God-Damned America

[High Threshold]

Efter skolskjutningarna: Nu ska barnen ha skottsäkra filtar – Metro



- “What’s this for Dad?”

-- “That’s for when Yankee Doodle can take no more, Jimmy.”

American school children will be fitted with bullet-proof padding, thick enough to stop a 9mm. projectile and shotgun blasts. “It only takes a few seconds to put one on!”

:wah::wah::wah: Idiots.

[tude dog]

Oklahomans develop blanket to protect youngsters in tornadoes or shootings

Funny. In your damnation of America you totally ignored what I would consider a greater danger to Oklahoma school children, tornadoes.

“We’re trying to stop that blunt-force trauma when that rubble is falling down on a child, for instance,” said Steve Walker, who developed the idea.

Walker is a podiatrist in Edmond. After last year’s tornadoes, he decided children without access to tornado shelters needed some kind of protection.


Schone and Walker suggest, in terms of tornado safety, the blankets aren’t a replacement, but a more economical option. At $1,000 per blanket, they believe buying one one per student would be less expensive than building tornado shelters.

“By no means would we ever say that this is more protective,” Walker said “But when you have budget constraints, this might be a viable alternative.”


Looks to me like the good doctor was working on something as a layer of protection against tornadoes which as coincidentally could also stop a 9mm bullet.

[High Threshold]

tude dog;1457109 wrote: In your damnation of America you totally ignored what I would consider a greater danger to Oklahoma school children, tornadoes.


You’ve seem to have created your own, personal antagonist in me. G_d forbid I should disappoint you.

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457105 wrote: Efter skolskjutningarna: Nu ska barnen ha skottsäkra filtar – Metro



- “What’s this for Dad?”

-- “That’s for when Yankee Doodle can take no more, Jimmy.”

American school children will be fitted with bullet-proof padding, thick enough to stop a 9mm. projectile and shotgun blasts. “It only takes a few seconds to put one on!”

:wah::wah::wah: Idiots.


Kapten Svenska ... This kind of thread is unlikely to endear you to many members here on FG. It may also get you reported for flaming.

I'm all for the freedom of speech but I suggest you cool it.

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457123 wrote: Kapten Svenska ... This kind of thread is unlikely to endear you to many members here on FG. It may also get you reported for flaming.

I'm all for the freedom of speech but I suggest you cool it.


What part in particular?

[LarsMac]

High Threshold;1457105 wrote: Efter skolskjutningarna: Nu ska barnen ha skottsäkra filtar – Metro



- “What’s this for Dad?”

-- “That’s for when Yankee Doodle can take no more, Jimmy.”

American school children will be fitted with bullet-proof padding, thick enough to stop a 9mm. projectile and shotgun blasts. “It only takes a few seconds to put one on!”

:wah::wah::wah: Idiots.


Yes, these have been in the works for years, and were originally intended to offer protection from debris during Tornados.

You should come to the US to experience a Tornado of the type that they get in Oklahoma. You might be a little more understanding.

You reporter chose to focus on one of the side-benefits of the "blanket".

[Saint_]

Well I'm American, so I'll weigh in. As far as guns are concerned, Americans are idiots. We've had 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook and haven't learned a thing. The Japanese have gotten rid of guns, and so have the Australians. Apparently they are smarter than us.

As to tornados...I honestly have NO IDEA why every single home built in Tornado Alley isn't required to have a shelter. Heck, even the early settlers were smart enough to dig tornado shelters by their houses.

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457125 wrote: What part in particular?


For starters, the name of your thread.

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457130 wrote: For starters, the name of your thread.


Yes, the name of my thread. I ought to have called it "God Bless America", I agree. It wouldn't have changed the message in the thread, but it wouldn't have reflected my anger. I am angry and you should be too. All the American youth and children murdered by the insistance of your f-ing cowby crap.

I have 4 children. I lost one of them to cancer just a few weeks ago. My youngest is 7 years-old as of yesterday. Every time your countrymen blast up some school I cry my eyes out. I think of your children but I see the beautiful, innocent eyes of my little boy facing the end of a gun barrel just before his tiny life goes black.

[AnneBoleyn]

My deepest sympathies go out to you, High Threshold, & the other members of your family for the loss of your beloved child. I am so very sorry.

[Saint_]

High Threshold;1457134 wrote:

I have 4 children. I lost one of them to cancer just a few weeks ago. My youngest is 7 years-old as of yesterday..


