a trial stimulus produced little good--and the government now pretty much spends only what it takes in--so that Australia's economy is now the world's 3rd most free (according to the Heritage Foundation) and 5th in the world in GDP.  They also have strict and stricly enforced immigration policies and a business friendly environment that keeps their unemployment at near full employment.

It is true that Australians receive a lot of government benefits--their personal tax rate is close to outs--and a high mandated minimum wage.  But from what I am told by real life American friends who have lived in Australia, they are beginning to also develop an entitlement mentality and are slowly and surely stretching government benefits past the maximum so that taxes will have to be steadily increased or expensive deficits will continue to increase as the people object to any cuts in benefits.  When balancing the eduction budget required a small reduction in pay and slightly longer hours, the teacher's went on strike in Victoria this summer.   The effect of recently established carbon tax is yet untested.  Costs of doing business and prices are pretty high.

Australia is as vulnerable to entitlement mentality creep and dominance as we are, and it is likely to be as destructive in Australia as it is here.  And many of the same dynamics exist.  As exists in the USA, the largest group making up almost 50% of those living in poverty is found among single parents with dependent children.  The Australian poverty rate is set at just over 14% compared to the USA 15%, but as is the case in the USA, Australian poverty is relative to others in the country.  Australia's poor, as the USA's poor, would be deemed well off among the poor in undeveloped countries.

Australia has been its own independent country for only a little over 100 years.  The USA, being its own country for more than twice as long, was #1 in the world in just about everything good 100 years ago.  Australia has plenty of time to develop the same ills we have.    (I only hope the Australia people are still so ruggedly independent that they will be smarter than us and not allow that to happen.)

I am happy, however, that Noomi feels her country is the greatest in the world.  I think everybody ought to be able to feel that way about their country.


----------



## Foxfyre

And once again, I have to point out that it is not constructive to try to compare an economy and a highly diverse population of more than 300 million with a highly homogenous one that is smaller than a single U.S. state.


----------



## Wiseacre

I've never been real big about comparisons to any other country.   I do think it's fair to say we ain't as great as we once were, the generation that went through the depression and won WWII and then went on to build the foundations of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, was a hard act to follow.   They had their warts though, social injustice was still the name of the game in many places.

Today we've made serious inroads over that social injustice, but the pendulum may have swung too far to the other way in terms of the so-called safety net that is too large.   Personal responsibility and the work ethic are not what they once were, and the current generation doesn't seem to care about the problems they are leaving to posterity.    Nothing great about that.   We are divided in so many ways, unwilling to agree on which way to go or cooperate to find workable solutions and compromises.   Our leadership is insufficient, and we don't seem to be paying much attention.   More than we were, the Tea Partys are evidence of that.   But nowhere near enough.


----------



## Unkotare

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Foxfyre

Wiseacre said:


> I've never been real big about comparisons to any other country.   I do think it's fair to say we ain't as great as we once were, the generation that went through the depression and won WWII and then went on to build the foundations of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, was a hard act to follow.   They had their warts though, social injustice was still the name of the game in many places.
> 
> Today we've made serious inroads over that social injustice, but the pendulum may have swung too far to the other way in terms of the so-called safety net that is too large.   Personal responsibility and the work ethic are not what they once were, and the current generation doesn't seem to care about the problems they are leaving to posterity.    Nothing great about that.   We are divided in so many ways, unwilling to agree on which way to go or cooperate to find workable solutions and compromises.   Our leadership is insufficient, and we don't seem to be paying much attention.   More than we were, the Tea Partys are evidence of that.   But nowhere near enough.



I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.

The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though.  The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.

And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible.   They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.

The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about.  And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.

I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.





That kind of pessimism and defeatism is absolutely unAmerican.


----------



## Wiseacre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of pessimism and defeatism is absolutely unAmerican.
Click to expand...



Taken out of context.   Fail.


----------



## Unkotare

Wiseacre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of pessimism and defeatism is absolutely unAmerican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taken out of context.   Fail.
Click to expand...


That kind of whining is just bitchy nonsense.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It is great as we have freedom of speech. This is what makes it great!


----------



## waltky

This just in...

*Drug overdose may have killled woman who won $1 million in lottery but kept getting welfare*
_29 Sept.`12  -- A drug overdose may have killed Amanda Clayton, a Detroit-area woman who won a $1 million lottery prize but kept collecting welfare benefits, police said Saturday._


> Ecorse police Sgt. Cornelius Herring said Clayton, 25, of Lincoln Park was found dead about 9 a.m. Saturday at a home, The Associated Press said. Ecorse is southwest of Detroit.   Clayton won the $1 million prize in September.
> 
> In April, prosecutors accused Clayton of collecting $5,475 in food and medical benefits from August 2011 through March that she would not have received had she reported the lottery winnings and income from a job she held from June through October 2011. In June, she pleaded no contest to fraud and was sentenced to nine months' probation in July.
> 
> Her attorney has said Clayton repaid about $5,500, the AP reported.  "It's simply common sense that million-dollar lottery winners forfeit their right to public assistance," Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement.  In April, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a law requiring lottery officials to tell Human Services about new winners, the AP said.
> 
> Source


----------



## LoneLaugher

Nutters are easily moved by romantic portrayals of our history. 

The fact is that we are born of greatness and of sickening cruelty. 

We took many cues from the experiences of others as we built this country. We must continue to learn from others. There is much room for improvement. Clearly so.

The desire to claim number one status should not overwhelm the desire to reach it.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been real big about comparisons to any other country.   I do think it's fair to say we ain't as great as we once were, the generation that went through the depression and won WWII and then went on to build the foundations of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, was a hard act to follow.   They had their warts though, social injustice was still the name of the game in many places.
> 
> Today we've made serious inroads over that social injustice, but the pendulum may have swung too far to the other way in terms of the so-called safety net that is too large.   Personal responsibility and the work ethic are not what they once were, and the current generation doesn't seem to care about the problems they are leaving to posterity.    Nothing great about that.   We are divided in so many ways, unwilling to agree on which way to go or cooperate to find workable solutions and compromises.   Our leadership is insufficient, and we don't seem to be paying much attention.   More than we were, the Tea Partys are evidence of that.   But nowhere near enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.
> 
> The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though.  The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.
> 
> And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible.   They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.
> 
> The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about.  And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
Click to expand...


Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.

One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism". 

To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing. 

There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.

I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.


----------



## Politico

Wow 25 pages for the tea party that isn't actually a party. All these years and I have yet to see anyone with a T by their name lol.


----------



## Meathead

America's greatness was in large part in the opportunities it offered who had the drive to succeed. This is sadly been eroded of late and along with it the greatness of the country. When so much of the populous feels entitled and is looking for and voting on that feeling, there is little pride left in the people.


----------



## jan

Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially the same resources are available today to Americans as a hundred years ago. America has the capacity to be what Americans want. To say that it is presently that way would be a horrible thought. Even if we were to say it is presently the best in the world, no one would disagree that it could be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what has changed?  (If anything.)  And why has it changed?  Many of us recall a time when as a people we once would not have even thought to disrespect the National Anthem, the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance.  We were unashamed in our patriotic displays and enthusiasm, and we mostly shared values of church, family, Christmas programs at school whether we were Christian or not, a generic prayer before the highschool football game whether we were religious or not.  Being a real man who supported his family was deemed a virtue and an expectation for all and in the small towns, everybody disciplined everybody's kids and kids were expected to grow up as educated, responsible, mature citizens.  The traditional family was the backbone of the nation.   We knew our nation was imperfect, but we honestly believed it was better than any other and we believed in ourselves that we could find ways to fix whatever ailed it.
> 
> *Silly nostalgic myths some of our younger generation would say.  But those of us who lived it know it was real*.
Click to expand...


But...was it real, or was it Memorax?  Let's face it...information was quite limited back then...TV was in black and white and went off the air at night...we had all of three channels to choose from back then.  National and local news probably didn't report everything...I'm sure they left quite a few tidbits of information out.  The internet was non existent.

My point is that we thought what the movers and shakers of the time wanted us to think and those movers and shakers were mainly our parents.  We knew what they wanted us to know...nothing more, nothing less. We were spoon fed and maybe even brainwashed and lulled into a state of contentment...at least until the '60's when all hell broke loose and it was all of a sudden "the decade of assassinations".  No child growing up during the 60's could help but feel insecure as all the leaders got knocked off one by one and the war in Vietnam waged on with it's nightly pictorials on the evening news.  

Perhaps you are romanticizing the past more than it deserves?


----------



## skye

Oh Lord ,,,, many great countries in the world .... many ,,,not just one ,,,, nope my dears not only one sorry


----------



## Connery

The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Connery said:


> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.



After 250 years and you don't think America is the greatest Country on the planet? Move your god damn ass we or I don't want your faggot ass here.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Is there anything more pathetic than an arrogant dummy?


