The End of the American Century?

[wackyracer]

Turns out it is politics and vested interest:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/15161/harry-reid-sons-solar-power-scheme-connected-bundy-ranch-standoff/

 

Did Sen. Harry Reid drive the standoff at the Bundy ranch for personal gain?

 

 

Claim: The Bundy Ranch deal is all about Nevada Sen. Harry Reid "using federal violence to take people’s land in his state so he can package it to re-sell it to the Chinese."

Bloggers on Thursday, April 17th, 2014 in multiple blog and video posts

 

 

PolitiFact verdict: The Republic Broadcasting Network said Sen. Reid was behind the use of force to take away Bundy’s land and sell it to the Chinese. There is nothing accurate about this claim. The dispute involved Bundy’s long use of federal land without a permit. The land gained protected status long before solar energy projects were on the table. The Chinese solar energy proposal no longer exists. The land where such projects might be developed are far from Bundy’s property.

 

We rate this claim Pants on Fire.

 

READ MORE

[wackyracer]

Rancher Proudly Breaks the Law Becoming a Hero in the West

The New York Times

By Adam Nagourney

April 23, 2014

 

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

 

Most of all, Mr. Bundy, 67, who was wearing a broad-brimmed white cowboy hat against the hot afternoon sun, recounted the success of “we the people” — gesturing to the 50 supporters, some armed with handguns and rifles, standing in a semicircle before him — at chasing away Bureau of Land Management rangers who, acting on a court order, tried to confiscate 500 cattle owned by Mr. Bundy, who has been illegally grazing his herd on public land since 1993.

 

...

 

But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not.

 

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

 

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

 

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

 

...

 

Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

 

READ FULL STORY

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Rancher Proudly Breaks the Law Becoming a Hero in the West

The New York Times

By Adam Nagourney

April 23, 2014

 

BUNKERVILLE, Nev. — Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

 

Most of all, Mr. Bundy, 67, who was wearing a broad-brimmed white cowboy hat against the hot afternoon sun, recounted the success of "we the people" — gesturing to the 50 supporters, some armed with handguns and rifles, standing in a semicircle before him — at chasing away Bureau of Land Management rangers who, acting on a court order, tried to confiscate 500 cattle owned by Mr. Bundy, who has been illegally grazing his herd on public land since 1993.

 

...

 

But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not.

 

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

 

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.

 

"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

 

...

 

Mr. Bundy, whose family has grazed cattle here since they homesteaded in the 1870s, owes the government more than $1 million in grazing fees. He stopped paying after the bureau ordered him to restrict the periods when his herd roamed the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area as part of an effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise.

 

READ FULL STORY

All these to allegedly protect the endangered desert tortoise? There's got to be more to this than meets the eye. Mr Bundy's cattle have been roaming on federal property for over 20 years. Why has the federal government failed in enforcing its laws for over 20 years. If they had nipped it in the bud 20 years ago, none of this would be happening today.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

http://news.yahoo.com/nevada-rancher-had-limited-sympathy-west-193228653.html

 

 

Nevada rancher had limited sympathy in the West

http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/04/21/image001-png_162613.png By KEN RITTER and NICHOLAS RICCARDI April 25, 2014 6:54 PMBUNKERVILLE, Nev. (AP) — For a while, in certain quarters, Cliven Bundy was celebrated as a John Wayne-like throwback to the Old West — a weathered, plainspoken rancher just trying to graze his cattle and keep the government off his back. But that was before he started sounding more like a throwback to the Old South.

 

Conservative Republican politicians and commentators who once embraced Bundy for standing up to Washington are stampeding in the other direction — and branding him a racist — after he suggested that blacks might have had it better as slaves picking cotton.

 

The furor has made it apparent how limited Bundy's appeal ever was.

 

Bundy, 67, and his armed supporters thwarted an attempt by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management two weeks ago to seize his family's cattle over his failure to pay $1.1 million in grazing fees and penalties for the use of government land over the past 20 years. A local land-use dispute soon turned into a national debate, with conservatives calling it another example of big-government overreach.