My deepest sympathy as well.

30,000 dead Americans by gun violence this year...total insanity.

[Oscar Namechange]

High Threshold;1457134 wrote:

I have 4 children. I lost one of them to cancer just a few weeks ago. My youngest is 7 years-old as of yesterday. . My husband just saw this and knows exactly what you are going through. He lost his son to cancer aged 4 years old. He says It never leaves you and Is the one hardest thing for any man to bear.

Sincere condolences to you and your family.

[High Threshold]

Thank you all for your kind condolences. But please pardon me for bringing it up because it really has nothing to do with this thread, other than it motivated my decision to use a strongly-worded title.

The thing is that I cannot imagine asking my children to put on a bullet-proof vest. Really. I cannot. I wouldn’t. They'd ask me, "Why, dad?", and what in hell would I tell them? I would pack up everything and leave the country for good. Screw that whole “shoot-em-up” mentality.

Let’s see a raise of hands from all of you who have children. Imagine someone sticking a gun in their faces and pulling the trigger. More guns? Is that what you want? Either destory your guns or stop telling my media about your f-ing shoot outs. I can't take it any more.

[Saint_]

High Threshold;1457186 wrote:

Either destory your guns or stop telling my media about your f-ing shoot outs. I can't take it any more.


Well, things will change...eventually. Mostly since things can't go on like this. But I have a feeling it will get much worse before it gets better. About thirty thousand Americans die each year by gun violence. When it reaches say, one million per year, we'll probably see some movement.

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457198 wrote: Well, things will change...eventually. Mostly since things can't go on like this. But I have a feeling it will get much worse before it gets better. About thirty thousand Americans die each year by gun violence. When it reaches say, one million per year, we'll probably see some movement.


You see, I don't understand this. During the 60's Americans got off the sofa and shook the hell out of the place. They scared the crap out of Wahsington! What's taking them so long this time? The NSA got them tied up?

[Saint_]

the young adult I just talked and asked this question said it's because of technology. Why fight against the indifferent, and in the case of the 99% protests, dangerous and intractable establishment when you can just watch a movie on your iPad or play a video game in a world you have full control over?

[AnneBoleyn]

High Threshold;1457202 wrote: You see, I don't understand this. During the 60's Americans got off the sofa and shook the hell out of the place. They scared the crap out of Wahsington! What's taking them so long this time? The NSA got them tied up?


Don't overdo it. I was there. Always & in the middle of the action Always. We were there with Government Permission & also because the kids of the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were there too. Yes, hundreds of thousands of us appeared but were kept safe by the Permission of the United States Gov't, not our own power. I was always a realist, even back then.

[Bruv]

AnneBoleyn;1457213 wrote: Don't overdo it. I was there. Always & in the middle of the action Always. We were there with Government Permission & also because the kids of the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were there too. Yes, hundreds of thousands of us appeared but were kept safe by the Permission of the United States Gov't, not our own power. I was always a realist, even back then.


Are you saying all the civil rights demos did nothing?

[AnneBoleyn]

Bruv;1457217 wrote: Are you saying all the civil rights demos did nothing?


Absolutely not! How did you arrive at that conclusion? Actually, my answer was only about the anti-Vietnam movement, wasn't even thinking of civil rights as I was too young to physically participate.

[Bruv]

AnneBoleyn;1457219 wrote: Absolutely not! How did you arrive at that conclusion? Actually, my answer was only about the anti-Vietnam movement, wasn't even thinking of civil rights as I was too young to physically participate.


It all happened in the 60's?

Or came to a head then anyway.

[AnneBoleyn]

Bruv;1457223 wrote: It all happened in the 60's?

Or came to a head then anyway.


Vietnam didn't start for us till the '60's & Rosa Parks & MLK were active in the '60's, &, maybe most important of all, the majority of Americans had Televisions in the '60's. I think the advent of the television era brought everything to everyone's attention.

[tude dog]

AnneBoleyn;1457213 wrote: Don't overdo it. I was there. Always & in the middle of the action Always. We were there with Government Permission & also because the kids of the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were there too. Yes, hundreds of thousands of us appeared but were kept safe by the Permission of the United States Gov't, not our own power. I was always a realist, even back then.


Quite the revolutionary you were.