&#8220;The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.&#8221; 
&#8213; Bertrand Russell


----------



## bigrebnc1775

LoneLaugher said:


> Is there anything more pathetic than an arrogant dummy?
> 
> 
> The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
> &#8213; Bertrand Russell



Why must you continue talking about yourself in that way? I'LL BE HERE TO GIVE YOU YOUR BITCH SLAP DUMB ASS.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been real big about comparisons to any other country.   I do think it's fair to say we ain't as great as we once were, the generation that went through the depression and won WWII and then went on to build the foundations of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, was a hard act to follow.   They had their warts though, social injustice was still the name of the game in many places.
> 
> Today we've made serious inroads over that social injustice, but the pendulum may have swung too far to the other way in terms of the so-called safety net that is too large.   Personal responsibility and the work ethic are not what they once were, and the current generation doesn't seem to care about the problems they are leaving to posterity.    Nothing great about that.   We are divided in so many ways, unwilling to agree on which way to go or cooperate to find workable solutions and compromises.   Our leadership is insufficient, and we don't seem to be paying much attention.   More than we were, the Tea Partys are evidence of that.   But nowhere near enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.
> 
> The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though.  The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.
> 
> And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible.   They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.
> 
> The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about.  And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
> 
> To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
> 
> There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
> 
> I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
Click to expand...


I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:

1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.

That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.


----------



## Moonglow

Foxfyre said:


> And to start things off, I voted "Yes" and also "No, but it could be again" which of course is yes and no.
> 
> For me I would not choose to live anywhere else.  It is the greatest country in the world.  But I also grieve at what we have lost of our greatness in my lifetime, and how much I hope to live to see us regain that greatness.



playing the First Lady?


----------



## Moonglow

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.
> 
> The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though.  The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.
> 
> And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible.   They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.
> 
> The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about.  And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
> 
> To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
> 
> There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
> 
> I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
> 
> 1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
> 2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
> 3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
> 
> That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
Click to expand...


please tell me when in the history of the US has those 3 things ever happened.


----------



## Foxfyre

Refocusing on America's  greatness, the single one thing that made it so was a concept that the federal government would provide a structure in which the various states could function efficiently and effectivelyas one country without doing violence to each other and would recognize and secure the God given unalienable rights of the people.  And that is ALL the federal government would do.  It would otherwise leave the people alone to live their lives as they chose, to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, to govern themselves.

And it is that concept that produced the most powerful, innovative, creative, productive, prosperous, and most free nation the world had ever known without suggesting that other countries don't also have redeeming qualities.

And the more some look to the U.S. federal government to order the sort of society they think they want, the less free, less powerful, less innovative, less creative, less productive, and less prosperous we become.


----------



## Connery

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 250 years and you don't think America is the greatest Country on the planet? Move your god damn ass we or I don't want your faggot ass here.
Click to expand...


I am not interested in nationalist nonsense. I am interested in reality where as people we need to coexist if we are to survive on an international level. As far as moving, I served my country proudly, I continue to serve in various capacities which benefit the US.  I even support people like you who make statements that do not carry  much intelligence, but, undermine the principals that this great nation was built upon.


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
> 
> To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
> 
> There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
> 
> I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
> 
> 1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
> 2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
> 3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
> 
> That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please tell me when in the history of the US has those 3 things ever happened.
Click to expand...


Those three things existed when the Constitution was ratified and for well over the next hundred years.  But when Teddy Roosevelt  turned the Constitution on its head, it started the snowball rolling to create an central authoritarian government that would assign the rights we would have and FDR set the forces in motion to create a nanny state along with it.  That snowball has been gaining in size and momentum ever since.

If we do not stop it, the USA will never again be the most powerful, most creative, most innovative, most benevolent, most productive, most prosperous nation.


----------



## Unkotare

Connery said:


> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.





Gosh, you're so worldly! Pretentious douche.


----------



## Connery

Unkotare said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, you're so worldly! Pretentious douche.
Click to expand...


 You do not impress me, rest assured I am not trying to impress you.  I spoke my view, if you disagree with my views state why that is so.


----------



## Foxfyre

No, Connery is in no way a pretentious douche.  He is intelligent, usually civil, and a good poster.  But he is widely travelled and no doubt has different perceptions than those of us who aren't as much.  I don't require anybody to see it as I see it or to agree with me.  (I always hold out hope that others will see the wisdom of my opinions of course.  (j/k))

Somebody mentioned that the Swiss aren't beating down our doors to come to the USA.  Well I looked it up and there are more Swiss immigrating here than there are Americans immigrating there, but the numbers are fairly small in both cases.  Switzerland, that has always been immigrant friendly, has recently been tighting up its immigration laws and imposing restrictions now as they are experiencing more of the unpleasantries of unassimilated immigrants that some of the rest of us are experiencing.

There was a huge influx of Swiss into the U.S. in the late 19th Century--they were among one of the largest immigrant groups at that time.  But that was before we started growing a more authoriatarian federal government and putting more of a nanny state in place, and therefore the USA was a much stronger land of opportunity for everybody.


----------



## Julia

Not the greatest, but by far the most inspirational

George Washington gave hope to many likeminded souls that lived under the oppressive tyranny of the British Empire. He went up against the most lethal military of the time and prevailed, throwing off the chains of servitude to the Crown. Many took comfort from that, and consequently braved the Atlantic to play a part in the New World. But America's inherited a lot of its former master's bad habits.


----------



## Foxfyre

Julia said:


> Not the greatest, but by far the most inspirational
> 
> George Washington gave hope to many likeminded souls that lived under the oppressive tyranny of the British Empire. He went up against the most lethal military of the time and prevailed, throwing off the chains of servitude to the Crown. Many took comfort from that, and consequently braved the Atlantic to play a part in the New World. But America's inherited a lot of its former master's bad habits.



But those bad habits were not incoporated into the U.S. Constitution.  The Founders were determined to create for us a new nation in which the people would have their God given rights acknowledged and protected so that they could have true liberty; i.e. the ability to live their lives as they chose.  They would govern themselves and be subject to no monarch or papal authority or feudal lord or dictatorship or any other authoritarian government.  And it worked beautifully into the 20th Century.  But once the government started taking authority to govern away from the people and appeased them with free stuff, liberty has been gradually giving away to totalitarianism again.

I honestly think this may be the last generation that will have the ability to reverse that.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> And to start things off, I voted "Yes" and also "No, but it could be again" which of course is yes and no.


Yes and no is the right answer because an honest answer will depend on individual circumstances.

The most important consideration in contemplating an answer to this question is how much money one has.  The average American who is capable of maintaining a middle class income level and is unhappily watching the gradual transformation from democracy to plutocracy would probably like living in one of the socialistic Scandinavian nations, such as Denmark, which is thought to be _the happiest country in the world._

For the poor there is no better place to live than the U.S.  

As for the rich, they can afford to be based in the U.S. and to live like citizens of the world because they are welcome almost everywhere and are able to enjoy the best of everything no matter where they are.  The greatest country in the world for them is where they get the most of what they like best for their money.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Connery said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 250 years and you don't think America is the greatest Country on the planet? Move your god damn ass we or I don't want your faggot ass here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not interested in nationalist nonsense. I am interested in reality where as people we need to coexist if we are to survive on an international level. As far as moving, I served my country proudly, I continue to serve in various capacities which benefit the US.  I even support people like you who make statements that do not carry  much intelligence, but, undermine the principals that this great nation was built upon.
Click to expand...


Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations. 
Now explain what principals do I undermine?


----------



## Foxfyre

Come on Bigreb.  We're usually on the same page on a lot of issues, but this has so far been a pretty decent thread with give and take from several different points of view.  Most are being quite civil and I have appreciated that a lot.  I really REALLY don't want this to be just another USMB pissing match or food fight.  You have expressed that this is the greatest country for you and that's great.  If you could expand on that instead of beating up on those who see it differently, I would be pleased to hear your point of view.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Foxfyre said:


> Come on Bigreb.  We're usually on the same page on a lot of issues, but this has so far been a pretty decent thread with give and take from several different points of view.  Most are being quite civil and I have appreciated that a lot.  I really REALLY don't want this to be just another USMB pissing match or food fight.  You have expressed that this is the greatest country for you and that's great.  If you could expand on that instead of beating up on those who see it differently, I would be pleased to hear your point of view.



Don't jump on me for defending myself.
I want to know what  principals  I undermine


----------



## Foxfyre

MikeK said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to start things off, I voted "Yes" and also "No, but it could be again" which of course is yes and no.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no is the right answer because an honest answer will depend on individual circumstances.
> 
> The most important consideration in contemplating an answer to this question is how much money one has.  The average American who is capable of maintaining a middle class income level and is unhappily watching the gradual transformation from democracy to plutocracy would probably like living in one of the socialistic Scandinavian nations, such as Denmark, which is thought to be _the happiest country in the world._
> 
> For the poor there is no better place to live than the U.S.
> 
> As for the rich, they can afford to be based in the U.S. and to live like citizens of the world because they are welcome almost everywhere and are able to enjoy the best of everything no matter where they are.  The greatest country in the world for them is where they get the most of what they like best for their money.
Click to expand...


It is true that the USA is one of the best places in the world to be poor.  Our poor live like kings and queens compared to most of the world's poor.   And the very rich can choose pretty much where they will live and, in my opinion, we are blessed that so many choose to live here.

