CDZ A very simple question

[Mac1958]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?

There's a difference between empathizing and enabling.

I can totally empathize with Trump Supporters. They are mostly white people who realize that the "American Dream" that their parents and grandparents enjoyed no longer exists. The Good Union Job you got after High School has been replaced with the menial job you get after you rack up $60,000 in College debt. They are often working two and three jobs to make ends meet while the rich get richer. This describes not only the people I grew up with, but most of my relatives.

Where my empathy ends for them is when their reaction is not to blame the Wall Street Parasites who have been attacking them for 40 years, but poor minorities who have less than they have.

It's hard to collaborate with people who keep voting for the folks who are screwing them and us, because they've learned how to play on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

 

[Lewdog]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?

There's a difference between empathizing and enabling.

I can totally empathize with Trump Supporters. They are mostly white people who realize that the "American Dream" that their parents and grandparents enjoyed no longer exists. The Good Union Job you got after High School has been replaced with the menial job you get after you rack up $60,000 in College debt. They are often working two and three jobs to make ends meet while the rich get richer. This describes not only the people I grew up with, but most of my relatives.

Where my empathy ends for them is when their reaction is not to blame the Wall Street Parasites who have been attacking them for 40 years, but poor minorities who have less than they have.

It's hard to collaborate with people who keep voting for the folks who are screwing them and us, because they've learned how to play on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

What you just described is social class conflict. No group wants to be the bottom of the pyramid, so you either have people blaming those above them for their position, or demeaning and blaming those below them for trying to take their place or leach off of them through ill means.

The democrats understand that in order for those in the bottom of the social standing to improve their position and lives, is to no longer let those at the top take advantage of them and not compensate them fairly for their work. On the other hand, you often have the republicans that believe in capitalism, that blame their inability to raise their standing on those below them because they are either taking their jobs and doing the work for less money, or they are 'leeches' on society living off of tax payer money. Due to the 'leeches' the republicans keep getting their taxes raised meaning they bring home less money... giving them yet another reason to complain. Even more, they like to blame the lower-class because it is easier. A good example of this is seeing how they react differently to white collar crimes versus petty crimes by the lower class. They will not give two seconds of thought if someone steals $25 million off of people in a Ponzi scheme, but if someone gets busted for not reporting their income correctly and has been getting $50 a month more food stamps, they are ready to have them thrown in jail.

 

[Lewdog]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes it is good to empathize with others, but you also need to worry about yourself and make sure others are empathizing with you.

Too often I see people who only care about themselves and money. A good example are the people who say they don't care about anything else Trump does as long as their stocks keeping doing well. Or when they push for cuts in food stamps, but don't care when a story comes out that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tax payer money was used in Congress to settle a sexual harassment case.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes it is good to empathize with others, but you also need to worry about yourself and make sure others are empathizing with you.

Too often I see people who only care about themselves and money. A good example are the people who say they don't care about anything else Trump does as long as their stocks keeping doing well. Or when they push for cuts in food stamps, but don't care when a story comes out that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tax payer money was used in Congress to settle a sexual harassment case.

Sure, and that's an excellent example of people refusing to understand the life experiences, perspectives and priorities of others. And yet, they demand that others fully understand theirs.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?

There's a difference between empathizing and enabling.

I can totally empathize with Trump Supporters. They are mostly white people who realize that the "American Dream" that their parents and grandparents enjoyed no longer exists. The Good Union Job you got after High School has been replaced with the menial job you get after you rack up $60,000 in College debt. They are often working two and three jobs to make ends meet while the rich get richer. This describes not only the people I grew up with, but most of my relatives.

Where my empathy ends for them is when their reaction is not to blame the Wall Street Parasites who have been attacking them for 40 years, but poor minorities who have less than they have.

It's hard to collaborate with people who keep voting for the folks who are screwing them and us, because they've learned how to play on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

I used to empathize with the poor, because at one time I was poor. But then I got smart, got skills, and enabled myself to achieve greatness. Now my buddy and I who are very well off, laugh at the poor, for voting for the very people who make them poor. You just cant get more stupid than a liberal...

