How hasn’t the US lost it’s way, I don’t think the forefathers would have wanted a society like this. I think they would be appalled at what is seen, they wanted freedom, but part of freedom is leaving other countries alone, rather than poking them. Is this not what we fought on our own turf for? To not be poked by England? Yes, reasons were different, but regardless. Poking none the less.
I have to agree with that. The foundation of the USA was NOT to become the UN’s and Israel’s police force for the world. But I think that Ucci’s point is that the complainers don’t really know what the USA really intended in the first place and are just whining, as a part of why it is all lost.
ucci is wrong…james you and artimas are right but you are a big complainer…
Here’s a joke, but kind of true video regarding US. When James said police for the world, I had to.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIPljGWGNt4[/youtube]
Yeah, foreign policy really had nothing to do with the point I was making, though that respondents would reply with complaints about foreign policy and declare “Ucci is wrong” without argument has everything to do with the point I am making. This thread is a bitching session, which is totally fine- I’m just pointing out that no understanding of the “USA Soul” is or was being demonstrated here, and it’s just a buzzword being used to justify radical reforms that have nothing to do with America’s past.
The isolationist/interventionist debate is one of the few the transcends left/right.
No one cares about being wrong or right, anyone with fucking eyes/ears and a mind can see America is in turmoil and has taken turns for the worse. Apparently you have a fetish for being “right” though, this can be seen.
Again- America is in turmoil. It is in turmoil because it is losing it's direction from the original project and intention, it is drifting away from what made it good. What made America good has been written about my many people, de Tocqueville chief and best among them. If YOU had read him, or anybody like him, or anybody who was even willing to paraphrase him for you, then you would understand that what made America good, and what you, irrelleus, turtle, and so on want to do are completely incongruent. In other words, what you really want are radical reforms that have nothing to do with the USA's soul or inherent principled past, you are just paying lip service to such things because you are lying or ignorant.
Check out this long list of poking that the USA has done since day one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa … ted_States
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2
“What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?
There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
"It is indeed difficult to imagine how men who have entirely renounced the habit of managing their own affairs could be successful in choosing those who ought to lead them. It is impossible to believe that a liberal, energetic, and wise government can ever emerge from the ballots of a nation of servants.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Oh look, liberal, of which you hate so much.
Am I supposed to be happy that so many are “victories?”
What victories are there in war.
The ones that suck less than defeats.
But what does victory have to do with it? You wrote about poking and the US has been doing it since it because a nation. Nothing new happening now.
Read those quotes from this person that you clearly never heard of until I pointed him out. See the part about how people voting themselves more free hand outs will ruin the country? See the part about America being great because it is good? That is an appeal to traditional Christian values. See the strong condemnation of socialism? See the condemnation of central authority? See the advice that a free nation has to operate from civic virtue and not State decree? In otherwords, see how he confirms everything I just said?
Those quotes, which you just gave everybody, completely make my point, but all you can see is that he used the word 'liberal' in a positive way. Well, kid, to further your education, how about you look up what the word 'liberal' meant in the 19th century when tocqueville was writing. That's right- it means conservative libertarian.
You JUST asserted without evidence that the founders wouldn’t be in favor of military interventionism, and so phyllo took time out of his day to provide you with a history of US military interventionism to show you that there is, in fact, nothing new about it at all. Can you please keep track of your own points?
“Forgive me, It ain’t over till I stop breathing”…
solarmovie.is/link/play/3466507/
Los Scandalous, Skid Row 2014.
If you have some time watch this.
In the end the Japanese had an army made up of children and old men.
They were finished.
The idea that the A bombs made them surrender is basically a myth.
The fact is that the Allies had spent $2 billion dollars on 2 types of bomb and they had to find two targets to justify the expense.
If the Hiroshima bomb was designed to make them surrender then why not give them time to assess the damage and the threat of A bombs?
No, before they had the chance the second bomb was dropped.