I think most or at least many Americans would find Denmark not all that happy a place and would miss the variety and opportunity and generally higher standard of living they enjoy here.  But good for the good people of Denmark who like living in Denmark.

The reason that the nation that the Founders envisioned and risked a great deal of blood and treasure to give us is so great is that Americans are not tied to their circumstances.  Those who do not take advantage of the opportunities provided them, who make poor choices, who resign themselves to being less than they can be will not prosper.  But in our classless society, we all have the right to seize opportunities, to profit from them, to make good choices, and to aspire to prosper as much as we are able.  And in a free society without barriers and restrictions, the goals can be as big and ambitious as we can envision.


----------



## MikeK

eots said:


> I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in


Or the Danes.  I've never met a Danish immigrant.  Or a Swiss.  Or an Icelandic.  

There's gotta be a reason.


----------



## Foxfyre

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Bigreb.  We're usually on the same page on a lot of issues, but this has so far been a pretty decent thread with give and take from several different points of view.  Most are being quite civil and I have appreciated that a lot.  I really REALLY don't want this to be just another USMB pissing match or food fight.  You have expressed that this is the greatest country for you and that's great.  If you could expand on that instead of beating up on those who see it differently, I would be pleased to hear your point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't jump on me for defending myself.
> I want to know what  principals  I undermine
Click to expand...


I understand but you did jump on him first.  

So ask that.  What principles do you undermine?   (And I'm guessing that it is jumping on somebody for expressing a conviction that you don't hold.  I don't hold it either, but I want to know why somebody holds a different opinion rather than object to them holding it.)  Nevertheless, our free speech allows us to speak our mind even if that is objecting to somebody else's opinion.  But it also strongly pushes us to attack the opinion rather than the person.


----------



## Foxfyre

MikeK said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in
> 
> 
> 
> Or the Danes.  I've never met a Danish immigrant.  Or a Swiss.  Or an Icelandic.
> 
> There's gotta be a reason.
Click to expand...


For the second time in this thread we don't get a lot of western European immigrants here at least since reconstruction after WWII and since the Iron Curtain came down.  But we still have more western Europeans including Danes and Swiss moving here than we have Americans moving there.   And there was a huge influx of Swiss immigration into the USA in the late 19th century.  You don't have to hunt real hard to find the descendants of those folks all over the place.


----------



## Connery

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 250 years and you don't think America is the greatest Country on the planet? Move your god damn ass we or I don't want your faggot ass here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in nationalist nonsense. I am interested in reality where as people we need to coexist if we are to survive on an international level. As far as moving, I served my country proudly, I continue to serve in various capacities which benefit the US.  I even support people like you who make statements that do not carry  much intelligence, but, undermine the principals that this great nation was built upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations.
> Now explain what principals do I undermine?
Click to expand...


"Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association. 


"*Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations. *" This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Connery said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in nationalist nonsense. I am interested in reality where as people we need to coexist if we are to survive on an international level. As far as moving, I served my country proudly, I continue to serve in various capacities which benefit the US.  I even support people like you who make statements that do not carry  much intelligence, but, undermine the principals that this great nation was built upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations.
> Now explain what principals do I undermine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
> 
> 
> "*Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations. *" This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.
Click to expand...




> "Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.


You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.



> This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.


Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the shame tactic to bully their views onto others.


----------



## Connery

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations.
> Now explain what principals do I undermine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
> 
> 
> "*Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations. *" This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the *shame tactic to bully their views onto others*.
Click to expand...


 Nope, I am not a communist, I am not a bully. I  chose to look at all sides of issue and discuss matters. Clearly, you have many issues which prevent you from doing the same. You continuously attack me while offering no  cogent argument. You appear to have the inability to have a serious discussion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Connery said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Now explain what principals do I undermine?" Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association.
> 
> 
> "*Horse shit. You don't support me in any fucking way you're a  blimp with no high expectations. *" This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a hypocrite. if that's what I have undermined in your opinion, you're doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This garbage that you have spewed is the product of a thought process that has fostered ignorance, spread fear, leads to an intellectual imprisonment which takes any society down the path of self destruction. I do not take you seriously, your type of ignorance is a dangerous brand which keeps people in the dark as to what true freedom and democracy is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another hypocritical post. You're just a communist that try's to use the *shame tactic to bully their views onto others*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I am not a communist, I am not a bully. I  chose to look at all sides of issue and discuss matters. Clearly, you have many issues which prevent you from doing the same. You continuously attack me while offering no  cogent argument. You appear to have the inability to have a serious discussion.
Click to expand...


Yet you are a hypocrite.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Foxfyre said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in
> 
> 
> 
> Or the Danes.  I've never met a Danish immigrant.  Or a Swiss.  Or an Icelandic.
> 
> There's gotta be a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the second time in this thread we don't get a lot of western European immigrants here at least since reconstruction after WWII and since the Iron Curtain came down.  But we still have more western Europeans including Danes and Swiss moving here than we have Americans moving there.   And there was a huge influx of Swiss immigration into the USA in the late 19th century.  You don't have to hunt real hard to find the descendants of those folks all over the place.
Click to expand...


And.........I suppose that is because the US is a more desireable place to call home? Couldn't be any other reason?


----------



## Unkotare

Connery said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time is not at hand yet to declare the US the greatest country in the world, besides nationalist threads are a bore. I have been to several countries and I went because they were great in their own way. Every country I have studied was great in their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, you're so worldly! Pretentious douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not impress me.
Click to expand...




The difference is that I'm not trying to.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> No, Connery is in no way a pretentious douche. .




What kind of a douche do you think he is then?


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think the swiss are beating the door down to get in
> 
> 
> 
> Or the Danes.  I've never met a Danish immigrant.  Or a Swiss.  Or an Icelandic.
> 
> There's gotta be a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the second time in this thread we don't get a lot of western European immigrants here at least since reconstruction after WWII and since the Iron Curtain came down.  But we still have more western Europeans including Danes and Swiss moving here than we have Americans moving there.   And there was a huge influx of Swiss immigration into the USA in the late 19th century.  You don't have to hunt real hard to find the descendants of those folks all over the place.
Click to expand...

Do you wish to talk about then or now?  

Re: Swiss and Danes migrating here, I would need to see credible evidence of that because I don't believe it.  An exception might be those who have advanced technological skills which are in demand.  But even so I have never met a Swiss or Danish immigrant.  Not even visitors.  

As far as Americans migrating to Switzerland or Denmark, it's not quite that simple.  While Denmark has been fairly liberal with its asylum policy an influx of troublesome muslims have given them pause.  But both nations are very selective about whom they issue citizenship to.  To qualify for consideration one must show sufficient resources to support at least the first three years of residence and have a useful trade or profession to offer.  

I believe a similar situation now exists in The Netherlands.


----------



## Unkotare

MikeK said:


> But even so I have never met a Swiss or Danish immigrant.  Not even visitors.  .





You've met many, many, many of their great-grandchildren. As for "not even visitors," you need to get out more.


----------



## Foxfyre

What Unk said.  I will stand by my statement but I don't care enough whether Mike agrees with it to go hunt up links.  He's welcome to do so if he wishes to discredit my post.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the greatest, but by far the most inspirational
> 
> George Washington gave hope to many likeminded souls that lived under the oppressive tyranny of the British Empire. He went up against the most lethal military of the time and prevailed, throwing off the chains of servitude to the Crown. Many took comfort from that, and consequently braved the Atlantic to play a part in the New World. But America's inherited a lot of its former master's bad habits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But those bad habits were not incoporated into the U.S. Constitution.  The Founders were determined to create for us a new nation in which the people would have their God given rights acknowledged and protected so that they could have true liberty; i.e. the ability to live their lives as they chose.  They would govern themselves and be subject to no monarch or papal authority or feudal lord or dictatorship or any other authoritarian government.  And it worked beautifully into the 20th Century.  But once the government started taking authority to govern away from the people and appeased them with free stuff, liberty has been gradually giving away to totalitarianism again.
> 
> I honestly think this may be the last generation that will have the ability to reverse that.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the time for that has passed.  There is no way to reverse growing dependency on government without substantially reducing population and eliminating its growth.  

The human species, in America as elsewhere, is burgeoning and population density creates the need for greater government control over behavior, social organization, and distribution of resources.  Libertarians conveniently ignore this critical (and obvious) factor, referring nostalgically to "the good old days" when taxes were low, when there was plenty of space, and when individual Liberty prevailed.  Like vain and narcissistic middle-aged egoists who ignore their own physical changes they refuse to acknowledge this simple fact of life as if it doesn't apply to them:  This is not America of the early 1900s.


