Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:27 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:Mine too. I sense the reluctance in everyone to get and stay involved. I'm afraid i've pissed people off. Back to other non-controversial things....


You made some points. Other people made some points. It's not reluctance - rather i don't just talk just to hear the sound of my own voice. You're regarding yourself very highly indeed if you think your own points just automatically piss people off and are too controversial to touch. :lol:

I'm pretty sure i made some posts agreeing with you, so i'm not sure how i would be pissed off at that? Other points/suggestions were ignored, so i assume weren't interesting enough - which is fair fucks.

Make an interesting point or open up an avenue of discussion and i'll be happy to respond.


Geez. Even that last little bit ticked you three off. Oh well. I guess I just can't make an interesting enough point and regard myself too highly. I don't have all the time in the world, but I thought I addressed pretty much all your points, MC. As for regarding myself very highly, I guess I'll just leave it to you all to have whatever type of discussion you see fit.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:30 pm

JT wrote:Geez. Even that last little bit ticked you three off. Oh well. I guess I just can't make an interesting enough point and regard myself too highly. I don't have all the time in the world, but I thought I addressed pretty much all your points, MC. As for regarding myself very highly, I guess I'll just leave it to you all to have whatever type of discussion you see fit.


Huh? :( I am genuinely confused! This was the whole of my post:

Dorset Girl wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Make an interesting point or open up an avenue of discussion and i'll be happy to respond.


Me too. :)


Which bit of that made you think I was ticked off? Was it the smiley face? :( :) :lol:
Last edited by Dorset Girl on Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:41 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
JT wrote:Geez. Even that last little bit ticked you three off. Oh well. I guess I just can't make an interesting enough point and regard myself too highly. I don't have all the time in the world, but I thought I addressed pretty much all your points, MC. As for regarding myself very highly, I guess I'll just leave it to you all to have whatever type of discussion you see fit.


Huh? :( I am genuinely confused! This was my post:

Me too. :)


Which bit of that made you think I was ticked off? Was it the smiley face? :lol:


Yea, but your 'Me too' was in response to: 'Make an interesting point or open up an avenue of discussion and i'll be happy to respond.'

Maybe 'ticked off' isn't exactly precise. But the implication is that I don't make interesting enough points to warrant responses from you all. DG, I explained what I meant by the victimization thing because you asked a few times. It wasn't interesting enough to respond to? BN, I responded to a few of your posts, you say you are preparing to reply, and then your interest is waning. Not interesting enough?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:43 pm

Just to say I edited my most recent post above at exactly the same time as you posted yours - so I wasn't trying to make you look stupid, sorry. I thought you'd gone offline and not read it yet.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:47 pm

JT wrote: DG, I explained what I meant by the victimization thing because you asked a few times. It wasn't interesting enough to respond to?


I can't recall what that was about to be honest, I haven't read through this thread for a while. I'll go back and find the posts you mean.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I'm not sure which bit you're referring to - do you happen to know which page the posts are on?
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:51 pm

Found it - this bit, right?

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:Please, help my pounding brain out and explain the term that I asked you about in an earlier post - "Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality" - what does this mean in everyday language that I can understand? :?


Sorry for the techno-babble. But part and parcel of modern liberalism - at least in the US - is the tendency to view today's social conditions in terms of victims. Blacks are victims. 'Native Americans' are victims. Hispanics are victims. Palestinians are victims. The poor (which in the U.S means only 1 car, 2 color TV's, and dial-up Internet) are victims. The environment is a victim. The rest of the world (varyingly the non-West, or non_US) is a victim. Women are victims. Animals are victims, etc. etc.

Now, there are victims. There are issues. But the point is that these 'causes' have taken a life of their own and have even spawned industries - with jackasses going around making money and/or fame taking up the 'cause' of this or that victimized group. Even the defense lawyer industry has taken advantage of this. This is all dysfunctional. This is what I mean by "Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality". Here is just one article/opinion on this issue I quickly found in a query:

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/victimization.htm


I didn't know you intended me to respond, I just thought you were providing a definition for me.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:55 pm

Well, i just assumed that was pretty much how threaded discussions work: back and forth. one post sets up another. And how about we being the superior culture. I thought that was interesting enough to keep a conversation going.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:58 pm

Okay, in response to the 'victimisation' explanation - yes, I agree with that, I can see that it happens in the modern world. I wasn't aware that it was particularly a 'liberal' trait. I'm not denying that it is, I just didn't know that before you said.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:02 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:Okay, in response to the 'victimisation' explanation - yes, I agree with that, I can see that it happens in the modern world. I wasn't aware that it was particularly a 'liberal' trait. I'm not denying that it is, I just didn't know that before you said.


