Originally posted by zeeblebotSorry, CM, but I found that very funny- kudos to zeeblebot for the one-liner.
don't fall asleep or a robin might get it ...
What I meant by the US being a Union, rather than a country was simply this: The US is so large that it is in a sense ungovernable. Add to that the mythical "melting-pot" of people that inhabit this land, and you have potentially a disaster.
Solution: The Myth: imbibe population with a notion of "Americaness", and invent a nationalism and phoney capitalist values to which the desperate immigrant masses might subscribe, stick a flag in their hands, and you're away.
Subtle advice: There's nothing wrong with being a proud American! Just be slightly objective, and don't give too much creedence to your own propaganda! 😉
Originally posted by kevvin61130Good point! If the rest of the free world would assist the US and the UK in defeating terroism, we may be able to allocate more of our GNP to helping the poor world. Yes, the middle-class is getting squeezed to death by politicians who want them to pay for services (healthcare, housing, schools) for 15,000,000 illegal aliens, allowing corporate "write-offs" on taxes for companies that have factories in China, defense of Europe, S. Korea, and Japan where we are not wanted...a protracted war in Iraq that will not benefit the average American taxpayer, but extract its most precious resources: thye blood of young American men and women...in 30 years there will be two societies in the US: Rich and poor...just like Brazil
I have only just discovered this website, and I find it hard to believe what I'm reading!! America is certainly the richest country in the world, but the problem with the "American dream" is that the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. I'm not talking about drug users, criminals etc.. but the genuine poor. After all, poverty is relative. Whe ...[text shortened]... orld and maybe within it's own country, then, perhaps, the world would view the US differently!
Originally posted by chancremechanicrec'd ... see sjeq, if you get a subscription you can rec, too 🙂 ...
Good point! If the rest of the free world would assist the US and the UK in defeating terroism, we may be able to allocate more of our GNP to helping the poor world. Yes, the middle-class is getting squeezed to death by politicians who want them to pay for services (healthcare, housing, schools) for 15,000,000 illegal aliens, allowing corporate "w ...[text shortened]... and women...in 30 years there will be two societies in the US: Rich and poor...just like Brazil
1 edit
Originally posted by sjegGood point....but I am objective. I criticize my country when needed.....I urge you to to search my past posts during the last 3 years, and you will see this. I feel that you Euros are the ones less objective...have you read your media (especially BBC and mainland Europe) on Hurricaine Katrina as an example?
Sorry, CM, but I found that very funny- kudos to zeeblebot for the one-liner.
What I meant by the US being a Union, rather than a country was simply this: The US is so large that it is in a sense ungovernable. Add to that the mythical "melting-pot" of people that inhabit this land, and you have potentially a disaster.
Solution: The Myth: imbibe populat ...[text shortened]... rican! Just be slightly objective, and don't give too much creedence to your own propaganda! 😉
Originally posted by chancremechanici dunno re this one particular event, i was surprised to find some of the british media actually looking at state and local culpability, and rumormongering, more so than the US MSM ... Gary "Whinge" (Younge), actually had most of a column on the katrina rumormongering, whereas the US MSM were just reporting it verbatim ...
Good point....but I am objective. I criticize my country when needed.....I urge you to to search my past posts during the last 3 years, and you will see this. I feel that you Euros are the ones less objective...have you read your media (especially BBC and mainland Europe) on Hurricaine Katrina as an example?
i mostly get my news from yahoo, bbc.com, and guardian.co.uk, not television at all, so YMMV ...
Originally posted by buffalobillWell, you must not have seen the History Channel because there are lots of accurate and historical "real" footage and articles for folks who don't have time to read a 700 page History of the world book, as much as I'd like to....
You think history comes out of a TV channel? I despair.
Originally posted by chancremechanicIt's one of my favourite channels. But history has many viewpoints and to say because it's not covered by the History channel, it could not have been, is pretty moronic. Knowledge does not necessarily come solely out of a TV. One of the characteristics of conservatism appears to be a lack of reading and the big picture. I guess one doesn't want those nasty liberal writers mucking with one's weltanschaung.
Well, you must not have seen the History Channel because there are lots of accurate and historical "real" footage and articles for folks who don't have time to read a 700 page History of the world book, as much as I'd like to....
2 edits
Originally posted by buffalobillOh, come on...you're speculating! I love reading, and I love reading History from many viewpoints, It's just that I too busy with school right now to sit down and get comfy with a good book. I know what you mean by bias though. Being from the South, most of the the history books I read as a child that were written by northern authors who depicted my ancestors, the southerners, as all slave ownwers and slavery as THE cause of our Civil War. I later read some unbiased history and learned that slavery was just one of many causes of our Civil War and that 95% of Confederate soldiers, who didn't own slaves, fought not for slavery but to stem the invasion of yankee soldiers; I'm sure plenty of rebel soldiers didn't want the immediate release of slaves after 100s of years of slavery, but the principle cause was states' rights to determine when to free the slaves in a timely fashion, as not to flood the land with dirt-poor ex-slaves, as the yankees wanted to do....by the way, is weltenschaung slang for one's "trouser trout"?.... LOL
It's one of my favourite channels. But history has many viewpoints and to say because it's not covered by the History channel, it could not have been, is pretty moronic. Knowledge does not necessarily come solely out of a TV. One of the characteristics of conservatism appears to be a lack of reading and the big picture. I guess one doesn't want those nasty liberal writers mucking with one's weltanschaung.
Originally posted by Ragnorak'cause Rupert says Tony says so:
Examples please?
D
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1572747,00.html
Blair attacks BBC for 'anti-US bias'
"Tony Blair has denounced the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina as 'full of hatred of America' and 'gloating' at the country's plight, it was reported yesterday."
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm guessing that Chancre has more cop on than to rely purely on anything the king of propaganda has to say, so I'll wait for his examples, thanks.
'cause Rupert says Tony says so:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1572747,00.html
Blair attacks BBC for 'anti-US bias'
"Tony Blair has denounced the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina as 'full of hatred of America' and 'gloating' at the country's plight, it was reported yesterday."
...
D
Originally posted by buffalobillNo I do not . He had cited History Channel as his source in a previous post . My point was that this single cited source did contain the information he was ignorant of , and thereby implied he was quite dim as he had not comprehended the information nor retained it . Nowhere did I imply that "history comes out of a TV channel".
You think history comes out of a TV channel? I despair.
If you read posts more carefully some of your despair may be alleviated .