----------



## Unkotare

We are hardly 'running out of space' in the US. That's absurd.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc.   But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government.  Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it is foolish to compare the USA, unique among all nations on Earth, to any other country except to note that our founding principles have been superior to those of any other country.
> 
> The Tea Party and other movements like it were and are our best hope to regain our former greatness though.  The Tea Party is doing its damndest to raise conciousness about those values that made America great--personal freedom/liberty, recognition of unalienable rights, a work ethic thati includes earning what you receive from any source, paying for what we get, fiscal responsibility, personal and government moral integrity that is impossible when controlled by political correctness, and a people who govern themselves free of an authoriarian government who assigns them their rights.
> 
> And of course those who want that authoritarian government and the nanny state, and who simply shrug off a sixteen trillion dollar debt and increasing corruption among those who dole out government charity and the recipients of that charity are trashing and demonizing and marginalizing the Tea Party as much as possible.   They know they have succeeded when people who think like the Tea Partiers disassociate themselves from the Tea Party or similar groups to avoid the derision and contemptuous comments thrown at them.
> 
> The pro nanny state people will not even look at our former greatness, but point to the pockets of social injustice as the sum total of what previous generations were all about.  And they shrug off any negatives brought about by their own present ideology as inconsequential.
> 
> I am deeply afraid time is running out to restore America to its greatness. After this generation, there will be too few left to speak out for it.  And the great experiment will have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
> 
> To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
> 
> There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
> 
> I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
> 
> 1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
> 2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
> 3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
> 
> That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
Click to expand...


And to that end, what a wonderful thing to get behind.

Yet, every Republican president since the depression has done his level best to DECREASE fiscal integrity. Especially the last Bush to sit in the oval office, who let the Democrat "pay-go" system lapse and thereby allowed spending to increase without looking back.

The restoration of liberties, as long as we don't talk about contraception, abortion, ending the so called war on drugs, or marrying the person we love regardless of sexual orientation. And let's not forget providing a path for the naturalization of undocumented aliens who have only known life in this country. Exactly which liberties are we really talking about?

And then, decreasing the size, power, scope and expense of the Federal government... to which, I'd ask: To what end? This is the part that scares me the most. Decreasing the size, power, and scope of the Federal government means dropping regulation - which not only protects our businesses, it protects us. It protects the environment in which we live. The Koch brothers would love nothing better than to have a free reign in this regard. Big oil has been salivating over all the land that they can't put a derrick on - despite the increase in places they can already drill. This is also the same government which protects businesses from each other in the form of copyright law and anti-trust regulations. It brings us food which is (more or less) safe to eat, and is supposed to be on guard against large-scale infectious diseases. Does this limitation actually make sense to the American public?

And then comes the expense part of the claim. It's hard to argue that what our government costs us isn't getting out of hand. I could make an argument that the cost of government services has ballooned considerably as more fluff has been added without due consideration of cost and real need. However, before taking out the fiscal machete wouldn't it make more sense to reshape these services to make them more efficient before sending them out to the individual states which are already, themselves, overburdened?

I find it increasingly hard to accept the precepts of the Tea Party - especially as they seem to benefit the very few and to do exactly the opposite of what groups like American Crossroads and Americans For Progress tell you. Each of the terms that you mentioned above were contradicted by every party member supported by the movement. And, although the victory margin was slim, clearly the majority whose hearts and minds were affected the most is still unaffected by the continual brain-washing efforts of the hard right.


----------



## MikeK

Foxfyre said:


> It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc.   But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government.  Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.


I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey.  In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately by local governments.  But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.

As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation.  But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA.  Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.  

Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.


----------



## oldernwiser

MikeK said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc.   But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government.  Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey.  In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately be local governments.  But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.
> 
> As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation.  But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA.  Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.
> 
> Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.
Click to expand...


Absolutely! Changing anything done by government is like turning an aircraft carrier around. It takes time... lots of it.

As more states enter into the argument that pot usage isn't as big a deal as the Feds said it was in the 70s, there will be less resistance overall in the Federal government to keep up the pretense. 

And see, this would be one of those examples of how to cut billions off of the country's spending: kill the anti-drug laws in their entirety. An entire free-wheeling wing of the government would get clipped straight away (DEA), millions would be saved trying to prove that drugs do bad things (we all know that), and less law enforcement would be required. And more...

Instead of the Tea Party's draconian fiscal machete, let's try doing things that make sense. In the end, it saves a lot more money and keeps social services intact.


----------



## Connery

Greatness is an ongoing process, not a destination where  complacency sets in when reached . To do so would erode what has been built and held in high esteem. Throughout it's history America has had to meet challenges whether social such as women's rights or racial with the civil rights movement.  The US has had to adjust to the various types of economic  systems including an agrarian economy, industrial economy and service economy. We went from a laissez faire capitalistic economic model to a mixed economy.  Each one of these changes had a powerful and polarizing effect on the population, took time to adjust and create a checks and balance system by which all people have as much opportunity to survive and hopefully prosper. For example, recently we saw those checks and balance removed from the "banking industry"  and the US was thrown into economic chaos  now those regulations have been reinstated for the most part and recovery from that maelstrom is under way.

History will decide whether America is the greatest country in the world, but, a country is made up of it's citizens who do have a say in what decisions  their representatives make on their behalf. The responsibility for greatness is on the shoulder of each on of us who call ourselves Americans. We have met many earmarks of greatness throughout our history, nevertheless, that is an ongoing process.


----------



## Foxfyre

MikeK said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the more densely populated we are, the more organization we need--water/sewer systems, zoining regulation, etc.   But most of that can be handled quite adequately by local government.  Other than limited regulation of some shared water sources such as rivers or lakes or coastline, etc., that cross state lines, the federal government does not need to be involved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I've only lived in two states in my seventy-six years; New York and New Jersey.  In both examples all of the things you've listed were indeed handled quite adequately be local governments.  But there is no question that the federal government is far too intrusive and heavy-handed in certain situations, the marijuana issue being a currently significant example.
> 
> As you know, California chose to allow the distribution of marijuana to anyone with a physician's recommendation.  But in spite of Obama's specific promise that the federal government would not interfere there has been significant interference by the DEA.  Now that the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana by public referendum I have no doubt the DEA will be conducting periodic raids for the purpose of discouraging confident participation in a legalized activity.
> 
> Hopefully that will backfire on them in the form of pressure from a petitioned Congress.
Click to expand...


I'm really torn on the issue of recreational drugs.  The libertarian part of me says this too should be strictly a local choice whether the people want them or do not want them in their communities or states.  But then you look at the history for clarification, and the issue isn't so clear.

The South American people have been chewing on Coca leaves as a mile stimulant, much as we use coffee, for thousands of years with no apparent ill effect.   But when somebody learned to refine and purify cocaine in the late 19th century, it became widely used in the medical profession and was frequently prescribed for various ailments, as well as being perfectly legal to use without prescription as well.   But when almost all steady users became addicted with corresponding loss of productivity, decimation of family structures,, etc. etc., I think it was like 1914? or something like that when the federal government stepped in and took control making recreational use of various opiates and other addictive drugs illegal.  So now most people obey the law and are not tempted to use illegal substances.  Would that be the case if they were legal and became more accessible?  I don't know.  But it is a fact that those nations with legalized recreational drugs do have higher addiction rates than we see in the USA and it is a fact that almost all recovering addicts do not want addictive substances legalized and made more accessible.

So on this one I have not arrived a a point of absolute conviction though I am strongly for making it socially unacceptable to use such substances and do lean toward allowing the states or local communities to make their own laws regarding such things.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
> 
> To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
> 
> There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
> 
> I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
> 
> 1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
> 2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
> 3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
> 
> That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And to that end, what a wonderful thing to get behind.
> 
> Yet, every Republican president since the depression has done his level best to DECREASE fiscal integrity. Especially the last Bush to sit in the oval office, who let the Democrat "pay-go" system lapse and thereby allowed spending to increase without looking back.
> 
> The restoration of liberties, as long as we don't talk about contraception, abortion, ending the so called war on drugs, or marrying the person we love regardless of sexual orientation. And let's not forget providing a path for the naturalization of undocumented aliens who have only known life in this country. Exactly which liberties are we really talking about?
> 
> And then, decreasing the size, power, scope and expense of the Federal government... to which, I'd ask: To what end? This is the part that scares me the most. Decreasing the size, power, and scope of the Federal government means dropping regulation - which not only protects our businesses, it protects us. It protects the environment in which we live. The Koch brothers would love nothing better than to have a free reign in this regard. Big oil has been salivating over all the land that they can't put a derrick on - despite the increase in places they can already drill. This is also the same government which protects businesses from each other in the form of copyright law and anti-trust regulations. It brings us food which is (more or less) safe to eat, and is supposed to be on guard against large-scale infectious diseases. Does this limitation actually make sense to the American public?
> 
> And then comes the expense part of the claim. It's hard to argue that what our government costs us isn't getting out of hand. I could make an argument that the cost of government services has ballooned considerably as more fluff has been added without due consideration of cost and real need. However, before taking out the fiscal machete wouldn't it make more sense to reshape these services to make them more efficient before sending them out to the individual states which are already, themselves, overburdened?
> 
> I find it increasingly hard to accept the precepts of the Tea Party - especially as they seem to benefit the very few and to do exactly the opposite of what groups like American Crossroads and Americans For Progress tell you. Each of the terms that you mentioned above were contradicted by every party member supported by the movement. And, although the victory margin was slim, clearly the majority whose hearts and minds were affected the most is still unaffected by the continual brain-washing efforts of the hard right.
Click to expand...


