The next time I find a person from Europe here in the the USA

[Mike DC]

 
Glad you found it relevant/interesting.   

[ACUDANUT]

 Where is the thread "I am moving to Mexico" I loved it.

[alfaitalia]

Here ya go!!!

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,121710.0.html

[John_Kunkel]

The USA doesn't have any room to talk about 'eliminating ruthless regimes.'  Look at our history with Iran going back to the 1950s.  Today they would have to be clinically insane to trust the USA in any way whatsoever.  That's just one example.  Panama 30 years ago is another one.  

And then there is Saudi Arabia.  We cannot pretend to be against ruthless regimes and supporting that ruling family.  Pick one or the other.  (The Saudis having the biggest oil pumping capacity in the world?  The Bush family having a long financial history with them?  I'm sure these are just coincidences.)

If we want to stop dealing with these messes then perhaps we shouldn't be worsening them.

Couldn't have said it better. I've long been of the opinion that much of the unrest in the world today is because of U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries. The current immigrant influx from the south can be laid directly at the feet of that great American Ronnie Raygun.

[Kern Dog]

No.

[alfaitalia]

Oh most definitely yes......unusual to hear it from an American though..so respect to that. Would you have got involved with Iraq after they invaded Kuwait is there had not been oil involved?...probably not. Then having invaded  (with us supporting you due to false info on WMDs) you got rid of Sadam...the one man who was "just about" keeping the men who would become ISIS radicals in check. The rest is history.

Copied...due to be written better than the text I just deleted!

.....To be clear, then, ISIS is blowback from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. And don't just take my word for it. Listen to David Kilcullen, a former adviser to both Gen. David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, considered to be one of the world's leading counter-insurgency experts. "We have to recognize that a lot of the problem is of our own making," Kilcullen told Channel 4 News in March 2016. "There, undeniably, would be no ISIS if we hadn't invaded Iraq."

There are many other examples of similar...and we in the UK are not exactly innocent of doing similar either......Most of it was rather further back in history though. You could say that the English Crusades triggered Muslims hatred of the West in the first place...and fair enough really. They were from 1096 to 1291..so nearly 200 years of going there and killing them for pretty much no other reason than their religion....that would be slightly annoying to even the most patient I think and not easily forgotten!

[odcics2]

Ahhh, The Crusades!!

A lot of folks don't know about them!! 

Yes, killing people in the name of your "god"!   (AKA, my belief is right, yours is wrong, therefore you die!!)

Sounds twisted, doesn't it??

I suppose the Crusaders forgot to read the part about 'Thou shalt not kill' in the 10 Commandments

[gtx6970]

Well said. I say, stay in your own Country and try to make it better. Don't come into another country and do nothing but demand your way to supersede ours. US/UK ect.

Agreed,
I have zero issues with anyone coming to this country or any other country in an attempt to better themselves or there family.
Its the ones that do come here then demand we change this country's foundations it was built from and for only to accommodate them is my problem.

Don't even get me started on high schools require a foreign language to graduate yet cant teach a basic cooking or money mgmt class

[Kern Dog]

Oh most definitely yes......unusual to hear it from an American though..so respect to that.

It is not unusual to find self loathing "America bashing" from "Americans". Too many assclowns here take pleasure in bashing traditional American values.
Idiots that live in freedom and prosperity only to shit on the whole thing.

[XH29N0G]

I disagree.  I don't think there are many self loathing "America bashing Americans".  It is important to consider what a responsible country that leads in this world should do, but I would say that is  American values.  American values should equal values related to life, liberty, dignity, and pursuit of happiness.  Sometimes the actions have not stuck with these values.  In that case, as people who have those values, it is our responsibility to point them out.

I had not spent much time learning about Reagan's policies, and that prior post prompted me to look into those.  I learned something new.  I think we own the responsibility for our actions. If things our country has done have resulted in the situation we are in now we should recognize that.  Maybe the alternative would have been worse, but we take responsibility for our actions, especially if we say we are taking the high road.  

[Kern Dog]

Be careful the sources that you pick when trying to do research. Liberals have a habit of trying to rewrite history. Statutes get removed, plaques get changed, suddenly the history looks different because they want to paint themselves in a better light.

[Mike DC]

History has always been written by the winners.  There never was a non-biased version. 