[AnneBoleyn]

tude dog;1457228 wrote: Quite the revolutionary you were.


I was extremely active in SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), as well as some other organizations. Heck, I even knew Bill Ayers.

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457212 wrote: the young adult I just talked and asked this question said it's because of technology. Why fight against the indifferent, and in the case of the 99% protests, dangerous and intractable establishment when you can just watch a movie on your iPad or play a video game in a world you have full control over?


Yes, I understand. The population is drowning, and it's all being accomplished by a remote-control joystick in the MK-ULTRA work shop and voluntary igno-stupidity.

[High Threshold]

AnneBoleyn;1457213 wrote: ... I was there.


As a student of biology at UNM (back then) I got a face-full of gas one fine summer afternoon. We were headed for city hall but only just got off the campus and onto the curb when the cops arrived and gave us a blast of the stuff. Not much accomplished that day. But the following week-end rioting managed to over-turn a squad car, looted most of the shops "down town" and trampled over Mrs. Martinez's garden flowers. It might not have said a whole lot about the war in Vietnam "directly" but it did express general unrest and an "indirect" frustration over the war. Not too bad!

[recovering conservative]

jones jones;1457123 wrote: Kapten Svenska ... This kind of thread is unlikely to endear you to many members here on FG. It may also get you reported for flaming.

I'm all for the freedom of speech but I suggest you cool it.


I'm a dual Canadian/U.S. citizen who has lived most of my life in Canada, and I still have contact with a few of my American cousins....mostly living in Michigan. In my unscientific opinion, America as a nation has totally lost it since 9-11, and is no longer capable of doing any sort of self-criticism. And that is why, in my opinion, Americans seem to have little concern for how the emphasis on security and patriotism is turning the U.S. into a fascist empire, that is engaging in mass illegal surveillance and data collection; indiscriminate use of torture and illegal imprisonment; ever-increasing military spending that is being validated by instigating wars and regime changes with little or no thought for the long term consequences.

You might consider all this flaming...but since...thanks to a Conservative Prime Minister, Canada is no longer independent on the world stage, but is now linked at the hip with every U.S. military and diplomatic initiative, I consider it essential to speak the truth about what our governments are doing in our name!

[High Threshold]

To recovering conservative: You are recovering very nicely.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1457266 wrote: I'm a dual Canadian/U.S. citizen who has lived most of my life in Canada, and I still have contact with a few of my American cousins....mostly living in Michigan. In my unscientific opinion, America as a nation has totally lost it since 9-11, and is no longer capable of doing any sort of self-criticism. And that is why, in my opinion, Americans seem to have little concern for how the emphasis on security and patriotism is turning the U.S. into a fascist empire, that is engaging in mass illegal surveillance and data collection; indiscriminate use of torture and illegal imprisonment; ever-increasing military spending that is being validated by instigating wars and regime changes with little or no thought for the long term consequences.

You might consider all this flaming...but since...thanks to a Conservative Prime Minister, Canada is no longer independent on the world stage, but is now linked at the hip with every U.S. military and diplomatic initiative, I consider it essential to speak the truth about what our governments are doing in our name!


I wish I could tell you that you are incorrect.

We have become dangerously polarized in the US.

The more vocal right seems to have taken over the airwaves, and We appear to be a nation of raving lunatics.

[AnneBoleyn]

I don't think the U.S. "lost" it after 9/11. Exacerbated, absolutely. I believe we lost it during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco where we split over whether a child should be returned to his natural father, in Cuba, or stay with whacked-out relatives in Miami. It was during this event when I sadly said "It's Vietnam all over again---Better dead than Red". We had no business denying Senor Gonzalez his son. We had no business turning it into an ugly debate.

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realized with complete clarity we have never learned our painful lessons from Vietnam, and were bound & ready to get involved in stupidity all over again.

Not saying we should have rolled over after 9/11, not at all, just that Elian brought out our ethnocentricity & our belief in 'American Exceptionalism'. Or else.

[Saint_]

AnneBoleyn;1457285 wrote: I don't think the U.S. "lost" it after 9/11. Exacerbated, absolutely.


Yeah. It was a watershed moment. I remember watching it on the TV in my classroom and telling another teacher, "We're at war." He said, "I hope you're wrong." I said, "Yeah, me too. But I doubt it."

I realized with complete clarity we have never learned our painful lessons from Vietnam, and were bound & ready to get involved in stupidity all over again.