I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody.   What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek.  We do not get involved in the social aspect.

If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.

But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed.  It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity.  They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc.   And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most.   The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.

The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not.  The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
> 
> 1.  To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
> 2.  To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
> 3.  To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
> 
> That's it.  And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Snipped]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody.   What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek.  We do not get involved in the social aspect.
> 
> If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.
> 
> But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed.  It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity.  They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc.   And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most.   The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.
> 
> The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.
Click to expand...


And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Snipped]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody.   What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek.  We do not get involved in the social aspect.
> 
> If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.
> 
> But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed.  It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity.  They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc.   And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most.   The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.
> 
> The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.
Click to expand...


How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have attended Tea Party rallies in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas and in not one have I seen social issues pushed by anybody.   What any individual within the larger movement believes or supports is his/her own business and when we support a candidate, it is because the candidate supports the fiscal and Constitutional integrity that we seek.  We do not get involved in the social aspect.
> 
> If a candidate focuses on Constitutional integrity, whatever position he or she takes on social issues is of no importance at the federal level.
> 
> But candidates do have to get elected and the media and the Left and sometimes the hard rigfht demand that social issues be addressed.  It would be a good thing if those running for office were not forced into taking a stand on those things that should be left to the local people to decide, but they are not allowed to focus only on fiscal or constitutional integrity.  They are forced to take a stand on guns, abortion, women's issues, gay rights, welfare, immigration, Affirmative Action, drugs, etc. etc. etc.   And of course when they do, they won't agree with you or me on every one of those issues or maybe any or most.   The problem is with the hard left every bit as the hard right, but the Tea Party itself, at least the pure center of it, pays no attention to either.
> 
> The pure Tea Party spirit allows people their convictions as long as they have the right mind re the role of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?

But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is just another example of how the Tea Party fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?
> 
> But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.
Click to expand...


You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended.  In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose.  And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses.  Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them.   Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say that and still support the three goals of the Tea Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?
> 
> But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended.  In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose.  And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses.  Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them.   Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.
Click to expand...


I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plank of the Tea Party which supports general liberties - the part I CAN get behind - has to be abridged in order to meet "the right mind re the role of the federal government". It's dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing in order to attract votes for the sake of a majority, and not on the strength of the message itself. So what it says to me is that it's OK to give away some liberties in order to gain others. Where does that leave us?
> 
> But what if the goal ISN'T personal liberty, but corporate liberty? In this instance, the contradictions become necessary in order to gain mass. Personally, I will fight this tooth and nail because we the people are deserving of liberty and corporations are not people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended.  In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose.  And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses.  Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them.   Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.
Click to expand...


You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.

The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended.  In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose.  And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses.  Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them.   Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.
> 
> The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.
Click to expand...


My oh my.  Someone must have praised you for producing bullshit......you seem to love doing so. Especially that second paragraph. You might want to work on those run-on sentences, Professor. 

Business ownership and the protections that accompany it is a privilege. If the owners do not act in such a way as to benefit the community.....and in the case of large corporations....the nation, they should be subject to the removal of that privilege.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading a whole lot more into those three things than I intended or that any of the hundreds of thousands of people embracing Tea Party objectives intended.  In the view of the Tea Party, the federal government should do or regulate only what is necessary to secure our rights and promote interaction between the states sufficient for us all together to be one country, and should otherwise leave us alone to live our lives as we choose.  And that would apply to those who work for others and those who employ people by running corporations or other businesses.  Corporations ARE the result of vision, effort, risk invested, and capability of people who start them, grow them, and run them.   Most of problem that exist occur when government and corporations are wedded together and this Tea Partiers see as wrong and not a proper function of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.
> 
> The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.
Click to expand...


As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Yes. WHICH?


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing the point, because I don't see where the interplay between government and business represents a huge problem - except that it restrains businesses from becoming their own oligarchies. And I confess that I simply do not see where our own rights are being hampered or suppressed by governmental regulation of industry. However I do see how business can benefit from a reduction in regulation - and that would be to our detriment, not our benefit. And I also see how fiscal responsibility can be used as a tool to loosen the regulatory policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.
> 
> The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?
Click to expand...


I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.  But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved.   The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.


----------



## oldernwiser

Connery said:


> Greatness is an ongoing process, not a destination where  complacency sets in when reached . To do so would erode what has been built and held in high esteem. Throughout it's history America has had to meet challenges whether social such as women's rights or racial with the civil rights movement.  The US has had to adjust to the various types of economic  systems including an agrarian economy, industrial economy and service economy. We went from a laissez faire capitalistic economic model to a mixed economy.  Each one of these changes had a powerful and polarizing effect on the population, took time to adjust and create a checks and balance system by which all people have as much opportunity to survive and hopefully prosper. For example, recently we saw those checks and balance removed from the "banking industry"  and the US was thrown into economic chaos  now those regulations have been reinstated for the most part and recovery from that maelstrom is under way.
> 
> History will decide whether America is the greatest country in the world, but, a country is made up of it's citizens who do have a say in what decisions  their representatives make on their behalf. The responsibility for greatness is on the shoulder of each on of us who call ourselves Americans. We have met many earmarks of greatness throughout our history, nevertheless, that is an ongoing process.



That's very true. In fact, Alan Greenspan used the hard right line that business will take care of all it's problems itself. He drove our country's economic model nearly into a laissez-faire system, and he admitted before congress that he was wrong to try to impose less regulation on industry after all the bubbles burst. He said that he had found the fundamental flaw in the system and clearly didn't fully understand things the way he thought he had. (I found it interesting too that one of his earliest heroes was none other than Ayn Rand..)


----------



## LoneLaugher

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.
> 
> The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.  But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved.   The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the specifics regarding which federal regulations stopped those seven businesses. Thanks so much.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  We either are free to run our businesses as we see fit, short of violating the rights of others, or we are not.  Regulation of business should be restricted to limiting the amount of damage to the shared environment that business and industry is allowed to do and to enforce antitrust and RICO laws necessary to keep business from unethically doing economic or physical violence to each other or misleading the public in the products they sell.   The result will be some entities that fail and/or suck in other ways, and some that will be exemplary and become industry standards.
> 
> The choice is either freedom for us all to live our lives and accomplish what we are willing and capable to accomplish short of violating the rights of others, or we trust government to assign the rights we have and take the risk that the government can become far more powerful and oppressive than any private corporation would ever be.   We can move away from corporations.  But to move away from government is to lose our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.  But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved.   The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.
Click to expand...


Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?


----------



## Foxfyre

oldernwiser said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I'm missing this point. Because the only regulation we impose on business is to either protect industry from the less scrupulous, or to protect industry from running roughshod over our environment, or to protect the people from poor business practices that could kill us. Specifically, which regulations have become so onerous that a political movement could take hold and denounce government's involvement so forcefully?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.  But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved.   The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?
Click to expand...


Protecting us from the most grevious offenses and dangerous conditions, yes.  But nitpicking people to death just because both agencies are bloated and overrun with people who have to justify their existence.  Part of the services my business offers/offered is safety inspections for insurance companies.  I don't know how many times I or hubby noted and got corrected something that really was seriously hazardous that the OSHA inspector had missed, all the while listening to the litany of really unnecessary and unimportant things the business owner was required 'correct'' because of their OSHA inspection.

We have all heard the stories in California where homeowners and business owners were not allowed to cut away to the brush to create fire breaks around their homes because the area might be a habitat for some endangered speciies of rat.  And thus, when the wildfires burned through, they lost everything.  I'm sure the EPAs issued fire protection for all the rats that wouldn't have been endangered if the firebreaks had been there.  It used to be that land owners enjoyed having  rare creature around.  Now they get rid of them if they see any before the EPA finds out they are there; otherwise they cannot use their property as they intended when they bought it.

So much stuff is done at the federal level that never should be the prerogative of the federal government and should be left to the states and local communities to regulate.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> oldernwiser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.  But seven....count them seven businesses who would have located in or around Albuquerque in the last two years, and would have employed more than 5000 people, finally gave up and cancelled plans to build or expand here because of the maze of rules, regs, required studies, and mandates that would have been involved.   The maze of EPA and OSHA rules and regs alone can drive a body absolutely mad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - sometimes EPA can be a bear to work with. But - the purposes of the EPA and OSHA are ones that protect us. If there's nothing to protect us from, then it would follow that those particular companies would be running right now, wouldn't it?. On the other hand, if they were attempting to cut corners and earn a little extra or save a few bucks by doing something a little dirty - do we feel sorry for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protecting us from the most grevious offenses and dangerous conditions, yes.  But nitpicking people to death just because both agencies are bloated and overrun with people who have to justify their existence.  Part of the services my business offers/offered is safety inspections for insurance companies.  I don't know how many times I or hubby noted and got corrected something that really was seriously hazardous that the OSHA inspector had missed, all the while listening to the litany of really unnecessary and unimportant things the business owner was required 'correct'' because of their OSHA inspection.
> 
> We have all heard the stories in California where homeowners and business owners were not allowed to cut away to the brush to create fire breaks around their homes because the area might be a habitat for some endangered speciies of rat.  And thus, when the wildfires burned through, they lost everything.  I'm sure the EPAs issued fire protection for all the rats that wouldn't have been endangered if the firebreaks had been there.  It used to be that land owners enjoyed having  rare creature around.  Now they get rid of them if they see any before the EPA finds out they are there; otherwise they cannot use their property as they intended when they bought it.
> 
> So much stuff is done at the federal level that never should be the prerogative of the federal government and should be left to the states and local communities to regulate.
Click to expand...


