or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When did America go astray?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When did America go astray? - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Not anti-American? You rip the nation as far as it goes back, and that's not anti-American? You refer to President Bush as "Napolean"?



How about the above? That's not anti-American?

There is such a thing as unreasonable and irresponsible criticism

Forgive me, but you don't seem to understand some of the simplest of concepts...

Fact:

You can criticize America without being "Anti-American". Just because we love our country doesn't mean we pretend it's perfect. To have such pretense would not only be in itself Anti-American, but naively detrimental to the course of progress.
post #42 of 66
I demand that we be provided with better conservatives. The ones we have are broken.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #43 of 66
Indeed, some of Yeats' tone might be a function of the period and class he lived in.

Snobbery about the unwashed masses not being bright enough to mess with power was common amongst the literary intelligentsia throughout the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

DH Lawrence didn't want the masses to read.

John Carey has an excellent book on the subject

Quote:
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
This scathing critique argues that modernist literature and art arose as a reaction against popular culture and the mass reading public created by late 19th-century educational reforms. Oxford Enlgish professor Carey shows how intellectuals like D. H. Lawrence, Ezra Pound, W. B. Yeats, Knut Hamsun, George Gissing and Wyndham Lewis scorned "the masses" as vulgar and trivial while exalting the artist as a natural aristocrat and transmitter of timeless values. T. S. Eliot predicted that the spread of education would lead to barbarism. Charles Baudelaire condemned photography as a distraction for the "vile multitude," while other intellectuals expressed contempt for newspapers and popular entertainments. H. G. Wells proposed measures to restrict parenthood as a means to curb the "black and brown races" whom he considered inferior to whites. Carey's razor-sharp analysis is an antidote to snobbery and class prejudice in all forms.

While America hasn't strictly absorbed the hereditary peerage systems of Europe (most of which are now losing some power as in the UK House of Lords reform), the divides of class have become familiar ideological battlegrounds. Race is less of an issue when Oprah can be a Billionaire too.
Consumerism can probably be tracked to the 50's as a post-war productivity spur.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Except that liberal policies created after about 1960 have clearly failed.

What, like Women's Lib? Desegregation? The community colleges system? All failed policies?

And in regards to economic policies, do you honestly believe there weren't just as many homeless per capita in 1959 than there were in 1999? You've been watching too much Ozzie and Harriett, Father knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver, dude.
post #45 of 66
Besides, the pre-War Public Works Projects are very responsible for helping shape the 'image' of America as an industrial powerhouse, as well as a providing an incredible amount of very needed Works: energy, sewage, JOBS, roads, dams etc, and helped participate in a budging-boost in American cultural production that actually allowed American art and music and literature to begin to differentiate itself and become distinctly 'American' rather than wanna-be European . . . . and, of course, not to mention giving a yanking hand out of the Depression.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Indeed, some of Yeats' tone might be a function of the period and class he lived in.

Snobbery about the unwashed masses not being bright enough to mess with power was common amongst the literary intelligentsia throughout the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

DH Lawrence didn't want the masses to read.

John Carey has an excellent book on the subject

While America hasn't strictly absorbed the hereditary peerage systems of Europe (most of which are now losing some power as in the UK House of Lords reform), the divides of class have become familiar ideological battlegrounds. Race is less of an issue when Oprah can be a Billionaire too.
Consumerism can probably be tracked to the 50's as a post-war productivity spur.

Über-aside:

Actually, the English impulse towards a distrust of democracy dates back *much* further (Carey was forced to limit the scope of his study, otherwise it'd just be the Oxford History of Britain). In the c19, the real thrust of it begins with the First Reform Act of 1832, which essentially made England a "real" democracy and forced a series of debates about whether or not the unwashed masses were capable of governing themselves (hence people like Thomas Carlyle early in the century and Matthew Arnold at mid-century complain about either the need for a single leader to rally around [Carlyle] or describe the general herd of humanity as barbarians or philistines, if not worse [Arnold] and Mill goes around talking about the relationship between liberty and democracy and power).

I think you're pretty much right about our approximation of the British peerage system in the US class system. You can even draw certain parallels between British drama pre-Revolution and post-Revolution with American drama now: it's all about exposing the folly of the wealthy...

Anyway.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
What, like Women's Lib? Desegregation? The community colleges system? All failed policies?

