Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She doesn't want government near her body - hmmm its the R's that want ultrasounds up her vag. Her "facts" are lacking. yet another case of "they said it on the internet" so it must be true. I would have expected better from a "newscaster".
I guess the life of a baby is of no interest to liberals except when its body can be harvested so that its organs can be sold to buy a Lamborghini and I, as a taxpayer, can help pay for the transaction.
After WW I, the Soviet Union was no threat to us at all. Not true after WW II.
China was not on the verge of becoming a threat to us. Not true after WW II.
Our friends the British and the French had secure control of their colonies and added more (taking over the Ottomon Empire) -- their empires were not about to start collapsing. Not true after WW II.
At Versailles, what America wanted, America was in a position to get. And the American economy boomed during the twenties. So yes, America was at its height of power right after WW I.
The boom of the 20s wasn't stable and paled in comparison to the broad-based boom after WWII as industry funneled its resources to the only stable, modern economy remaining intact after WWII as Europe rebuilt.
The boom of the 20s wasn't stable and paled in comparison to the broad-based boom after WWII as industry funneled its resources to the only stable, modern economy remaining intact after WWII as Europe rebuilt.
Doesn't matter.
The U.S. was at its height of power after WW I for the reasons I stated: no Soviet threat/rivalry, no impending Chinese threat, no collapse of our allies' empires...
The U.S. was at its height of power after WW I for the reasons I stated: no Soviet threat/rivalry, no impending Chinese threat, no collapse of our allies' empires...
You can see where U.S. gains power and its current trajectory of growth after WWII.
Power isn't based primarily on political dynamics; it's based on economics. China's threat today, if there is one, is based on the fact that their economy is beginning to cut the distance of the U.S.'s.
After WW I, the Soviet Union was no threat to us at all. Not true after WW II.
China was not on the verge of becoming a threat to us. Not true after WW II.
Our friends the British and the French had secure control of their colonies and added more (taking over the Ottomon Empire) -- their empires were not about to start collapsing. Not true after WW II.
At Versailles, what America wanted, America was in a position to get. And the American economy boomed during the twenties. So yes, America was at its height of power right after WW I.
Did you know we fell into a depression in 1920? The only thing that saved us was a technology boom, kind of like the dot com bubble that saved us from an industrial collapse in the 90's.
At Versailles, America had very little projection of power in comparison to what we have now, or what we had post WW2. America expanded its influence at a much, much, much greater rate post WW2. Our economy boomed after WW2 as well, instead of collapsing like it did after WW1.
However, all of our relative economic greatness stems from the economic ruin, caused by major wars between others it would seem. Not exactly a stellar ringing endorsement of our economic principles if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
I already have, and you choose to ignore them.
That's your problem, not mine.
You spouted talking points in regards to how having a diverse ethnic group has hampered us, while at the same time claim it's doing so to other nations that are passing us in many standards. You elaborated these talking points in regards to why we're stalling economically. Your "facts" .... if that's what you call em, don't make sense.
Let it go. I was responding to a particular post making it seem like a 22 year old couldn't think for herself. You should inform members of Mensa of your notion.
You can see where U.S. gains power and its current trajectory of growth after WWII.
Power isn't based primarily on political dynamics; it's based on economics.
It is based on both.
Quote:
China's threat today, if there is one, is based on the fact that their economy is beginning to cut the distance of the U.S.'s.
China has had nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them via ICBMs since the late 1960s, as has the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation. America had no significant military rival after WW I. The British and French empires were intact at that time -- and they were our allies. The Middle East was controlled by those empires. You can downplay those factors if you want, but that just shows that you are spinning instead of dealing with reality.
No, we didn't. The great stock market crash didn't come until 1929 -- eleven years AFTER the end of WW I.
Before that, our economy boomed.
Quote:
At Versailles, America had very little projection of power in comparison to what we have now, or what we had post WW2.
Not true.
America's allies and potential rivals were devastated by WW I. America was not.
America at that time had its best opportunity to project power and influence throughout the world.
Quote:
America expanded its influence at a much, much, much greater rate post WW2.
Not true.
At the end of WW II, America had no choice but to accede to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the creation of puppet states there.
By about 1948, Communist spies put an end to America's exclusive possession of nuclear weapons. The Soviets and later the Chinese Communists got nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear armed submarines, making every American city a potential target.
Quote:
You spouted talking points in regards to how having a diverse ethnic group has hampered us, while at the same time claim it's doing so to other nations that are passing us in many standards.
They aren't just talking points.
To compare us to Sweden is absurd when you consider that Sweden has not had a legacy of slavery and mass immigration to deal with -- immigration of mostly poor people.
As a matter of fact, when times were tough in Sweden, Swedes immigrated to America. But when times are tough here, you don't see Sweden accepting immigrants from America.
So Europe in general has off-loaded its poor people to America, not the other way around. In addition to that, America has accepted tens of millions of immigrants from the Third World.
Quote:
You elaborated these talking points in regards to why we're stalling economically. Your "facts" .... if that's what you call em, don't make sense.
I wasn't talking about us stalling economically -- I was saying that it is silly to compare us to Sweden.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