Yep - you can point to some real horror stories and some of them are even real. Some are fabrications like not being able to protect your house from a fire - I lived in CA, and I know they take fires seriously and that LOCAL fire inspectors will write a ticket (based of LOCAL law) if a homeowner fails to keep brush away from his house. I'm also aware of the $20,000 hammers that got mandated into a federal defense contract because someone in OSHA short-circuited specifications and said "all equipment must pass flight safety tests". I will certainly grant that there are quite a few cases where common-sense took a back seat. But that certainly is not proof that the safeguards have to be abandoned for expediency's sake.

I worked for a defense contractor for 15 years. We were inspected quite a bit by the military. We got gigged in every inspection - not so much because we did something wrong, but because the inspectors are told that if they find nothing wrong, they aren't doing their jobs properly. Should inspections then be canceled? I don't think so, because if there HAD been a grievous operational flaw, it would have been caught and corrected straight away.

Regulation isn't the true problem. Consistency and common sense have to also be applied.


----------



## skye

After  Obama being re elected ,USA is not the greatest  country. Sad but true.


----------



## Foxfyre

But Skye, it is the same country it was before Obama got re-elected.  At least nothing in my life is much different this Monday than it was last Monday.   Admittedly a whole bunch of things suck right now.  We'll have to see how it goes from here.

Oldernwiser, I'm sorry but though I agree that over regulation isn't by any means the whole problem, the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach is a serious problem for many businesses and costs a lot of folks a lot of money that should never have been spent and consumes way too much time and energy to produce unnecessary results.   And I am 100% that a huge part of the drag on the economy now is the uncertainty of what the tax codes and new regulations and mandates are going to be.

It goes back to the core principle that so much of this stuff the federal government shouldn't be doing at all.   Too much, too big, too expensive, too wasteful, too authoritarian, and too inefficient and ineffective federal government is one of the worst problems we have right now and is a huge factor in a lot of the other problems we have.


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> But Skye, it is the same country it was before Obama got re-elected.  At least nothing in my life is much different this Monday than it was last Monday.   Admittedly a whole bunch of things suck right now.  We'll have to see how it goes from here.
> 
> Oldernwiser, I'm sorry but though I agree that over regulation isn't by any means the whole problem, the federal government's one-size-fits-all approach is a serious problem for many businesses and costs a lot of folks a lot of money that should never have been spent and consumes way too much time and energy to produce unnecessary results.   And I am 100% that a huge part of the drag on the economy now is the uncertainty of what the tax codes and new regulations and mandates are going to be.
> 
> It goes back to the core principle that so much of this stuff the federal government shouldn't be doing at all.   Too much, too big, too expensive, too wasteful, too authoritarian, and too inefficient and ineffective federal government is one of the worst problems we have right now and is a huge factor in a lot of the other problems we have.



Well, perhaps that's because we insist on electing conservative authoritarians - which is essentially what we have done in every election since Kennedy. 

Tax codes are another topic. Personally, I don't believe there needs to be a tax on a corporation. By the same token, and despite SCOTUS rulings, I also don't ascribe to the notion of corporate citizenship either. I believe that laws requiring a company to provide anything other than a product should be abolished in their entirety. Corporations were created in order to fulfill a common good for the people. They initially had to be chartered and had to have a specific purpose and a specific lifetime. This is not the case today. At this point in time, a corporation has only one goal - to make money. And the laws regarding corporations actually codify that goal. If that means buying out media outlets and pushing fake news or suppressing factual evidence or stirring up quasi-political unrest with branded "grass roots" participation, they have no compunction about doing so. To me, this is the root of the Tea Party movement. It has nothing to do with our rights, or liberties and everything to do with making the corporations even more money by taking their last competitor out of the picture - our own government. Supporting them is directly opposite to the support of our own democracy.


----------



## Foxfyre

So you don't consider the current administration to be authoritarian?  It is only conservatives?   I think you don't have a clue what modern American conservatism is.  Not all who identify themselves as conservatives are.


----------



## Foxfyre

Consider this:



> *How Many Federal Regulations are There?
> According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.
> 
> The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.
> 
> While they call the process "rulemaking," the regulatory agencies create and enforce "rules" that are truly laws, many with the potential to profoundly effect the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans. What controls and oversight are placed on the regulatory agencies in creating the federal regulations?
> Federal Regulations &#8211; About US Federal Regulations*





> *In the Bush years--Heritage Foundation commentary in 2008:*
> In this election year, Americans will hear a lot about taxes. Candidates for everything from President to vil*lage alderman will present their plans on who should pay and how much. Yet in the political frenzy, one type of tax will almost certainly be overlooked: the hidden tax of regulation. The federal government alone enforces thousands of pages of regulations that impose a burden of some $1.1 trillion-an amount that is comparable to total federal income tax receipts.
> 
> And the cost of regulation is getting higher. Despite the claims of critics-and some supporters-of the Bush Administration, net regulatory burdens have increased in the years since George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Since 2001, the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone.
> 
> Even more are on the way. Historically, the amount of regulatory activity surges dramatically in the last year of a presidential Administration, whether Repub*lican or Democrat, as regulators, freed from normal political constraints, clean off their desks. A similar surge looks likely for the final year of the Bush Admin*istration unless the President and other policymakers keep a tight hand on the regulatory leash.
> Red Tape Rising: Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years





> *November 2012--from the Morning Bell:
> After three years of hyper-regulation, the Obama Administration has noticeably slowed its rulemaking in recent months. A variety of major rules have been parked in prolonged review by the White House, while the regulatory agenda required by statute has failed to materializetwice. This flouting of the law is disturbing enough, but its made worse by the mounting regulatory uncertainty that has ensued.
> 
> Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a summary of all rules likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small firms. Subsequent executive orders extended the requirements to all regulations under development or review by some 60 departments, agencies, and commissions.
> 
> President Obama has ignored both the April 2012 and October 2012 agenda deadlines. The last agenda from the Administration, with 2,676 regulations, was published in fall 2011. The Presidents neglect of the law contradicts his promise of an unprecedented level of openness in government transparency.
> 
> Notice of upcoming regulatory actions is an essential tool of government transparency and accountability. The agenda enables citizens to participate in the rulemaking process, businesses to plan, and Congress to engage in oversight. The stakes are especially high now because of the hundreds of rules yet to be finalized relating to the Dodd-Frank financial regulation statute and Obamacare.
> 
> The Administration has postponed action of late on some of its most ambitious regulations. For example, stricter standards on ozone emissions have been shelved until 2013. The original proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency would cost $90 billion or more annually and, potentially, jeopardize millions of jobs.
> 
> Also on hold are various regulations to control power plant emissions of so-called greenhouse gases that would dramatically increase energy costs, as well as the designation of coal ash as a hazardous substanceestimated to cost $79 billion to $110 billion and thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Missouri and Ohio.
> 
> There is ample reason to believe that this recent draw-back of rulemaking portends a regulatory tsunami in the coming year. Of particular note is the large number of proposed regulations that are piling up at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the department within the Office of Management and Budget which reviews rules before they are published in the Federal Register.
> Morning Bell: Administration Ignores Law, Delays Exposing New Regulations*


*

How efficient do you think the federal government is administrating and enforcing the tens of thousands, more likely hundreds of thousands, of regulations on the books?  How costly is it adding dozens if not hundreds of new employees to administer each new batch of regulations.  It is estimated up to 6000 new IRS agents will be needed to administer the regulations involving participation in Obamacare and many dozens--by some estimates more than 100--new agencies to administer the whole program.  

Is it beyond speculation that government that seeks to trip up or punish some "enemy" can easily pull some obscure or little known or seldom enforced regulation out of the bag and use it?

Anybody who thinks the federal government is not too big, too ineffective, too inefficient, too authoritarian, and way too expensive simply wants a king to take care of them and has given up on the Founder's vision of a free people.*


----------



## Politico

So. When did this thread go off the rails. Was it 10 or 20 pages ago?


----------



## Foxfyre

Politico said:


> So. When did this thread go off the rails. Was it 10 or 20 pages ago?



It went dormant for awhile and was recently resurrected.

And now we are discussing why or why not America is the greatest country in the world?  There is room for all points of view about that and I tried to include an option for all of them in the poll.

But you think it is off the rails now?   How would you correct that?