Yea, it pretty much is. Racial affirmative action here in the U.S, animal 'rights', the poor, American 'aggression' and 'imperialism' and 'exploitation'. Oppression of Native Americans. All these are liberal causes and are based on a perception of victimization.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:02 pm

JT wrote:And how about we being the superior culture.


I'm sure I've responded to this in a couple of posts, haven't I? In a nutshell, my personal view is that no one country in the world can claim to have the 'most superior' culture. I feel that it is only superior if we accept that the Western Development model is the 'correct' and only one.

And even then, to say that America is the 'number one' places it above all other Western nations, as well as other world nations. I don't feel that 'culture' is measurable, and therefore I don't see how a definitive answer can be reached.

I'm pretty sure I've said that before though, some of it in my earliest posts on this thread.
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:05 pm

JT wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:Okay, in response to the 'victimisation' explanation - yes, I agree with that, I can see that it happens in the modern world. I wasn't aware that it was particularly a 'liberal' trait. I'm not denying that it is, I just didn't know that before you said.


Yea, it pretty much is. Racial affirmative action here in the U.S, animal 'rights', the poor, American 'aggression' and 'imperialism' and 'exploitation'. Oppression of Native Americans. All these are liberal causes and are based on a perception of victimization.


Fair enough, I'll take your word for it.


(:lol: Now I'm afraid of wording things in a way that they can be misunderstood - I'm not being sarcastic, smug or anything else when I say that - it's just something I didn't know before, and in the absence of anyone telling me anything to the contrary, I accept what you say as being correct!)
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:07 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
JT wrote:And how about we being the superior culture.


I'm sure I've responded to this in a couple of posts, haven't I? In a nutshell, my personal view is that no one country in the world can claim to have the 'most superior' culture. I feel that it is only superior if we accept that the Western Development model is the 'correct' and only one.

And even then, to say that America is the 'number one' places it above all other Western nations, as well as other world nations. I don't feel that 'culture' is measurable, and therefore I don't see how a definitive answer can be reached.

I'm pretty sure I've said that before though, some of it in my earliest posts on this thread.


Yea, but that was before my addressing it. Did you read my thoughts on why I think that view - a very relativistic one - is based on misusing research techniques? You are an academic, DG, what do think about that? I'll repost my comments about that specifically.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:09 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:
JT wrote:
Dorset Girl wrote:Okay, in response to the 'victimisation' explanation - yes, I agree with that, I can see that it happens in the modern world. I wasn't aware that it was particularly a 'liberal' trait. I'm not denying that it is, I just didn't know that before you said.


Yea, it pretty much is. Racial affirmative action here in the U.S, animal 'rights', the poor, American 'aggression' and 'imperialism' and 'exploitation'. Oppression of Native Americans. All these are liberal causes and are based on a perception of victimization.


Fair enough, I'll take your word for it.


(:lol: Now I'm afraid of wording things in a way that they can be misunderstood - I'm not being sarcastic, smug or anything else when I say that - it's just something I didn't know before, and in the absence of anyone telling me anything to the contrary, I accept what you say as being correct!)


Don't take my word for it! Google these things and let me know your perception, if you have time.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:12 pm

From an earlier post:


Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa. Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations. Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena. The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".
Last edited by JT on Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:13 pm

JT wrote:Yea, but that was before my addressing it. Did you read my thoughts on why I think that view - a very relativistic one - is based on misusing research techniques? You are an academic, DG, what do think about that? I'll repost my comments about that specifically.


Yes please, if you could do that, that would be good. I think the problem is that this thread has got quite long now, with lots of lengthy posts that address several points. I personally haven't intentionally 'ignored' anything anyone's said, it's just very hard to reply to everything without forgetting some bits! That's why I chose to talk specifically about the Native Americans at one point - it was just a small, manageable piece of the discussion!