 

But the rugged West that Bundy was said to represent has changed, becoming more urban and less concerned about federal intrusion than it was during the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and '80s. In the urban areas that now dominate the West, there have been few stirrings of support for Bundy.

 

Even many fellow ranchers regard him as more a deadbeat than a hero.

 

"You've got hundreds of ranchers in Nevada who pay their fee regularly," said Tom Collins, a rancher on the Clark County Commission. "On the grazing fee issue, Bundy doesn't have sympathy from the ranchers."

 

At the Bunkerville Post Office, Chad Dalton, a lineman for a power company, said that the case brought up important issues but that they should be addressed through laws, not with guns.

 

"It's a fight to be had," Dalton said from inside a car full of his children, "but I'm not sure he's the one to lead it."

 

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said Bundy was made into a hero by conservative activists and journalists in New York and Washington "who did not understand how extreme Cliven Bundy is ... even among Sagebrush rebels and Nevada ranchers."

 

In fact, the remote area outside Las Vegas where Bundy and his supporters made their stand is represented by a black Democrat, Rep. Steve Horsford.

 

The congressman said Friday that many of the people in the small towns in the region, which has drawn an increasing number of retirees and tourists seeking to enjoy its open spaces, are upset with Bundy, who "does not reflect Nevada or the views of the West."

 

The BLM claims Bundy's cattle are trespassing on fragile habitat set aside for the endangered desert tortoise. Bundy says he doesn't recognize federal authority over lands that his cattle have grazed on for years.

 

After the BLM called off the roundup and released about 350 animals back to Bundy, the rancher drew praise from many Republicans — most notably Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a likely 2016 presidential candidate — and condemnation from several Democrats.

 

Then, in an interview in Thursday's New York Times, he suggested that "the Negro" might have been better off during slavery rather than on government welfare.

 

In a statement Friday, Bundy defended himself by saying he is "trying to keep Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream alive." At his regular afternoon address to the media and supporters at his ranch, Bundy apologized if he offended anyone. "I might not have said it right," he said, "but it came from my heart."

 

John Rosenberger, 76, who said he had gone 25 years without paying federal taxes because he did not believe in Washington's authority, came to the ranch from Las Vegas after watching Bundy's supporters stare down the government.

 

"The stuff that I grew up with, the cowboys, the good guys with the white hats, today it's the ranchers being harassed by the government," said Rosenberger, a 9 mm revolver strapped to his waist. "They're the black hats."

 

Before the newspaper story broke, Gov. Brian Sandoval and Sen. Dean Heller, Republicans who got their political start in the sparsely populated northern end of the state, issued statements supportive of Bundy.

 

Bundy's racial comments, however, drew bipartisan condemnation.

 

Heller's spokeswoman said the senator "completely disagrees" with Bundy's remarks.

 

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose power base is in Las Vegas, home to most of Nevada's Democrats, said Bundy "revealed himself to be a hateful racist."

 

"But by denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he mooches off public land," Reid added, "he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite."

 

At a conference of Western Republicans in Salt Lake City on Friday, several conservatives reiterated their long-held complaints about federal control of vast swaths of the West. The federal government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada.

 

Republicans complained that the federal holdings prevent development that could generate tax revenue for public services, and that environmental restrictions hinder ranchers and others who want to use some of the region's scenic spaces. They distanced themselves from Bundy but said they hope his racial remarks don't overshadow their concerns.

 

"This is bigger than one rancher in Nevada," Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory said.

 

 

 

[kisshmet]

The agreement merely provide real estate for the americans & their equipments

 

It will not in anyway strengthen the AFP because those facilities are off limits to pinoys

 

The only good thing it will provide is logistics. The americans will buy provisions locally, that will certainly help local economy.