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube



yes it is still the greatest. but there are many things that could improve.  We have let this country go downhill year by year for the last 50 years.  it's not bush, not regan, not clinton, not carter. It's not wall street.   Politicians are a facilitator of unchecked greed.  Wall street, in looking for profits, has taken it a step too far. Compensation packages for execs are criminal and immoral.  but if you look at where we are today and you take a step back to the late 1800's early 1900's we are in a very similar situation to the years of the robber barons. the guys who started it all.  it was their drive for increased profits that first started to create the gap between the rich and the poor.  and that gap was a lot worse than it is today.  we are slowly creeping back to those extreems because of unchecked and unregulated practices.  But teddy Roosevelt had a solution for all that.  bust the monopolies, apply sensible regulations. sensible, not prohibitive.  and we have to bring the cost of living back in check.  3 decades ago you could live ok on a blue collar salary.  What happened?  We have all these cheap imports, mass merchandised stuff that cost less.  yet it costs so much more to live.   So yea, we are still the greatest, but we have flaws.   

But let me ask this, who do you think is better and why?


----------



## Foxfyre

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is still the greatest. but there are many things that could improve.  We have let this country go downhill year by year for the last 50 years.  it's not bush, not regan, not clinton, not carter. It's not wall street.   Politicians are a facilitator of unchecked greed.  Wall street, in looking for profits, has taken it a step too far. Compensation packages for execs are criminal and immoral.  but if you look at where we are today and you take a step back to the late 1800's early 1900's we are in a very similar situation to the years of the robber barons. the guys who started it all.  it was their drive for increased profits that first started to create the gap between the rich and the poor.  and that gap was a lot worse than it is today.  we are slowly creeping back to those extreems because of unchecked and unregulated practices.  But teddy Roosevelt had a solution for all that.  bust the monopolies, apply sensible regulations. sensible, not prohibitive.  and we have to bring the cost of living back in check.  3 decades ago you could live ok on a blue collar salary.  What happened?  We have all these cheap imports, mass merchandised stuff that cost less.  yet it costs so much more to live.   So yea, we are still the greatest, but we have flaws.
> 
> But let me ask this, who do you think is better and why?
Click to expand...


You can look at my immediately previous posts re regulation and conclude that it is lack of regulation that is causing the problems?   I don't think so.

Nor is a disparity between rich and poor.  Many, not all, but probably most of the Founders themselves were proportionately as rich as our richest when compared to America's poorest at that time.  That allowed them the education, time, and wherewithal to neglect their crops or businesses sufficiently to focus on forging a great nation out of the hodgepodge of colonies that existed at the time.  The problem is not those who receive those 'obscene' salaries.  The problem is a system in which the poorer people have lost the incentive, power, inclination, and/or ability to strive to become rich.

And because we have not yet lost the ability to turn it all around--at least I hope we have not--I don't think there is any nation that is 'better' than the USA.  But there are nations who do a much better job of educating their children, who are more efficient at managing their welfare states, and who exercise must better fiscal stewardship and accountability.  I refuse to believe that if we could get a too big, too inefficient, too ineffective, too expensive and greedy federal government out of the way, free Americans would not be able to do all that much better as we once did.


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is still the greatest. but there are many things that could improve.  We have let this country go downhill year by year for the last 50 years.  it's not bush, not regan, not clinton, not carter. It's not wall street.   Politicians are a facilitator of unchecked greed.  Wall street, in looking for profits, has taken it a step too far. Compensation packages for execs are criminal and immoral.  but if you look at where we are today and you take a step back to the late 1800's early 1900's we are in a very similar situation to the years of the robber barons. the guys who started it all.  it was their drive for increased profits that first started to create the gap between the rich and the poor.  and that gap was a lot worse than it is today.  we are slowly creeping back to those extreems because of unchecked and unregulated practices.  But teddy Roosevelt had a solution for all that.  bust the monopolies, apply sensible regulations. sensible, not prohibitive.  and we have to bring the cost of living back in check.  3 decades ago you could live ok on a blue collar salary.  What happened?  We have all these cheap imports, mass merchandised stuff that cost less.  yet it costs so much more to live.   So yea, we are still the greatest, but we have flaws.
> 
> But let me ask this, who do you think is better and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can look at my immediately previous posts re regulation and conclude that it is lack of regulation that is causing the problems?   I don't think so.
> 
> Nor is a disparity between rich and poor.  Many, not all, but probably most of the Founders themselves were proportionately as rich as our richest when compared to America's poorest at that time.  That allowed them the education, time, and wherewithal to neglect their crops or businesses sufficiently to focus on forging a great nation out of the hodgepodge of colonies that existed at the time.  The problem is not those who receive those 'obscene' salaries.  The problem is a system in which the poorer people have lost the incentive, power, inclination, and/or ability to strive to become rich.
> 
> And because we have not yet lost the ability to turn it all around--at least I hope we have not--I don't think there is any nation that is 'better' than the USA.  But there are nations who do a much better job of educating their children, who are more efficient at managing their welfare states, and who exercise must better fiscal stewardship and accountability.  I refuse to believe that if we could get a too big, too inefficient, too ineffective, too expensive and greedy federal government out of the way, free Americans would not be able to do all that much better as we once did.
Click to expand...


yes,  the great welfare state.  nothing destroys incentive quicker.  and what is the great danger in the USA is that it becomes a way of life.  the only life they know.  the people in that state do not get the education they need to pull themselves out. its a vicious circle. they have kids who grow up learning that life. their kids have kids and after generations it becomes further ingrained in them.  the other problem is that for a very large majority of  the immigrants, living with those meager wages is a far cry better than what they are used to.  and they don't have to work 80 hrs a week to get it.  plus, you can walk into an emergency room and a doctor will see you.  

Regulation is what brought about a lot of the change before. and why i thing this regulation is necessary is because our society has changed.   in the days of our forefathers and even still largely up to the days of our forefathers we were a more agrarian society.  people lived off the land. you could take care of your basic needs of survival on your own.  this is no longer so in urbanized and industrialized societies.  you now become dependent on buying things to survive. and this is why it took regulation, unionization and such to make change happen.  the problem is, those things that were put inplace to help eventually went to far and started causing harm.  we priced ourselves out of competitiveness.


----------



## Dr Grump

Foxfyre said:


> And the reason Americans are more free is that our government cannot change our Constitution without our consent.  The government does not assign the rights we the people will have.  We the people instruct the government in what responsibilities it will have.  We are unique among nations in that regard.  That in a nutshell is the crux of American exceptionalism.



I disagree to an extent. Our govts cannot change our laws without our consent. Trying to make laws that are unpopular has cost many a government an election...

And I'll think you'll find in practical terms that the 'people' instruct the govt is not the reality of what you do. Doin't get me wrong, there are certain things set in stone - but other, more practical, things are not....


----------



## Foxfyre

Dr Grump said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason Americans are more free is that our government cannot change our Constitution without our consent.  The government does not assign the rights we the people will have.  We the people instruct the government in what responsibilities it will have.  We are unique among nations in that regard.  That in a nutshell is the crux of American exceptionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree to an extent. Our govts cannot change our laws without our consent. Trying to make laws that are unpopular has cost many a government an election...
> 
> And I'll think you'll find in practical terms that the 'people' instruct the govt is not the reality of what you do. Doin't get me wrong, there are certain things set in stone - but other, more practical, things are not....
Click to expand...


Can you clarify this a bit?  Of course the government can change our laws without our consent.  They do it all the time.  But they can't Change the constitution without sending the change to all the states to ratify.   That is absolutely one of the USA's greatest strengths.  But of course, when the government becomes so large, so powerful, so self serving that it takes license to ignore the Constitution and/or the law and/or its own rules, then of course all the rest is moot.

