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.
It is based on both. 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.
You just made my point for me. Thank you for finally conceding.
China wasn't a threat before it became an economic power. Russia stopped being a real threat after it lost economic power.
The failure of your argument is you're fixated on political relations rather than economics.
As you noted, the French and British empires were still functional in the early 20th century and held vastly more economic power than the U.S. did at that time. The U.S. empire emerged, rivals or no, after WWII when those empires were put to rest once and for all and Europe and parts of Asia were in ruins economically.
The U.S. held that power throughout the 20th century primarily because it invested public funds and fostered entrepreneurial private leadership in technology and innovation.
Now, with China emerging (we used to be more than twice as large as the second largest economy but they have cut into that) and a radical element in American politics wanting to cut all federal funding for research, science, and investment in innovation, our grasp on future power is tenuous.
Our strength over China is in innovation and entrepreneurialism; hopefully we'll be able to keep that going.
Fast people sometimes mention how fast they are. Tall people sometimes discuss how tall they are. Fat people sometimes talk about their weight. Great creative artists sometimes talk about how they develop their art.
Your reaction is just another sad manifestation of the anti-intellectualism that erodes our culture, making people ashamed of who they are.
Don't be threatened by people who can run faster than you.
Actually it's Doctor Maddow and she graduated from Stanford, but you go with the 22 year old drop-out from UNLV.
My grandfather was a doctor -- of medicine.
MD's are the only people I address as "Doctor."
A lot of people are are awestruck by credentials, titles, awards, etc.
I would say they are bewitched by superficial and surface things. They don't see the actual merit, they just see the approval.
I am not one of those people.
Smart and knowledgeable people come from all walks of life and don't necessarily have fancy degrees.
Quote:
I challenge you to name one interesting fact that you learned from her diatribe.
I challenge you to name one interesting fact you have learned from Rachel Maddow's diatribes.
I can forgive diatribes by 22-year-olds.
I am less inclined to forgive them from the likes of Maddow, whose only real doctorate is in spin -- meaning omitting any facts that she happens to find inconvenient.
"But in this case it's not new. She's younger than most but attractive blondes have emerged as the mouthpiece of choice for conservative talking points.
I'm wondering if it's a subtle (or not so subtle) way of projecting an Aryan race ideal. Either way, the standard blonde anchor look has a very strong Southern college feel to it, so it has to be something cultural they're drawn to that the rest of us don't see."
Agreed. It reminds me of a cheerleader archetype that I've never actually come across in real life. At least in my high school, cheerleading was regarded as somewhat of an oddball activity -- the popular girls all eschewed it in favor of basketball, volleyball, swimming, hockey, etc. Likewise, it was awkward because very few people would actually stand up or cheer along (I think Minnesotans are uncomfortable with public displays of fervor).
Alternatively, it might have to do with age. My dad (64) mentioned that when he was growing up, blondes were a lot more pervasive in media, advertisements, etc. (think Farrah Fawcett or the Prell girl). So it could just be that, as with a lot of other things, conservatives are simply stuck in a time-warp.
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.
-------
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. 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.
-------
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. I wasn't talking about us stalling economically -- I was saying that it was silly to compare us to Sweden.
1) I can't believe you don't know of the depression of 1920 and 1921. Research it, it may even help some of your arguments.
2) WW1 left us in a massive amount of debt, which actually led to the depression listed above. We were in no shape to wage war anywhere across the globe. The entire world was war weary after WW1.
3) I've been trying to make the point that not only have we thrived while having those "problems", but Sweden is currently seeing the same immigration patterns that you claim has hampered us.
Agreed. It reminds me of a cheerleader archetype that I've never actually come across in real life. At least in my high school, cheerleading was regarded as somewhat of an oddball activity -- the popular girls all eschewed it in favor of basketball, volleyball, swimming, hockey, etc. Likewise, it was awkward because very few people would actually stand up or cheer along (I think Minnesotans are uncomfortable with public displays of fervor).
Alternatively, it might have to do with age. My dad (64) mentioned that when he was growing up, blondes were a lot more pervasive in media, advertisements, etc. (think Farrah Fawcett or the Prell girl). So it could just be that, as with a lot of other things, conservatives are stuck in a time-warp.
Same with my school. In my experience, it's a southern thing to fixate on physicality like that but that's a good point. They might just be playing to the mid-20th century American ideal of their aging demographic.
A lot of people are are awestruck by credentials, titles, awards, etc.
I would say they are bewitched by superficial and surface things. They don't see the actual merit, they just see the approval.
I am not one of those people.
Smart and knowledgeable people come from all walks of life and don't necessarily have fancy degrees.
I challenge you to name one interesting fact you have learned from Rachel Maddow's diatribes.
I can forgive diatribes by 22-year-olds.
I am less inclined to forgive them from the likes of Maddow, whose only real doctorate is in spin -- meaning omitting any facts that she happens to find inconvenient.
Um... you're confusing two ideas. Ph.D. stands for "Doctor of Philosophy", so they are officially known as doctors. That's just standard protocol established in academia and the professional world.
That does not mean they're necessarily smart or people without Ph.D.'s are not smart or anything else just because they have a title, but you don't have a say in how people are titled for their careers.
And, believe it or not, some people get a Ph.D. simply because it's a structured way to explore their curiosities, not for a superficial title.
China wasn't a threat before it became an economic power.
Wrong.
China was economically weak when it first obtained nuclear weapons and ICBMs.
Quote:
Russia stopped being a real threat after it lost economic power.
No, it didn't.
It is still a major nuclear power.
Quote:
The failure of your argument is you're fixated on political relations rather than economics.
The failure of your argument is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I have been talking about both economic and military power.
Quote:
As you noted, the French and British empires were still functional in the early 20th century and held vastly more economic power than the U.S. did at that time.
Wrong.
Britain and France were economic basket cases after WW I.
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.