And in regards to economic policies, do you honestly believe there weren't just as many homeless per capita in 1959 than there were in 1999? You've been watching too much Ozzie and Harriett, Father knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver, dude.

The Way We Never Were: The American Family and the Nostalgia Trap.

Good read, despite the author being a sociologist.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
Democracy - great in theory but hard to make work in practice.

Why?
What is easier to make work in practice, absolute monarchy (Saudi Arabia), command/military regime (Burma), no-state competition of private lordships (southern Somalia), totalitarian dictatorship (PR-China)?

Having the population administer itself does not sound all that great in theory to this incurable élitist (the thought of sovereign power in the hands of a superficial, easily swayed by advertsing/propaganda, uneducated mass of PC users, is rather scary); the idea that the best and brightest in the domain of administration and government would run things better, now that makes a great theory.

But it seems the complex representative regime in which the power of majority decision making is kept in check by numerous restraints preserving the rights of individuals as well of minoritary groups, has a better record than the tried alternatives; the countries with the better records on civil rights as well as more efficient and less corrupt government are consistently modern representative democracies (regardless to whether the ceremonial form is that of a monarchy or of a republic).
It is democratisation which is not an easy process (if that is what you meant then we agree), nor an immediate one, it is easier indeed to build a tin-pot dictatorship that a modern democracy. In the last fifteen or so years, a large amount of countries undertook a process of political democratisation (often accompanied by that of transforming a closed command-economy into a more open mixed economy). The results are unequal and in many countires the process is still incomplete, so you hear the foolish minds blame it on democracy itself while imaginging all kind of advanages in authoritarian leaders.
After Franco's death, Spain reached first-world-grade measures in both opulence and personal freedom, and yet you'd still hear some say under Franco we lived better.

Quote:
It's so long since I studied The Second Coming about the only thing I can remember regarding its interpretation was that it reflected the way WW1 shattered Europe's existing world view.

The Second Thirty Year War dilapidated the Strength and vitality of the most powerful European nations, such fall might lead to doubt in previoiusly held workdviews.

Act One: 1914-1918 had put an end to the belief Europe had that its civilisation was bound to yield constant progression and amelioration.
The very idea that freedom or peace were good for you was disputed, and many preferred the feeling of pride to belong to a superior stock destined by providence to rule over the lesser scum, leading to Act Two.
Act Two: 1939-1945 had buried Europe's belief in the inherent superiority of its civilisation and undermined its very confidence in itself.

As an aside Europe is not alone in such as sitation, the sheer pain of being on the receiving end of two atomic attacks and the realisation that it did not enjoy the protection of a divine wind, has Japan in the throes of doubting itself as well.

Quote:
Maybe that's the common element - that 9/11 has had a similar unravelling effect on the US's understanding of itself and its place in the world.

The terror attacks of September 2001 were cruel, spectacular, and unusual, but they haven't at all hindered the US' political or economic might, nor are anywhere near the sheer horror of the Second Thirty Year War.
If anything, it had put to death the last agonising illusory hopes of a return to a splendid isolation: boundaries and distances are no protection against what goes on in the world, and not even the most powerful country in that world can pretend to ignore it hoping it would just go away.
But US policy makers have known this and acted upon it that since 1941.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #49 of 66
I question the assumption that America did go astray.
While no sovereign entity is immune to error and wrongdoing, and the USA has those by the truckload, it is still a far better country toward itself and others than it was in, say, 1960.
And when compared to other countries' accomplishements it's not doing all that badly either.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #50 of 66
America is in the middle of a transformation.

While no longer able to maintain it's population, it is allowing a large influx of immigrants to supplement it's tax base. Combine this with the rise of in-your-face amoral behavior, ironically by those who refuse to "fuck to save thier species," seems to indicate that, in 75 years, we will have a mix of Central American Catholics, 'Native' evangelical Christians (yes, the ones with 6 six kids now), and whatever the Asian component of this influx brings.


As for what makes America "go" (and go so well): the myth that is vomited from the politicans that simple democracy is all that it takes will be shaken. No culture EVER survived the loss of its religion.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
America is in the middle of a transformation.

