Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
Soviet Russia put the first animal, man, woman, satellite and space station in orbit, they took the first pictures of the far side of the moon, they landed the first probe on Venus etc.
So please, tell me again about how there is never any innovation or production in socialist/communist countries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 09:25:32
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.
Holy gak that's silly. Clinton has more votes and more pledged delegates. She is winning because more of the base has supported her. This nonsense has been going on for months now and people are still oblivious about one number being higher than another number. How is that possible?
Consider that she barely won against a political nobody while having the whole democratic party establishment behind here, It makes you think that her support outside the democratic establishment is weak.
Also Trumps strongpoint is his anti-establishment attiutde, which probably is going to work better against Hillary then Sanders.
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Nope.
Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?
Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.
Johnson is a dope smoking (at least six weeks ago), open borders, sales tax kind of guy. He's still better than HRC and...IT.
Her interview Sunday was exactly why her approval ratings are almost as bad as IT. When asked if she believed people had a right to Firearms under the Second, she started with "if there is a right." Jeez pick a side and quit playing lawyer.
sebster wrote: But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?
To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches. I think the much greater factor in violence failing to suppress the KKK is that there wasn't really much of a period where the question was relevant. Over a fairly short time it went from enjoying widespread support to being an irrelevant bunch of s with no meaningful political power. And there's not a whole lot of motivation to take the risks of escalating to violence when the enemy is already defeated.
It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump. But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.
Konrad Kurze's theory of political discourse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 11:09:05
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
Lets say Oregon is a caucus state.
--every person gathers in a group at a caucus site
-- the groups are counted and compared and the results are reported as # of delegates awarded (not as # of voters or caucus goers). It is strictly by delegate count.
Lets say Missouri is a voting state.
--you go vote, your vote is recorded, and it is tallied with everybody else that votes
Lets say each state has 100 delegates to award.
If 10 million in people CAUCUS in Oregon, and 7 million CAUCUS for Sanders, that means he gets 70 delegates.
If 50 million people in Oregon CAUCUSED (I know there arent that many in the state) and 70% CAUCUS for Sanders....he still only gets 70 delegates.
Now in Missouri....its is different obviously because every vote is tracked and counted and reported.
So if 1 million people vote and 40% vote for Sanders, he is recorded as having won 40 Delegates and 400,000 votes.
If 10 million vote and Sanders gets 40%, he gets 40 delegates and 4 million votes.
So....
You cannot arbitrarily dismiss the fact that caucus state results *could* skew the popular vote, because there is no accounting of how many peple actually showed up to caucus for any given candidate.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
TheMeanDM wrote: Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
Lets say Oregon is a caucus state.
--every person gathers in a group at a caucus site
-- the groups are counted and compared and the results are reported as # of delegates awarded (not as # of voters or caucus goers). It is strictly by delegate count.
Lets say Missouri is a voting state.
--you go vote, your vote is recorded, and it is tallied with everybody else that votes
Lets say each state has 100 delegates to award.
If 10 million in people CAUCUS in Oregon, and 7 million CAUCUS for Sanders, that means he gets 70 delegates.
If 50 million people in Oregon CAUCUSED (I know there arent that many in the state) and 70% CAUCUS for Sanders....he still only gets 70 delegates.
Now in Missouri....its is different obviously because every vote is tracked and counted and reported.
So if 1 million people vote and 40% vote for Sanders, he is recorded as having won 40 Delegates and 400,000 votes.
If 10 million vote and Sanders gets 40%, he gets 40 delegates and 4 million votes.
So....
You cannot arbitrarily dismiss the fact that caucus state results *could* skew the popular vote, because there is no accounting of how many peple actually showed up to caucus for any given candidate.
the idea of one person, one vote has long been extinct.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 16:01:27
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Interesting point whembly. So then, by definition, is it racist to say a supreme court full of only white male judges is bad? I know most people would argue diversity is better, even if it is by definition racist.
It's not at all racism. How good are white male actors at playing oriental women roles, for example? Obviously being an oriental woman is a massive advantage in filling the role of an oriental woman.
What is racism is to suggest that a judge must be biased just because he's a Mexican. (Especially when it isn't true.)
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
problem is racism comes in many shades and colors and even according to some minorities cannot be racist and that is racist in and of itself, anything that sets one race apart from others is racist, people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Interesting point whembly. So then, by definition, is it racist to say a supreme court full of only white male judges is bad?
Yes.
I know most people would argue diversity is better, even if it is by definition racist.
I'd argue it would indeed be better if there's diversity, there's nothing inherently wrong making such statements. But to put forth the idea that an all white (or all female, or all whateves) is bad is by definition racist/bigoted/x-ist.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
In addition to agism, sexism, 'whatever flavor of'-ism.
The key is to honestly point it out and address it head on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 16:23:23
ok quick question, there is a unique job and a unique company that is in need of unique workers who have to already have the skill required, many people of many colors apply, yet only those of one color actually qualify, if the employer only hires those of the one color does it make him racist?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 16:31:38
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
There is nothing wron with knowing your background/ancestory/culture and being proud of it. However there is nothing positive about being divisive over false perceptions of differences. We're all different but all Americans are equally American. There is no good reason to be divisive instead of inclusive, of dividing people up into being this kind of American and that kind of American when there really isn't any consequential difference. An Iriah American and a Muslim American are equal under the law and are fundamentally the same in all official regards so why highlight differences just for the sake of tribalism?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
meanwhile wonders if somebody is trying to assure Clinton gets the Nomination and/or election?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
Like these lovely ladies?
or these happy chaps?
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
This might exist as an idea, but I'm not sure it ever really happened. People have been dividing themselves on identity lines, and have been divided by others on identity lines, as long as the United States has existed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/07 17:00:35
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
American cultures is a melting pot of all cultures and ideals, we are each unique, but all American, by calling yourself something else you set yourself apart you separate yourself from others and this is not American ideals, if I go up to 100 Americans of various colors and ideals they should say we are American, not something else, since by doing so you set yourself apart and segregate yourself from the rest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 17:02:06
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
Did you seriously just ask for examples of American culture?
*Movies
*Music
*Cuisine
*Our steadfast conviction to not acquire Western Canada despite it so desperately needing to be done.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
What exactly is "the rest of America"? We are all made up of our ethnic heritages.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
"By calling yourself North Carolinian, Californian, Texan, and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America. You say you are American, but..."
We're a country built on division from the very start. Lots of parts coming together to make a whole. The key part of "_____ American" is the second word; just because there's an identifier before it doesn't mean that it's not a part of this country and culture.
Damn you, feeder, for beating me to the Borg joke.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
What exactly is "the rest of America"? We are all made up of our ethnic heritages.
but America is the great melting pot where we all combine into one culture one people American. we should identify with our ethnic heritages but we should not separate ourselves because of them.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
"By calling yourself North Carolinian, Californian, Texan, and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America. You say you are American, but..."
We're a country built on division from the very start. Lots of parts coming together to make a whole. The key part of "_____ American" is the second word; just because there's an identifier before it doesn't mean that it's not a part of this country and culture.
Damn you, feeder, for beating me to the Borg joke.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 17:21:05
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
I am a Texan. "You may all go to Hell. I shall go to Texas. " "If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/07 17:25:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
s with no meaningful political power. And there's not a whole lot of motivation to take the risks of escalating to violence when the enemy is already defeated.
~1.5k
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