You got that right again. In the Air Force, when I was a young officer-to-be, I attended Field Training Camp. It was basically boot camp for college students who would be commissioned after graduation. In addition to the many Air Power films we saw, I remember clearly some Air Force history lessons highlighting past wars. Over and over again it was stated that one lesson we learned from Vietnam was that a guerrilla war cannot be won with conventional tactics or political direction. If there's no standing army to fight, and no one in uniform, how can you tell the civilian populace from the soldiers?

The only possible tactic in that kind of war is total genocide. (Something the Romans knew) But genocide is abhorrent to modern societies and impossible to justify in a global environment. The Air Force also repeatedly stated that the only way we managed to extricate ourselves from Vietnam was the implementation of the Linebacker Operations. When we lifted restrictions on carpet bombing North Vietnamese cities and war on civilians, the Viet Cong "graciously" suggested they would let us leave peacefully and would not attack the south. We all know how that ended.

The last general I know of that understood that to win a war you had to completely destroy the will of the civilian populace to fight was Sherman in his march to the sea. We could have won in Iraq or Afghanistan by completely decimating the civilian populations. We have the technology to do it, even without nuclear weapons (which would do that quickly) we have many other, equally nasty weapons at our disposal. One weapon in particular, a botulotoxin, is so deadly, that a single vial upended in a country will wipe out all human and primate-based life within 48 hours, then will become harmless, allowing the conquering army to walk in a take over a country with all it's infrastructure, agriculture, and industries intact.

But is it really possible to "win" a war like that?

[LarsMac]

Saint_;1457294 wrote: Yeah. It was a watershed moment. I remember watching it on the TV in my classroom and telling another teacher, "We're at war." He said, "I hope you're wrong." I said, "Yeah, me too. But I doubt it."



You got that right again. In the Air Force, when I was a young officer-to-be, I attended Field Training Camp. It was basically boot camp for college students who would be commissioned after graduation. In addition to the many Air Power films we saw, I remember clearly some Air Force history lessons highlighting past wars. Over and over again it was stated that one lesson we learned from Vietnam was that a guerrilla war cannot be won with conventional tactics or political direction. If there's no standing army to fight, and no one in uniform, how can you tell the civilian populace from the soldiers?

The only possible tactic in that kind of war is total genocide. (Something the Romans knew) But genocide is abhorrent to modern societies and impossible to justify in a global environment. The Air Force also repeatedly stated that the only way we managed to extricate ourselves from Vietnam was the implementation of the Linebacker Operations. When we lifted restrictions on carpet bombing North Vietnamese cities and war on civilians, the Viet Cong "graciously" suggested they would let us leave peacefully and would not attack the south. We all know how that ended.

The last general I know of that understood that to win a war you had to completely destroy the will of the civilian populace to fight was Sherman in his march to the sea. We could have won in Iraq or Afghanistan by completely decimating the civilian populations. We have the technology to do it, even without nuclear weapons (which would do that quickly) we have many other, equally nasty weapons at our disposal. One weapon in particular, a botulotoxin, is so deadly, that a single vial upended in a country will wipe out all human and primate-based life within 48 hours, then will become harmless, allowing the conquering army to walk in a take over a country with all it's infrastructure, agriculture, and industries intact.

But is it really possible to "win" a war like that?


I hope and pray that we never have the opportunity to find out the answer to THAT question.

[Saint_]

LarsMac;1457300 wrote: I hope and pray that we never have the opportunity to find out the answer to THAT question.


Yeah, no doubt. Before I was in the Air Force, I used to think nuclear war was the worst case scenario, but biowarfare is worse by far.

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457294 wrote: ... When we lifted restrictions on carpet bombing North Vietnamese cities and war on civilians, the Viet Cong "graciously" suggested they would let us leave peacefully and would not attack the south.


How "gracious", I wonder, was the decision to bomb Hanoi (and the north in general) based upon fabricated motivation of the false claim of actions in the Gulf of Tonkin?

Saint_;1457294 wrote: We could have won in Iraq or Afghanistan ....


Except there was no war declared. Still isn't.

***

1. There's an interesting parallell between the two. The U.S. bombed north Vietnam on a complete lie of an attack by the NV in the Gulf of Tonkin.

2. The U.S. illegally invaded Irak on the complete lie of WMD's in the country.

An interesting pattern.