And btw - I know you didn't know this, but I am not an academic - I work in Admin in the Uni. I've got a Degree or two, but I'm out of practice, having not 'studied' for several years. :lol:
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:31 pm

JT wrote:Maybe 'ticked off' isn't exactly precise. But the implication is that I don't make interesting enough points to warrant responses from you all.


Sorry, the context of my line wasn't that you didn't make interesting enough points. I meant it in terms of if you feel there's more to discuss just chuck it in rather than assume i've stopped caring or find it too controversial.

My last point tended towards agreeing with you, regarding why the US could be regarded as the greatest nation ever - so i felt i couldn't really add any more to that unless someone else piped up or you added more. I made the point about why other nations still come to our shores while slagging us off - you agreed, so we couldn't really take that further without others' input. I asked the question about your perception of media being liberal, but that went nowhere, so i took it you weren't interested or felt it out of topic for the current discussions.

Nothing to do with you being boring old chap - far from it :)

I've come to conclusion that my posts possibly contain an unconsciously aggressive tone when i don't mean it. Maybe that's through years of listening to certain comedians.

I also tend to believe i'd hold some controversial opinions other than what you could attempt to include, too - i threw in a few of my thoughts a page or so back to see if anyone wanted to respond - maybe it's for another thread possibly?
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:41 pm

Right, I'll take this a bit at a time, so that I don't miss any. Sorry if I'm repeating anything I've said earlier. (Who knows, I might even contradict myself a few times, if I do then it's probably because this discussion has changed my views, that's good, right? :lol:)

JT wrote:Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa.

I don't agree that 'everyone' was better off for it, I do agree that the majority were though.

Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations.

Euro culture was further along the 'Western development' path, I don't think that this necessarily means that it was superior.

Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena.

Yes, I accept that it is a tool, and that it is a particular approach used by Academics - a paradigm in the subject area of Anthropology.

The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".


In my humble opinion, I don't think the way you've phrased this is very objective. You are impling that the liberal public are 'insane' and that their ideas are 'crap'. If that's what you really think, then personally I feel you are categorising yourself. You have put yourself in a box and can't see anything outside of it. Just as you feel that the Academic approach is politically biased, I feel that you yourself are dismissing a whole wealth of ideas and approaches and preventing yourself from thinking objectively.

"one culture is not superior to another-only different"

Yes - that's what I think, but I haven't arrived at that conclusion by identifying myself with a particular political group or philosophy. There are some measurable areas within a culture, such as crime levels. I don't think many people would argue against the fact that low crime levels are a positive thing.

There are some areas which are measurable but cannot be universally categorised as 'positive' or 'negative'. In USA and UK culture, financial affluence is seen as being a positive. This is because we live in a Capitalist society. Because 'developing' countries are being 'moulded' by our Western ideals, it is increasingly the case that all countries see affluence as positive.

However, how do we know this is right? How do we know we've 'developed' in the right way? In the global society in which we live, it must be pretty impossible in the 21st century to find a culture that does not see money as good. But theoretically, it is possible to have a society in which money is actually irrelevant. Did the Native Americans have a monetary system - I don't know? Or did they use barter?

Forgive me for using Sci-Fi as an example, but in Star Trek, humans have no physical money. There is a quote from First Contact which explains it nicely, but I can't remember it word for word! Basically, humans of the future see bettering themselves, advancing educationally and working hard are the objectives, not accruing money.

The third part of 'culture', as I see it, is perhaps the most important part - it is what I see as the unmeasurable part - music, lifestyle, ideals, religion, sport, etc. I don't see how these things can be compared to one another and rated in a non-subjective way. That, to me, is why "one culture is not superior to another-only different."


"multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"

Again, my argument here is simply - who's to say it's not? It is one possible way of organisation, how can anyone measure whether it is the best, the worst or somewhere in between? There are points in favour of it, there are points against it, the same as any other method of organisation.


"We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males"

Is that something which actually happens in the American schooling system, I don't know? If it does, I can see the logic behind it. Native Americans and 'dead white European males', as you phrase it, have both played a part in the history of the USA, so why should they not both be taught?
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Dorset Girl » Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:49 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:My last point tended towards agreeing with you, regarding why the US could be regarded as the greatest nation ever - so i felt i couldn't really add any more to that unless someone else piped up or you added more. I made the point about why other nations still come to our shores while slagging us off - you agreed, so we couldn't really take that further without others' input.