Google Groups

Poverty in Our Cities.
City, State
% of People Below the Poverty Level


1. Detroit , MI
32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY
29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH
27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH
27.0%
5. Miami , FL
26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO
26.8%
7. El Paso , TX
26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI
26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA
25.1%
10. Newark , NJ
24.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all
have in common?

Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican
mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still POOR!
********************
"Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." --The Lyin' Little Prick

"Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans"--Will Rogers

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes it is good to empathize with others, but you also need to worry about yourself and make sure others are empathizing with you.

Too often I see people who only care about themselves and money. A good example are the people who say they don't care about anything else Trump does as long as their stocks keeping doing well. Or when they push for cuts in food stamps, but don't care when a story comes out that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tax payer money was used in Congress to settle a sexual harassment case.

Bwaaaaaahhhaaaaaa…..Wealth envy....is it very destructive....liberal victimhood is the reason why liberals cant do well. Stop being a victim and you can make something of yourself.

Oprah...liberal.....billions of dollars
Jeff Bezos...liberal...billions of dollars.
Morgan Freeman....liberal....millions of dollars..
Born in poverty but earned they way to greatness...

 

[Disir]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes. It's the best thing ever. We do it all the time.

Mayhap not here but we do it.

 

[Lewdog]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well I think this forum is hard place to get an accurate idea because there are too many people that will say one thing here that they would not say in front of a group of people. A lot of people here will tell you that they don't care if a person starves to death if they can't get a job to feed themselves, and that the federal government shouldn't be a nanny state and it should all be up to churches and other groups to feed, shelter, and everything else. Most of us know that would never work, but those people will say it regardless because it makes them look cool in front of others here that will say the same thing.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?

There's a difference between empathizing and enabling.

I can totally empathize with Trump Supporters. They are mostly white people who realize that the "American Dream" that their parents and grandparents enjoyed no longer exists. The Good Union Job you got after High School has been replaced with the menial job you get after you rack up $60,000 in College debt. They are often working two and three jobs to make ends meet while the rich get richer. This describes not only the people I grew up with, but most of my relatives.

Where my empathy ends for them is when their reaction is not to blame the Wall Street Parasites who have been attacking them for 40 years, but poor minorities who have less than they have.

It's hard to collaborate with people who keep voting for the folks who are screwing them and us, because they've learned how to play on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

I used to empathize with the poor, because at one time I was poor. But then I got smart, got skills, and enabled myself to achieve greatness. Now my buddy and I who are very well off, laugh at the poor, for voting for the very people who make them poor. You just cant get more stupid than a liberal...

Google Groups

Poverty in Our Cities.
City, State
% of People Below the Poverty Level


1. Detroit , MI
32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY
29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH
27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH
27.0%
5. Miami , FL
26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO
26.8%
7. El Paso , TX
26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI
26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA
25.1%
10. Newark , NJ
24.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all
have in common?

Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican
mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still POOR!
********************
"Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." --The Lyin' Little Prick

"Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans"--Will Rogers

While working, I would talk to people about, if they were invested in the stock market, or just trying to get a pension. Many just had a pension going. I told them that the Demoncrats and unions were working together, because a pension is taxed at the earned income tax level, while dividends from stocks are paid at a lower rate. Some listened and started investing and in 20 years(unless Bernie or Phocahontas get in) they can amass enough income to make themselves millionaires. If they stayed just with pension, they would end up in the lower middle class because the inflation would exceed the pensions payout.

This is the dirty little secret the liberals dont want you to know about, and constantly complain that it is unfair.

What Is the Dividend Tax Rate? - SmartAsset

Qualified dividends, on the other hand, are taxed at the capital gains rates, which are lower. For the 2019 tax year, you will not need to pay any taxes on qualified dividends as long as you have $38,600 or less of ordinary income. If you have between $38,600 and $425,800 of ordinary income, then you will pay a tax rate of 15% on qualified dividends. The rate for $425,801 or more is 20%. You can see these rates broken out by income in the tables below.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes it is good to empathize with others, but you also need to worry about yourself and make sure others are empathizing with you.