While no longer able to maintain it's population, it is allowing a large influx of immigrants to supplement it's tax base. Combine this with the rise of in-your-face amoral behavior, ironically by those who refuse to "fuck to save thier species," seems to indicate that, in 75 years, we will have a mix of Central American Catholics, 'Native' evangelical Christians (yes, the ones with 6 six kids now), and whatever the Asian component of this influx brings.


As for what makes America "go" (and go so well): the myth that is vomited from the politicans that simple democracy is all that it takes will be shaken. No culture EVER survived the loss of its religion.

Your posts have always reeked of Social Darwinism, and a failure to understand that dynamics of populations.

You have no understanding of where the influx of population is coming from, particularly that which "supplements the tax base."

What culture has ever attempted to toss its religion? I think you need to ask yourself that before you claim that "No culture EVER survived the loss of its religion"?

Clearly your fundamentalism is blinding your eye sight.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Your posts have always reeked of Social Darwinism, and a failure to understand that dynamics of populations.

You have no understanding of where the influx of population is coming from, particularly that which "supplements the tax base."

What culture has ever attempted to toss its religion? I think you need to ask yourself that before you claim that "No culture EVER survived the loss of its religion"?

Clearly your fundamentalism is blinding your eye sight.

Dude. Forget it. He's from a country where the President holds prayers before the cabinet sits, 59% of the population believes the prophecies of the Book of Revelations and where Christian-lit tops the bestselling charts and he still believes America's in danger of becoming irreligious.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
America is in the middle of a transformation.

While no longer able to maintain it's population, it is allowing a large influx of immigrants to supplement it's tax base. Combine this with the rise of in-your-face amoral behavior, ironically by those who refuse to "fuck to save thier species," seems to indicate that, in 75 years, we will have a mix of Central American Catholics, 'Native' evangelical Christians (yes, the ones with 6 six kids now), and whatever the Asian component of this influx brings.


As for what makes America "go" (and go so well): the myth that is vomited from the politicans that simple democracy is all that it takes will be shaken. No culture EVER survived the loss of its religion.

Romans? The Roman empire survived 150 after Constantine died. Maybe they would have lasted long if they had NOT converted to Christianity... Or perhaps there where other forces at work completely unassociated with religion. Hmmm interesting.

Now, to further detract from your statement, how do you account for the cultures that fell without losing their religion? Hmmm. More intriguing.

PS. "Americans" are not having a problem reproducing. We're one of the few industrial nations who hump like rabbits as opposed to say Italy. We, as a nation, have always relied upon imigration though. A little food for thought.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Dude. Forget it. He's from a country where the President holds prayers before the cabinet sits, 59% of the population believes the prophecies of the Book of Revelations and where Christian-lit tops the bestselling charts and he still believes America's in danger of becoming irreligious.

Only 59%!!! We need that bumped up to 100%!!!
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Dude. Forget it. He's from a country where the President holds prayers before the cabinet sits, 59% of the population believes the prophecies of the Book of Revelations and where Christian-lit tops the bestselling charts and he still believes America's in danger of becoming irreligious.

THAT is irreligious!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #56 of 66
Don't forget the countries that have fallen because of religion.

Pisarro and his Spanish troops sure put the fear of white gods into those red New Worlders.
Everyone knows what a great success those Crusades were... the "Holy Land" is still in reruns!

Most would argue Afghanistan is doing far better without a fundamentalist Taliban blowing up world historical sites like Bamiyan (9/11 or not, they were due for a smackdown).

Religious extremists of any flavour are bad. It's the fundamentalist (intolerant) part every time.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Why?
What is easier to make work in practice, absolute monarchy (Saudi Arabia), command/military regime (Burma), no-state competition of private lordships (southern Somalia), totalitarian dictatorship (PR-China)?......
......It is democratisation which is not an easy process (if that is what you meant then we agree), nor an immediate one, it is easier indeed to build a tin-pot dictatorship that a modern democracy.

I agree democratization is difficult but no, I also meant democracy itself is hard to make work in practice. But I wasn't speaking in terms of how it compares to other political systems but rather how well it works in it's own right. Nor am I referring to the dangers of allowing the great unwashed masses to have a say but rather the corruption of the system by the ruling classes. The corporatization of democracy (already alluded to by others in this thread) has, IMO, bastardize the political process. Big business can influence the outcome of elections via party donations or even outright threats (if the party we support doesn't win we will close down industries). How is that democratic?