[Kern Dog]

Well, that used to be the case. History was written but it has also likely been altered. Books cannot be changed but electronic media can. It isn't hard to dig into a database and rewrite history and anyone that comes along later may have NO idea that what they are reading is a REVISION. Books, newspaper articles and other evidence from those historical dates are not easily changed but anything on a computer can be changed with almost no evidence of it being done.
Liberals have almost completely taken over the education system. It is highly likely that they could or have already erased actual history and rewritten it to suit their agenda.With historical statues removed, plaques replaced and a constant propaganda attack, todays kids are getting an altered version of history.
How can anyone with any integrity be okay with this? If you are on a team that cheats to win, are you such a weak person that you go along with it instead of showing some spine and honesty?

[Kern Dog]

Truth.

[odcics2]

You'll find that in Civil war times, Democrats were conservative.
Republicans were liberal thinking.    

I figured I'd add these facts before this thread gets locked! 

[Mike DC]

It is highly likely that they could or have already erased actual history and rewritten it to suit their agenda

It's possible that such a thing might be tried at some point.  But I see nothing specific to the left wing about it.  If you don't see the right wing doing incredibly crooked shit too then you must not be wanting to find it.   (IMO there is really one political party in Washington these days and it represents the oligarchy.   Whenever it comes time to screw the public for some billionaires, the two parties suddenly get bipartisan as hell.)


Either way I don't see it working.  The internet/digital age has made communications harder to control for those in power.  The big threat is not that real news will be suppressed/changed, but that it will be drowned in a sea of bullshit.  

Lately we are having a flat-earther outbreak.   It's not because of any new evidence for it.  It's because the internet gives people unprecedented ability to choose only info saying what they want to hear.  



Wanna hear about how Obama was born in Kenya?  Wanna hear about how he's going to declare martial law instead of leaving office when his term is up?  The internet will gladly supply that info. You won't be subjected to any of the arguments against it unless you want to be.  

Would you rather hear about how Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate?  Wanna hear about how he takes orders from Vlad Putin every morning?  Ditto.  

Everyone gets to customize their own personal version of reality now.  Lots of crazy-ass views can be backed up with cherry picked & distorted facts.  And once somebody has gotten emotionally invested in an idea, it's a lot harder to talk them out of it using only inconvenient facts pointing the other way.

[Kern Dog]

Hey, man...I really like what you are writing. I appreciate the honesty and your efforts to be reasonable. I too agree that the two main parties are not so different when it comes to who they actually care about.
I have wondered many times if they are all just putting on a show and laughing at us. Maybe they play-fight as if they are serious but in their off hours or in the shadows, they work together to secure financial security for themselves at our expense.

I also agree that the internet has given us access to a vast expanse of information and MOST of it is opinion, not fact.
I have wondered if we have MORE freaks and molesters today than 100 years ago. I am not convinced but I suspect not. I think that these freaks simply are in the spotlight now due to worldwide spreading of information.

[XH29N0G]

I have a different take on some of the points that have been raised.

There is no debate that history gets written with a perspective and sure it is not entirely accurate, but it can be argued in most cases, that while biased, those doing it do so with good intentions. Overall, I would say that while history, and that written by those in universities and colleges likely has bias (everything has bias), it is not, by and large, written with a super strong agenda.  But some other sources may have bias.  e.g., The guys on youtube who have videos with flames in the background, big numbered lists, and big special effects, some of whom claim other histories are all part of a 'liberal' agenda. Our job is to assess the information we have while recognizing it has a level of bias.  I agree that the truth (or true story) is what we seek.

Second, I don't see all politicians or parties being inherently against the people. The fact that there are arguments that part of the government supports programs that align with a welfare state, a socialist state, health care etc.... indicate there are parts of our political system who are for the people in general terms. I won't deny that some parts of the political system are against the people in general terms, placing priority on other things.  Nevertheless it is clear that there are parts of government that are for the people in general terms.

[Kern Dog]

I think the longer these politicians are in office, the more they are in it for themselves. The ones with the longest political careers are the ones with the MOST net worth. That is NOT an accident.
Term limits, man! Go to Washington, represent your people and get the hell out. No more John McCains, Chuckie Schumers, Nancy and Dianne or anyone else that overstays their welcome by 40 years. They are not in the game to improve others lives, they are power hungry and trying to maintain their standard of living. Rush Limbaugh said that Politics is "Show Business for ugly people." I agree completely.