Too often I see people who only care about themselves and money. A good example are the people who say they don't care about anything else Trump does as long as their stocks keeping doing well. Or when they push for cuts in food stamps, but don't care when a story comes out that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tax payer money was used in Congress to settle a sexual harassment case.

Bwaaaaaahhhaaaaaa…..Wealth envy....is it very destructive....liberal victimhood is the reason why liberals cant do well. Stop being a victim and you can make something of yourself.

Oprah...liberal.....billions of dollars
Jeff Bezos...liberal...billions of dollars.
Morgan Freeman....liberal....millions of dollars..
Born in poverty but earned they way to greatness...

This is the Clean debate zone where personal attacks are against the rules.

If the shoe fits then wear it....I was in general making the statement that if you are too stupid to know how to make something of yourself then you can stay in poverty. You just proved my point.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well I think this forum is hard place to get an accurate idea because there are too many people that will say one thing here that they would not say in front of a group of people. A lot of people here will tell you that they don't care if a person starves to death if they can't get a job to feed themselves, and that the federal government shouldn't be a nanny state and it should all be up to churches and other groups to feed, shelter, and everything else. Most of us know that would never work, but those people will say it regardless because it makes them look cool in front of others here that will say the same thing.

It is funny with all the charitable soup kitchens in America, how anyone can starve to death, but the liberal talking points are to make you think this is happening.

 

[Lewdog]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Yes it is good to empathize with others, but you also need to worry about yourself and make sure others are empathizing with you.

Too often I see people who only care about themselves and money. A good example are the people who say they don't care about anything else Trump does as long as their stocks keeping doing well. Or when they push for cuts in food stamps, but don't care when a story comes out that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tax payer money was used in Congress to settle a sexual harassment case.

Bwaaaaaahhhaaaaaa…..Wealth envy....is it very destructive....liberal victimhood is the reason why liberals cant do well. Stop being a victim and you can make something of yourself.

Oprah...liberal.....billions of dollars
Jeff Bezos...liberal...billions of dollars.
Morgan Freeman....liberal....millions of dollars..
Born in poverty but earned they way to greatness...

This is the Clean debate zone where personal attacks are against the rules.

If the shoe fits then wear it....I was in general making the statement that if you are too stupid to know how to make something of yourself then you can stay in poverty. You just proved my point.

You told me I had wealth envy and told me stop being a victim. That was a personal attack. If you are talking about liberals, say liberals. I also don't see how what I posted has anything to do with it. If a member of Congress gets in trouble for sexual harassment, they need to pay for it THEMSELVES, not with tax payer dollars.

 

[gipper]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?

There's a difference between empathizing and enabling.

I can totally empathize with Trump Supporters. They are mostly white people who realize that the "American Dream" that their parents and grandparents enjoyed no longer exists. The Good Union Job you got after High School has been replaced with the menial job you get after you rack up $60,000 in College debt. They are often working two and three jobs to make ends meet while the rich get richer. This describes not only the people I grew up with, but most of my relatives.

Where my empathy ends for them is when their reaction is not to blame the Wall Street Parasites who have been attacking them for 40 years, but poor minorities who have less than they have.

It's hard to collaborate with people who keep voting for the folks who are screwing them and us, because they've learned how to play on their racial, religious and sexual fears.

I used to empathize with the poor, because at one time I was poor. But then I got smart, got skills, and enabled myself to achieve greatness. Now my buddy and I who are very well off, laugh at the poor, for voting for the very people who make them poor. You just cant get more stupid than a liberal...

Google Groups

Poverty in Our Cities.
City, State
% of People Below the Poverty Level


1. Detroit , MI
32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY
29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH
27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH
27.0%
5. Miami , FL
26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO
26.8%
7. El Paso , TX
26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI
26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA
25.1%
10. Newark , NJ
24.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all
have in common?

Detroit , MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican
mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over again and expecting different results.'

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still POOR!
********************
"Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." --The Lyin' Little Prick

"Democrats are the only reason to vote for Republicans"--Will Rogers

There is no proof that had the citizens of those cities elected Rs, they would be better off. In fact, the proof disputes your position.

Your first mistake is thinking Rs are different from Ds. The two parties are essentially brothers from different mothers.