But I'm not sure where you are coming from with your post which is why I request clarification before I agree or disagree with you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is still the greatest. but there are many things that could improve.  We have let this country go downhill year by year for the last 50 years.  it's not bush, not regan, not clinton, not carter. It's not wall street.   Politicians are a facilitator of unchecked greed.  Wall street, in looking for profits, has taken it a step too far. Compensation packages for execs are criminal and immoral.  but if you look at where we are today and you take a step back to the late 1800's early 1900's we are in a very similar situation to the years of the robber barons. the guys who started it all.  it was their drive for increased profits that first started to create the gap between the rich and the poor.  and that gap was a lot worse than it is today.  we are slowly creeping back to those extreems because of unchecked and unregulated practices.  But teddy Roosevelt had a solution for all that.  bust the monopolies, apply sensible regulations. sensible, not prohibitive.  and we have to bring the cost of living back in check.  3 decades ago you could live ok on a blue collar salary.  What happened?  We have all these cheap imports, mass merchandised stuff that cost less.  yet it costs so much more to live.   So yea, we are still the greatest, but we have flaws.
> 
> But let me ask this, who do you think is better and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at my immediately previous posts re regulation and conclude that it is lack of regulation that is causing the problems?   I don't think so.
> 
> Nor is a disparity between rich and poor.  Many, not all, but probably most of the Founders themselves were proportionately as rich as our richest when compared to America's poorest at that time.  That allowed them the education, time, and wherewithal to neglect their crops or businesses sufficiently to focus on forging a great nation out of the hodgepodge of colonies that existed at the time.  The problem is not those who receive those 'obscene' salaries.  The problem is a system in which the poorer people have lost the incentive, power, inclination, and/or ability to strive to become rich.
> 
> And because we have not yet lost the ability to turn it all around--at least I hope we have not--I don't think there is any nation that is 'better' than the USA.  But there are nations who do a much better job of educating their children, who are more efficient at managing their welfare states, and who exercise must better fiscal stewardship and accountability.  I refuse to believe that if we could get a too big, too inefficient, too ineffective, too expensive and greedy federal government out of the way, free Americans would not be able to do all that much better as we once did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes,  the great welfare state.  nothing destroys incentive quicker.  and what is the great danger in the USA is that it becomes a way of life.  the only life they know.  the people in that state do not get the education they need to pull themselves out. its a vicious circle. they have kids who grow up learning that life. their kids have kids and after generations it becomes further ingrained in them.  the other problem is that for a very large majority of  the immigrants, living with those meager wages is a far cry better than what they are used to.  and they don't have to work 80 hrs a week to get it.  plus, you can walk into an emergency room and a doctor will see you.
> 
> Regulation is what brought about a lot of the change before. and why i thing this regulation is necessary is because our society has changed.   in the days of our forefathers and even still largely up to the days of our forefathers we were a more agrarian society.  people lived off the land. you could take care of your basic needs of survival on your own.  this is no longer so in urbanized and industrialized societies.  you now become dependent on buying things to survive. and this is why it took regulation, unionization and such to make change happen.  the problem is, those things that were put inplace to help eventually went to far and started causing harm.  we priced ourselves out of competitiveness.
Click to expand...


To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the goal is not to do away with government.  The goal should be to have a government that works, that is effective, and that does not overstep its Constitutional authority.   And the goal should not be to do away with all regulation but to eliminate all that is not necessary and within the scope of the federal government's Constitutional authority.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Blah, blah, fucking blah.


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can look at my immediately previous posts re regulation and conclude that it is lack of regulation that is causing the problems?   I don't think so.
> 
> Nor is a disparity between rich and poor.  Many, not all, but probably most of the Founders themselves were proportionately as rich as our richest when compared to America's poorest at that time.  That allowed them the education, time, and wherewithal to neglect their crops or businesses sufficiently to focus on forging a great nation out of the hodgepodge of colonies that existed at the time.  The problem is not those who receive those 'obscene' salaries.  The problem is a system in which the poorer people have lost the incentive, power, inclination, and/or ability to strive to become rich.
> 
> And because we have not yet lost the ability to turn it all around--at least I hope we have not--I don't think there is any nation that is 'better' than the USA.  But there are nations who do a much better job of educating their children, who are more efficient at managing their welfare states, and who exercise must better fiscal stewardship and accountability.  I refuse to believe that if we could get a too big, too inefficient, too ineffective, too expensive and greedy federal government out of the way, free Americans would not be able to do all that much better as we once did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes,  the great welfare state.  nothing destroys incentive quicker.  and what is the great danger in the USA is that it becomes a way of life.  the only life they know.  the people in that state do not get the education they need to pull themselves out. its a vicious circle. they have kids who grow up learning that life. their kids have kids and after generations it becomes further ingrained in them.  the other problem is that for a very large majority of  the immigrants, living with those meager wages is a far cry better than what they are used to.  and they don't have to work 80 hrs a week to get it.  plus, you can walk into an emergency room and a doctor will see you.
> 
> Regulation is what brought about a lot of the change before. and why i thing this regulation is necessary is because our society has changed.   in the days of our forefathers and even still largely up to the days of our forefathers we were a more agrarian society.  people lived off the land. you could take care of your basic needs of survival on your own.  this is no longer so in urbanized and industrialized societies.  you now become dependent on buying things to survive. and this is why it took regulation, unionization and such to make change happen.  the problem is, those things that were put inplace to help eventually went to far and started causing harm.  we priced ourselves out of competitiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the goal is not to do away with government.  The goal should be to have a government that works, that is effective, and that does not overstep its Constitutional authority.   And the goal should not be to do away with all regulation but to eliminate all that is not necessary and within the scope of the federal government's Constitutional authority.
Click to expand...


smart man that ronald reagan


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> So you don't consider the current administration to be authoritarian?  It is only conservatives?   I think you don't have a clue what modern American conservatism is.  Not all who identify themselves as conservatives are.



A friend of mine referred me to an interesting website. 

The Political Compass - US Presidential Election 2012

They're UK based, and so don't have a dog in US politics, so I'm comfortable with their assessment. Based on the information provided during speeches and actions of both candidates, they set up an assessment graph showing where each lie in relation to each other. I was very surprised, you might want to check it out.

There is even a test where they use the same criteria to plot your own political philosophy and see how well you compare to your candidate's point of view. I'd be really interested in your score (mine was -3.6: liberal libertarian, which I would totally agree with).


----------



## oldernwiser

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is maybe the most honest three and a half minutes we have seen in any medium for some time now.   I think it will be disturbing to those of us who love our country, who feel pride and emotion when we salute the flag or hear the National Anthem, but for many it will also have a ring of truth.
> 
> But it is a debate we need to have as Americans, as freedom loving people, as people who see the potential in what humankind can be.
> 
> Is the United States of America the greatest country in the world?  Was it ever?  If so, can it be again?  How?
> 
> I put this in the Tea Party forum because there was no other place for it.  The Tea Party movement has consistently been focused on restoring America to its former greatness, prosperity, and best values.
> 
> If we could keep the discussion reasonably civil it would be much appreciated.
> 
> The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER... - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is still the greatest. but there are many things that could improve.  We have let this country go downhill year by year for the last 50 years.  it's not bush, not regan, not clinton, not carter. It's not wall street.   Politicians are a facilitator of unchecked greed.  Wall street, in looking for profits, has taken it a step too far. Compensation packages for execs are criminal and immoral.  but if you look at where we are today and you take a step back to the late 1800's early 1900's we are in a very similar situation to the years of the robber barons. the guys who started it all.  it was their drive for increased profits that first started to create the gap between the rich and the poor.  and that gap was a lot worse than it is today.  we are slowly creeping back to those extreems because of unchecked and unregulated practices.  But teddy Roosevelt had a solution for all that.  bust the monopolies, apply sensible regulations. sensible, not prohibitive.  and we have to bring the cost of living back in check.  3 decades ago you could live ok on a blue collar salary.  What happened?  We have all these cheap imports, mass merchandised stuff that cost less.  yet it costs so much more to live.   So yea, we are still the greatest, but we have flaws.
> 
> But let me ask this, who do you think is better and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can look at my immediately previous posts re regulation and conclude that it is lack of regulation that is causing the problems?   I don't think so.
> 
> Nor is a disparity between rich and poor.  Many, not all, but probably most of the Founders themselves were proportionately as rich as our richest when compared to America's poorest at that time.  That allowed them the education, time, and wherewithal to neglect their crops or businesses sufficiently to focus on forging a great nation out of the hodgepodge of colonies that existed at the time.  The problem is not those who receive those 'obscene' salaries.  The problem is a system in which the poorer people have lost the incentive, power, inclination, and/or ability to strive to become rich.
> 
> And because we have not yet lost the ability to turn it all around--at least I hope we have not--I don't think there is any nation that is 'better' than the USA.  But there are nations who do a much better job of educating their children, who are more efficient at managing their welfare states, and who exercise must better fiscal stewardship and accountability.  I refuse to believe that if we could get a too big, too inefficient, too ineffective, too expensive and greedy federal government out of the way, free Americans would not be able to do all that much better as we once did.
Click to expand...


I have to take a certain amount of exception to this as well. IMO, two of the worst decisions that have contributed to the shrinking middle class were that corporations no longer had to have a limited lifetime and scope, and that SCOTUS conferred citizenship status on corporations. Understand that a corporation is bound by law to make financial decisions for the betterment of it's shareholders. If that means paying less than subsistence wages to maintain a higher profit margin, or sending work to a different company paying pennies per piece, so be it. The end result is that the people on the poorer end of the scale (ie, those who weren't brought up in a monied environment) have fewer opportunities to ever climb into the middle class, let alone become rich. This has nothing to do with the incentives of the poor - ask a few, I'm sure they'd love the chance to do themselves and their families better. 

Corporations must, by their very standards, work toward the detriment of other businesses which would kill their own market share. Removing opportunities means that there's LESS of a chance for another Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs to come along with a rags to riches scheme - and that protects their bottom line. Further, deregulation and laws that hamper their profits are fair game - which is why they work so hard at union busting and resist all efforts to compel them to keep their manufacturing jobs here.

You're right. The disparity between the rich and the poor is NOT the problem - it is a symptom of a problem that gets worse every day, especially now that these same corporations can set up charitable foundations which they can use to lower their own tax burdens with as well as mobilize "grass roots" efforts (and also add a level of opaqueness) to elect people that will only help to solidify their positions. The Tea Party is only one of those efforts, as is True The Vote. There are dozens.


----------



## oldernwiser

Spoonman said:


> smart man that ronald reagan



Yep. Had us all fooled.


----------