The fact that the largest ever army in history (of Russians) was assembled in Manchuria who having taken a few days to crush the Japanese occupation and were about to invade Japan was the real reason for the surrender. Handing it over to the US was the lesser of two evils.
The myth that the A-bombs had secured the surrender was something spun after the event. The spin mitigated the horror of those destructions - most information of which was suppressed for 30 years.
I have to repeat myself.
The soul of USA from the day one was the premise of Manifest Destiny. The circumstances were entirely suited for this. This attracted entrepreneurs from all over the world, including best minds in their respective fields. Einstein was the prime example of that and he was not the only exception.
This created a very good pool of talented people and they got a free hand and resources too. That is why USA was able to become number one within merely two and half centuries leaving other European countries behind, which had a history of thousands years.
But, as this premise of Manifest Destiny did not get enough time to permeate into the subconscious of its average citizen, a difficult period of merely one decade shattered belief in this notion.
When such difficult times come, it is the duty of the leadership to lead people to the right way, even if is hard and take some time. They should not settle for temporary gains. People became desperate that time and leadership offered them a cheap but harmful solution in the form of depending on the government for their every need.
A tectonic shift took place in the policies after the recession of 20’s and 30’s of the last century. USA diverted from that very premise which made it world leader in merely two centuries. That was a fatal mistake on the part of the political leadership of that time and USA is paying prize for that thereafter. Its citizens are now fearing from that very thing, which was its main strength once; competition.
There is no harm is offering help to those who need it but there are two ways of it.
Say, there is lame person. One way to make him walk is provide him crutches. The other way is to make his legs stronger in order to enable him to walk. Crutches offer the instant solution but make him dependent too forever. Making his legs strong is time taking option but permanent.
Here, I slightly disargree with James and Ucci. I do not see socialism as bad as they consider.
It can benefit the people in real terms if used properly. It should be used to enable people for completion, not for avoiding it. Socialism can benefit the society in the fields of education, healthcare and judicial matters. But, it becomes poison when is used in the areas such as minimum wages or mandatory employment or any kind of unemployment allowances.
with love,
sanjay
My point in this thread isn't to say that socialism is bad. It's to say that presenting a move toward socialism as a 'return to the soul of the usa' is a flat out lie. The people in this thread shitting on capitalism and Christianity and pushing for strong national leaders to save us are not advocating for a return to the USA's soul or core values- they are advocating the very opposite. I don't know if it's out of ignorance or deception, but that's what happened.
Anyway, I made my case. Anybody who wants to know what the soul of the USA was about, the direction we’ve moved since then, and how it compares to what the people at the beginning of this thread say they want can simply read Tocqueville. Or Montesquieu, come to think of it.
Christian values, you do realize the founding fathers made the country to be free right, free to any religious belief, including atheism. Get out of here with your “Christianity” it wasn’t founded upon it. You can be positive without even being religious. Natives sure were weren’t they? Spirituality > Religion.
Yes, the majority were Christian, but this doesn’t mean it was founded upon it.
I agree with not letting government/authority get too much power as well, the condemnation. I agree with not wanting socialism, who wants government to control everything? This country was found for the people to have control. America was great because we stove for the best. I do not agree with the Christian values, not ONLY christian values provide good morals, any knowledgeable man can study morals without being religious at all. Are babies born “evil”? No. So why say being a nice person needs to be taught, yes it certainly does need to be taught if the child is influenced negatively, then you have to teach them NOT to do it.
Where does it say conservative libertarians?
Duplicate
You can repeat yourself as much as you like, but this idea was only thought up in 1840 by the Democratic Party wishing to justify their war against Mexico on religious grounds, which is some time (a lifetime) from “day one”.
An idea that could have been borrowed from your friend Mohammed.
Einstein was not an entrepreneur! Quite far from it. Many of his ilk was less attracted to the USA and fleeing fascist and Nazi Europe. Einstein was definitely NOT attracted to Manifest Destiny - you clearly need to review this concept if you want to be taken seriously.
So repeat yourself if you must, but check your facts before you built a tower of cards.