 

Additionally this will deter the chinese from attacking the mainland not spratleys unless the americans set up a facility directly in pagasa island which we currently occupy

Edited April 29, 2014 by kisshmet

[kisshmet]

Raptors come in limited supply so the americans deploy it only in key areas mostly close to US mainland & limited hotspots

 

Its electronic suite is so sensitive it needs a special hangar which had to be built from scratch if ever they intend to deploy it in the phil

Edited April 29, 2014 by kisshmet

[kisshmet]

^dude keep on dreaming raptors are off limits even to israelis..its one item in the US arsenal that is prohibited for export much more available for lease to other nation even to the closest allies of USA

Edited April 29, 2014 by kisshmet

[maxiev]

It would be nice though to see a couple of Raptors flying over Philippine skies.

[camiar]

^^

The facilities that will be built under EDCA are predominantly to support the logistics of US Navy fleet operating in the area. So, don't expect USAF in the picture.

 

F-22 Raptors are USAF birds. US Navy don't have them.

 

The Navy is getting F-35C Lightning, but since they only started taking deliveries of the new carrier-based JSFs last year, don't hold your breath waiting to see any of them flying in the Philippines.

Edited April 29, 2014 by camiar

[LostCommand]

I've met them, these Americans. Worked with them. Studied with the best of them for years, at the masteral level.

 

Even in their so called "decline" they remain formidable. And they keep adopting/co-opting the best of new blood from other cultures - asian, indian, japanese, hispanic, and of course european. No other culture can do that. No other so called "superiorist" culture can elect a black to the top job.

 

They will fall, yes, perhaps gently, like the Brits, perhaps roughly, like the Romans. No one can tell.

 

But not in my lifetime, or at least, the lifetime of that generation I had studied with; for they were not all talk, many were really good.

 

And I say that as a Pisay graduate.

 

LC

[Bugatti Veyron]

This video compares how Americans think America's wealth is distributed, the ideal way Americans think it should be distributed, and the shocking reality of how America's wealth is actually distributed.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

This video compares how Americans think America's wealth is distributed, the ideal way Americans think it should be distributed, and the shocking reality of how America's wealth is actually distributed.

http://www.upworthy....-blowing-fact-2

 

I wished we had something like this here in the Philippines to see how disproportionate the wealth of the nation is held by different economic classes of society. I imagine something similar or maybe even worse that what was presented in the US presentation.

[viral]

Data from ADB puts the wealthiest 20 % of Filipinos as owning more than 50 percent of the country's wealth and the poorest 20 % have less than 5% of it. Maybe the reality is worse.

 

Hard to make an apples to apples comparison between the Philippines and the US because of differences in standards, including living standards, and differences in social, political and cultural conditions and practices.

 

Universally, it is accepted that the oligarchy in the Philippines have too much control over the allocation of resources and the means for creating wealth. Our political system is dynastic, so resources for addressing poverty are allocated inefficiently and go to the favored.

 

New wealth created in the country basically goes to the rich and we have the worst wealth inequities in Southeast Asia..

 

We clearly need systemic changes.

 

But so does the US. We do share some of the issues of wealth inequality.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Is this a world-wide phenomenon? Do we see the same thing repeated in other countries? If so, maybe this is the way the world works.

Communism was supposed to promote equality among people. But it has clearly failed as evidenced by the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the repudiation of the Communist economic system by China in favor of a capitalist economy.

So if this is indeed a world-wide phenomenon, then perhaps there is nothing that can be done to promote economic equality. It's just one of those things that mankind needs to accept. Pretty much like accepting the fact that the sun sets each evening and rises each morning.

Obviously many people will never accept this as an inevitable part of mankind's history. Many indicators convince me that inequality in mankind is natural. There are intelligent people, there are stupid people. Good looking people, and unattractive people. Tall people, short people. Healthy people, sickly people. There are people with optimistic outlooks in life while others are pessimists by nature. There are physically strong people, and weak people. Jolly people, sad people. And of course rich people and poor people.

If this is nature at work, there's really not much we can do about it.

[viral]

My personal stand is that inequitable wealth distribution is wrong especially if it is perpetrated by corruption, influence, patronage, and not merit. There are countries where wealth is better distributed, Singapore among our neighbors, for example. They have political will. We need the same and it's a frustrating, long process, obviously, to change our system. But we have to keep making the effort.

[dungeonbaby]

in my opinion, wealth inequality in the Philippines is a different beast, the oligarchy having grown out of a history that never truly birthed an emancipated populace.