I don't think you need look further than the last US election to see that democracy has it's problems. Unlike the other systems you mention, democracy relies on respect for democratic principles being maintained. When members of the US administration (including Bush and Powell) tell my country how we should vote at our next election (for the pro-Bush incumbent and not for the opposition who want to pull our troops out by Christmas), respect for democratic principles is eroded. Other than the US, few if any members of the Coalition of the Willing enjoyed majority support for going to war with Iraq but did so anyway. And while elected governments do have to make decisions contrary to the majority opinion sometimes, I see nothing in this situation to justify it.

Quote:
The Second Thirty Year War dilapidated the Strength and vitality of the most powerful European nations, such fall might lead to doubt in previoiusly held workdviews.

Hmm the importance of Act 1 is often overshadowed by the melodrama of Act 2. But I was referring to the challenge to the European world view as Yeats saw it rather than how a person in the late 20th/early 21st centuries might see it. Not the least of which was the sheer bloodiness of the war itself. Add in a whole lot of other stuff like the Bolshevik Revolution, the (almost but not quite) German revolution, rapid technological change, the breakdown of empires, and it's not hard to see why Yeats felt the centre cannot hold (and that's before mixing in Ireland).

Quote:
The terror attacks of September 2001 were cruel, spectacular, and unusual, but they haven't at all hindered the US' political or economic might, nor are anywhere near the sheer horror of the Second Thirty Year War.

Agreed. I never said it has hindered their political and economic might (yet). And many countries have been subject to far bloodier terror campaigns than the US has experienced. It's just, as you say, the US copped a particularly cruel and spectacular one. Nevertheless, I would argue that much of the US response has been less than rational. Of course, terrorism gains much of its strength from the fact it is so difficult to counter. But, unfortunately, I suspect OBL is delighted with the response he's received. After all, terrorism seeks to achieve its ends through fear and intimidation and, despite what our broken conservatives may argue, the US since 2004 has behaved like a country that is both fearful and intimidated.

And apologies for a pretty crappy reply but I'm going away for a few days and time constraints prevent me cobbling anything better together.
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
Tomorrow shall be love for the loveless;
And for the lover, tomorrow shall be love.
Reply
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by crazychester
I agree democratization is difficult but no, I also meant democracy itself is hard to make work in practice. But I wasn't speaking in terms of how it compares to other political systems but rather how well it works in it's own right.

Here we can see ebbs and flows, but usually that be addressed with the tools made available by the democratic process.

Quote:
Nor am I referring to the dangers of allowing the great unwashed masses to have a say but rather the corruption of the system by the ruling classes.
The corporatization of democracy (already alluded to by others in this thread) has, IMO, bastardize the political process

(see P.S.) .
Quote:
Big business can influence the outcome of elections via party donations or even outright threats (if the party we support doesn't win we will close down industries). How is that democratic?

Such form of corruption has been a more common occurence a century ago. Democracy is not safe from plutocratic excesses, but no tycoon today approaches the clout a J. P. Morgan used to have. Nor is one presently getting there.
Such occurences even in the present mild form do contribute to erode the public trust in the democratic process, with symptoms such as low electoral turnout, which do give reason to worry, but not all that much at the present time.

Quote:
I don't think you need look further than the last US election to see that democracy has it's problems.

Or the last presidential election in France, and a few other established demcoracies I can think of (taking France as example because it is seen as an opposite of the US even though those two are more alike than unlike).

Quote:
Unlike the other systems you mention, democracy relies on respect for democratic principles being maintained. When members of the US administration (including Bush and Powell) tell my country how we should vote at our next election (for the pro-Bush incumbent and not for the opposition who want to pull our troops out by Christmas), respect for democratic principles is eroded.

It's to be expected of elected officials to ask their public to reelect them rather than their opponents.

Quote:
Other than the US, few if any members of the Coalition of the Willing enjoyed majority support for going to war with Iraq but did so anyway. And while elected governments do have to make decisions contrary to the majority opinion sometimes, I see nothing in this situation to justify it.

That is a matter of opinion, both stands in the matter of the Iraq war had some reaosnable arguments in their favour (although empty slogans were louder), in any case the governments in question did have a full mnadate to carry out their policy lest we delelgate power via opinion poll or the demonstrations on the estreet.