[odcics2]

I think the longer these politicians are in office, the more they are in it for themselves. The ones with the longest political careers are the ones with the MOST net worth. That is NOT an accident.
Term limits, man! Go to Washington, represent your people and get the hell out. No more John McCains, Chuckie Schumers, Nancy and Dianne or anyone else that overstays their welcome by 40 years. They are not in the game to improve others lives, they are power hungry and trying to maintain their standard of living. Rush Limbaugh said that Politics is "Show Business for ugly people." I agree completely.

And SOME experience in governing at State level before you get a Washington job.... 

[Mike DC]

Hey, man...I really like what you are writing. I appreciate the honesty and your efforts to be reasonable. I too agree that the two main parties are not so different when it comes to who they actually care about.
I have wondered many times if they are all just putting on a show and laughing at us. Maybe they play-fight as if they are serious but in their off hours or in the shadows, they work together to secure financial security for themselves at our expense.

I also agree that the internet has given us access to a vast expanse of information and MOST of it is opinion, not fact.
I have wondered if we have MORE freaks and molesters today than 100 years ago. I am not convinced but I suspect not. I think that these freaks simply are in the spotlight now due to worldwide spreading of information.

I think the longer these politicians are in office, the more they are in it for themselves. The ones with the longest political careers are the ones with the MOST net worth. That is NOT an accident.
Term limits, man! Go to Washington, represent your people and get the hell out. No more John McCains, Chuckie Schumers, Nancy and Dianne or anyone else that overstays their welcome by 40 years. They are not in the game to improve others lives, they are power hungry and trying to maintain their standard of living. Rush Limbaugh said that Politics is "Show Business for ugly people." I agree completely.

Thanks. 

I think we over-estimate how divided everyone is.  The extremes dominate the conversations (nationwide, debates on issues, laws being passed & protested, etc).  As for the politicians there is probably a wide range among them too.   But governing positions attract a lot of corrupt & power-hungry types, that's a human constant.  

The information flood that we have access to now . . . . this is unprecedented.  We don't have the psychological equipment to cope with it.  Our brains are designed around living in tribes of a few dozen people.  Now we are in uncharted territory.  We'll need to learn how to manage the effects it has, both personally any society-wide.  

I don't think people today are any more twisted than they ever were.  Humans were always capable of some very messed up crimes.  And the news makes everything seem worse now because the coverage has no per capita adjustment.  (Are there twice as many violent crimes in the news every day as there were in the 1950s?  That would make sense - the US population has doubled since then.)

--------------------------

I have a different take on some of the points that have been raised.

There is no debate that history gets written with a perspective and sure it is not entirely accurate, but it can be argued in most cases, that while biased, those doing it do so with good intentions. Overall, I would say that while history, and that written by those in universities and colleges likely has bias (everything has bias), it is not, by and large, written with a super strong agenda.  But some other sources may have bias.  e.g., The guys on youtube who have videos with flames in the background, big numbered lists, and big special effects, some of whom claim other histories are all part of a 'liberal' agenda. Our job is to assess the information we have while recognizing it has a level of bias.  I agree that the truth (or true story) is what we seek.

Second, I don't see all politicians or parties being inherently against the people. The fact that there are arguments that part of the government supports programs that align with a welfare state, a socialist state, health care etc.... indicate there are parts of our political system who are for the people in general terms. I won't deny that some parts of the political system are against the people in general terms, placing priority on other things.  Nevertheless it is clear that there are parts of government that are for the people in general terms.

It's true, not every history book and politician and govt program is morally equal.

I get dismissive about the current state because I think things have been getting worse.  It seems like we are in the later stages of the US empire.  Partisan divides & unraveling govt are the standard outcomes for that. (Along with lots of unnecessary wars & military spending.  Inflated currency.  Increased tax cheating.  Scapegoating immigrants & minorities.  Fewer decent jobs and more entertainment.  Sound familiar?)  

[John_Kunkel]

Be careful the sources that you pick when trying to do research. Liberals have a habit of trying to rewrite history.

OH, and your side never does that? 

[John_Kunkel]

You'll find that in Civil war times, Democrats were conservative.
Republicans were liberal thinking.    

Don't confuse KD with facts/logic. He's entrenched in dogma.