 

[Lewdog]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well I think this forum is hard place to get an accurate idea because there are too many people that will say one thing here that they would not say in front of a group of people. A lot of people here will tell you that they don't care if a person starves to death if they can't get a job to feed themselves, and that the federal government shouldn't be a nanny state and it should all be up to churches and other groups to feed, shelter, and everything else. Most of us know that would never work, but those people will say it regardless because it makes them look cool in front of others here that will say the same thing.

It is funny with all the charitable soup kitchens in America, how anyone can starve to death, but the liberal talking points are to make you think this is happening.

Do you know where the closest "soup kitchen" is in the city I live? Over 35 miles away. There aren't soup kitchens out there next to every McDonalds in the U.S.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm pretty sure that we no longer practice fundamental empathy very well. And for the purposes of this thread, let's define that: A reasonable psychological identification or understanding of the perspectives of another.

It looks to me as if those who have a vested professional interest in keeping us angry and divided are winning, because one of their most effective tactics is to purposely avoid and/or distort the perspectives of the "other". We appear to do that instinctively now.

So here's the question:

Is it a good thing to empathize with other people?
.

Is real empathy your typical actor who loves to virtue-signal when they accept an award.....or a president that sends in the Marines minutes after one of our embassies is attacked by "harmless Muslim protesters"?

 

[gipper]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well I think this forum is hard place to get an accurate idea because there are too many people that will say one thing here that they would not say in front of a group of people. A lot of people here will tell you that they don't care if a person starves to death if they can't get a job to feed themselves, and that the federal government shouldn't be a nanny state and it should all be up to churches and other groups to feed, shelter, and everything else. Most of us know that would never work, but those people will say it regardless because it makes them look cool in front of others here that will say the same thing.

It is funny with all the charitable soup kitchens in America, how anyone can starve to death, but the liberal talking points are to make you think this is happening.

Do you know where the closest "soup kitchen" is in the city I live? Over 35 miles away. There aren't soup kitchens out there next to every McDonalds in the U.S.

It amazes me how hard hearted many Americans are toward the poor. These same Americans seem to have no problems with a government spending trillions on regime change wars and a war machine that benefits only the 1%. It’s hypocrisy on a massive scale.

 

[there4eyeM]

Empathy is hard wired into humans, and perhaps other species. It is therefore not a subject of 'right' or 'wrong'.
Sociopaths may seem an exception, but even they have a tendency to show it somewhere in their personality.
Many people appear to be very capable of sublimating the emotion.

 

[Lewdog]

Whether it's politics or business or personal relationships, how are we supposed to progress if we don't bother to fully and accurately understand the position of the other party?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Well I think this forum is hard place to get an accurate idea because there are too many people that will say one thing here that they would not say in front of a group of people. A lot of people here will tell you that they don't care if a person starves to death if they can't get a job to feed themselves, and that the federal government shouldn't be a nanny state and it should all be up to churches and other groups to feed, shelter, and everything else. Most of us know that would never work, but those people will say it regardless because it makes them look cool in front of others here that will say the same thing.

It is funny with all the charitable soup kitchens in America, how anyone can starve to death, but the liberal talking points are to make you think this is happening.

Do you know where the closest "soup kitchen" is in the city I live? Over 35 miles away. There aren't soup kitchens out there next to every McDonalds in the U.S.

It amazes me how hard hearted many Americans are toward the poor. These same Americans seem to have no problems with a government spending trillions on regime change wars and a war machine that benefits only the 1%. It’s hypocrisy on a massive scale.

That started as the Truman Doctrine. If a large company has the right investors, you'd be amazed at how the White House suddenly becomes interested in the country and area where that company is trying to do something with. For example, if a large corporation found a mine full of a mineral they need in Nigeria. Then a year or so later you hear about a U.S. soldier being killed in a fire fight in Nigeria... and the first question comes to mind, "I didn't know we even had troops in Nigeria." It happens all the time. Why is the U.S. always worried about helping regime change? Just think how much money large U.S. corporations could make if Iran turned into a democracy. Then companies like McDonalds, Star Bucks, Walmart, you name it have a new market to make more money in.