Quote:
Hmm the importance of Act 1 is often overshadowed by the melodrama of Act 2.But I was referring to the challenge to the European world view as Yeats saw it rather than how a person in the late 20th/early 21st centuries might see it.

Yeats was part of what fueled the denoument of Act Two, the loss of the confindenc in human progress leading to the ssequenbt fall into barbarism.

Quote:
Not the least of which was the sheer bloodiness of the war itself. Add in a whole lot of other stuff like the Bolshevik Revolution, the (almost but not quite) German revolution, rapid technological change, the breakdown of empires, and it's not hard to see why Yeats felt the centre cannot hold (and that's before mixing in Ireland).

At the outset of 1918, the technological change instead of being seen as the engine of amlioration becamse perceived here as the engine for destruction and barbaric revolutions, both by those fearing destruction and barbarity as well as those espousiong them. The far-right was to benenfit immensly from this pessimism particularly after the deperession kicked in.

Quote:
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
The terror attacks of September 2001 were cruel, spectacular, and unusual, but they haven't at all hindered the US' political or economic might, nor are anywhere near the sheer horror of the Second Thirty Year War.

Agreed. I never said it has hindered their political and economic might (yet). That is not something an actual attack on the WTC and the Pentagon could do. Terror sich as we now it can only schock, but not win battles, or welse we'd have an independent Euskadi, a unified Eire, and a planetary califate.

Quote:
And many countries have been subject to far bloodier terror campaigns than the US has experienced. It's just, as you say, the US copped a particularly cruel and spectacular one. Nevertheless, I would argue that much of the US response has been less than rational.

While I see hysteria taking the front seat from time to time, it's not as bad than I expected, perhaps due to my having been contemporary to the US involvement in South-East Asia, I feared Washington to deliver the same measure of fire and brimstone on whichever Middle-Eastern regime it'd see fit (OK, I hoped it would do so on Saudi, that dynasty deserves it).
Besides, as far as Iraq goes, given that I thought Saddam and his Tikriti clan should not have been allowed to remain in power after 1991 (as many other dictators have been signified to retire, in various ways from Pinochet to Noriega), so while I was perplexed by the sudden US enthsiasm to finally finish the job I could hardly oppose what I was caling for all along.

Quote:
Of course, terrorism gains much of its strength from the fact it is so difficult to counter.

It has been countered efficaciously in several occurences, requiring both brains and brawn, but it wasn't always as obviosu we might hope.

Quote:
But, unfortunately, I suspect OBL is delighted with the response he's received. After all, terrorism seeks to achieve its ends through fear and intimidation and, despite what our broken conservatives may argue, the US since 2004 has behaved like a country that is both fearful and intimidated.

It seems to me the USA is more confused than anything else, it undesrstand it has to fight, but lacks familiarity with that particular form of fighting.
But I don't see the US to be intimidated, fearful? Yes, as it should be, but not intimidated, furious and hot-headed is more like it.
I do agree that the Osama gang is satisfied with having gotten the fight it wished for, as is generally the case ith messianic zealots, although History doesn't kindly cast his these zealots, they mostly end up to be the losers.

Quote:
And apologies for a pretty crappy reply but I'm going away for a few days and time constraints prevent me cobbling anything better together.

No apology needed.

P.S.: I have seen in this board and elsewehre a certain confusion risen from the current use of the word corporation in English (designating commerical and industrial entreprises). That is the confusion equating the excessive loseness of powerful magnated to politcal powers, with the ideologies of corporatismo of early 20th c. regimes, which means the incorporation of all individuals and groups within the reigning political movement (generally the party) with even the state itself ceasing to exist separately from the movement; sometimes it would allow the existence of privately owned entreprises and even of some associations outside the movement (as was the case in fascist Italy and others) but still fully subordinated to the movement's goals not partnered with it, sometimes it would allow no such things (as in the case of the USSR where there was only the party).

A regime in incest with privately-owned industrial and commercial (often referred to as corporate) interests is generally known as plutocracy and cronyism and while it is a scourge in many countries it hasn't grown all that much lately, and is being put more often under the magnifying glass now and less easily tolerated (which is why it is more talked about, and a good thing it is), in my younger years, the saying what's good for BossCo is good for the homerland found more favour among paying costumers.
The indelicacies of the current US adminstration in that domain BTW are not something to be dismissed as mere peccadilloes, but certainly aren't of unusual scope in the given context (see the example of successive French governments and their ties to companies such as Elf, the motive for the French example being the same as above).