 

but to one of the points raised previously, it's not as if the wealthy do nothing with their resources. they are, after all, the job creators. now wealth gained via corruption is obviously a different matter, more so the use of this same ill-gotten wealth in ways that don't benefit the country in any way. that seems to be the troubling norm in Pinas but, corruption notwithstanding, the oligarchs don't seem to be invested in things that will make the nation stronger. wealth inequality may not be the problem here, a myopic oligarchy might be.

my fundamental discomfort with any sort of state-imposed equality is that it fosters dullards and drones. it does not reward the things we want to see in the world, such as innovation, enterprise, and the free market.

 

 

any critique of America must take into account the outstanding nature of its founding principles, exemplified by qualities posters like LC have seen firsthand. today, the US is most certainly on a path to becoming a more socialist state, with even the most basic freedoms losing to political correctness and a misguided sense of what equality truly means.

 

we often forget that their constitution protects its citizens' access to equal opportunities; it does not guarantee the equality of results. big difference.

 

 

[viral]

I worked for uncle sam close to 10 years. I'm tempted to say that in the end, its all about using power to build wealth and wealth to build power, the proverbial vicious cycle. Sorry, am being cynical right now.

[hit05]

in my opinion, wealth inequality in the Philippines is a different beast, the oligarchy having grown out of a history that never truly birthed an emancipated populace.

 

but to one of the points raised previously, it's not as if the wealthy do nothing with their resources. they are, after all, the job creators. now wealth gained via corruption is obviously a different matter, more so the use of this same ill-gotten wealth in ways that don't benefit the country in any way. that seems to be the troubling norm in Pinas but, corruption notwithstanding, the oligarchs don't seem to be invested in things that will make the nation stronger. wealth inequality may not be the problem here, a myopic oligarchy might be.

my fundamental discomfort with any sort of state-imposed equality is that it fosters dullards and drones. it does not reward the things we want to see in the world, such as innovation, enterprise, and the free market.

 

 

any critique of America must take into account the outstanding nature of its founding principles, exemplified by qualities posters like LC have seen firsthand. today, the US is most certainly on a path to becoming a more socialist state, with even the most basic freedoms losing to political correctness and a misguided sense of what equality truly means.

 

we often forget that their constitution protects its citizens' access to equal opportunities; it does not guarantee the equality of results. big difference.

 

Yes, the rise of the new Filipino oligarchs from dynastic politicians will never be compatible with the equality socialism wants to impose on paper. Let us not waste energy hoping government will change society for the better People Power helped topple oligarchs (like Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu) in former communist countries too so maybe we got to be more cautious of these political ideas, and learn from the lessons as they have been applied and experienced elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

I worked for uncle sam close to 10 years. I'm tempted to say that in the end, its all about using power to build wealth and wealth to build power, the proverbial vicious cycle. Sorry, am being cynical right now.

Americans are Bible conscious. Let us not disappoint them.

 

What Scriptural proverbs say is that man may plan but God has the last say; God set a time for everything.

 

Jesus, who claims to be greater than the Wisdom of Solomon (Proverbs) reiterates that true power is from God but authorities (wealth) in this life are "Powers that are losing their Powers"

[viral]

The first American industrialists and capitalists were extraordinary entrepreneurs but they were no strangers to corruption. The Founding Fathers may have been idealistic but they also believed in good PR. Anyway, their tribe hasn't increased. Took almost a century before Lincoln abolished slavery. A more socialist US? Well, there's welfare and stuff, but the rich sure aren't about to roll over and play dead.

 

With all due respect, it's a heck of a generalization to say that Americans are bible-conscious. Dollar-conscious for sure. But bible-conscious? There was a bible belt, but I don't know if it can be equated with Americans being bible conscious. I also know quite a few American Jews and they sure don't believe in the bible, except for the books in the Torah. Temporal power and wealth are finite (the universe will end someday) but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Equality is a big word and all men are created equal, but equality is up until sperm and egg unite, then economics kicks in.