I wasn't sure how to respond to this MC, because you said 'us' or 'our shores', or something like that - were you talking about both the UK and the USA?


Nothing to do with you being boring old chap - far from it :)

That's a very 'British' thing to say! :lol:


I've come to conclusion that my posts possibly contain an unconsciously aggressive tone when i don't mean it. Maybe that's through years of listening to certain comedians.

My conclusion is that without tone of voice, body language, etc., to assist us, it's pretty much impossible to know the exact tone someone is using. Even if you're talking to someone face to face, these things can occasionally be misunderstood. I use smileys, but even these can be misinterpreted - the :) could be seen as sarcastic, perhaps, even if it wasn't intended to be. Normally, I don't suppose it matters, when we're talking about Frasier quotes or TV programmes, I suppose, but in the middle of a heated debate when people feel quite passionate about what they're saying, I think it makes more of a difference.

I also tend to believe i'd hold some controversial opinions other than what you could attempt to include, too - i threw in a few of my thoughts a page or so back to see if anyone wanted to respond - maybe it's for another thread possibly?

I read those comments MC, but personally my little brain is finding this thread too big to deal with already, with lots of side issues coming up that either have to be answered with long posts, or ignored - in the case of the latter, it can then be assumed that they're not interesting, or have been forgotten. So yeah - another thread, possibly?

:) (a non-sarcastic one.)
I know they're only moments... but that's all life is - just a bunch of moments. Molly, in 'Life Stinks'
User avatar
Dorset Girl
 
Posts: 25084
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Costa del Dorset

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:50 pm

JT wrote:The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different"


I'd assume we consider our own culture as superior because we've lived it, absorbed it, and are trained to want things from within that lifestyle that our culture has developed. It's not necessarily going to look superior to a total outsider from another planet. I'm not sure the banking system, for example, has necessarily created the most superior form of living we could develop under? Despite all the faults i do see in our culture, i tend to think of it as best, but then i'd have to have lived another culture's lifestyle to think otherwise, so it'll never happen.

JT wrote:multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"


Is it not, in principle? Maybe in current practice there are barriers that make it more difficult, but in theory it would be the ideal goal, surely? It's artificially learned differences that cause problems between cultures. They'll merge and evolve in generations to come, as others have in generations past.

If i speak from the smaller point of view of having a partner from the HK Chinese community, I can see so much to aggravate when it comes to integrating. There's got to be give and take, and if someone from a different country/culture comes to live in a country they have to be willing to play by that country's rules. There are cultures who are much worse than the Chinese at integrating, and i still see a number of them happy to stick in their own little community. My fiancee's brother is one who 'sticks to his own', which annoys me - he's a minority though. I imagine it's worse in other communities, and harder for the ones who do want to be more Western to break away from their family 'rules'.

JT wrote:We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".

I don't know about as much as, but certainly some background to their peoples' and their role in the history of America's development should be there. Probably in the same way we learn about Saxons, Normans and Romans, etc, in our own history? It's going to be from the 'white' perspective though, as that's the ruling nation, like it or not. Apologise for nothing in history would be my motto. Criticise where you feel appropriate, sure. Celebrate where you feel appropriate. Take neither credit nor blame, though.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:01 pm

Dorset Girl wrote:I wasn't sure how to respond to this MC, because you said 'us' or 'our shores', or something like that - were you talking about both the UK and the USA?

Here's the bit i said, DG. I can relate more to the UK, but i did include the USA as it seems similar in this respect.

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
I've always found it difficult to comprehend how (a) if we're so bad in the world why lorry loads of both legal and illegal immigrants head for our shores (US/UK), above all others, when looking for better prospects, and (b) why people continue to live in our countries when they continuously complain about every way of life we live by.



This is really the 'acid test' isn't it?


It is the only test needed. If someone doesn't agree with the rules of choice in a country they're coming to live in then what's their reason to actually be coming to the place?

I don't think it's a Liberal attitude to want to compromise your own way of life and change your own rules to make it more appealing to 'outside' cultures. A true Liberal will surely welcome anybody who wants to play by the rules? I think there's an agenda to hijack the name Liberal by people who clearly aren't.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:00 am

JT wrote:Maybe 'ticked off' isn't exactly precise. But the implication is that I don't make interesting enough points to warrant responses from you all. DG, I explained what I meant by the victimization thing because you asked a few times. It wasn't interesting enough to respond to? BN, I responded to a few of your posts, you say you are preparing to reply, and then your interest is waning. Not interesting enough?