[Saint_]

High Threshold;1457304 wrote: How "gracious", I wonder, was the decision to bomb Hanoi (and the north in general) based upon fabricated motivation of the false claim of actions in the Gulf of Tonkin?


I was being sarcastic. War is never gracious. My point is that until the carpet bombing, the war was a morass. Fighter jets in pursuit had to turn back over the Yellow river, Viet Cong operated with impunity by crossing the Cambodian border. Only total warfare convinced the North that it would be a good idea to negotiate with the U.S. The decision to bomb Hanoi was probably the only realistic military decision in that war. Which goes back to my original point, guerrilla wars cannot be won unless you are committed to total warfare against civilians and that's all but impossible today.





1. There's an interesting parallell between the two. The U.S. bombed north Vietnam on a complete lie of an attack by the NV in the Gulf of Tonkin.

2. The U.S. illegally invaded Irak on the complete lie of WMD's in the country.

An interesting pattern.


I'd say the interesting pattern is that America has a tendency to declare war for a number of reasons, real and imagined. Lesson: don't mess with them, they're bat-crazy.

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457307 wrote: I was being sarcastic.


Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I was just firing an arrow of sarcasm in the opposite direction.

Saint_;1457307 wrote: My point is that until the carpet bombing, the war was a morass. Fighter jets in pursuit had to turn back over the Yellow river, Viet Cong operated with impunity by crossing the Cambodian border.


I have a feeling that this is going to get ugly.

American fighter jets and B52's did not turn back at either California, Hawaii or at Guam. No. They operated with impunity by crossing the Pacific Ocean and entering another country and fabricating a DMZ to split it in two. Then they extended their impunity by bombing the hell out of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. And we're still waiting for any justified motivation for their prescence in Sotuh-East Asia, beginning with the U.S. refusal to allow Vietnam the vote.



Saint_;1457307 wrote: Only total warfare convinced the North that it would be a good idea to negotiate with the U.S. The decision to bomb Hanoi was probably the only realistic military decision in that war.


Based upon a series of lies and international treachery might only be considered "realistic" to, uh, um ........ I'm looking for a word that's strong enough yet diplomatic.





Saint_;1457307 wrote: .... America ..... don't mess with them, they're bat-crazy.


I'd have said "trigger happy".

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457307 wrote: Only total warfare convinced the North that it would be a good idea to negotiate with the U.S. .


Your fundamental argument is one of “tactics” and “how to win the war” IN VIETNAM. Me, on the other hand, I defy the legitimacy of U.S. presence in Vietnam and can, therefore, find no good example of either tactic or victory in America’s favour.

Maybe we shouldn’t continue?

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1457269 wrote: To recovering conservative: You are recovering very nicely.
Thanks! I'm just glad that back when I was living and working in the U.S. years ago, I somehow happened to hook up with a Canadian expat who wanted to move back to Southern Ontario. I thought the move back would be a lifetime of regret...at the time, it seemed like the U.S. economy was taking off, while Canada would end up as Northern Mexico. But the increases in violence...especially gun crimes, ballooning health insurance costs, failing infrastructure, worsening racial divides etc. make it look like the smart choice in hindsight. Nowadays, Canada's continued drift to the right has me worried that we'll end up with all of America's problems anyway.

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1457325 wrote: Thanks! ......... the increases in violence...especially gun crimes, ballooning health insurance costs, failing infrastructure, worsening racial divides etc. make it look like the smart choice ...


"Smart"choice or "lucky" it's all the same. Think about the Americans who can't find their way north and wouldn't have a clue how get permission to stay anyway.

[jones jones]

Citizen HS down south in Sweden ... How exactly does what the United States has done/does affect you?

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1457280 wrote: I wish I could tell you that you are incorrect.

We have become dangerously polarized in the US.

The more vocal right seems to have taken over the airwaves, and We appear to be a nation of raving lunatics.
Early this morning, when I posted that comment, there was something going wrong with FG and I actually thought that attempt to post failed. And all the pages started freezing up, so I didn't get a chance to post a second comment dealing specifically with the gun crimes issue that was the theme of the OP.