There are in my opinion two distinct phenomena here which should not be equated. I thought it should be made clear.
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
« Jparle pas aux cons, ça les instruit. »

From Les Tontons Flingueurs


חברים יש רק באגד
Reply
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Romans? The Roman empire survived 150 after Constantine died.


This was the only sensible post offered---Hey 1 out of 5 aint bad!!

but then this IS APPLEINCITER....

....understand what the Roman Empire looked like in 50 B.C.---then contrast that to what happened in Constantine's time---why the split, etc.....it gets to be apples and oranges...."Roman Empire" in name only.

Quote:
PS. "Americans" are not having a problem reproducing.

Look again. Why are whites a minority in California? Why don't the dynamics of Social Security work anymore?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Look again. Why are whites a minority in California? Why don't the dynamics of Social Security work anymore?

Tin Foil Hat Alert!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Tin Foil Hat Alert!


you guys have got to be kidding........

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
This was the only sensible post offered---Hey 1 out of 5 aint bad!!

but then this IS APPLEINCITER....

....understand what the Roman Empire looked like in 50 B.C.---then contrast that to what happened in Constantine's time---why the split, etc.....it gets to be apples and oranges...."Roman Empire" in name only.



Look again. Why are whites a minority in California? Why don't the dynamics of Social Security work anymore?

Romans of even 400 AD felt that they were living in the best Empire since baked cheese . . . they wrote high odes to its majesty and grandeur . . . the thing is is that the general level of cultural deterioration did not allow them to think critically, with insight, about their condition.

As for the 'name only' . . . consider Catholicism and its pseudonym of "The Holy Roman Empire"
which, of course, as Bloom said, is neither


Now about this asinine equation of 'Americans' with 'Whites' . . . do I really need to respond to this?!?! That is racist claptrap of the worst kind . . . . I only see that equation from the worst of the worst . . . . please tell me that you are not thinking in that vein . .\
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Romans of even 400 AD felt that they were living in the best Empire since baked cheese . . .

What the heck!? That culture went through a major change due to a shift in religion.


Quote:
Now about this asinine equation of 'Americans' with 'Whites'


"'Whites' as a minority in CA" is a quote from NPR's 'Toke of the Nation' show. Sue me.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
What the heck!? That culture went through a major change due to a shift in religion.





"'Whites' as a minority in CA" is a quote from NPR's 'Toke of the Nation' show. Sue me.

Read a history of the Roman time that covers the culture's opinions of itself . . . . though they were about to be over-run from within and without, and though theu were suffering from terrible governmnetal problems -pandering to the rich land-owners and lots of other extrmeities that made it a Tyrrany, and though people were finding it more inportant to be monastic than citizens- many Roman Citizens still felt that they were the pinnacle of Empire.

as for the stats about whites: that is not what I objected to, what is objectionable is the association of 'American' with being 'white' . . . . that is racist.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #65 of 66
I would argue that the US looks a lot different than it did fifty years ago, so are we the US in name only. We have undergone massive paradigm shift in our culture and yet the nation survives -- go figure -- with its biggest threat the group of individuals who want to create a christian nation by treating politics as a means to that end.

Rome, btw, didn't change any more radically than you would expect an empire to change in 400 years. Its culture was more or less preserved in Christianity -- the pagan symbols, heaven/hell, good/evil, latin, essential worship of priests/popes/bishops... You get the idea.

Modern christianity is very much a 50/50 off shoot of both roman paganism/myths and jewish monotheism/history of the world part I.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #66 of 66
I really can't believe I what I just read in the previous two posts.

The world was a much different place from 50 B.C. to Constantine's time---and it didn't have anything to do with the simple passage of time or "governmental problems." Their religion changed---so did the culture. (Notice I did not say Rome went from leaving unwanted babies under bridges to one big Amensty International convention.)

As for America's lilly white "Christian" background---read more history. It's not so lilly white. It's really questionable how much Christianity informed policy decisions over time. [e.g. Hamilton's banking scheme doesn't jibe with anything I've read in the Bible---blatant use of inflation, debt as a form control, etc.]

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › When did America go astray?