Edited May 14, 2014 by viral

[Bugatti Veyron]

The first American industrialists and capitalists were extraordinary entrepreneurs but they were no strangers to corruption. The Founding Fathers may have been idealistic but they also believed in good PR. Anyway, their tribe hasn't increased. Took almost a century before Lincoln abolished slavery. A more socialist US? Well, there's welfare and stuff, but the rich sure aren't about to roll over and play dead.

 

With all due respect, it's a heck of a generalization to say that Americans are bible-conscious. Dollar-conscious for sure. But bible-conscious? There was a bible belt, but I don't know if it can be equated with Americans being bible conscious. I also know quite a few American Jews and they sure don't believe in the bible, except for the books in the Torah. Temporal power and wealth are finite (the universe will end someday) but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Equality is a big word and all men are created equal, but equality is up until sperm and egg unite, then economics kicks in.

 

Equality can only exist in a utopian environment. Even then if all people were equal (eg. everyone are oligarchs) who would do the dishes, pave the roads, construct buildings, teach the children, fix the television, computer, washing machine, etc.? Fellow oligarchs?

 

I think a form of inequality is needed for society to survive. Inequality has been around since the dawn of civilization. Not a single nation, country, or civilization has ever been able to build a society where all its citizens were equal economically.

 

Societies must strive to make this economic inequality as narrow as possible. But pure equality is not only impossible. It will result in a failed society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bugatti Veyron]

A Tale of Two Cities

[dungeonbaby]

The first American industrialists and capitalists were extraordinary entrepreneurs but they were no strangers to corruption. The Founding Fathers may have been idealistic but they also believed in good PR. Anyway, their tribe hasn't increased. Took almost a century before Lincoln abolished slavery. A more socialist US? Well, there's welfare and stuff, but the rich sure aren't about to roll over and play dead.

 

With all due respect, it's a heck of a generalization to say that Americans are bible-conscious. Dollar-conscious for sure. But bible-conscious? There was a bible belt, but I don't know if it can be equated with Americans being bible conscious. I also know quite a few American Jews and they sure don't believe in the bible, except for the books in the Torah. Temporal power and wealth are finite (the universe will end someday) but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Equality is a big word and all men are created equal, but equality is up until sperm and egg unite, then economics kicks in.

 

The pursuit of power and dollars alone doesn't explain American exceptionalism. You'd have to be a complete cynic to think that that nation's citizens aren't some of the most generous in the world, and are only motivated by wealth. Well, there's also a motivated-by-guilt aspect, which has given rise to programs like Affirmative Action, but that's beside the point. America isn't perfect, their people are not always right, they are prone to human failings. But they are exceptional in their history and in their aspirations. To say that the founding fathers were merely an idealistic lot is to see them out of context, and with jaded glasses. I don't know about anyone else, but I've always thought the soldiers who gave up their lives in WWII would've made the founding fathers proud.

 

Speaking of good PR and slavery, I'm reminded that no party has been more successful in claiming to be the champion of civil rights than the Democratic Party, who - during the move to abolish slavery - were made up of a whole lot of anti-Semites and Ku Klux Klan members. I tend to think that they are achieving their agenda today, by relegating more and more African-Americans to a state of constant dependency on government welfare. Statistics show that more and more black kids are born out of wedlock, with disengaged fathers. Perhaps because single moms get bigger support than if they were married and working? How's that for an incentive system?

 

 

 

 

It's true, equality doesn't mean you are equal in every single way. If by economics you mean that brains, talent, work ethic, passion, and vision also count, then you are absolutely correct.

[LostCommand]

The oligarchy in Pinas may seem myopic, especially when compared to the apparent vigour and creativity of the American ruling class.

 

But put yourself in their shoes today, of these oligarchs, these families who have rules provinces and politics for over a hundred years: what project would you do TODAY that would pull Pinas out poverty? Much less match or reach the level of proficiency of Americans?

 

1. We can try to industrialise - but we missed that boat and now China/Singapore/Vietnam even are ahead of us in this. No point making cars and refrigerators now when China is going to crush all competition there.