The first thing I wanted to focus on was the simple point that a picture is worth a thousand words. I came across this blog entry yesterday, showing a map displaying all of the school shootings in America since the infamous Sandy Hook Shootings:



Plus, I've been following the story of the Las Vegas Cop Killer Shootings that occurred a week ago. These crime stories usually take several days before background information on the suspects starts to filter its way to the surface; and what we have learned about this couple is a clear example that Homeland Security has their guns drawn on the wrong people in America if they are really concerned about crime and even terrorism!

These two are white supremacist/sovereign citizens/Christian Dominionists....just the kind of grassroots Americans that the right wing oligarchs and their media love to fawn over as "The Real America." So, what can they say now when two of the freedumb-luvin Americans get into some sort of as yet undisclosed dispute with other gun-toting nuts at the Bundy Ranch and decide to head to Vegas to start the Revolution? The answer is Absolutely Nothing! Which is exactly what Fox News has done in the days after the shooting...completely drop the story and never, absolutely never call terrorist attacks by white rightwing gun nuts terrorism! If he had a beard and she wore a hijab, you know how this story would be playing in rightwing world!

I noticed that the followup stories on those shootings weren't getting wide play anywhere in U.S. mainstream media today...even on most of the so called "liberal" media. And then I found this post by acerbic post on Newscorpse, explaining why it's not the kind of story that fits in Fox News rotation:

Fox News Has Ceased Coverage Of Las Vegas Tea Party Cop Killers

First of all, the perpetrators are not who Fox’s racist producers typically profile as terrorists. Rather than being brown-skinned, Muslim, foreigners, the Millers are white Christians from Indiana. So not only would it run counter to Fox’s philosophy to implicate the Millers in terrorism, it would offend their 90% white, right-wing audience.

Secondly, the issue raises concerns about access to dangerous firearms. The NRA constituency at Fox is loathe to focus on such events that make the public uncomfortable with the wild west society that is favored by the gun fetishists and right-wingers who program and watch the network. Fox avoids or downplays most stories about gun violence, but jumps on any report that they can frame as an Obama attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

Thirdly, Fox is well known for promoting some of the very same political ideologies as the Millers. They have featured guests who advocate secession from the United States, as well as armed resistance to federal law and authorities. An example of that is the recent Cliven Bundy affair where Jerad Miller just happened to show up threatening to use “the language of violence” against representatives of the Bureau of Land Management. Fox has also hyped Republican leaders, like Texas governor Rick Perry, who have made public statements that come just short of declaring secession.

Finally, the Millers’ association with Tea Party groups is something that Fox will work vigorously to excise from the public discourse. The Millers were supporters of the biggest Koch brothers-bankrolled Tea Party organizations (Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks), and openly espoused their anti-government views. It was only a matter of time before people who came to rallies with signs that said “We Came Unarmed – THIS TIME,” would keep their promise of violence. Of course, Fox News also supports the same groups and views, and has been instrumental in creating and promoting the Tea Party. In fact, there would be no Tea Party without Fox News. Consequently, Fox is not going to risk alienating such a critical part of their audience.

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457336 wrote: Citizen HS down south in Sweden ... How exactly does what the United States has done/does affect you?


There are 2½ subjects being batted around here. Which one of them would you like me to referrence? Guns, Vietnam, ..... ?

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457354 wrote: There are 2½ subjects being batted around here. Which one of them would you like me to referrence? Guns, Vietnam, ..... ?


I'm still waiting for an answer,

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457356 wrote: I'm still waiting for an answer,


If you want to confront me with debate then do it and don't hide behind an obscure chip on your shoulder.

[recovering conservative]

AnneBoleyn;1457285 wrote: I don't think the U.S. "lost" it after 9/11. Exacerbated, absolutely. I believe we lost it during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco where we split over whether a child should be returned to his natural father, in Cuba, or stay with whacked-out relatives in Miami. It was during this event when I sadly said "It's Vietnam all over again---Better dead than Red". We had no business denying Senor Gonzalez his son. We had no business turning it into an ugly debate.

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh yes, there's been so much craziness in recent years, I forgot all about the Elian Gonzales story! I think part of the problem stems right from the way Clinton and Janet Reno handled the situation. Clinton was focused more on how the issue was polling in Latino communities (which were divided sharply between Cuban and everyone else), his concern over keeping the moderate middle moderately satisfied with his government, to show any real concern about what would be the right thing to do for Elian Gonzales.

I recall that the first stumbling block....and the main reason why they had to return Elian, was that the events that brought him to American soil from a sinking fishing boat, did not qualify for the assinine Wet Foot/Dry Foot policy determining which Cuban refugees are allowed to stay and which ones have to go back where they came from.

