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.

There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.

I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.

@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?

 jasper76 wrote:
@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?

because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.

 Frazzled wrote:
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."

In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?

because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.

But we aren't just America. We are the United States of America. (I thought it was conservatives who pushed for greater states' sovereignty?" separate but part of a whole. That's "America".

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
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."

In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?

because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.

But we aren't just America. We are the United States of America. (I thought it was conservatives who pushed for greater states' sovereignty?" separate but part of a whole. That's "America".

never said I was conservative.

Asterios wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?

because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.

But Earth is plenty unified. We don't have the capability to divide it, and it will still be here after the human race is extinct.

But I know you're talking about politics here 9

In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?

It means we only suffer the other states to stay with us at our convenience.

WWIII: The Great California Texas Shootout-TexMex vs. Mex, which is better!

 Traditio wrote:

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?

Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point irritants. I suspect numbness is more favorable than the current view, yes?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

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?

Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point

We're already to that point I believe. Republucans have become the little boy that cried 'scandal' with regards to the Clintons. So much energy and effort has been spent during the last 20+ tears inventing obviously bs claims that anything new is likely to be met with disbelief and make the person claiming it look bad regardless of how true it is.

 skyth wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

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?

Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point

We're already to that point I believe. Republucans have become the little boy that cried 'scandal' with regards to the Clintons. So much energy and effort has been spent during the last 20+ tears inventing obviously bs claims that anything new is likely to be met with disbelief and make the person claiming it look bad regardless of how true it is.

Tell that to the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton... the first female Presidential nominee who's also under the thread of federal indictments.

She's the first female nominee, period.

The first female nominee with hair.

The first female nominee that speaks English.

The first female nominee that has a drivers license.

The first female nominee to drink water.

The first female nominee to say the word "purple"

Etc, etc.

 jasper76 wrote:
She's the first female nominee, period.

The first female nominee with hair.

The first female nominee that speaks English.

The first female nominee that has a drivers license.

The first female nominee to drink water.

The first female nominee to say the word "purple"

Etc, etc.

And?

Trump would be the first Orangutan President...

Point being, Hillary is in danger of being recommended for formal criminal indictment. If she skates this and becomes President, gak ain't going to get done. The stalemate would be glorious.

DNC would be better off with Sanders or Biden as the nominee, just as RNC would be better having Kasich/Rubio/Cruz as their nominee.

 d-usa wrote:
There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.

I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.

American culture is the widespread acceptance of a set of social values and legal concepts under the auspices of which we have created a specific nation that protects these values and concepts. There are many nations on earth that don't hold he same values and legal concepts and that is the appeal that inspires people to immigrate to become American to enjoy living in our unique environment. In most countries it is much harder to be accepted as being an equal citizen regardless of your background than it is in America. We live in a huge country full of people that look different, talk different, act different, etc. but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
She's the first female nominee, period.

The first female nominee with hair.

The first female nominee that speaks English.

The first female nominee that has a drivers license.

The first female nominee to drink water.

The first female nominee to say the word "purple"

Etc, etc.

And?

Trump would be the first Orangutan President...
.

Asan Orangutan American I find this offensive.

@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.

If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.

whembly wrote:

DNC would be better off with Sanders or Biden as the nominee, just as RNC would be better having Kasich/Rubio/Cruz as their nominee.

Yes.

It seems like every thirty years, the major parties have to nominate one or two real losers in succession before they get their act together again. Unfortunately this time both parties have done it at the same time.

The Republicans did it with Goldwater and then Dole (I liked Dole)
The Democrats did it with McGovern and the dynamic duo of Mondale and Dukakis.

I miss Bill Clinton...

Prestor Jon wrote:
but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.

Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.

Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.

"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.

Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.

If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.

Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.

Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.

"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.

Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.

If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

I don't consider an IRS audit to be serious, seriously i've gone thru a couple of them myself and ended up getting back more money from the government. the IRS does audits too numerous to be considered serious. its like their traffic tickets.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.

Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.

Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.

"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.

Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.

If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens. I wouldn't characterize political ad campaigns and speeches as reflective of widespread American ideals or beliefs. The two might align in some instances but it's certainly not a direct correlation.

 jasper76 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.

There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.

If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

You referring to Trump's IRS audit? Is it a serious thing? Sure. We'd like everyone to play by the rules and pay their taxes.

Just as we'd like for our elected official to follow the fething law on handling TS/SCI information.

@ Preston Jon: IMO, any effort to suppress the civil rights of a minority group is to brand them as second class citizens...in other words, not full citizens.

@Asterios: Do you know why Trump was selected for auditing? I don't. Because the IRS performs many audits does not mean that any one of those audits is "not serious".

@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens..

Yes, citizens with fewer rights that other citizens. However, Jasper didn't say that gays aren't viewed as citizens, just that there is a very real effort to not allow them the full protection under the law that everyone else enjoys.

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

An audit is not a criminal investigation.

Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.

And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

An audit is not a criminal investigation.

Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.

All whembley said was "serious federal investigation".

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens..

Yes, citizens with fewer rights that other citizens. However, Jasper didn't say that gays aren't viewed as citizens, just that there is a very real effort to not allow them the full protection under the law that everyone else enjoys.

Yet national polls show support for the legalization of homosexual marriage and it's now legal in all 50 states. Are we now counting ineffectual attempts that failed to be actively harmful to people?

The fact remains that the US is much more tolerant and welcoming in regards to accepting people as citizens as other countries. We have nothing that compares to the vast Muslim ghettos in France where generations of people who have been born in France still aren't considered to be real French people. We have a huge country wherein we share a common language unlike other large countries like China. There are a host of nations out there where people are in open violent conflict with each other over religious differences while people of the same religious groups peacefully coexist here in the US. If you guys really don't think that we live in a far more tolerant society than most parts of the world you need to get out more.

Audits are generally random. It's not typically caused by something specific (unless something you submitted really doesn't make sense).

There are also various types and depths of audits.

 jasper76 wrote:

@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.

I'd proffer that by not following the laws/regulation in handling TS/SCI information is a far more serious crime than anything to do with an IRS audit (which isn't criminal... yet.)

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.

An audit is not a criminal investigation.

Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.

All whembley said was "serious federal investigation".

Thanks fore the clarification. Then to be further clear, HRC is under criminal investigation by the FBI. Those boys don't play.