 

2. We can try to become agricultural mass producers - the likes of Thailand Indonesia and Vietnam for example. But our land reform laws, for historically justifiable reasons, now prevent the concentration of land ownership - the very basis of industrial mass agriculture.

 

3. We can try going for the knowledge economy, of IT and banking and finance for example, like Singapore and Malaysia. But our "negotiable" law courts prevent any right-thinking finance group from depositing billions of dollars here, while our knowledge and education base are not enough to create IT jobs save call centers.

 

I can go on - but my point is this, to those who would criticise the "myopic" Oligarchs - so what project would you do NOW, if today you had control over say 2-3 billion dollars (100-150 billion pesos) that would return the money in ten years and develop this country? And that would allow us to match the so called declining Americans in something, anything, aside from making the world's largest bowl of sphagetti or some such mass stupidity only Filipinos can do?

 

Sigue nga? I am all ears your proposal, goodness knows I have been searching for years.

 

LC

[viral]

The pursuit of power and dollars alone doesn't explain American exceptionalism. You'd have to be a complete cynic to think that that nation's citizens aren't some of the most generous in the world, and are only motivated by wealth. Well, there's also a motivated-by-guilt aspect, which has given rise to programs like Affirmative Action, but that's beside the point. America isn't perfect, their people are not always right, they are prone to human failings. But they are exceptional in their history and in their aspirations. To say that the founding fathers were merely an idealistic lot is to see them out of context, and with jaded glasses. I don't know about anyone else, but I've always thought the soldiers who gave up their lives in WWII would've made the founding fathers proud.

 

Speaking of good PR and slavery, I'm reminded that no party has been more successful in claiming to be the champion of civil rights than the Democratic Party, who - during the move to abolish slavery - were made up of a whole lot of anti-Semites and Ku Klux Klan members. I tend to think that they are achieving their agenda today, by relegating more and more African-Americans to a state of constant dependency on government welfare. Statistics show that more and more black kids are born out of wedlock, with disengaged fathers. Perhaps because single moms get bigger support than if they were married and working? How's that for an incentive system?

 

 

 

 

It's true, equality doesn't mean you are equal in every single way. If by economics you mean that brains, talent, work ethic, passion, and vision also count, then you are absolutely correct.

 

Hi Ms, D!

 

I respectfully beg to diverge. In the end it's all realpolitik -- the unending struggle for preeminence of power and wealth, especially on the part of Americans, because precisely they are top dog and the top dog doesn't want to give up his place.

 

And Americans really aren't any more exceptional than any of the empires that were top dog in their time. The top dog is exceptional only because he is the top dog. And history teaches us that all top dogs become history.

 

Also, Americans aren't really all that generous. If you look at their foreign aid, they may have the most in terms of absolute dollar values, but the value of their foreign aid as a percentage of gross national income comes in at no. 19 among leading donor countries.

 

And its scandalous how Americans use a disproportionate and unsustainable amount of the world's resources. Shameful. The data is all there. According to Dave Tilford of the Sierra Club as reported in the Scientific American, the average American will inflict 13 times as much ecological damage as a Brazilian, use the resources 35 Indians will, and consume 53 times the amount of goods and resources as someone from China will over a lifetime. Already, we can see how the rest of the world is catching up and Americans, especially the middle class, are getting squeezed as a result of stronger global competition for scarce resources and wealth. Puts a certain context to their generosity. And you can see how their quality of life is deteriorating. But there's more to come, unfortunately. I personally find that Americans aren't as complacent and self-assured as they were a few decades ago.

 

As for the Democrats making Afro-Americans more welfare-dependent, let's face it, the latter are caught in a vicious circle - they face a lack of economic opportunity relative to other ethnic groups (Asian-Americans have things much better) - and so welfare becomes a lifeline.

 

My money is on China as next top dog. May not be tomorrow, but their time will come.

Peace.

Edited May 17, 2014 by viral

[maxiev]

 

As for the Democrats making Afro-Americans more welfare-dependent, let's face it, the latter are caught in a vicious circle

Not unlike the situation we have in the Philippines where the poor remain poor because they can't afford a good education which could potentially uplift their standard of living.