Also at the time, the Clinton Administration was creating a mess as they created a food crisis in Haiti through their demand that Haiti accept imported rice and other foods...which collapsed Haitian local farming and the refugees streaming into cities from the countryside who could not afford to buy food, were also on boats seeking to leave Haiti and get to America....or anywhere that offered something better than starvation.

I recall at the time...when Jesse Jackson was still relevant...that he was stoking the fire under Clinton on the Haitian issue, asking why these refugees were being forced back at gunpoint while many Cubans were moving to Miami. And these were all questions that Clinton and other Democrats wanted to go away, and the easiest way to make it all go away was to return Elian back to Cuba and take the spotlight off the nutcase Cuban expats who were claiming that an angel saved Elian for some divine purpose. Not that everything can be blamed on Clinton and the Democratic Party, but after two terms of Obama, it looks clear that a big part of the reason for the rise of the right in America, goes beyond the money of the oligarchs, and extends to the cowardice and the lack of moral principles of liberals and so called liberals in mainstream media, and Democratic Party operatives in recent decades.

I realized with complete clarity we have never learned our painful lessons from Vietnam, and were bound & ready to get involved in stupidity all over again.

Not saying we should have rolled over after 9/11, not at all, just that Elian brought out our ethnocentricity & our belief in 'American Exceptionalism'. Or else.


I think a big part of the reason for the return of the Military Industrial Complex with a vengeance, is ofcourse that it never really went away; but after 9-11, it finally had the excuse the Neocons were looking for to become just as aggressive as they were back in the 60's, when they were going to regime change every communist and non-aligned nation in the world...including breaking up the Soviet Union!

It probably goes off-topic, but the increase in military and security budgets to pay the contractors, means those contractors have a huge incentive to get the people they want in positions of power and influence to start the wars that make their toys a valuable commodity!

On this note, as a history buff, I came across the popular podcasts of a Dan Carlin - a history teacher and amateur historian, who noted in his podcast series - Hardcore History - episodes 34 to 39...no longer available for free) on the fall of the Roman Republic to becoming an empire, some surprising parallels with the modern American Empire, as Rome had become a system that provided wealthy Patricians and especially the generals, with huge incentives to start wars and conquer more and more territories. At a time when banking and trade wasn't as sophisticated as it is today, the territories were usually overrun and their resources plundered for Roman profit...and many of the people were taken back as human capital (slaves). Although sometimes Rome set up proxy dictators just as the modern American Empire does...good well known example would be King Herod of Judea during New Testament times. I don't know if Dan Carlin is right on all of his observations, but his podcasts are more entertaining than most of the history books written on the fall of the Roman Empire!

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457358 wrote: If you want to confront me with debate then do it and don't hide behind an oscure chip on your shoulder.


Bring it on Kapten but think carefully first cos you know you gonna lose!

'cept of course you won't admit it!

[Saint_]

recovering conservative;1457342 wrote: Fox News has done in the days after the shooting...completely drop the story


FAUX News - We report You obey!

[High Threshold]

jones jones;1457360 wrote: Bring it on Kapten but think carefully first cos you know you gonna lose!

'cept of course you won't admit it!


So where is this line you want me to step over? You're beginning to remind me of George Foreman minutes before the big fight with Cassius "Butterfly-Bee". You're sweating and your hands are shaking. So pick it already. What's on your mind "champ"? Spit it out.

[Saint_]

jones jones;1457356 wrote: I'm still waiting for an answer,


Hey JJ, discuss the gun craziness. That was the original thread. It kind of led to the fact that Americans are gun crazy, and then Americans are just violence crazy, and then to Vietnam. But we should get back on track with the guns.

[High Threshold]

Saint_;1457361 wrote: FAUX News - We report You obey!


Have you seen that YouTube compilation of all the Bill Reilly "shut up! ... cut off his mic!" clips? It's great.

[jones jones]

High Threshold;1457362 wrote: So where is this line you want me to step over? You're beginning to remind me of George Foreman minutes before the big fight with Cassius "Butterfly-Bee". You're sweating and your hands are shaking. So pick it already. What's on your mind "champ"? Spit it out.


You suggested I debate you Sergeant and I am quite happy to do so. Perhaps we have a different interpretation of the word?