Sorry JT, that wasn't directed at you. I have to be in a specific mood for a debate like this and I'm just not at the moment. You've made some very interesting points though (as have MC and DG) and I've done some background reading on the British and Roman Empires as a result of this discussion so it's certainly been worthwhile from my perspective. :)
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:52 pm

Has JT left this? It would seem to be more a case of us having pissed him off rather than the other way round?

Come back JT, i want to pick your brains on something presidentially related.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:13 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:Has JT left this? It would seem to be more a case of us having pissed him off rather than the other way round?

Come back JT, i want to pick your brains on something presidentially related.


I haven't left. Just real busy. Can anyone imagine the possibility of the horror of this: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, Commander in Chief". That would be fitting material for a Saturday Night Live skit. If it wasn't so possible and real it would be funny. Anyway, what presidentially related stuff were you interested in MC?
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby Moon-Crane » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:24 pm

JT the Rightwing American wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:Has JT left this? It would seem to be more a case of us having pissed him off rather than the other way round?

Come back JT, i want to pick your brains on something presidentially related.


I haven't left. Just real busy. Can anyone imagine the possibility of the horror of this: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, Commander in Chief". That would be fitting material for a Saturday Night Live skit. If it wasn't so possible and real it would be funny. Anyway, what presidentially related stuff were you interested in MC?


:) Good to see you, JT.

I was actually wanting some recommendations for decent reference websites for keeping an eye on the Presidential campaigns of the various candidates. (Outside of the parties or any of their personal sites). Maybe recommeded commentators or, heaven forbid, someone regarded as fairly neutral (politically biased sites also accepted, though).

I'm likely going to incur the wrath of Cat, but I can't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton getting in to power - and that includes the worry i have for someone like Rudy Giuliani finding his way in there.

It's about time i delved further into the backgrounds for the upcoming year.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby JT the Rightwing American » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:37 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:
I'd assume we consider our own culture as superior because we've lived it, absorbed it, and are trained to want things from within that lifestyle that our culture has developed. It's not necessarily going to look superior to a total outsider from another planet.


To a planetary outsider, wouldn't it be more plausible to assume they would concentrate more on the culture with the most advanced technology - in terms of what would threaten, benefit, or otherwise interest them most?
Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation"


Is it not, in principle? Maybe in current practice there are barriers that make it more difficult, but in theory it would be the ideal goal, surely? It's artificially learned differences that cause problems between cultures. They'll merge and evolve in generations to come, as others have in generations past.


I think that is where the confusion is. We in the U.S view our cultural history in terms of what we call a "melting pot", where immigrants with differing initial cultures come together to assimilate into a dominant American culture. They may and do retain elements of their initial culture, but the dominant identifying culture becomes uniquely American. Multi-culturalism, the way most Liberals view it, does not demand or even envisage this melting into an overarching dominant single culture. They somehow think that many separate cultures will somehow just get along. And we must all respect each others cultural norms. Hence letting muslims where head scarves and such in drivers license photos. All this is dysfunctional. Sometimes we refer to this distortion of the melting pot as a "salad bowl" or something like that. Multi-culturalism interpreted this way inevitably leads to the inefficiencies of heterogeneousness and conflict. In the long run, it just won't work.


Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".

I don't know about as much as, but certainly some background to their peoples' and their role in the history of America's development should be there.

Yes, be there, but not equivalent to that of European/colonist history. There IS a difference in degree of influence to the development of the country. Thats what should dictate degree of academic attention. Libs don't like to here that, but its true.

Moon-Crane wrote: Apologise for nothing in history would be my motto. Criticise where you feel appropriate, sure. Celebrate where you feel appropriate. Take neither credit nor blame, though.


Thats ok. It would ok if that would be the case, but libs base their concepts of victim hood and, well, much of the very foundation of their ideology on perceived white/European/American/male wrongs of the past. They are still getting away with it. Political correctness. We are still apologizing (love those "z's" ?). It has seeped into government, law, academia, media, and most other areas of life.
JT the Rightwing American
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.